Exploring Shigella vaccine priorities and preferences: Results from a mixed-methods study in low- and middle-income settings.

Background: Shigella is the leading bacterial cause of diarrheal mortality in children and can cause long-term effects on growth and development. No licensed Shigella vaccines currently exist but several promising candidates are in development and could be available in the next five years. Despite Shigella being a well-known public health target of the World Health Organization for decades, given current burden estimates and competing preventable disease priorities in low-income settings, whether the availability of an effective Shigella vaccine will lead to its prioritization and widespread introduction among countries at highest risk is unknown. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study of national stakeholders and healthcare providers in five countries in Asia and Africa and regional stakeholders in the Pan American Health Organization to identify preferences and priorities for forthcoming Shigella vaccines. Results: In our study of 89 individuals, diarrhea was the most frequently mentioned serious health concern for children under five years. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) was more often considered very concerning than diarrhea or stunting. Shigella awareness was high but not considered a serious health concern by most stakeholders. Most participants were willing to consider adding a new vaccine to the routine immunization schedule but expressed reservations about a Shigella vaccine because of lower perceived burden relative to other preventable diseases and an already crowded schedule; interest was highest among national stakeholders in countries receiving more financial support for immunization. The priority of a Shigella vaccine rose when participants considered vaccine impacts on reducing stunting and AMR. Participants strongly preferred oral and combination vaccines compared to injectable and a single-antigen presentations, citing greater perceived community acceptability. Conclusions: This study provides a critical opportunity to hear directly from country and regional stakeholders about health priorities and preferences around new vaccines. These findings should inform ongoing Shigella vaccine development efforts and eventual vaccine introduction and implementation planning.

Rotavirus vaccine product switch in Ghana: An assessment of service delivery costs, switching costs, and cost-effectiveness.

Ghana introduced rotavirus vaccine (ROTARIX 1-dose presentation) into the routine national immunization program in 2012 and switched to a different product (ROTAVAC 5-dose presentation) in 2020. ROTAVAC has a lower price per dose (US$0.85 versus US$2.15 for ROTARIX) and smaller cold chain footprint but requires more doses per regimen (three versus two). This study estimates the supply chain and service delivery costs associated with each product, the costs involved in switching products, and compares the cost-effectiveness of both products over the next ten years. We estimated the supply chain and service delivery costs associated with ROTARIX and ROTAVAC (evaluating both the 5-dose and 10-dose presentations) using primary data collected from health facilities in six of the 14 regions in the country. We estimated the costs of switching from ROTARIX to ROTAVAC using information collected from key informant interviews and financial records provided by the government. All costs were reported in 2020 US$. We used the UNIVAC decision-support model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness (US$ per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted from government and societal perspectives) of ROTARIX and ROTAVAC (5-dose or 10-dose presentations) compared to no vaccination, and to each other, over a ten-year period (2020 to 2029). We ran probabilistic sensitivity analyses and other threshold analyses. The supply chain and service delivery economic cost per dose was $2.40 for ROTARIX, $1.81 for ROTAVAC 5-dose, and $1.76 for ROTAVAC 10-dose. The financial and economic cost of switching from ROTARIX to ROTAVAC 5-dose was $453,070 and $883,626, respectively. Compared to no vaccination, the cost per DALY averted was $360 for ROTARIX, $298 for ROTAVAC 5-dose, and $273 for ROTAVAC 10-dose. ROTAVAC 10-dose was the most cost-effective option and would be cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds exceeding 0.12 times the national GDP per capita ($2,206 in the year 2020). The switch from ROTARIX to ROTAVAC 5-dose in 2020 was cost-saving. Rotavirus vaccination is highly cost-effective in Ghana. A switch from ROTAVAC 5-dose to ROTAVAC 10-dose would be cost-saving and should be considered.

Vaccine wastage in Ghana, Mozambique, and Pakistan: An assessment of wastage rates for four vaccines and the context, causes, drivers, and knowledge, attitudes and practices for vaccine wastage.

