Search

Background: Understanding the economics of vaccination is essential to developing immunization strategies that can be employed successfully with limited resources, especially when vaccinating populations that are hard-to-reach., Methods: Based on the input from interviews with 24 global experts on immunization economics, we developed a systems map of the mechanisms (i.e., necessary steps or components) involved in vaccination, and associated costs and benefits, focused at the service delivery level. We used this to identify the mechanisms that may be different for hard-to-reach populations., Results: The systems map shows different mechanisms that determine whether a person may or may not get vaccinated and the potential health and economic impacts of doing so. The map is divided into two parts: 1) the costs of vaccination, representing each of the mechanisms involved in getting vaccinated (n = 23 vaccination mechanisms), their associated direct vaccination costs (n = 18 vaccination costs), and opportunity costs (n = 5 opportunity costs), 2) the impact of vaccination, representing mechanisms after vaccine delivery (n = 13 impact mechanisms), their associated health effects (n = 10 health effects for beneficiary and others), and economic benefits (n = 13 immediate and secondary economic benefits and costs). Mechanisms that, when interrupted or delayed, can result in populations becoming hard-to-reach include getting vaccines and key stakeholders (e.g., beneficiaries/caregivers, vaccinators) to a vaccination site, as well as vaccine administration at the site., Conclusion: Decision-makers can use this systems map to understand where steps in the vaccination process may be interrupted or weak and identify where gaps exist in the understanding of the economics of vaccination. With improved understanding of system-wide effects, this map can help decision-makers inform targeted interventions and policies to increase vaccination coverage in hard-to-reach populations., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: With multiple coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines available, understanding the epidemiologic, clinical, and economic value of increasing coverage levels and expediting vaccination is important., Methods: We developed a computational model (transmission and age-stratified clinical and economics outcome model) representing the United States population, COVID-19 coronavirus spread (February 2020-December 2022), and vaccination to determine the impact of increasing coverage and expediting time to achieve coverage., Results: When achieving a given vaccination coverage in 270 days (70% vaccine efficacy), every 1% increase in coverage can avert an average of 876 800 (217 000-2 398 000) cases, varying with the number of people already vaccinated. For example, each 1% increase between 40% and 50% coverage can prevent 1.5 million cases, 56 240 hospitalizations, and 6660 deaths; gain 77 590 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); and save $602.8 million in direct medical costs and $1.3 billion in productivity losses. Expediting to 180 days could save an additional 5.8 million cases, 215 790 hospitalizations, 26 370 deaths, 206 520 QALYs, $3.5 billion in direct medical costs, and $4.3 billion in productivity losses., Conclusions: Our study quantifies the potential value of decreasing vaccine hesitancy and increasing vaccination coverage and how this value may decrease with the time it takes to achieve coverage, emphasizing the need to reach high coverage levels as soon as possible, especially before the fall/winter., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Introduction: Given the continuing COVID-19 pandemic and much of the U.S. implementing social distancing owing to the lack of alternatives, there has been a push to develop a vaccine to eliminate the need for social distancing., Methods: In 2020, the team developed a computational model of the U.S. simulating the spread of COVID-19 coronavirus and vaccination., Results: Simulation experiments revealed that to prevent an epidemic (reduce the peak by >99%), the vaccine efficacy has to be at least 60% when vaccination coverage is 100% (reproduction number=2.5-3.5). This vaccine efficacy threshold rises to 70% when coverage drops to 75% and up to 80% when coverage drops to 60% when reproduction number is 2.5, rising to 80% when coverage drops to 75% when the reproduction number is 3.5. To extinguish an ongoing epidemic, the vaccine efficacy has to be at least 60% when coverage is 100% and at least 80% when coverage drops to 75% to reduce the peak by 85%-86%, 61%-62%, and 32% when vaccination occurs after 5%, 15%, and 30% of the population, respectively, have already been exposed to COVID-19 coronavirus. A vaccine with an efficacy between 60% and 80% could still obviate the need for other measures under certain circumstances such as much higher, and in some cases, potentially unachievable, vaccination coverages., Conclusions: This study found