Cost-effectiveness of measles and rubella elimination in low-income and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Since 2000, the incidence of measles and rubella has declined as measles-rubella (MR) vaccine coverage increased due to intensified routine immunisation (RI) and supplementary immunisation activities (SIAs). The World Health Assembly commissioned a feasibility assessment of eliminating measles and rubella. The objective of this paper is to present the findings of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of ramping up MR vaccination with a goal of eliminating transmission in every country. METHODS: We used projections of impact of routine and SIAs during 2018-2047 for four scenarios of ramping up MR vaccination. These were combined with economic parameters to estimate costs and disability-adjusted life years averted under each scenario. Data from the literature were used for estimating the cost of increasing routine coverage, timing of SIAs and introduction of rubella vaccine in countries. RESULTS: The CEA showed that all three scenarios with ramping up coverage above the current trend were more cost-effective in most countries than the 2018 trend for both measles and rubella. When the measles and rubella scenarios were compared with each other, the most cost-effective scenario was likely to be the most accelerated one. Even though this scenario is costlier, it averts more cases and deaths and substantially reduces the cost of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The Intensified Investment scenario is likely the most cost-effective of the vaccination scenarios evaluated for reaching both measles and rubella disease elimination. Some data gaps on costs of increasing coverage were identified and future efforts should focus on filling these gaps.

Cost of introducing and delivering malaria vaccine (RTS,S/AS01E) in areas of seasonal malaria transmission, Mali and Burkina Faso.

BACKGROUND: The WHO recommends use of the RTS,S/AS01E (RTS,S) malaria vaccine for young children living in areas of moderate to high Plasmodium falciparum malaria transmission and suggests countries consider seasonal vaccination in areas with highly seasonal malaria. Seasonal vaccination is uncommon and may require adaptations with potential cost consequences. This study prospectively estimates cost of seasonal malaria vaccine delivery in Mali and Burkina Faso. METHODS: Three scenarios for seasonal vaccine delivery are costed (1) mass campaign only, (2) routine Expanded Programme on Immunisation (EPI) and (3) mixed delivery (mass campaign and routine EPI)), from the government's perspective. Resource use data are informed by previous new vaccine introductions, supplemented with primary data from a sample of health facilities and administrative units. FINDINGS: At an assumed vaccine price of US $5 per dose, the economic cost per dose administered ranges between $7.73 and $8.68 (mass campaign), $7.04 and $7.38 (routine EPI) and $7.26 and $7.93 (mixed delivery). Excluding commodities, the cost ranges between $1.17 and $2.12 (mass campaign), $0.48 and $0.82 (routine EPI) and $0.70 and $1.37 (mixed delivery). The financial non-commodity cost per dose administered ranges between $0.99 and $1.99 (mass campaign), $0.39 and $0.76 (routine EPI) and $0.58 and $1.28 (mixed delivery). Excluding commodity costs, service delivery is the main cost driver under the mass campaign scenario, accounting for 36% to 55% of the financial cost. Service delivery accounts for 2%-8% and 12%-23% of the total financial cost under routine EPI and mixed delivery scenarios, respectively. CONCLUSION: Vaccine delivery using the mass campaign approach is most costly followed by mixed delivery and routine EPI delivery approaches, in both countries. Our cost estimates provide useful insights for decisions regarding delivery approaches, as countries plan the malaria vaccine rollout.

