Durability of the Effectiveness of Heterologous COVID-19 Vaccine Regimens in Thailand: Retrospective Cohort Study Using National Registration Data.

BACKGROUND: The durability of heterologous COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) has been primarily studied in high-income countries, while evaluation of heterologous vaccine policies in low- and middle-income countries remains limited. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the duration during which the VE of heterologous COVID-19 vaccine regimens in mitigating serious outcomes, specifically severe COVID-19 and death following hospitalization with COVID-19, remains over 50%. METHODS: We formed a dynamic cohort by linking records of Thai citizens aged ≥18 years from citizen vital, COVID-19 vaccine, and COVID-19 cases registry databases between May 2021 and July 2022. Encrypted citizen identification numbers were used to merge the data between the databases. This study focuses on 8 common heterologous vaccine sequences: CoronaVac/ChAdOx1, ChAdOx1/BNT162b2, CoronaVac/CoronaVac/ChAdOx1, CoronaVac/ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1, CoronaVac/ChAdOx1/BNT162b2, BBIBP-CorV/BBIBP-CorV/BNT162b2, ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1/BNT162b2, and ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1/mRNA-1273. Nonimmunized individuals were considered for comparisons. The cohort was stratified according to the vaccination status, age, sex, province location, month of vaccination, and outcome. Data analysis employed logistic regression to determine the VE, accounting for potential confounders and durability over time, with data observed over a follow-up period of 7 months. RESULTS: This study includes 52,580,841 individuals, with approximately 17,907,215 and 17,190,975 receiving 2- and 3-dose common heterologous vaccines (not mutually exclusive), respectively. The 2-dose heterologous vaccinations offered approximately 50% VE against severe COVID-19 and death following hospitalization with COVID-19 for 2 months; however, the protection significantly declined over time. The 3-dose heterologous vaccinations sustained over 50% VE against both outcomes for at least 8 months, as determined by logistic regression with durability time-interaction modeling. The vaccine sequence consisting of CoronaVac/CoronaVac/ChAdOx1 demonstrated >80% VE against both outcomes, with no evidence of VE waning. The final monthly measured VE of CoronaVac/CoronaVac/ChAdOx1 against severe COVID-19 and death following hospitalization at 7 months after the last dose was 82% (95% CI 80.3%-84%) and 86.3% (95% CI 83.6%-84%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In Thailand, within a 7-month observation period, the 2-dose regimens could not maintain a 50% VE against severe and fatal COVID-19 for over 2 months, but all of the 3-dose regimens did. The CoronaVac/CoronaVac/ChAdOx1 regimen showed the best protective effect against severe and fatal COVID-19. The estimated durability of 50% VE for at least 8 months across all 3-dose heterologous COVID-19 vaccine regimens supports the adoption of heterologous prime-boost vaccination strategies, with a primary series of inactivated virus vaccine and boosting with either a viral vector or an mRNA vaccine, to prevent similar pandemics in low- and middle-income countries.

The Full Value of Vaccine Assessments (FVVA): a framework for assessing and communicating the value of vaccines for investment and introduction decision-making.

BACKGROUND: Several economic obstacles can deter the development and use of vaccines. This can lead to limited product options for some diseases, delays in new product development, and inequitable access to vaccines. Although seemingly distinct, these obstacles are actually interrelated and therefore need to be addressed through a single over-arching strategy encompassing all stakeholders. METHODS: To help overcome these obstacles, we propose a new approach, the Full Value of Vaccines Assessments (FVVA) framework, to guide the assessment and communication of the value of a vaccine. The FVVA framework is designed to facilitate alignment across key stakeholders and to enhance decision-making around investment in vaccine development, policy-making, procurement, and introduction, particularly for vaccines intended for use in low- and middle-income countries. RESULTS: The FVVA framework has three key elements. First, to enhance assessment, existing value-assessment methods and tools are adapted to include broader benefits of vaccines as well as opportunity costs borne by stakeholders. Second, to improve decision-making, a deliberative process is required to recognize the agency of stakeholders and to ensure country ownership of decision-making and priority setting. Third, the FVVA framework provides a consistent and evidence-based approach that facilitates communication about the full value of vaccines, helping to enhance alignment and coordination across diverse stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: The FVVA framework provides guidance for stakeholders organizing global-level efforts to promote investment in vaccines that are priorities for LMICs. By providing a more holistic view of the benefits of vaccines, its application also has the potential to encourage greater take-up by countries, thereby leading to more sustainable and equitable impacts of vaccines and immunization programmes.