that the vaccine has to have an efficacy of at least 70% to prevent an epidemic and of at least 80% to largely extinguish an epidemic without any other measures (e.g., social distancing)., (Copyright © 2020 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: While the 2015-2016 Zika epidemics prompted accelerated vaccine development, decision makers need to know the potential economic value of vaccination strategies., Methods: We developed models of Honduras, Brazil, and Puerto Rico, simulated targeting different populations for Zika vaccination (women of childbearing age, school-aged children, young adults, and everyone) and then introduced various Zika outbreaks. Sensitivity analyses varied vaccine characteristics., Results: With a 2% attack rate ($5 vaccination), compared to no vaccination, vaccinating women of childbearing age cost $314-$1664 per case averted ($790-$4221/disability-adjusted life-year [DALY] averted) in Honduras, and saved $847-$1644/case averted in Brazil, and $3648-$4177/case averted in Puerto Rico, varying with vaccination coverage and efficacy (societal perspective). Vaccinating school-aged children cost $718-$1849/case averted (≤$5002/DALY averted) in Honduras, saved $819-$1609/case averted in Brazil, and saved $3823-$4360/case averted in Puerto Rico. Vaccinating young adults cost $310-$1666/case averted ($731-$4017/DALY averted) in Honduras, saved $953-$1703/case averted in Brazil, and saved $3857-$4372/case averted in Puerto Rico. Vaccinating everyone averted more cases but cost more, decreasing cost savings per case averted. Vaccination resulted in more cost savings and better outcomes at higher attack rates., Conclusions: When considering transmission, while vaccinating everyone naturally averted the most cases, specifically targeting women of childbearing age or young adults was the most cost-effective., (© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Introduction: During an influenza epidemic, where early vaccination is crucial, pharmacies may be a resource to increase vaccine distribution reach and capacity., Methods: We utilized an agent-based model of the US and a clinical and economics outcomes model to simulate the impact of different influenza epidemics and the impact of utilizing pharmacies in addition to traditional (hospitals, clinic/physician offices, and urgent care centers) locations for vaccination for the year 2017., Results: For an epidemic with a reproductive rate (R0) of 1.30, adding pharmacies with typical business hours averted 11.9 million symptomatic influenza cases, 23,577 to 94,307 deaths, $1.0 billion in direct (vaccine administration and healthcare) costs, $4.2-44.4 billion in productivity losses, and $5.2-45.3 billion in overall costs (varying with mortality rate). Increasing the epidemic severity (R0 of 1.63), averted 16.0 million symptomatic influenza cases, 35,407 to 141,625 deaths, $1.9 billion in direct costs, $6.0-65.5 billion in productivity losses, and $7.8-67.3 billion in overall costs (varying with mortality rate). Extending pharmacy hours averted up to 16.5 million symptomatic influenza cases, 145,278 deaths, $1.9 billion direct costs, $4.1 billion in productivity loss, and $69.5 billion in overall costs. Adding pharmacies resulted in a cost-benefit of $4.1 to $11.5 billion, varying epidemic severity, mortality rate, pharmacy hours, location vaccination rate, and delay in the availability of the vaccine., Conclusions: Administering vaccines through pharmacies in addition to traditional locations in the event of an epidemic can increase vaccination coverage, mitigating up to 23.7 million symptomatic influenza cases, providing cost-savings up to $2.8 billion to third-party payers and $99.8 billion to society. Pharmacies should be considered as points of dispensing epidemic vaccines in addition to traditional settings as soon as vaccines become available., (Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Foot-and-mouth disease vaccine potency testing involving live virus challenge can be problematical in pigs. Alternative methods of assessing vaccine efficacy are therefore desirable. Here we investigate the link between IL-6 in blood at time of challenge and protection against challenge by carrying out statistical analyses utilising data from six separate potency tests performed in swine with the aim of assessing whether IL-6 could be exploited as an additional parameter for confirming vaccine efficacy in pigs. These analyses confirmed that systemic IL-6 levels increased when the administered vaccine dose increased and that the odds of protection against challenge increased as IL-6 levels increased. The link between increased protection and increased antibody was reaffirmed and a significant link between IL-6 levels and antibody levels was shown. We therefore conclude that quantifying the levels of IL-6 in serum could provide additional means of qualifying whether a vaccine will afford clinical protection or not in pigs, in the absence of an actual challenge, and thus offer the possibility of improved vaccine potency testing in pigs both in terms of animal welfare as well as cost., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

