Cargando…

Public health impact and cost-effectiveness of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine: a systematic comparison of predictions from four mathematical models

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 trial of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine candidate showed modest efficacy of the vaccine against Plasmodium falciparum malaria, but was not powered to assess mortality endpoints. Impact projections and cost-effectiveness estimates for longer timeframes than the trial follow-up...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Penny, Melissa A, Verity, Robert, Bever, Caitlin A, Sauboin, Christophe, Galactionova, Katya, Flasche, Stefan, White, Michael T, Wenger, Edward A, Van de Velde, Nicolas, Pemberton-Ross, Peter, Griffin, Jamie T, Smith, Thomas A, Eckhoff, Philip A, Muhib, Farzana, Jit, Mark, Ghani, Azra C
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4723722/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26549466
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00725-4
_version_ 1782411518461083648
author Penny, Melissa A
Verity, Robert
Bever, Caitlin A
Sauboin, Christophe
Galactionova, Katya
Flasche, Stefan
White, Michael T
Wenger, Edward A
Van de Velde, Nicolas
Pemberton-Ross, Peter
Griffin, Jamie T
Smith, Thomas A
Eckhoff, Philip A
Muhib, Farzana
Jit, Mark
Ghani, Azra C
author_facet Penny, Melissa A
Verity, Robert
Bever, Caitlin A
Sauboin, Christophe
Galactionova, Katya
Flasche, Stefan
White, Michael T
Wenger, Edward A
Van de Velde, Nicolas
Pemberton-Ross, Peter
Griffin, Jamie T
Smith, Thomas A
Eckhoff, Philip A
Muhib, Farzana
Jit, Mark
Ghani, Azra C
author_sort Penny, Melissa A
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The phase 3 trial of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine candidate showed modest efficacy of the vaccine against Plasmodium falciparum malaria, but was not powered to assess mortality endpoints. Impact projections and cost-effectiveness estimates for longer timeframes than the trial follow-up and across a range of settings are needed to inform policy recommendations. We aimed to assess the public health impact and cost-effectiveness of routine use of the RTS,S/AS01 vaccine in African settings. METHODS: We compared four malaria transmission models and their predictions to assess vaccine cost-effectiveness and impact. We used trial data for follow-up of 32 months or longer to parameterise vaccine protection in the group aged 5–17 months. Estimates of cases, deaths, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted were calculated over a 15 year time horizon for a range of levels of Plasmodium falciparum parasite prevalence in 2–10 year olds (PfPR(2–10); range 3–65%). We considered two vaccine schedules: three doses at ages 6, 7·5, and 9 months (three-dose schedule, 90% coverage) and including a fourth dose at age 27 months (four-dose schedule, 72% coverage). We estimated cost-effectiveness in the presence of existing malaria interventions for vaccine prices of US$2–10 per dose. FINDINGS: In regions with a PfPR(2–10) of 10–65%, RTS,S/AS01 is predicted to avert a median of 93 940 (range 20 490–126 540) clinical cases and 394 (127–708) deaths for the three-dose schedule, or 116 480 (31 450–160 410) clinical cases and 484 (189–859) deaths for the four-dose schedule, per 100 000 fully vaccinated children. A positive impact is also predicted at a PfPR(2–10) of 5–10%, but there is little impact at a prevalence of lower than 3%. At $5 per dose and a PfPR(2–10) of 10–65%, we estimated a median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio compared with current interventions of $30 (range 18–211) per clinical case averted and $80 (44–279) per DALY averted for the three-dose schedule, and of $25 (16–222) and $87 (48–244), respectively, for the four-dose schedule. Higher ICERs were estimated at low PfPR(2–10) levels. INTERPRETATION: We predict a significant public health impact and high cost-effectiveness of the RTS,S/AS01 vaccine across a wide range of settings. Decisions about implementation will need to consider levels of malaria burden, the cost-effectiveness and coverage of other malaria interventions, health priorities, financing, and the capacity of the health system to deliver the vaccine. FUNDING: PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Global Good Fund; Medical Research Council; UK Department for International Development; GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance; WHO.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4723722
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47237222016-02-18 Public health impact and cost-effectiveness of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine: a systematic comparison of predictions from four mathematical models Penny, Melissa A Verity, Robert Bever, Caitlin A Sauboin, Christophe Galactionova, Katya Flasche, Stefan White, Michael T Wenger, Edward A Van de Velde, Nicolas Pemberton-Ross, Peter Griffin, Jamie T Smith, Thomas A Eckhoff, Philip A Muhib, Farzana Jit, Mark Ghani, Azra C Lancet Articles BACKGROUND: The phase 3 trial of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine candidate showed modest efficacy of the vaccine against Plasmodium falciparum malaria, but was not powered to assess mortality endpoints. Impact projections and cost-effectiveness estimates for longer timeframes than the trial follow-up and across a range of settings are needed to inform policy recommendations. We aimed to assess the public health impact and cost-effectiveness of routine use of the RTS,S/AS01 vaccine in African settings. METHODS: We compared four malaria transmission models and their predictions to assess vaccine cost-effectiveness and impact. We used trial data for follow-up of 32 months or longer to parameterise vaccine protection in the group aged 5–17 months. Estimates of cases, deaths, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted were calculated over a 15 year time horizon for a range of levels of Plasmodium falciparum