Which interventions for alcohol use should be included in a universal healthcare benefit package? An umbrella review of targeted interventions to address harmful drinking and dependence.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to identify targeted interventions for the prevention and treatment of harmful alcohol use. Umbrella review methodology was used to summarise the effectiveness across a broad range of interventions, in order to identify which interventions should be considered for inclusion within universal health coverage schemes in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We included systematic reviews with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on targeted interventions addressing alcohol use in harmful drinkers or individuals with alcohol use disorder. We only included outcomes related to alcohol consumption, heavy drinking, binge drinking, abstinence, or alcohol-attributable accident, injury, morbidity or mortality. PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the International HTA Database were searched from inception to 3 September 2021. Risk of bias of reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR2 tool. After reviewing the abstracts of 9,167 articles, results were summarised narratively and certainty in the body of evidence for each intervention was assessed using GRADE. In total, 86 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which the majority reported outcomes for brief intervention (30 studies) or pharmacological interventions (29 studies). Overall, methodological quality of included studies was low. CONCLUSIONS: For harmful drinking, brief interventions, cognitive behavioural therapy, and motivational interviewing showed a small effect, whereas mentoring in adolescents and children may have a significant long-term effect. For alcohol use disorder, social network approaches and acamprosate showed evidence of a significant and durable effect. More evidence is required on the effectiveness of gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB), nalmefene, and quetiapine, as well as optimal combinations of pharmacological and psychosocial interventions. As an umbrella review, we were unable to identify the extent to which variation between studies stemmed from differences in intervention delivery or variation between country contexts. Further research is required on applicability of findings across settings and best practice for implementation. Funded by the Thai Health Promotion Foundation, grant number 61-00-1812.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Universal Maternal Pertussis Immunisation in Thailand: A Comparison of Two Model Structures.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of introducing universal maternal pertussis immunisation under the national vaccine programme in Thailand. METHODS: We conducted a cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective to compare maternal vaccination with (1) TdaP vaccine, (2) Td vaccine and aP vaccine, and (3) Td vaccine only. We constructed two decision-tree models with Markov elements, each following a different clinical pathway, to allow us to examine structural uncertainty. Costs were converted to 2021 Thai Baht (THB) and a discount rate of 3% was applied to health and cost outcomes, with sensitivity analysis at 0% and 6%. Parameter uncertainty was investigated through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis, with expected value of perfect information analysis. RESULTS: Maternal pertussis vaccination would avert 27 cases and up to one death per year. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for adding aP to the maternal immunisation schedule is 2,184,025 THB/QALY and the ICER for replacing maternal Td vaccination with TdaP is 3,198,101 THB/QALY. Maternal pertussis vaccination only becomes favourable in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis at cost-effectiveness thresholds above 6,000,000 THB/QALY, far above the Thai threshold of 160,000 THB/QALY. If incidence is less than 397 cases per 100,000, maternal pertussis vaccination will not be cost-effective in Thailand, within the plausible range for vaccine effectiveness and probability of hospitalisation. Budget impact is dominated by vaccination costs, which represent 12% and 18% of the 2021 national vaccine programme budget for introducing aP vaccine or for switching Td with TdaP vaccine, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We have found that maternal pertussis immunisation is not cost-effective in Thailand. Although there may be substantial under-reporting of pertussis cases, comparison with hospital data suggests that most under-reported cases are not hospitalised and therefore have negligible impact on our results. However, considerations such as affordability and local manufacturing may also be important for national immunisation programme decision-making.

A systematic review of methodological approaches for evaluating real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines: Advising resource-constrained settings.

