Simulation of the cost-effectiveness of malaria vaccines
Open Access
- 8 June 2009
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Nature in Malaria Journal
- Vol. 8 (1), 127
- https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-8-127
Abstract
Background: A wide range of possible malaria vaccines is being considered and there is a need to identify which vaccines should be prioritized for clinical development. An important element of the information needed for this prioritization is a prediction of the cost-effectiveness of potential vaccines in the transmission settings in which they are likely to be deployed. This analysis needs to consider a range of delivery modalities to ensure that clinical development plans can be aligned with the most appropriate deployment strategies. Methods: The simulations are based on a previously published individual-based stochastic model for the natural history and epidemiology of Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Three different vaccine types: pre-erythrocytic vaccines (PEV), blood stage vaccines (BSV), mosquito-stage transmission-blocking vaccines (MSTBV), and combinations of these, are considered each delivered via a range of delivery modalities (Expanded Programme of Immunization – EPI-, EPI with booster, and mass vaccination combined with EPI). The cost-effectiveness ratios presented are calculated for four health outcomes, for assumed vaccine prices of US$ 2 or US$ 10 per dose, projected over a 10-year period. Results: The simulations suggest that PEV will be more cost-effective in low transmission settings, while BSV at higher transmission settings. Combinations of BSV and PEV are more efficient than PEV, especially in moderate to high transmission settings, while compared to BSV they are more cost-effective in moderate to low transmission settings. Combinations of MSTBV and PEV or PEV and BSV improve the effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness compared to PEV and BSV alone only when applied with EPI and mass vaccinations. Adding booster doses to the EPI is unlikely to be a cost-effective alternative to delivering vaccines via the EPI for any vaccine, while mass vaccination improves effectiveness, especially in low transmission settings, and is often a more efficient alternative to the EPI. However, the costs of increasing the coverage of mass vaccination over 50% often exceed the benefits. Conclusion: The simulations indicate malaria vaccines might be efficient malaria control interventions, and that both transmission setting and vaccine delivery modality are important to their cost-effectiveness. Alternative vaccine delivery modalities to the EPI may be more efficient than the EPI. Mass vaccination is predicted to provide substantial health benefits at low additional costs, although achieving high coverage rates can lead to substantial incremental costs.This publication has 31 references indexed in Scilit:
- What Should Vaccine Developers Ask? Simulation of the Effectiveness of Malaria VaccinesPLOS ONE, 2008
- Calculating Partial Expected Value of Perfect Information via Monte Carlo Sampling AlgorithmsMedical Decision Making, 2007
- Cost effectiveness analysis of strategies to combat malaria in developing countriesBMJ, 2005
- The global distribution of clinical episodes of Plasmodium falciparum malariaNature, 2005
- Costs of scaling up health interventions: a systematic reviewHealth Policy and Planning, 2005
- Accounting for the cost of scaling‐up health interventionsHealth Economics, 2004
- Calculating and presenting disability adjusted life years (DALYs) in cost-effectiveness analysisHealth Policy and Planning, 2001
- Production gains from health care: what should be included in cost-effectiveness analyses?Social Science & Medicine, 1999
- Sensitivity Analysis and the Expected Value of Perfect InformationMedical Decision Making, 1998
- Estimating Costs in the Economic Evaluation of Medical TechnologiesInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1990