Vaccine preventable diseases surveillance in Nepal: How much does it cost?

Assessing the cost of vaccine preventable diseases (VPD) surveillance is becoming more important in the context of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) funding transition, since GPEI support to polio surveillance helped the incremental building of VPD surveillance systems in many countries, including low income countries such as Nepal. However, there is limited knowledge on the cost of conducting VPD surveillance, especially the national cost for surveillance of multiple vaccine-preventable diseases. The current study sought to calculate the economic and financial costs of Nepal's comprehensive VPD surveillance systems from July 2016 to July 2017. At thecentral level, all surveillance units were included in the sample. At sub-national level, a purposive sampling strategy was used to select a representative sample from locations involved in conducting surveillance. The sub-national sample costs were extrapolated to the nationwide VPD surveillance system. Nepal's total annual economic cost of VPD surveillance was USD 4.81 million or USD 0.18 per capita, while the total financial cost was USD 4.38 million or USD 0.16 per capita. Government expenditures accounted for 56% of the total economic cost, and World Health Organization accounting for 44%. The biggest cost driver was personnel accounting for 51% of the total economic cost. WHO supported trained surveillance personnel through donor funding, mainly from Global Polio Eradication Initiative. As a polio transition priority country, Nepal will need to make strategic choices to fully self-finance or seek full donor support or a mixed-financing model as polio program funding diminishes.

Applying an equity lens in the Decade of Vaccines.

Addressing inequities in immunisation must be the main priority for the Decade of Vaccines. Children who remain unreached are those who need vaccination - and other health services - most. Reaching these children and other underserved target groups will require a reorientation of current approaches and resource allocation. At the country level, evidence-based and context-specific strategies must be developed to promote equity in ways that strengthen the system that facilitates vaccination, are sustainable and extend benefits across the life cycle. At the global level, more attention must go on ensuring sustainable and affordable supply for low- and middle-income countries to vaccine products that are appropriate for the contexts where needs are greatest. Finally, data must be disaggregated and used at all levels to monitor and guide progress to reach the unreached.

A mid-term assessment of progress towards the immunization coverage goal of the Global Immunization Vision and Strategy (GIVS).

BACKGROUND: The Global Immunization Vision and Strategy (GIVS) (2006-2015) aims to reach and sustain high levels of vaccine coverage, provide immunization services to age groups beyond infancy and to those currently not reached, and to ensure that immunization activities are linked with other health interventions and contribute to the overall development of the health sector. OBJECTIVE: To examine mid-term progress (through 2010) of the immunization coverage goal of the GIVS for 194 countries or territories with special attention to data from 68 countries which account for more than 95% of all maternal and child deaths. METHODS: We present national immunization coverage estimates for the third dose of diphtheria and tetanus toxoid with pertussis (DTP3) vaccine and the first dose of measles containing vaccine (MCV) during 2000, 2005 and 2010 and report the average annual relative percent change during 2000-2005 and 2005-2010. Data are taken from the WHO and UNICEF estimates of national immunization coverage, which refer to immunizations given during routine immunization services to children less than 12 months of age where immunization services are recorded. RESULTS: Globally DTP3 coverage increased from 74% during 2000 to 85% during 2010, and MCV coverage increased from 72% during 2000 to 85% during 2010. A total of 149 countries attained or were on track to achieve the 90% coverage goal for DTP3 (147 countries for MCV coverage). DTP3 coverage ≥ 90% was sustained between 2005 and 2010 by 99 countries (98 countries for MCV). Among 68 priority countries, 28 countries were identified as having made either insufficient or no progress towards reaching the GIVS goal of 90% coverage by 2015 for DTP3 or MCV. DTP3 and MCV coverage remained < 70% during 2010 for 16 and 21 priority countries, respectively. CONCLUSION: Progress towards GIVS goals highlights improvements in routine immunization coverage, yet it is troubling to observe priority countries with little or no progress during the past five years. These results highlight that further efforts are needed to achieve and maintain the global immunization coverage goals.

Immunizing school-age children and adolescents: experience from low- and middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVE: Given the increased attention on the need for booster immunizations of older children and adolescents, as well as new primary vaccine series that specifically target school-age children and adolescents, we reviewed the current state of vaccine delivery to school-age children and adolescents in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: We searched the published literature and unpublished sources for articles, meeting presentations, technical reports and program documents related to immunization policies and programs for school-age children and/or adolescents between 6 and 19 years of age in low- and middle-income countries. FINDINGS: We found several examples of ongoing school-age children and adolescent immunization in low- and middle-income countries. Reasons to vaccinate this age group include vaccines specifically targeted for this age group, waning immunity from prior vaccination, "catch-up" vaccination, acceleration of disease control or elimination efforts, and age distribution shift in the incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases. Multiple delivery strategies are currently in use: routine immunization, supplementary immunization activities, and Child Health Days and similar activities. Vaccines can be delivered in fixed sites, or through outreach. Most immunization programs that target adolescents and school-aged children are providing boosters of infant vaccines at school entry age, with scant experience in delivery of primary vaccination series in adolescents. Few of these programs have been formally evaluated and dissemination of lessons learned is limited. CONCLUSIONS: This baseline description may facilitate immunization program planning in countries considering vaccinating this age group. Additionally, this summary may inform plans for operational research and program evaluation designed to expand vaccine delivery to school-age children and adolescents in low- and middle-income countries.