A serotype-specific ELISA was developed to detect foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) specific IgA antibody in the saliva of cattle, and the method was evaluated for its feasibility in detecting serotype O FMDV carrier animals, particularly amongst vaccinated cattle that had subsequently become sub-clinically infected. For this purpose, saliva samples were collected from naïve cattle (n = 173), FMDV challenged cattle (n = 10), FMDV vaccinated cattle (n = 40) and FMDV vaccinated-and-challenged cattle (n = 40). A subset of 29 cattle was sampled for 105-168 days after challenge. The FMDV infection status of each of the cattle was determined by virus isolation and RT-PCR tests on oesophago-pharyngeal fluids and the ability of the IgA test to detect viral infection and persistence was compared to an ELISA for the detection of serum antibodies against the 3ABC non-structural proteins of FMDV. Eleven out of twelve vaccinated cattle that were shown to be persistently infected with FMDV up to or beyond 28 days post challenge, were also detected by the IgA test on saliva. With some modification and further validation, this test could be useful in post-vaccination surveillance to help confirm the absence of sub-clinical infection in order to regain the FMD-free status of a region or country.

Pigs were vaccinated with the emergency inactivated foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) vaccine--water-in-oil-in-water emulsion with Montanide ISA206--known to protect after 3-5 days. Peripheral blood leukocyte (PBL) sub-populations did not differ between vaccinates and controls post-vaccination. There was neither lymphopenia nor inflammatory reaction. FMDV-specific antibody and T lymphocyte activity developed in the vaccinates. Virus-induced Th1-like cytokine protein and mRNA (IFNgamma and IL-2) were identified, particularly IFNgamma. Th2-like cytokine protein and mRNA (IL-4 and IL-6) were also induced in an FMDV-specific manner. IL-10 was induced by both virus and mock antigen. The current emergency FMDV vaccine induces a diverse immune defence network--innate, and both Th1-like and Th2-like responses--without adverse reactions such as lymphopenia or inflammatory responses.

COVID-19 vaccines mitigate severe disease, yet uptake remains low among people experiencing homelessness (PEH) despite the risk of transmission in congregate settings like homeless shelters. This study evaluated retrospective COVID-19 vaccination intent and decision-making between March 2020-October 2021 to identify modifiable factors to improve vaccine acceptance among PEH. We conducted 31 semi-structured interviews and eight focus group discussions across six homeless shelters in Seattle-King County, Washington. Residents and staff aged ≥18 years were recruited through purposive sampling for interviews and convenience sampling for focus groups. Thematic analysis was conducted. Participants reported that too much contradictory and changing information about COVID-19 vaccines led to confusion. Information deemed trustworthy contributed to individual's knowledge and in some cases changed their vaccination intent. While many intended to get vaccinated without external motivators, others were motivated by incentives and requirements. Despite intention to vaccinate, participants reported barriers to COVID-19 vaccine access including availability of vaccine doses, timely eligibility for vaccination, and availability of appointments. Participants presented recommendations to improve COVID-19 information content and dissemination, access, and use of incentives in shelter settings. Future research should test recommended vaccination strategies rooted in the voices and experiences of PEH to determine feasibility and effectiveness in shelter settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Little is known about COVID-19 vaccination intent among people experiencing homelessness. This study assesses surveyed COVID-19 vaccination intent among adult homeless shelter residents and staff and identifies factors associated with vaccine deliberation (responded "undecided") and reluctance (responded "no"), including time trends. From 11/1/2020–2/28/21, we conducted repeated cross-sectional surveys at nine shelters in King County, WA as part of ongoing community-based SARS-CoV-2 surveillance. We used a multinomial model to identify characteristics associated with vaccine deliberation and reluctance. A total of 969 unique staff (n = 297) and residents (n = 672) participated and provided 3966 survey responses. Among residents, 53.7% (n = 361) were vaccine accepting, 28.1% reluctant, 17.6% deliberative, and 0.6% already vaccinated, whereas among staff 56.2% were vaccine accepting, 14.1% were reluctant, 16.5% were deliberative, and 13.1% already vaccinated at their last survey. We observed higher odds of vaccine deliberation or reluctance among Black/African American individuals, those who did not receive a seasonal influenza vaccine, and those with lower educational attainment. There was no significant trend towards vaccine acceptance. Strong disparities in vaccine intent based on race, education, and prior vaccine history were observed. Increased vaccine intent over the study period was not detected. An intersectional, person-centered approach to addressing health inequities by public health authorities planning vaccination campaigns in shelters is recommended. Clinical Trial Registry Number: NCT04141917. