METHODS: This study evaluated the cost effectiveness and impact of dengue vaccination in Malaysia from both provider and societal perspectives using a dynamic transmission mathematical model. The model incorporated sensitivity analyses, Malaysia-specific data, evidence from recent phase III studies and pooled efficacy and long-term safety data to refine the estimates from previous published studies. Unit costs were valued in $US, year 2013 values.
RESULTS: Six vaccination programmes employing a three-dose schedule were identified as the most likely programmes to be implemented. In all programmes, vaccination produced positive benefits expressed as reductions in dengue cases, dengue-related deaths, life-years lost, disability-adjusted life-years and dengue treatment costs. Instead of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), we evaluated the cost effectiveness of the programmes by calculating the threshold prices for a highly cost-effective strategy [ICER <1 × gross domestic product (GDP) per capita] and a cost-effective strategy (ICER between 1 and 3 × GDP per capita). We found that vaccination may be cost effective up to a price of $US32.39 for programme 6 (highly cost effective up to $US14.15) and up to a price of $US100.59 for programme 1 (highly cost effective up to $US47.96) from the provider perspective. The cost-effectiveness analysis is sensitive to under-reporting, vaccine protection duration and model time horizon.
CONCLUSION: Routine vaccination for a population aged 13 years with a catch-up cohort aged 14-30 years in targeted hotspot areas appears to be the best-value strategy among those investigated. Dengue vaccination is a potentially good investment if the purchaser can negotiate a price at or below the cost-effective threshold price.
METHOD: A cross-sectional study was conducted from September to November 2020 among the guardians of 243 Rohingya refugee children studying under the sponsorship of the King Salman Humanitarian Aid and Relief Center, Malaysia.
RESULTS: Among the 243 children, 90 (37%) were unimmunised, 147 (60.5%) were partially immunised and only 6 (2.5%) were fully immunised. The country of child's birth, the child's age and access to healthcare services were significantly associated with unimmunisation (all P<0.05).
DISCUSSION: This study found low immunisation coverage among Rohingya refugee children in Malaysia. Given the low level of coverage, a public health intervention, such as a vaccination program, for this refugee population is necessary.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to provide a critical summary of EEs of PCVs and identify key drivers of EE findings in LMICs.
METHODS: We searched Scopus, ISI Web of Science, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central from their inception to 30 September 2015 and limited the search to LMICs. The search was undertaken using the search strings 'pneumococc* AND conjugat* AND (vaccin* OR immun*)' AND 'economic OR cost-effectiveness OR cost-benefit OR cost-utility OR cost-effectiveness OR cost-benefit OR cost-utility' in the abstract, title or keyword fields. To be included, each study had to be a full EE of a PCV and conducted for an LMIC. Studies were extracted and reviewed by two authors. The review involved standard extraction of the study overview or the characteristics of the study, key drivers or parameters of the EE, assumptions behind the analyses and major areas of uncertainty.
RESULTS: Out of 134 records identified, 22 articles were included. Seven studies used a Markov model for analysis, while 15 studies used a decision-tree analytic model. Eighteen studies performed a cost-utility analysis (CUA), with disability-adjusted life-years, quality-adjusted life-years or life-years gained as a measure of health outcome, while four studies focused only on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Both CEA and CUA findings were provided by eight studies. Herd effects and serotype replacement were considered in 10 and 13 studies, respectively. The current evidence shows that both the 10-valent and 13-valent PCVs are probably cost effective in comparison with the 7-valent PCV or no vaccination. The most influential parameters were vaccine efficacy and coverage (in 16 of 22 studies), vaccine price (in 13 of 22 studies), disease incidence (in 11 of 22 studies), mortality from IPD and pneumonia (in 8 of 22 studies) and herd effects (in 4 of 22 studies). The findings were found to be supportive of the products owned by the manufacturers.
CONCLUSION: Our review demonstrated that an infant PCV programme was a cost-effective intervention in most LMICs (in 20 of 22 studies included). The results were sensitive to vaccine efficacy, price, burden of disease and sponsorship. Decision makers should consider EE findings and affordability before adoption of PCVs.
METHODS: Searches were performed until June 2016 using 4 databases: PubMed; Embase; Cochrane Library; and LILACS. The combined WHO, Drummond and CHEERS checklist were used to evaluate the quality of included studies.
RESULTS: Thirty-four studies were included in the review and most of them were conducted in high-income countries. The inclusion of adolescent boys in vaccination program was found to be cost-effective if vaccine price and coverage was low. When coverage for female was above 75%, gender-neutral vaccination was less cost-effective than when targeting only girls aged 9-18 years. Current evidence does not show conclusive proof of greater cost-effectiveness of 9-valent vaccine compared to the older HPV vaccines as the price for 9-valent vaccine was still uncertain. Multicohort immunization strategy was cost-effective in the age range 9-14 years but the upper age limit at which vaccination was no longer cost-effective needs to be further investigated. Key influential parameters identified were duration of vaccine protection, vaccine price, coverage, and discounting rates.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings are expected to support policy-makers in making recommendations for HPV immunization programs on either switching to the 9-valent vaccine or inclusion of adolescent boys' vaccination or extending the age of vaccination.
METHODS: Online databases (PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE and Scopus), reference lists of articles identified, and grey literature (Malaysian Ministry of Health website, WHO website) were systematically searched for relevant literature on pneumococcal serotype distribution across Malaysia up to 10th November 2020. No lower date limit was set to maximise the number of target reports returned. Results of serotypes were split by age categories, including ≤5 years, > 5 years and unreported for those that did not specify.
RESULTS: The search returned 18 relevant results, with a total of 2040 isolates. The most common serotypes across all disease types were 19F (n = 313, 15.3% [95%CI: 13.8-17.0]), 23F (n = 166, 8.1% [95%CI: 7.0-9.4]), 14 (n = 166, 8.1% [95%CI: 7.0-9.4]), 6B (n = 163, 8.0% [95%CI: 6.9-9.2]) and 19A (n = 138, 6.8% [95%CI: 5.8-7.9]).
CONCLUSION: Four of the most common serotypes across all isolate sources in Malaysia are covered by PCV10, while PCV13 provides greater serotype coverage in comparison to PCV10. There is still a need for surveillance studies, particularly those investigating serotypes in children under 5 years of age, to monitor vaccine effectiveness and pneumococcal population dynamic following implementation of PCV10 into routine immunisation.