Search

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the delivery of immunisation services globally. Many countries have postponed vaccination campaigns out of concern about infection risks to the staff delivering vaccination, the children being vaccinated, and their families. The World Health Organization recommends considering both the benefit of preventive campaigns and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission when making decisions about campaigns during COVID-19 outbreaks, but there has been little quantification of the risks., Methods: We modelled excess SARS-CoV-2 infection risk to vaccinators, vaccinees, and their caregivers resulting from vaccination campaigns delivered during a COVID-19 epidemic. Our model used population age structure and contact patterns from three exemplar countries (Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, and Brazil). It combined an existing compartmental transmission model of an underlying COVID-19 epidemic with a Reed-Frost model of SARS-CoV-2 infection risk to vaccinators and vaccinees. We explored how excess risk depends on key parameters governing SARS-CoV-2 transmissibility, and aspects of campaign delivery such as campaign duration, number of vaccinations, and effectiveness of personal protective equipment (PPE) and symptomatic screening., Results: Infection risks differ considerably depending on the circumstances in which vaccination campaigns are conducted. A campaign conducted at the peak of a SARS-CoV-2 epidemic with high prevalence and without special infection mitigation measures could increase absolute infection risk by 32 to 45% for vaccinators and 0.3 to 0.5% for vaccinees and caregivers. However, these risks could be reduced to 3.6 to 5.3% and 0.1 to 0.2% respectively by use of PPE that reduces transmission by 90% (as might be achieved with N95 respirators or high-quality surgical masks) and symptomatic screening., Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 infection risks to vaccinators, vaccinees, and caregivers during vaccination campaigns can be greatly reduced by adequate PPE, symptomatic screening, and appropriate campaign timing. Our results support the use of adequate risk mitigation measures for vaccination campaigns held during SARS-CoV-2 epidemics, rather than cancelling them entirely., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Despite increased efforts and spending toward polio eradication, it has yet to be eliminated worldwide. We aimed to project economic costs of polio eradication compared to permanent control. We used historical Financial Resource Requirements from the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, as well as vaccination and population data from publicly available sources, to project costs for routine immunization, immunization campaigns, surveillance and laboratory resources, technical assistance, social mobilization, treatment, and overhead. We found that cumulative spending for a control strategy would exceed that for an eradication strategy in 2032 (range, 2027-2051). Eradication of polio would likely be cost-saving compared to permanent control., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: Measles causes significant childhood morbidity in Nigeria. Routine immunization (RI) coverage is around 40% country-wide, with very high levels of spatial heterogeneity (3-86%), with supplemental immunization activities (SIAs) at 2-year or 3-year intervals. We investigated cost savings and burden reduction that could be achieved by adjusting the inter-campaign interval by region., Methods: We modeled 81 scenarios; permuting SIA calendars of every one, two, or three years in each of four regions of Nigeria (North-west, North-central, North-east, and South). We used an agent-based disease transmission model to estimate the number of measles cases and ingredients-based cost models to estimate RI and SIA costs for each scenario over a 10 year period., Results: Decreasing SIAs to every three years in the North-central and South (regions of above national-average RI coverage) while increasing to every year in either the North-east or North-west (regions of below national-average RI coverage) would avert measles cases (0.4 or 1.4 million, respectively), and save vaccination costs (save $19.4 or $5.4 million, respectively), compared to a base-case of national SIAs every two years. Decreasing SIA frequency to every three years in the South while increasing to every year in the just the North-west, or in all Northern regions would prevent more cases (2.1 or 5.0 million, respectively), but would increase vaccination costs (add $3.5 million or $34.6 million, respectively), for $1.65 or $6.99 per case averted, respectively., Conclusions: Our modeling shows how increasing SIA frequency in Northern regions, where RI is low and birth rates are high, while decreasing frequency in the South of Nigeria would reduce the number of measles cases with relatively little or no increase in vaccination costs. A national vaccination strategy that incorporates regional SIA targeting in contexts with a high level of sub-national variation would lead to improved health outcomes and/or lower costs., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The lack of specific policies on how many children must be present at a vaccinating location before a healthcare worker can open a measles-containing vaccine (MCV) - i.e. the vial-opening threshold - has led to inconsistent practices, which can have wide-ranging systems effects., Methods: Using HERMES-generated simulation models of the routine immunization supply chains of Benin, Mozambique and Niger, we evaluated the impact of different vial-opening thresholds (none, 30% of doses must be used, 60%) and MCV presentations (10-dose, 5-dose) on each supply chain. We linked these outputs to a clinical- and economic-outcomes model which translated the change in vaccine availability to associated infections, medical costs, and DALYs. We calculated the economic impact of each policy from the health system perspective., Results: The vial-opening threshold that maximizes vaccine availability while minimizing costs varies between individual countries. In Benin (median session size = 5), implementing a 30% vial-opening threshold and tailoring distribution of 10-dose and 5-dose MCVs to clinics based on session size is the most cost-effective policy, preventing 671 DALYs ($471/DALY averted) compared to baseline (no threshold, 10-dose MCVs). In Niger (median MCV session size = 9), setting a 60% vial-opening threshold and tailoring MCV presentations is the most cost-effective policy, preventing 2897 DALYs ($16.05/ DALY averted). In Mozambique (median session size = 3), setting a 30% vial-opening threshold using 10-dose MCVs is the only beneficial policy compared to baseline, preventing 3081 DALYs ($85.98/DALY averted). Across all three countries, however, a 30% vial-opening threshold using 10-dose MCVs everywhere is the only MCV threshold that consistently benefits each system compared to baseline., Conclusion: While the ideal vial-opening threshold policy for MCV varies by supply chain, implementing a 30% vial-opening threshold for 10-dose MCVs benefits each system by improving overall vaccine availability and reducing associated medical costs and DALYs compared to no threshold., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)