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: With multiple COVID-19 vaccines available, understanding the epidemiologic, clinical, and economic value of increasing coverage levels and expediting vaccination is important.Methods: We developed a computational model (transmission and age-stratified clinical and economics outcome model) representing the US population, COVID-19 coronavirus spread (02/2020-12/2022), and vaccination to determine the impact of increasing coverage and expediting time to achieve coverage.Results: When achieving a given vaccination coverage in 270 days (70% vaccine efficacy), every 1% increase in coverage can avert an average of 876,800 (217,000-2,398,000) cases, varying with the number of people already vaccinated. For example, each 1% increase between 40%-50% coverage can prevent 1.5million cases, 56,240 hospitalizations, 6,660 deaths, gain 77,590 QALYs, save $602.8 million in direct medical costs and $1.3 billion in productivity losses . Expediting to 180 days could save an additional 5.8 million cases, 215,790 hospitalizations, 26,370 deaths, 206,520 QALYs, $3.5 billion in direct medical costs, and $4.3 billion in productivity losses.Conclusion: Our study quantifies the potential value of decreasing vaccine hesitancy and increasing vaccination coverage and how this value may decrease with time it takes to achieve coverage, emphasizing the need to reach high coverage levels as soon as possible, especially before the Fall/Winter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The protection that an influenza vaccine offers can vary significantly from person to person due to differences in immune systems, body types, and other factors. The question, then, is what is the value of efforts to reduce this variability such as making vaccines more personalized and tailored to individuals.Methods: We developed a compartment model of the United States to simulate different influenza seasons and the impact of reducing the variability in responses to the influenza vaccine across the population.Results: Going from a vaccine that varied in efficacy (0-30%) to one that had a uniform 30% efficacy for everyone averted 16.0-31.2 million cases, $1.9-$3.6 billion in direct medical costs, and $16.1-$42.7 billion in productivity losses. Going from 0-50% in efficacy to just 50% for everyone averted 27.7-38.6 million cases, $3.3-$4.6 billion in direct medical costs, and $28.8-$57.4 billion in productivity losses. Going from 0-70% to 70% averted 33.6-54.1 million cases, $4.0-$6.5 billion in direct medical costs, and $44.8-$64.7 billion in productivity losses.Conclusions: This study quantifies for policy makers, funders, and vaccine developers and manufacturers the potential impact of efforts to reduce variability in the protection that influenza vaccines offer (eg, developing vaccines that are more personalized to different individual factors). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In low- and middle-income countries, budget impact is an important criterion for funding new interventions, particularly for large public health investments such as new vaccines. However, budget impact analyses remain less frequently conducted and less well researched than cost-effectiveness analyses.Objective: The objective of this study was to fill the gap in research on budget impact analyses by assessing (1) the quality of stand-alone budget impact analyses, and (2) the feasibility of extending cost-effectiveness analyses to capture budget impact.Methods: We developed a budget impact analysis checklist and scoring system for budget impact analyses, which we then adapted for cost-effectiveness analyses, based on current International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Task Force recommendations. We applied both budget impact analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis checklists and scoring systems to examine the extent to which existing economic evaluations provide sufficient evidence about budget impact to enable decision making. We used rotavirus vaccination as an illustrative case in which low- and middle-income countries uptake has been limited despite demonstrated cost effectiveness. