The Costs of Implementing Vaccination With the RTS,S Malaria Vaccine in Five Sub-Saharan African Countries

Cost of introducing and delivering malaria vaccine (RTS,S/AS01E) in areas of seasonal malaria transmission, Mali and Burkina Faso

BACKGROUND

The WHO recommends use of the RTS,S/AS01_E (RTS,S) malaria vaccine for young children living in areas of moderate to high Plasmodium falciparum malaria transmission and suggests countries consider seasonal vaccination in areas with highly seasonal malaria. Seasonal vaccination is uncommon and may require adaptations with potential cost consequences. This study prospectively estimates cost of seasonal malaria vaccine delivery in Mali and Burkina Faso.

METHODS

Three scenarios for seasonal vaccine delivery are costed (1) mass campaign only, (2) routine Expanded Programme on Immunisation (EPI) and (3) mixed delivery (mass campaign and routine EPI)), from the government's perspective. Resource use data are informed by previous new vaccine introductions, supplemented with primary data from a sample of health facilities and administrative units.

FINDINGS

At an assumed vaccine price of US $5 per dose, the economic cost per dose administered ranges between $7.73 and $8.68 (mass campaign), $7.04 and $7.38 (routine EPI) and $7.26 and $7.93 (mixed delivery). Excluding commodities, the cost ranges between $1.17 and $2.12 (mass campaign), $0.48 and $0.82 (routine EPI) and $0.70 and $1.37 (mixed delivery). The financial non-commodity cost per dose administered ranges between $0.99 and $1.99 (mass campaign), $0.39 and $0.76 (routine EPI) and $0.58 and $1.28 (mixed delivery). Excluding commodity costs, service delivery is the main cost driver under the mass campaign scenario, accounting for 36% to 55% of the financial cost. Service delivery accounts for 2%-8% and 12%-23% of the total financial cost under routine EPI and mixed delivery scenarios, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Vaccine delivery using the mass campaign approach is most costly followed by mixed delivery and routine EPI delivery approaches, in both countries. Our cost estimates provide useful insights for decisions regarding delivery approaches, as countries plan the malaria vaccine rollout.

Cost of introducing and delivering RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine within the malaria vaccine implementation program

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommended widespread use of the RTS,S/AS01 (RTS,S) malaria vaccine among children residing in regions of moderate to high malaria transmission. This recommendation is informed by RTS,S evidence, including findings from the pilot rollout of the vaccine in Ghana, Kenya, and Malawi. This study estimates the incremental costs of introducing and delivering the malaria vaccine within routine immunization programs in the context of malaria vaccine pilot introduction, to help inform decision-making.

METHODS

An activity-based, retrospective costing was conducted from the governments' perspective. Vaccine introduction and delivery costs supported by the donors during the pilot introduction were attributed as costs to the governments under routine implementation. Detailed resource use data were extracted from the pilot program expenditure and activity reports for 2019-2021. Primary data from representative health facilities were collected to inform recurrent operational and service delivery costs.Costs were categorized as introduction or recurrent costs. Both financial and economic costs were estimated and reported in 2020 USD. The cost of donated vaccine doses was evaluated at $2, $5 and $10 per dose and included in the economic cost estimates. Financial costs include the procurement add on costs for the donated vaccines and immunization supplies, along with other direct expenses.

FINDINGS

At a vaccine price of $5 per dose, the incremental cost per dose administered across countries ranges from $2.30 to $3.01 (financial), and $8.28 to $10.29 (economic). The non-vaccine cost of delivery ranges between $1.04 and $2.46 (financial) and $1.52 and $4.62 (economic), by country. Considering only recurrent costs, the non-vaccine cost of delivery per dose ranges between $0.29 and $0.89 (financial) and $0.59 and $2.29 (economic), by country. Introduction costs constitute between 33% and 71% of total financial costs. Commodity and procurement add-on costs are the main cost drivers of total cost across countries. Incremental resource needs for implementation are dependent on country's baseline immunization program capacity constraints.

INTERPRETATION

The financial costs of introducing RTS,S are comparable with costs of introducing other new vaccines. Country resource requirements for malaria vaccine introduction are most influenced by vaccine price and potential donor funding for vaccine purchases and introduction support.