Vaccine procurement costs comprise a significant share of immunization program costs in low- and middle-income countries, yet not all procured vaccines are administered. Vaccine wastage occurs due to vial breakage, excessive heat or freezing, expiration, or when not all doses in a multidose vial are used. Better estimates of vaccine wastage rates and their causes could support improved management of vaccine stocks and reduce procurement costs. This study examined aspects of wastage for four vaccines at service delivery points in Ghana (n = 48), Mozambique (n = 36), and Pakistan (n = 46). We used prospective data from daily and monthly vaccine usage data entry forms, along with cross-sectional surveys, and in-depth interviews. The analysis found that estimated monthly proportional open-vial wastage rates for vaccines in single-dose vials (SDV) or in multi-dose vials (MDV) that can be kept refrigerated up to four weeks after opening ranged from 0.08 % to 3 %. For MDV where remaining doses are discarded within six hours after opening, the mean wastage rates ranged from 5 % to 33 %, with rates being highest for measles containing vaccine. Despite national-level guidance to open a vaccine vial even when only one child is present, vaccines in MDV that are discarded within six hours of opening are sometimes offered less frequently than vaccines in SDV or in MDV where remaining doses can be used for up to 4 weeks. This practice can lead to missed opportunities for vaccination. While closed-vial wastage at service delivery points (SDPs) was relatively rare, individual instances can result in large losses, suggesting that monitoring closed-vial wastage should not be neglected. Health workers reported insufficient knowledge of vaccine wastage tracking and reporting methods. Improving reporting forms would facilitate more accurate reporting of all causes of wastage, as would additional training and supportive supervision. Globally, decreasing doses per vial could reduce open-vial wastage.

Post introduction evaluation of the malaria vaccine implementation programme in Ghana, 2021.

BACKGROUND: Malaria remains a public health challenge in Sub-Saharan Africa with the region contributing to more than 90% of global cases in 2020. In Ghana, the malaria vaccine was piloted to assess the feasibility, safety, and its impact in the context of routine use alongside the existing recommended malaria control measures. To obtain context-specific evidence that could inform future strategies of introducing new vaccines, a standardized post-introduction evaluation (PIE) of the successes and challenges of the malaria vaccine implementation programme (MVIP) was conducted. METHODS: From September to December 2021, the WHO Post-Introduction Evaluation (PIE) tool was used to conduct a mixed methods evaluation of the MVIP in Ghana. To ensure representativeness, study sites and participants from the national level, 18 vaccinating districts, and 54 facilities from six of the seven pilot regions were purposively selected. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected using data collection tools that were adapted based on the WHO PIE protocol. We performed summary descriptive statistics on quantitative data, thematic analysis on qualitative data, and triangulation of the results from both sets of analyses. RESULTS: About 90.7% (49/54) of health workers stated that the vaccine introduction process was smooth and contributed to an overall improvement of routine immunisation services. About 87.5% (47/54) of healthcare workers, and 95.8% (90/94) of caregivers accepted RTS,S malaria vaccine. Less than half [46.3%; (25/54)] of the healthcare workers participated in the pre-vaccine introduction training but almost all [94.4%; (51/54)] were able to constitute and administer the vaccine appropriately. About 92.5% (87/94) of caregivers were aware of the RTS,S introduction but only 44.0% (44/94) knew the number of doses needed for maximum protection. Health workers believed that the MVIP has had a positive impact on under five malaria morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: The malaria vaccine has been piloted successfully in Ghana. Intensive advocacy; community engagement, and social mobilization; and regular onsite supportive supervision are critical enablers for successful introduction of new vaccines. Stakeholders are convinced of the feasibility of a nationwide scale up using a phased subnational approach taking into consideration malaria epidemiology and global availability of vaccines.

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.

Healthcare provider perspectives on delivering next generation rotavirus vaccines in five low-to-middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Live oral rotavirus vaccines (LORVs) have significantly reduced rotavirus hospitalizations and deaths worldwide. However, LORVs are less effective in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Next-generation rotavirus vaccines (NGRVs) may be more effective but require administration by injection or a neonatal oral dose, adding operational complexity. Healthcare providers (HPs) were interviewed to assess rotavirus vaccine preferences and identify delivery issues as part of an NGRV value proposition. OBJECTIVE: Determine HP vaccine preferences about delivering LORVs compared to injectable (iNGRV) and neonatal oral (oNGRV) NGRVs. METHODS: 64 HPs from Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Peru, and Senegal were interviewed following a mixed-method guide centered on three vaccine comparisons: LORV vs. iNGRV; LORV vs. oNGRV; oNGRV vs. iNGRV. HPs reviewed attributes for each vaccine in the comparisons, then indicated and explained their preference. Additional questions elicited views about co-administering iNGRV+LORV for greater public health impact, a possible iNGRV-DTP-containing combination vaccine, and delivering neonatal doses. RESULTS: Almost all HPs preferred oral vaccine options over iNGRV, with many emphasizing an aversion to additional injections. Despite this strong preference, HPs described challenges delivering oral doses. Preferences for LORV vs. oNGRV were split, marked by disparate views on rotavirus disease epidemiology and the safety, need, and feasibility of delivering neonatal vaccines. Although overwhelmingly enthusiastic about an iNGRV-DTP-containing combination option, several HPs had concerns. HP views were divided on the feasibility of co-administering iNGRV+LORV, citing challenges around logistics and caregiver sensitization. CONCLUSION: Our findings provide valuable insights on delivering NGRVs in routine immunization. Despite opposition to injectables, openness to co-administering LORV+iNGRV to improve efficacy suggests future HP support of iNGRV if adequately informed of its advantages. Rationales for LORV vs. oNGRV underscore needs for training on rotavirus epidemiology and stronger service integration. Expressed challenges delivering existing LORVs merit further examination and indicate need for improved delivery.