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify economic evaluations of rotavirus vaccine in low- and middle-income countries published between January 2000 and February 2017. We critically appraised the quality of budget impact analyses, and assessed the extension of cost-effectiveness analyses to provide useful budget impact information.Results: Six budget impact analyses and 60 cost-effectiveness analyses were identified. Budget impact analyses adhered to most International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research recommendations, with key exceptions being provision of undiscounted financial streams for each budget period and model validation. Most cost-effectiveness analyses could not be extended to provide useful budget impact information; cost-effectiveness analyses also rarely presented undiscounted annual costs, or estimated financial streams during the first years of programme scale-up.Conclusions: Cost-effectiveness analyses vastly outnumber budget impact analyses of rotavirus vaccination, despite both being critical for policy decision making. Straightforward changes to the presentation of cost-effectiveness analyses results could facilitate their adaptation into budget impact analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is estimated that there are one million transgender and over 340,000 gender non-conforming people in the United States, many of whom face significant health disparities including access to healthcare. Although previous studies have reported greater vaccine uptake in women compared to men, national-level estimates of influenza vaccine uptake among transgender and non-binary people are unknown. This study aims to characterize differences in influenza vaccine uptake by gender identity and examine associations between vaccination status and state-level gender equity policies. We used cross-sectional data from adults participating in the 2015–2019 United States Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance System surveys. Weighted prevalence differences (PDs) and associated confidence intervals (CIs) of being unvaccinated against influenza by self-reported gender identity were estimated using generalized linear regression models. Compared to cisgender women (unvaccinated prevalence = 57.3%), the prevalence of being unvaccinated was significantly higher among cisgender men (64.4%; PD = 7.0 per 100, 95% CI: 6.7–7.4), transgender women (65.4%; PD = 8.1 per 100, 95% CI 4.0–12.2), transgender men (64.6%; PD = 7.3 per 100, 95% CI: 2.7–11.8), and gender non-conforming individuals (64.6%; PD = 7.2 per 100, 95% CI: 1.3–13.2). This pattern was similar among individuals living in states with protective versus restrictive gender equity policies. Our results identified a disparity in influenza vaccine uptake among individuals across the gender spectrum. To improve vaccine equity, future research should explore barriers to and facilitators of vaccine uptake by gender identity, which could inform policies and health promotion interventions to improve uptake co-designed and implemented with the transgender and non-binary communities. • This is the largest study of influenza vaccine uptake by gender identity. • There is a disparity in influenza vaccine uptake by gender identity in the U.S. • Influenza vaccine uptake was lowest among transgender women (65.4% unvaccinated). • Protective versus restrictive gender equity policies did not impact vaccine uptake. • Interventions for transgender and non-binary communities could improve vaccine equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: During a pandemic, there are many situations in which the first available vaccines may not have as high effectiveness as vaccines that are still under development or vaccines that are not yet ready for distribution, raising the question of whether it is better to go with what is available now or wait.Methods: In 2020, the team developed a computational model that represents the U.S. population, COVID-19 coronavirus spread, and vaccines with different possible efficacies (to prevent infection or to reduce severe disease) and vaccination timings to estimate the clinical and economic value of vaccination.Results: Except for a limited number of situations, mainly early on in a pandemic and for a vaccine that prevents infection, when an initial vaccine is available, waiting for a vaccine with a higher efficacy results in additional hospitalizations and costs over the course of the pandemic. For example, if a vaccine with a 50% efficacy in preventing infection becomes available when 10% of the population has already been infected, waiting until 40% of the population are infected for a vaccine with 80% efficacy in preventing infection results in 15.6 million additional cases and 1.5 million additional hospitalizations, costing $20.6 billion more in direct medical costs and $12.4 billion more in productivity losses.Conclusions: This study shows that there are relatively few situations in which it is worth foregoing the first COVID-19 vaccine available in favor of a vaccine that becomes available later on in the pandemic even if the latter vaccine has a substantially higher efficacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]