Cost of introducing and delivering RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine within the malaria vaccine implementation program.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommended widespread use of the RTS,S/AS01 (RTS,S) malaria vaccine among children residing in regions of moderate to high malaria transmission. This recommendation is informed by RTS,S evidence, including findings from the pilot rollout of the vaccine in Ghana, Kenya, and Malawi. This study estimates the incremental costs of introducing and delivering the malaria vaccine within routine immunization programs in the context of malaria vaccine pilot introduction, to help inform decision-making. METHODS: An activity-based, retrospective costing was conducted from the governments' perspective. Vaccine introduction and delivery costs supported by the donors during the pilot introduction were attributed as costs to the governments under routine implementation. Detailed resource use data were extracted from the pilot program expenditure and activity reports for 2019-2021. Primary data from representative health facilities were collected to inform recurrent operational and service delivery costs.Costs were categorized as introduction or recurrent costs. Both financial and economic costs were estimated and reported in 2020 USD. The cost of donated vaccine doses was evaluated at $2, $5 and $10 per dose and included in the economic cost estimates. Financial costs include the procurement add on costs for the donated vaccines and immunization supplies, along with other direct expenses. FINDINGS: At a vaccine price of $5 per dose, the incremental cost per dose administered across countries ranges from $2.30 to $3.01 (financial), and $8.28 to $10.29 (economic). The non-vaccine cost of delivery ranges between $1.04 and $2.46 (financial) and $1.52 and $4.62 (economic), by country. Considering only recurrent costs, the non-vaccine cost of delivery per dose ranges between $0.29 and $0.89 (financial) and $0.59 and $2.29 (economic), by country. Introduction costs constitute between 33% and 71% of total financial costs. Commodity and procurement add-on costs are the main cost drivers of total cost across countries. Incremental resource needs for implementation are dependent on country's baseline immunization program capacity constraints. INTERPRETATION: The financial costs of introducing RTS,S are comparable with costs of introducing other new vaccines. Country resource requirements for malaria vaccine introduction are most influenced by vaccine price and potential donor funding for vaccine purchases and introduction support.

Costs of delivering human papillomavirus vaccination using a one- or two-dose strategy in Tanzania.

OBJECTIVE: As part of the Dose Reduction Immunobridging and Safety Study of Two HPV Vaccines in Tanzanian Girls (DoRIS; NCT02834637), the current study is one of the first to evaluate the financial and economic costs of the national rollout of an HPV vaccination program in school-aged girls in sub-Saharan Africa and the potential costs associated with a single dose HPV vaccine program, given recent evidence suggesting that a single dose may be as efficacious as a two-dose regimen. METHODS: The World Health Organization's (WHO) Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control Costing (C4P) micro-costing tool was used to estimate the total financial and economic costs of the national vaccination program from the perspective of the Tanzanian government. Cost data were collected in 2019 via surveys, workshops, and interviews with local stakeholders for vaccines and injection supplies, microplanning, training, sensitization, service delivery, supervision, and cold chain. The cost per two-dose and one-dose fully immunized girl (FIG) was calculated. RESULTS: The total financial and economic costs were US$10,117,455 and US$45,683,204, respectively, at a financial cost of $5.17 per two-dose FIG, and an economic cost of $23.34 per FIG. Vaccine and vaccine-related costs comprised the largest proportion of costs, followed by service delivery. In a one-dose scenario, the cost per FIG reduced to $2.51 (financial) and $12.18 (economic), with the largest reductions in vaccine and injection supply costs, and service delivery. CONCLUSIONS: The overall cost of Tanzania's HPV vaccination program was lower per vaccinee than costs estimated from previous demonstration projects in the region, especially in a single-dose scenario. Given the WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization's recent recommendation to update dosing schedules to either one or two doses of the HPV vaccine, these data provide important baseline data for Tanzania and may serve as a guide for improving coverage going forward. The findings may also aid in the prioritization of funding for countries that have not yet added HPV vaccines to their routine immunizations.

Comprehensive approach to costing cervical cancer prevention and control: a case study in the United Republic of Tanzania using the Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control Costing (C4P) tool.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) has developed a costing tool, the Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control Costing (C4P) tool, to estimate the comprehensive cost of cervical cancer primary, secondary and tertiary prevention in low- and middle-income countries. The tool was piloted in the United Republic of Tanzania, a country with a high incidence of cervical cancer with 62.5 cases per 100,000 women in 2020. This paper presents the costing tool methods as well as the results from the pilot in Tanzania. METHODS: The C4P tool estimates the incremental costs of cervical cancer prevention and control programmes. It estimates the financial (monetary costs to the government) and economic costs (opportunity costs). For the pilot, the study team collected data on costs and programme assumptions for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination of 14-year-old girls and scaling up of cervical cancer screening (visual inspection with acetic acid and HPV-DNA testing) and treatment for women for 2020-2024. Assumptions were made on how vaccination coverage would increase over the 5 years as well as developing additional screening and treatment capacity through health personnel training and infrastructure strengthening. RESULTS: The total financial and economic costs of the comprehensive programme during 2020-2024 are projected to be US$68 million and US$124 million, respectively. The financial and economic costs of a fully immunized girl with HPV vaccine are estimated to be US$6.68 and US$17.31, respectively, while the costs per woman screened for cervical cancer are, on average, US$4.02 and US$5.83, respectively; US$6.44 and US$9.37 for pre-cancer treatment, respectively; and US$101 and US$107 for diagnosis of invasive cancer, respectively. The cost of treating and managing invasive cancer range from US$7.05 and US$7.83 for outpatient palliative care to US$800.21 and US$893.80 for radiotherapy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The C4P costing tool can assist national cervical cancer programmes to estimate monetary resources needed as well as opportunity costs of reducing national cervical cancer incidence through primary, secondary and tertiary prevention.