The projected cost-effectiveness and budget impact of HPV vaccine introduction in Ghana.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is responsible for around one-quarter of all cancer deaths among Ghanaian women. Between 2013 and 2015, Ghana conducted a pilot of HPV vaccination among 10-14-year-old girls in four regions; however, the country has yet to introduce the vaccine nationally. This study projected the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of adding HPV vaccination into Ghana's national immunization program. METHODS: We used a proportional outcomes model (UNIVAC, version 1.4) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of introduction with bivalent (Cervarix™) and quadrivalent (Gardasil®) vaccines from government and societal perspectives. Vaccine introduction was modeled to start in 2022 and continue over ten birth cohorts using a combined delivery strategy of school (80%) and community outreach (20%). We modeled vaccination in a single age cohort of 9-year-old girls vs. a multi-age cohort of 9-year-old girls (routine) and 10-14-year-old girls (one-time campaign) compared to no vaccination. Health outcomes included cervical cancer cases, hospitalizations, deaths, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). We applied a discount rate of 3% to costs and outcomes. All monetary units are reported in USD 2018. RESULTS: National HPV vaccination in Ghana was projected to be cost-effective compared to no vaccination in all scenarios evaluated. The most cost-effective and dominant strategy was vaccination among 9-year-old girls, plus a one-time campaign among 10-14-year-old with the bivalent vaccine ($158/DALY averted from the government perspective; 95% credible range: $19-$280/DALY averted). Projected average annual costs of the vaccine program ranged from $11.2 to $15.4 M, depending on strategy. This represents 11-15% of the estimated total immunization costs for 2022 ($100,857,875 based on Ghana's comprehensive Multi-Year Plan for Immunization, 2020-2024). DISCUSSION: Our model suggests that introducing HPV vaccination would be cost-effective in Ghana under any strategy when willingness-to-pay is at least 40% GDP per capita ($881). Inclusion of a one-time catch-up campaign is shown to create greater value for money than routine immunization alone but would incur greater program costs.

National stakeholder preferences for next-generation rotavirus vaccines: Results from a six-country study.

BACKGROUND: Currently available live, oral rotavirus vaccines (LORVs) have significantly reduced severe rotavirus hospitalizations and deaths worldwide. However, LORVs are not as effective in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) where rotavirus disease burden is highest. Next-generation rotavirus vaccine (NGRV) candidates in development may have a greater public health impact where they are needed most. The feasibility and acceptability of possible new rotavirus vaccines were explored as part of a larger public health value proposition for injectable NGRVs in LMICs. OBJECTIVE: To assess national stakeholder preferences for currently available LORVs and hypothetical NGRVs and understand rationales and drivers for stated preferences. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 71 national stakeholders who influence vaccine policy and national programming. Stakeholders from Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Peru, Senegal, and Sri Lanka were interviewed using a mixed-method guide. Vaccine preferences were elicited on seven vaccine comparisons involving LORVs and hypothetical NGRVs based on information presented comparing the vaccines' attributes. Reasons for vaccine preference were elicited in open-ended questions, and the qualitative data were analyzed on key preference drivers. RESULTS: Nearly half of the national stakeholders interviewed preferred a highly effective standalone, injectable NGRV over current LORVs. When presented as having similar efficacy to the LORV, however, very few stakeholders preferred the injectable NGRV, even at substantially lower cost. Similarly, a highly effective standalone injectable NGRV was generally not favored over an equally effective oral NGRV following a neonatal-infant schedule, despite higher cost of the neonatal option. An NGRV-DTP-containing combination vaccine was strongly preferred over all other options, whether delivered alone with efficacy similar to current LORVs or co-administered alongside an LORV (LORV + NGRV-DTP) to increase efficacy. CONCLUSION: Results from these national stakeholder interviews provide valuable insights to inform ongoing and future NGRV research and development.

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

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244995.].

"Top-down bottom-up" estimation of per capita cost of new-born care interventions in four regions of Ghana: beyond implementation to scalability and sustainability.