parasite prevalence in 2–10 year olds (PfPR(2–10); range 3–65%). We considered two vaccine schedules: three doses at ages 6, 7·5, and 9 months (three-dose schedule, 90% coverage) and including a fourth dose at age 27 months (four-dose schedule, 72% coverage). We estimated cost-effectiveness in the presence of existing malaria interventions for vaccine prices of US$2–10 per dose. FINDINGS: In regions with a PfPR(2–10) of 10–65%, RTS,S/AS01 is predicted to avert a median of 93 940 (range 20 490–126 540) clinical cases and 394 (127–708) deaths for the three-dose schedule, or 116 480 (31 450–160 410) clinical cases and 484 (189–859) deaths for the four-dose schedule, per 100 000 fully vaccinated children. A positive impact is also predicted at a PfPR(2–10) of 5–10%, but there is little impact at a prevalence of lower than 3%. At $5 per dose and a PfPR(2–10) of 10–65%, we estimated a median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio compared with current interventions of $30 (range 18–211) per clinical case averted and $80 (44–279) per DALY averted for the three-dose schedule, and of $25 (16–222) and $87 (48–244), respectively, for the four-dose schedule. Higher ICERs were estimated at low PfPR(2–10) levels. INTERPRETATION: We predict a significant public health impact and high cost-effectiveness of the RTS,S/AS01 vaccine across a wide range of settings. Decisions about implementation will need to consider levels of malaria burden, the cost-effectiveness and coverage of other malaria interventions, health priorities, financing, and the capacity of the health system to deliver the vaccine. FUNDING: PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Global Good Fund; Medical Research Council; UK Department for International Development; GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance; WHO. Elsevier 2016-01-23 /pmc/articles/PMC4723722/ /pubmed/26549466 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00725-4 Text en © 2016 Penny et al. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Articles
Penny, Melissa A
Verity, Robert
Bever, Caitlin A
Sauboin, Christophe
Galactionova, Katya
Flasche, Stefan
White, Michael T
Wenger, Edward A
Van de Velde, Nicolas
Pemberton-Ross, Peter
Griffin, Jamie T
Smith, Thomas A
Eckhoff, Philip A
Muhib, Farzana
Jit, Mark
Ghani, Azra C
Public health impact and cost-effectiveness of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine: a systematic comparison of predictions from four mathematical models
title Public health impact and cost-effectiveness of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine: a systematic comparison of predictions from four mathematical models
title_full Public health impact and cost-effectiveness of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine: a systematic comparison of predictions from four mathematical models
title_fullStr Public health impact and cost-effectiveness of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine: a systematic comparison of predictions from four mathematical models
title_full_unstemmed Public health impact and cost-effectiveness of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine: a systematic comparison of predictions from four mathematical models
title_short Public health impact and cost-effectiveness of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine: a systematic comparison of predictions from four mathematical models
title_sort public health impact and cost-effectiveness of the rts,s/as01 malaria vaccine: a systematic comparison of predictions from four mathematical models
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4723722/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26549466
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00725-4
work_keys_str_mv AT pennymelissaa publichealthimpactandcosteffectivenessofthertssas01malariavaccineasystematiccomparisonofpredictionsfromfourmathematicalmodels
AT verityrobert publichealthimpactandcosteffectivenessofthertssas01malariavaccineasystematiccomparisonofpredictionsfromfourmathematicalmodels
AT bevercaitlina publichealthimpactandcosteffectivenessofthertssas01malariavaccineasystematiccomparisonofpredictionsfromfourmathematicalmodels
AT sauboinchristophe publichealthimpactandcosteffectivenessofthertssas01malariavaccineasystematiccomparisonofpredictionsfromfourmathematicalmodels
AT galactionovakatya publichealthimpactandcosteffectivenessofthertssas01malariavaccineasystematiccomparisonofpredictionsfromfourmathematicalmodels
AT flaschestefan publichealthimpactandcosteffectivenessofthertssas01malariavaccineasystematiccomparisonofpredictionsfromfourmathematicalmodels
AT whitemichaelt publichealthimpactandcosteffectivenessofthertssas01malariavaccineasystematiccomparisonofpredictionsfromfourmathematicalmodels
AT wengeredwarda publichealthimpactandcosteffectivenessofthertssas01malariavaccineasystematiccomparisonofpredictionsfromfourmathematicalmodels
AT vandeveldenicolas publichealthimpactandcosteffectivenessofthertssas01malariavaccineasystematiccomparisonofpredictionsfromfourmathematicalmodels
AT pembertonrosspeter publichealthimpactandcosteffectivenessofthertssas01malariavaccineasystematiccomparisonofpredictionsfromfourmathematicalmodels
AT griffinjamiet publichealthimpactandcosteffectivenessofthertssas01malariavaccineasystematiccomparisonofpredictionsfromfourmathematicalmodels
AT smiththomasa publichealthimpactandcosteffectivenessofthertssas01malariavaccineasystematiccomparisonofpredictionsfromfourmathematicalmodels
AT eckhoffphilipa publichealthimpactandcosteffectivenessofthertssas01malariavaccineasystematiccomparisonofpredictionsfromfourmathematicalmodels
AT muhibfarzana publichealthimpactandcosteffectivenessofthertssas01malariavaccineasystematiccomparisonofpredictionsfromfourmathematicalmodels
AT jitmark publichealthimpactandcosteffectivenessofthertssas01malariavaccineasystematiccomparisonofpredictionsfromfourmathematicalmodels
AT ghaniazrac publichealthimpactandcosteffectivenessofthertssas01malariavaccineasystematiccomparisonofpredictionsfromfourmathematicalmodels