Development of New Strategies for Malaria Chemoprophylaxis: From Monoclonal Antibodies to Long-Acting Injectable Drugs

Drug discovery for malaria has traditionally focused on orally available drugs that kill the abundant, parasitic blood stage. Recently, there has also been an interest in injectable medicines, in the form of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) with long-lasting plasma half-lives or long-lasting depot formulations of small molecules. These could act as prophylactic drugs, targeting the sporozoites and other earlier parasitic stages in the liver, when the parasites are less numerous, or as another intervention strategy targeting the formation of infectious gametocytes. Generally speaking, the development of mAbs is less risky (costly) than small-molecule drugs, and they have an excellent safety profile with few or no off-target effects. Therefore, populations who are the most vulnerable to malaria, i.e., pregnant women and young children would have access to such new treatments much faster than is presently the case for new antimalarials. An analysis of mAbs that were successfully developed for oncology illustrates some of the feasibility aspects, and their potential as affordable drugs in low- and middle-income countries.

Insights from modelling malaria vaccines for policy decisions: the focus on RTS,S

Mathematical models are increasingly used to inform decisions throughout product development pathways from pre-clinical studies to country implementation of novel health interventions. This review illustrates the utility of simulation approaches by reviewing the literature on malaria vaccine modelling, with a focus on its link to the development of policy guidance for the first licensed product, RTS,S/AS01. The main contributions of modelling studies have been in inferring the mechanism of action and efficacy profile of RTS,S; to predicting the public health impact; and economic modelling mainly comprising cost-effectiveness analysis. The value of both product-specific and generic modelling of vaccines is highlighted.

Assessing the impact of low-technology emanators alongside long-lasting insecticidal nets to control malaria

Malaria control in sub-Saharan Africa relies on the widespread use of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) or the indoor residual spraying of insecticide. Disease transmission may be maintained even when these indoor interventions are universally used as some mosquitoes will bite in the early morning and evening when people are outside. As countries seek to eliminate malaria, they can target outdoor biting using new vector control tools such as spatial repellent emanators, which emit airborne insecticide to form a protective area around the user. Field data are used to incorporate a low-technology emanator into a mathematical model of malaria transmission to predict its public health impact across a range of scenarios. Targeting outdoor biting by repeatedly distributing emanators alongside LLINs increases the chance of elimination, but the additional benefit depends on the level of anthropophagy in the local mosquito population, emanator effectiveness and the pre-intervention proportion of mosquitoes biting outdoors. High proportions of pyrethroid-resistant mosquitoes diminish LLIN impact because of reduced mosquito mortality. When mosquitoes are highly anthropophagic, this reduced mortality leads to more outdoor biting and a reduced additional benefit of emanators, even if emanators are assumed to retain their effectiveness in the presence of pyrethroid resistance. Different target product profiles are examined, which show the extra epidemiological benefits of spatial repellents that induce mosquito mortality. This article is part of the theme issue 'Novel control strategies for mosquito-borne diseases'.

Costs of continuing RTS,S/ASO1E malaria vaccination in the three malaria vaccine pilot implementation countries

Background

The RTS,S/ASO1_E malaria vaccine is being piloted in three countries—Ghana, Kenya, and Malawi—as part of a coordinated evaluation led by the World Health Organization, with support from global partners. This study estimates the costs of continuing malaria vaccination upon completion of the pilot evaluation to inform decision-making and planning around potential further use of the vaccine in pilot areas.

Methods

We used an activity-based costing approach to estimate the incremental costs of continuing to deliver four doses of RTS,S/ASO1_E through the existing Expanded Program on Immunization platform, from each government’s perspective. The RTS,S/ASO1_E pilot introduction plans were reviewed and adapted to identify activities for costing. Key informant interviews with representatives from Ministries of Health (MOH) were conducted to inform the activities, resource requirements, and assumptions that, in turn, inform the analysis. Both financial and economic costs per dose, cost of delivery per dose, and cost per fully vaccinated child (FVC) are estimated and reported in 2017 USD units.

Results

At a vaccine price of $5 per dose and assuming the vaccine is donor-funded, our estimated incremental financial costs range from $1.70 (Kenya) to $2.44 (Malawi) per dose, $0.23 (Malawi) to $0.71 (Kenya) per dose delivered (excluding procurement add-on costs), and $11.50 (Ghana) to $13.69 (Malawi) per FVC. Estimates of economic costs per dose are between three and five times higher than financial costs. Variations in activities used for costing, procurement add-on costs, unit costs of per diems, and allowances contributed to differences in cost estimates across countries.