BACKGROUND: Limited financial, human and material health resources coupled with increasing demand for new-born care services require efficiency in health systems to maximize the available sources for improved health outcomes. Making Every Baby Count Initiative (MEBCI) implemented by local and international partners in 2013 in Ghana aimed at attaining neonatal mortality of 21 per 1000 livebirths by 2018 in four administrative regions in Ghana. MEBCI interventions benefited 4027 health providers, out of which 3453 (86%) were clinical healthcare staff. OBJECTIVE: Determine the per capita cost of the MEBCI interventions towards enhancing new-born care best practices through capacity trainings for frontline clinical and non-clinical staff. METHODS: Parameters for determining per capita cost of the new-born care interventions were estimated using expenditure on trainings, supervisions, monitoring and evaluation, advocacy, administrative/services and medical logistics. Data collection started in October 2017 and ended in September 2018. Data sources for the per capita cost estimations were invoices, expense reports and ledger books at the national, regional and district levels of the health system. RESULTS: Total of 4027 healthcare providers benefited from the MEBCI training activities comprising of 3453 clinical staff and 574 non-clinical personnel. Cumulative cost of implementing the MEBCI interventions did not necessarily match the cost per capita in staff capacity building; average cost per capita for all staff (clinical and non-clinical staff) was approximately US$ 982 compared to a per capita cost of US$ 799 for training only core clinical staff. Average cost per capita for all regions was approximately US$ 965 for all staff compared to US$ 777 per capita cost for only clinical staff. Per capita cost of training was relatively lower in regions with more staff than regions with lower numbers, perhaps due to economies of scale. CONCLUSION: The MEBCI intervention had a wide coverage in terms of training for frontline healthcare providers albeit the associated cost may be potentially unsustainable for Ghana's health system. Emerging digital training platforms could be leveraged to reduce per capita cost of training. Large-scale on-site batch-training approach could also be replaced with facility-based workshops using training of trainers (TOTs) approach to promote efficiency.

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

BACKGROUND: The RTS,S/ASO1E 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/ASO1E through the existing Expanded Program on Immunization platform, from each government's perspective. The RTS,S/ASO1E 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.

Longitudinal estimation of Plasmodium falciparum prevalence in relation to malaria prevention measures in six sub-Saharan African countries.

BACKGROUND: Plasmodium falciparum prevalence (PfPR) is a widely used metric for assessing malaria transmission intensity. This study was carried out concurrently with the RTS,S/AS01 candidate malaria vaccine Phase III trial and estimated PfPR over ≤ 4 standardized cross-sectional surveys. METHODS: This epidemiology study (NCT01190202) was conducted in 8 sites from 6 countries (Burkina Faso, Gabon, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, and Tanzania), between March 2011 and December 2013. Participants were enrolled in a 2:1:1 ratio according to age category: 6 months-4 years, 5-19 years, and ≥ 20 years, respectively, per year and per centre. All sites carried out surveys 1-3 while survey 4 was conducted only in 3 sites. Surveys were usually performed during the peak malaria parasite transmission season, in one home visit, when medical history and malaria risk factors/prevention measures were collected, and a blood sample taken for rapid diagnostic test, microscopy, and haemoglobin measurement. PfPR was estimated by site and age category. RESULTS: Overall, 6401 (survey 1), 6411 (survey 2), 6400 (survey 3), and 2399 (survey 4) individuals were included in the analyses. In the 6 months-4 years age group, the lowest prevalence (assessed using microscopy) was observed in 2 Tanzanian centres (4.6% for Korogwe and 9.95% for Bagamoyo) and Lambaréné, Gabon (6.0%), while the highest PfPR was recorded for Nanoro, Burkina Faso (52.5%). PfPR significantly decreased over the 3 years in Agogo (Ghana), Kombewa (Kenya), Lilongwe (Malawi), and Bagamoyo (Tanzania), and a trend for increased PfPR was observed over the 4 surveys for Kintampo, Ghana. Over the 4 surveys, for all sites, PfPR was predominantly higher in the 5-19 years group than in the other age categories. Occurrence of fever and anaemia was associated with high P. falciparum parasitaemia. Univariate analyses showed a significant association of anti-malarial treatment in 4 surveys (odds ratios [ORs]: 0.52, 0.52, 0.68, 0.41) and bed net use in 2 surveys (ORs: 0.63, 0.68, 1.03, 1.78) with lower risk of malaria infection. CONCLUSION: Local PfPR differed substantially between sites and age groups. In children 6 months-4 years old, a significant decrease in prevalence over the 3 years was observed in 4 out of the 8 study sites. Trial registration Clinical Trials.gov identifier: NCT01190202:NCT. GSK Study ID numbers: 114001.