Impact and cost-effectiveness of measles vaccination through microarray patches in 70 low-income and middle-income countries: mathematical modelling and early-stage economic evaluation.
health economics
mathematical modelling
measles
vaccines
Journal
BMJ global health
ISSN: 2059-7908
Titre abrégé: BMJ Glob Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101685275
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2023
11 2023
Historique:
received:
06
03
2023
accepted:
01
10
2023
medline:
13
11
2023
pubmed:
11
11
2023
entrez:
10
11
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Microarray patches (MAPs) are a promising technology being developed to reduce barriers to vaccine delivery based on needles and syringes (N&S). To address the evidence gap on the public health value of applying this potential technology to immunisation programmes, we evaluated the health impact on measles burden and cost-effectiveness of introducing measles-rubella MAPs (MR-MAPs) in 70 low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We used an age-structured dynamic model of measles transmission and vaccination to project measles cases, deaths and disability-adjusted life-years during 2030-2040. Compared with the baseline scenarios with continuing current N&S-based practice, we evaluated the introduction of MR-MAPs under different measles vaccine coverage projections and MR-MAP introduction strategies. Costs were calculated based on the ingredients approach, including direct cost of measles treatment, vaccine procurement and vaccine delivery. Model-based burden and cost estimates were derived for individual countries and country income groups. We compared the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of introducing MR-MAPs to health opportunity costs. MR-MAP introduction could prevent 27%-37% of measles burden between 2030 and 2040 in 70 LMICs, compared with the N&S-only immunisation strategy. The largest health impact could be achieved under lower coverage projection and accelerated introduction strategy, with 39 million measles cases averted. Measles treatment cost is a key driver of the net cost of introduction. In countries with a relatively higher income, introducing MR-MAPs could be a cost-saving intervention due to reduced treatment costs. Compared with country-specific health opportunity costs, introducing MR-MAPs would be cost-effective in 16%-81% of LMICs, depending on the MR-MAPs procurement prices and vaccine coverage projections. Introducing MR-MAPs in LMICs can be a cost-effective strategy to revitalise measles immunisation programmes with stagnant uptake and reach undervaccinated children. Sustainable introduction and uptake of MR-MAPs has the potential to improve vaccine equity within and between countries and accelerate progress towards measles elimination.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Microarray patches (MAPs) are a promising technology being developed to reduce barriers to vaccine delivery based on needles and syringes (N&S). To address the evidence gap on the public health value of applying this potential technology to immunisation programmes, we evaluated the health impact on measles burden and cost-effectiveness of introducing measles-rubella MAPs (MR-MAPs) in 70 low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).
METHODS
We used an age-structured dynamic model of measles transmission and vaccination to project measles cases, deaths and disability-adjusted life-years during 2030-2040. Compared with the baseline scenarios with continuing current N&S-based practice, we evaluated the introduction of MR-MAPs under different measles vaccine coverage projections and MR-MAP introduction strategies. Costs were calculated based on the ingredients approach, including direct cost of measles treatment, vaccine procurement and vaccine delivery. Model-based burden and cost estimates were derived for individual countries and country income groups. We compared the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of introducing MR-MAPs to health opportunity costs.
RESULTS
MR-MAP introduction could prevent 27%-37% of measles burden between 2030 and 2040 in 70 LMICs, compared with the N&S-only immunisation strategy. The largest health impact could be achieved under lower coverage projection and accelerated introduction strategy, with 39 million measles cases averted. Measles treatment cost is a key driver of the net cost of introduction. In countries with a relatively higher income, introducing MR-MAPs could be a cost-saving intervention due to reduced treatment costs. Compared with country-specific health opportunity costs, introducing MR-MAPs would be cost-effective in 16%-81% of LMICs, depending on the MR-MAPs procurement prices and vaccine coverage projections.
CONCLUSIONS
Introducing MR-MAPs in LMICs can be a cost-effective strategy to revitalise measles immunisation programmes with stagnant uptake and reach undervaccinated children. Sustainable introduction and uptake of MR-MAPs has the potential to improve vaccine equity within and between countries and accelerate progress towards measles elimination.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37949503
pii: bmjgh-2023-012204
doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-012204
pmc: PMC10649680
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Vaccines
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
ID : INV-009125
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
Nature. 2021 Jan;589(7842):415-419
pubmed: 33328634
Vaccine. 2022 Jan 21;40(2):175-177
pubmed: 34865872
Vaccine. 2019 Jul 26;37(32):4427-4434
pubmed: 31262587
Vaccine. 2022 Mar 15;40(12):1681-1690
pubmed: 35164990
Vaccine. 2021 Jul 22;39(32):4564-4570
pubmed: 33744046
Drugs R D. 2016 Dec;16(4):327-338
pubmed: 27696306
World Health Stat Q. 1988;41(2):59-63
pubmed: 3176515
J Infect Dis. 2011 Jul;204 Suppl 1:S98-106
pubmed: 21666220
PLoS Comput Biol. 2021 Jul 26;17(7):e1009098
pubmed: 34310590
PLoS One. 2016 Dec 12;11(12):e0167160
pubmed: 27941976
Lancet. 2021 Jan 30;397(10272):398-408
pubmed: 33516338
Pan Afr Med J. 2020 Jan 03;35(Suppl 1):3
pubmed: 32373254
Lancet Glob Health. 2019 Apr;7(4):e472-e481
pubmed: 30797735
BMC Med. 2023 Jul 4;21(1):229
pubmed: 37400797
Health Policy Plan. 2022 Jan 13;37(1):45-54
pubmed: 34410385
BMC Med. 2021 Nov 17;19(1):281
pubmed: 34784922
J Infect Dis. 2018 Jun 5;218(1):124-132
pubmed: 29701813
Bull World Health Organ. 2016 Dec 1;94(12):925-930
pubmed: 27994285
Health Policy Plan. 2020 Feb 1;35(1):107-114
pubmed: 31625564
Clin Ther. 2020 Jan;42(1):44-59.e2
pubmed: 31955967
Front Public Health. 2022 Mar 02;10:809675
pubmed: 35309224
Front Public Health. 2023 Jan 16;10:1037157
pubmed: 36726626
Pharmacoeconomics. 2018 May;36(5):509-522
pubmed: 29427072
Value Health. 2019 Sep;22(9):1026-1032
pubmed: 31511179
Lancet. 2021 Aug 7;398(10299):522-534
pubmed: 34273292
Int J Epidemiol. 2010 Apr;39 Suppl 1:i48-55
pubmed: 20348126
Lancet Infect Dis. 2017 Dec;17(12):e420-e428
pubmed: 28757186
PLoS Med. 2020 Mar 17;17(3):e1003024
pubmed: 32181756
Vaccine. 2020 Jan 16;38(3):460-469
pubmed: 31732326