Conclusion

Cost estimates in this analysis are meant to inform country decision-makers as they face the question of whether to continue malaria vaccination, should the intervention receive a positive recommendation for broader use. Additionally, important cost drivers for vaccine delivery are highlighted, some of which might be influenced by global and country-specific financing and existing procurement mechanisms. This analysis also adds to the evidence available on vaccine delivery costs for products delivered outside the standard immunization schedule.

Malaria transmission-blocking drugs: implications and future perspectives

As the world gets closer to eliminating malaria, the scientific community worldwide has begun to realize the importance of malaria transmission-blocking interventions. The onus of breaking the life cycle of the human malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum predominantly rests upon transmission-blocking drugs because of emerging resistance to commonly used schizonticides and insecticides. This third part of our review series on malaria transmission-blocking entails transmission-blocking potential of preclinical transmission-blocking antimalarials and other non-malaria drugs/experimental compounds that are not in clinical or preclinical development for malaria but possess transmission-blocking potential. Collective analysis of the structure and the activity of these experimental compounds might pave the way toward generation of novel prototypes of next-generation transmission-blocking drugs.

A Systematic Review of the Incremental Costs of Implementing a New Vaccine in the Expanded Program of Immunization in Sub-Saharan Africa

Background. The World Health Organization is planning a pilot introduction of a new malaria vaccine in three sub-Saharan African countries. To inform considerations about including a new vaccine in the vaccination program of those and other countries, estimates from the scientific literature of the incremental costs of doing so are important. Methods. A systematic review of scientific studies reporting the costs of recent vaccine programs in sub-Saharan countries was performed. The focus was to obtain from each study an estimate of the cost per dose of vaccine administered excluding the acquisition cost of the vaccine and wastage. Studies published between 2000 and 2018 and indexed on PubMed could be included and results were standardized to 2015 US dollars (US$). Results. After successive screening of 2119 titles, and 941 abstracts, 58 studies with 80 data points (combinations of country, vaccine type, and vaccination approach-routine v. campaign) were retained. Most studies used the so-called ingredients approach as costing method combining field data collection with documented unit prices per cost item. The categorization of cost items and the extent of detailed reporting varied widely. Across the studies, the mean and median cost per dose administered was US$1.68 and US$0.88 with an interquartile range of US$0.54 to US$2.31. Routine vaccination was more costly than campaigns, with mean cost per dose of US$1.99 and US$0.88, respectively. Conclusion. Across the studies, there was huge variation in the cost per dose delivered, between and within countries, even in studies using consistent data collection tools and analysis methods, and including many health facilities. For planning purposes, the interquartile range of US$0.54 to US$2.31 may be a sufficiently precise estimate.

Economic Impact of Introducing the RTS,S Malaria Vaccine: Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact Analysis in 41 Countries

Background. Malaria is a major public health burden in sub-Saharan Africa. This study estimated the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of adding four-dose malaria vaccination in infants or children to existing interventions in 41 endemic countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Methods. A static Markov cohort model followed a simulated 2017 birth cohort (36.5 million children) for 15 years in 5-day cycles, comparing three strategies: child vaccination (doses at ages 6, 7.5, 9, and 27 months); infant vaccination (doses at ages 6, 10, and 14 weeks and 21 months); no malaria vaccination. The base-case analysis was conducted from the health system perspective with vaccine price assumed at USD5/dose and annual discounting of 3% for costs and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). Efficacy was based on the Phase III RTS,S clinical trial. Results. The model projected that 24.6 million children, or 26.2 million infants, would be vaccinated. Compared with no vaccination, child (infant) vaccination was projected to avert 16.8 million (16 million) cases of malaria and 113,000 (107,000) malaria deaths in the birth cohort over the 15-year period. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was USD200/DALY averted (USD225/DALY averted) for child (infant) vaccination, which represents 14% (17%) of the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita threshold. The estimated budget impact was overall larger for infant vaccination but mixed situations occurred across countries. Vaccine price, discount rate, and parasite prevalence had the largest effect on cost-effectiveness. Conclusions. Child vaccination with RTS,S would be more cost-effective than infant vaccination across countries. Adding RTS,S malaria vaccination to existing interventions would be cost-effective assuming one GDP per capita threshold for both child and infant vaccination in all examined countries except for 6 countries with lower transmission.