Real-world effectiveness studies are important for monitoring performance of COVID-19 vaccination programmes and informing COVID-19 prevention and control policies. We aimed to synthesise methodological approaches used in COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies, in order to evaluate which approaches are most appropriate to implement in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). For this rapid systematic review, we searched PubMed and Scopus for articles published from inception to July 7, 2021, without language restrictions. We included any type of peer-reviewed observational study measuring COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness, for any population. We excluded randomised control trials and modelling studies. All data used in the analysis were extracted from included papers. We used a standardised data extraction form, modified from STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). Study quality was assessed using the REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT) tool. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021264658. Our search identified 3,327 studies, of which 42 were eligible for analysis. Most studies (97.5%) were conducted in high-income countries and the majority assessed mRNA vaccines (78% mRNA only, 17% mRNA and viral vector, 2.5% viral vector, 2.5% inactivated vaccine). Thirty-five of the studies (83%) used a cohort study design. Across studies, short follow-up time and limited assessment and mitigation of potential confounders, including previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and healthcare seeking behaviour, were major limitations. This review summarises methodological approaches for evaluating real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and highlights the lack of such studies in LMICs, as well as the importance of context-specific vaccine effectiveness data. Further research in LMICs will refine guidance for conducting real-world COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies in resource-constrained settings.

The CAPACITI Decision-Support Tool for National Immunization Programs.

OBJECTIVES: Immunization programs in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) are faced with an ever-growing number of vaccines of public health importance recommended by the World Health Organization, while also financing a greater proportion of the program through domestic resources. More than ever, national immunization programs must be equipped to contextualize global guidance and make choices that are best suited to their setting. The CAPACITI decision-support tool has been developed in collaboration with national immunization program decision makers in LMICs to structure and document an evidence-based, context-specific process for prioritizing or selecting among multiple vaccination products, services, or strategies. METHODS: The CAPACITI decision-support tool is based on multi-criteria decision analysis, as a structured way to incorporate multiple sources of evidence and stakeholder perspectives. The tool has been developed iteratively in consultation with 12 countries across Africa, Asia, and the Americas. RESULTS: The tool is flexible to existing country processes and can follow any type of multi-criteria decision analysis or a hybrid approach. It is structured into 5 sections: decision question, criteria for decision making, evidence assessment, appraisal, and recommendation. The Excel-based tool guides the user through the steps and document discussions in a transparent manner, with an emphasis on stakeholder engagement and country ownership. CONCLUSIONS: Pilot countries valued the CAPACITI decision-support tool as a means to consider multiple criteria and stakeholder perspectives and to evaluate trade-offs and the impact of data quality. With use, it is expected that LMICs will tailor steps to their context and streamline the tool for decision making.

How can we evaluate the potential of innovative vaccine products and technologies in resource constrained settings? A total systems effectiveness (TSE) approach to decision-making.

Innovations in vaccine product attributes could play an important role in addressing coverage and equity (C&E) gaps, but there is currently a poor understanding of the full system impact and trade-offs associated with investing in such technologies, both from the perspective of national immunisation programmes (NIPs) and vaccine developers. Total Systems Effectiveness (TSE) was developed as an approach to evaluate vaccines with different product attributes from a systems perspective, in order to analyse and compare the value of innovative vaccine products in different settings. The TSE approach has been advanced over the years by various stakeholders including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), Gavi, PATH, UNICEF and WHO. WHO further developed the TSE approach to incorporate the country perspective into immunisation decision-making, in order for countries to evaluate innovative products for introduction and product switch decisions, and for vaccine development stakeholders to conduct their assessments of product value in line with country preferences. This paper describes the original TSE approach, development of the tool and processes for NIPs to apply the WHO TSE approach, and results from piloting in 12 countries across Africa, Asia and the Americas. The WHO TSE framework emerged from this piloting effort. The WHO TSE approach has been welcomed by NIP and vaccine development stakeholders as a useful tool to evaluate trade-offs between different products. It was emphasised that the concept of "total systems effectiveness" is likely to be context-specific and that TSE is valuable in facilitating a deliberative process to articulate NIP priorities, for decisions around product choice, and for prioritising the development of future vaccine innovations.