Correction: Costs of continuing RTS,S/ASO1E malaria vaccination in the three malaria vaccine pilot implementation countries.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244995.].

Costs of continuing RTS,S/ASO1E malaria vaccination in the three malaria vaccine pilot implementation countries.

BACKGROUND: The RTS,S/ASO1E malaria vaccine is being piloted in three countries-Ghana, Kenya, and Malawi-as part of a coordinated evaluation led by the World Health Organization, with support from global partners. This study estimates the costs of continuing malaria vaccination upon completion of the pilot evaluation to inform decision-making and planning around potential further use of the vaccine in pilot areas. METHODS: We used an activity-based costing approach to estimate the incremental costs of continuing to deliver four doses of RTS,S/ASO1E through the existing Expanded Program on Immunization platform, from each government's perspective. The RTS,S/ASO1E pilot introduction plans were reviewed and adapted to identify activities for costing. Key informant interviews with representatives from Ministries of Health (MOH) were conducted to inform the activities, resource requirements, and assumptions that, in turn, inform the analysis. Both financial and economic costs per dose, cost of delivery per dose, and cost per fully vaccinated child (FVC) are estimated and reported in 2017 USD units. RESULTS: At a vaccine price of $5 per dose and assuming the vaccine is donor-funded, our estimated incremental financial costs range from $1.70 (Kenya) to $2.44 (Malawi) per dose, $0.23 (Malawi) to $0.71 (Kenya) per dose delivered (excluding procurement add-on costs), and $11.50 (Ghana) to $13.69 (Malawi) per FVC. Estimates of economic costs per dose are between three and five times higher than financial costs. Variations in activities used for costing, procurement add-on costs, unit costs of per diems, and allowances contributed to differences in cost estimates across countries. CONCLUSION: Cost estimates in this analysis are meant to inform country decision-makers as they face the question of whether to continue malaria vaccination, should the intervention receive a positive recommendation for broader use. Additionally, important cost drivers for vaccine delivery are highlighted, some of which might be influenced by global and country-specific financing and existing procurement mechanisms. This analysis also adds to the evidence available on vaccine delivery costs for products delivered outside the standard immunization schedule.

Costing oral cholera vaccine delivery using a generic oral cholera vaccine delivery planning and costing tool (CholTool).

Cholera is both an endemic and epidemic disease in many low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Strategies for cholera control include improving water, sanitation, and hygiene; providing early and effective treatment; and deploying oral cholera vaccine (OCV). This last strategy is relatively new, and countries considering its introduction are interested in knowing the potential cost not only of the vaccine, but also the cost of introduction. This paper describes the costing of OCV introduction in LMICs using a publicly available Excel-based tool known as the CholTool. It includes estimates of delivery cost categories which cover not only the service delivery costs (e.g. vaccine procurement, handling, storage, and transport; vaccination administration, monitoring supervision, and field support), but also the programmatic costs associated with introducing a new vaccine (i.e. microplanning, communication and training materials development, sensitization/social mobilization, and personnel training) to ensure that a comprehensive estimate is provided with health payer perspective. CholTool takes the user through a structured sequence of interlinked modules containing input parameter cells (assumptions), decision cells (variable selections), and formulas (calculations) to produce customized cost estimates based on standardized methods. The tool provides both financial and economic cost estimates, to ensure that both costs are available for consideration. Four examples of applications of CholTool are presented in three countries- one in Ethiopia, two in Malawi and one in Nepal. The estimates of economic delivery cost per dose (including service delivery and programmatic costs) were (in USD 2016): $2.89 in Ethiopia, $3.04 in Malawi1, $3.35 in Malawi2 and $3.06 in Nepal. A cost projection conducted before the campaign using the tool and a retrospective costing using the tool in Nepal resulted in no significant difference between economic delivery costs per dose.

Program cost analysis of influenza vaccination of health care workers in Albania.

