Epidemiological and Economic Impact of Monovalent and Pentavalent Rotavirus Vaccines in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Cost-effectiveness Modeling Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The competing choices of vaccination with either RV1 or RV5, the potential budget impact of vaccines on the EPI with different prices and new evidence make important an updated analysis for health decision makers in each country. The objective of this study is to assess cost-effectiveness of the monovalent and pentavalent rotavirus vaccines and impact on children deaths, inpatient and outpatient visits in 116 low and middle income countries that represent approximately 99% of rotavirus mortality. METHODS: A decision tree model followed hypothetical cohorts of children from birth up to 5 years of age for each country in 2010. Inputs were gathered from international databases and previous research on incidence and effectiveness of monovalent and pentavalent vaccines. Costs were expressed in 2010 international dollars. Outcomes were reported in terms of cost per disability-adjusted life-year averted, comparing no vaccination with either monovalent or pentavalent mass introduction. Vaccine price was assumed fixed for all world low-income and middle-income countries. RESULTS: Around 292,000 deaths, 3.34 million inpatient cases and 23.09 million outpatient cases would occur with no vaccination. In the base-case scenario, monovalent vaccination would prevent 54.7% of inpatient cases and 45.4% of deaths. Pentavalent vaccination would prevent 51.4% of inpatient cases and 41.1% of deaths. The vaccine was cost-effective in all world countries in the base-case scenario for both vaccines. Cost per disability-adjusted life-year averted in all selected countries was I$372 for monovalent, and I$453 for pentavalent vaccination. CONCLUSION: Rotavirus vaccine is cost-effective in most analyzed countries. Despite cost-effectiveness analysis is a useful tool for decision making in middle-income countries, for low-income countries health decision makers should also assess the impact of introducing either vaccine on local resources and budget impact analysis of vaccination.

Cost-effectiveness of treating multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: Despite the existence of effective drug treatments, tuberculosis (TB) causes 2 million deaths annually worldwide. Effective treatment is complicated by multidrug-resistant TB (MDR TB) strains that respond only to second-line drugs. We projected the health benefits and cost-effectiveness of using drug susceptibility testing and second-line drugs in a lower-middle-income setting with high levels of MDR TB. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We developed a dynamic state-transition model of TB. In a base case analysis, the model was calibrated to approximate the TB epidemic in Peru, a setting with a smear-positive TB incidence of 120 per 100,000 and 4.5% MDR TB among prevalent cases. Secondary analyses considered other settings. The following strategies were evaluated: first-line drugs administered under directly observed therapy (DOTS), locally standardized second-line drugs for previously treated cases (STR1), locally standardized second-line drugs for previously treated cases with test-confirmed MDR TB (STR2), comprehensive drug susceptibility testing and individualized treatment for previously treated cases (ITR1), and comprehensive drug susceptibility testing and individualized treatment for all cases (ITR2). Outcomes were costs per TB death averted and costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. We found that strategies incorporating the use of second-line drug regimens following first-line treatment failure were highly cost-effective compared to strategies using first-line drugs only. In our base case, standardized second-line treatment for confirmed MDR TB cases (STR2) had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 720 dollars per QALY (8,700 dollars per averted death) compared to DOTS. Individualized second-line drug treatment for MDR TB following first-line failure (ITR1) provided more benefit at an incremental cost of 990 dollars per QALY (12,000 dollars per averted death) compared to STR2. A more aggressive version of the individualized treatment strategy (ITR2), in which both new and previously treated cases are tested for MDR TB, had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 11,000 dollars per QALY (160,000 dollars per averted death) compared to ITR1. The STR2 and ITR1 strategies remained cost-effective under a wide range of alternative assumptions about treatment costs, effectiveness, MDR TB prevalence, and transmission. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of MDR TB using second-line drugs is highly cost-effective in Peru. In other settings, the attractiveness of strategies using second-line drugs will depend on TB incidence, MDR burden, and the available budget, but simulation results suggest that individualized regimens would be cost-effective in a wide range of situations.

A land filled with mosquitoes: Fred L. Soper, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the anopheles gambiae invasion of Brazil.

The success of Fred Soper and the Rockefeller Foundation's International Health Division in eradicating the anopheles gambiae mosquito from Northeast Brazil was a significant watershed in the history of malaria control. It revived faith in vector control strategies and paved the way for the application of eradication methods in the fight against malaria following World War II. Yet Soper's achievement needs to be re-examined from a wider analytical perspective that takes account of the longer epidemiological history of malaria in northeast Brazil and the wider social and economic context within which malaria occurred. This wider perspective suggests that the origins of the 1938/39 malaria epidemic were much more complex than Soper acknowledged. By focusing narrowly on the anopheles gambiae mosquito and its eradication. Soper failed to understand this broader context. This myopia, in turn, permitted Soper to make claims for both the scale of his achievement and its importance for the future of malaria control which were unjustified.