Comparing 3 Approaches for Making Vaccine Adoption Decisions in Thailand.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) has developed the Total System Effectiveness (TSE) framework to assist national policy-makers in prioritizing vaccines. The pilot was launched in Thailand to explore the potential use of TSE in a country with established governance structures and accountable decision-making processes for immunization policy. While the existing literature informs vaccine adoption decisions in GAVI-eligible countries, this study attempts to address a gap in the literature by examining the policy process of a non-GAVI eligible country. METHODS: A rotavirus vaccine (RVV) test case was used to compare the decision criteria made by the existing processes (Expanded Program on Immunization [EPI], and National List of Essential Medicines [NLEM]) for vaccine prioritization and the TSE-pilot model, using Thailand specific data. RESULTS: The existing decision-making processes in Thailand and TSE were found to offer similar recommendations on the selection of a RVV product. CONCLUSION: The authors believe that TSE can provide a well-reasoned and step by step approach for countries, especially low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), to develop a systematic and transparent decision-making process for immunization policy.

'It takes two to tango': Bridging the gap between country need and vaccine product innovation.

BACKGROUND: Despite a growing global commitment to universal health coverage, considerable vaccine coverage and uptake gaps persist in resource-constrained settings. One way of addressing the gaps is by ensuring product innovation is relevant and responsive to the needs of these contexts. Total Systems Effectiveness (TSE) framework has been developed to characterize preferred vaccine attributes from the perspective of country decision-makers to inform research and development (R&D) of products. A proof of concept pilot study took place in Thailand in 2018 to examine the feasibility and usefulness of the TSE approach using a rotavirus hypothetical test-case. METHODS: The excel-based model used multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to compare and evaluate five hypothetical rotavirus vaccine products. The model was populated with local data and products were ranked against decision criteria identified by Thai stakeholders. A one-way sensitivity analysis was performed to identify criteria that influenced vaccine ranking. Self-assessment forms were distributed to R&D stakeholders on the usability of the approach and were subsequently analysed. RESULTS: The model identified significant parameters that impacted on MCDA rankings. Self-assessment forms revealed that TSE was perceived as being able to encourage closer collaboration between country decision makers and vaccine developers. CONCLUSIONS: The pilot study demonstrates that it is feasible to use an MCDA approach to elicit stakeholder preferences and determine influential parameters to help identify the preferred product characteristics for R&D from the perspective of country decision-makers. It found that TSE can help steer manufacturers to develop products that are better aligned with country need. Findings will guide further development of the TSE concept.

Experiences of operational costs of HPV vaccine delivery strategies in Gavi-supported demonstration projects.

From 2012 to 2016, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, provided support for countries to conduct small-scale demonstration projects for the introduction of the human papillomavirus vaccine, with the aim of determining which human papillomavirus vaccine delivery strategies might be effective and sustainable upon national scale-up. This study reports on the operational costs and cost determinants of different vaccination delivery strategies within these projects across twelve countries using a standardized micro-costing tool. The World Health Organization Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control Costing Tool was used to collect costing data, which were then aggregated and analyzed to assess the costs and cost determinants of vaccination. Across the one-year demonstration projects, the average economic and financial costs per dose amounted to US$19.98 (standard deviation ±12.5) and US$8.74 (standard deviation ±5.8), respectively. The greatest activities representing the greatest share of financial costs were social mobilization at approximately 30% (range, 6-67%) and service delivery at about 25% (range, 3-46%). Districts implemented varying combinations of school-based, facility-based, or outreach delivery strategies and experienced wide variation in vaccine coverage, drop-out rates, and service delivery costs, including transportation costs and per diems. Size of target population, number of students per school, and average length of time to reach an outreach post influenced cost per dose. Although the operational costs from demonstration projects are much higher than those of other routine vaccine immunization programs, findings from our analysis suggest that HPV vaccination operational costs will decrease substantially for national introduction. Vaccination costs may be decreased further by annual vaccination, high initial investment in social mobilization, or introducing/strengthening school health programs. Our analysis shows that drivers of cost are dependent on country and district characteristics. We therefore recommend that countries carry out detailed planning at the national and district levels to define a sustainable strategy for national HPV vaccine roll-out, in order to achieve the optimal balance between coverage and cost.