BACKGROUND: Since 2012, WHO has recommended influenza vaccination for health care workers (HCWs), which has different costs than routine infant immunization; however, few cost estimates exist from low- and middle-income countries. Albania, a middle-income country, has self-procured influenza vaccine for some HCWs since 2014, supplemented by vaccine donations since 2016 through the Partnership for Influenza Vaccine Introduction (PIVI). We conducted a cost analysis of HCW influenza vaccination in Albania to inform scale-up and sustainability decisions. METHODS: We used the WHO's Seasonal Influenza Immunization Costing Tool (SIICT) micro-costing approach to estimate incremental costs from the government perspective of facility-based vaccination of HCWs in Albania with trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine for the 2018-19 season based on 2016-17 season data from administrative records, key informant consultations, and a convenience sample of site visits. Scenario analyses varied coverage, vaccine presentation, and vaccine prices. RESULTS: In the baseline scenario, 13,377 HCWs (70% of eligible HCWs) would be vaccinated at an incremental financial cost of US$61,296 and economic cost of US$161,639. Vaccine and vaccination supplies represented the largest share of financial (89%) and economic costs (44%). Per vaccinated HCW financial cost was US$4.58 and economic cost was US$12.08 including vaccine and vaccination supplies (US$0.49 and US$6.76 respectively without vaccine and vaccination supplies). Scenarios with higher coverage, pre-filled syringes, and higher vaccine prices increased total economic and financial costs, although the economic cost per HCW vaccinated decreased with higher coverage as some costs were spread over more HCWs. Across all scenarios, economic costs were <0.07% of Albania's estimated government health expenditure, and <5.07% of Albania's estimated immunization program economic costs. CONCLUSIONS: Cost estimates can help inform decisions about scaling up influenza vaccination for HCWs and other risk groups.

A case study using the United Republic of Tanzania: costing nationwide HPV vaccine delivery using the WHO Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control Costing Tool.

BACKGROUND: The purpose, methods, data sources and assumptions behind the World Health Organization (WHO) Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control Costing (C4P) tool that was developed to assist low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with planning and costing their nationwide human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program are presented. Tanzania is presented as a case study where the WHO C4P tool was used to cost and plan the roll-out of HPV vaccines nationwide as part of the national comprehensive cervical cancer prevention and control strategy. METHODS: The WHO C4P tool focuses on estimating the incremental costs to the health system of vaccinating adolescent girls through school-, health facility- and/or outreach-based strategies. No costs to the user (school girls, parents or caregivers) are included. Both financial (or costs to the Ministry of Health) and economic costs are estimated. The cost components for service delivery include training, vaccination (health personnel time and transport, stationery for tally sheets and vaccination cards, and so on), social mobilization/IEC (information, education and communication), supervision, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E). The costs of all the resources used for HPV vaccination are totaled and shown with and without the estimated cost of the vaccine. The total cost is also divided by the number of doses administered and number of fully immunized girls (FIGs) to estimate the cost per dose and cost per FIG. RESULTS: Over five years (2011 to 2015), the cost of establishing an HPV vaccine program that delivers three doses of vaccine to girls at schools via phased national introduction (three regions in year 1, ten regions in year 2 and all 26 regions in years 3 to 5) in Tanzania is estimated to be US$9.2 million (excluding vaccine costs) and US$31.5 million (with vaccine) assuming a vaccine price of US$5 (GAVI 2011, formerly the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations). This is equivalent to a financial cost of US$5.77 per FIG, excluding the vaccine cost. The most important costs of service delivery are social mobilization/IEC and service delivery operational costs. CONCLUSIONS: When countries expand their immunization schedules with new vaccines such as the HPV vaccine, they face initial costs to fund critical pre-introduction activities, as well as incremental system costs to deliver the vaccines on an ongoing basis. In anticipation, governments need to plan ahead for non-vaccine costs so they will be financed adequately. Existing human resources need to be re-allocated or new staff need to be recruited for the program to be implemented successfully in a sustainable and long-term manner.Reaching a target group not routinely served by national immunization programs previously with three doses of vaccine requires new delivery strategies, more transport of vaccines and health workers and more intensive IEC activities leading to new delivery costs for the immunization program that are greater than the costs incurred when a new infant vaccine is added to the existing infant immunization schedule. The WHO C4P tool is intended to help LMICs to plan ahead and estimate the programmatic and operational costs of HPV vaccination.