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 $US47.96) from the provider perspective. The cost-effectiveness analysis is sensitive to under-reporting, vaccine protection duration and model time horizon.
CONCLUSION: Routine vaccination for a population aged 13 years with a catch-up cohort aged 14-30 years in targeted hotspot areas appears to be the best-value strategy among those investigated. Dengue vaccination is a potentially good investment if the purchaser can negotiate a price at or below the cost-effective threshold price.
METHODS: We employ a dynamic Markov model of the effects of vector control on dengue in both vectors and humans over a 15-year period, in six countries: Brazil, Columbia, Malaysia, Mexico, the Philippines, and Thailand. We evaluate the cost (direct medical costs and control programme costs) and cost-effectiveness of sustained vector control, outbreak response and/or medical case management, in the presence of a (hypothetical) highly targeted and low cost immunization strategy using a (non-hypothetical) medium-efficacy vaccine.
RESULTS: Sustained vector control using existing technologies would cost little more than outbreak response, given the associated costs of medical case management. If sustained use of existing or upcoming technologies (of similar price) reduce vector populations by 70-90%, the cost per disability-adjusted life year averted is 2013 US$ 679-1331 (best estimates) relative to no intervention. Sustained vector control could be highly cost-effective even with less effective technologies (50-70% reduction in vector populations) and in the presence of a highly targeted and low cost immunization strategy using a medium-efficacy vaccine.
DISCUSSION: Economic evaluation of the first-ever dengue vaccine is ongoing. However, even under very optimistic assumptions about a highly targeted and low cost immunization strategy, our results suggest that sustained vector control will continue to play an important role in mitigating the impact of environmental change and urbanization on human health. If additional benefits for the control of other Aedes borne diseases, such as Chikungunya, yellow fever and Zika fever are taken into account, the investment case is even stronger. High-burden endemic countries should proceed to map populations to be covered by sustained vector control.
METHODS: Vaccination impact was investigated with an age-structured, host-vector, serotype-specific compartmental model. Parameters related to vaccine efficacy and levels of dengue transmission were estimated using data collected during the phase III efficacy studies. Several vaccination programs, including routine vaccination at different ages with and without large catch-up campaigns, were investigated.
RESULTS: All vaccination programs explored translated into significant reductions in dengue cases at the population level over the first 10years following vaccine introduction and beyond. The most efficient age for vaccination varied according to transmission intensity and 9years was close to the most efficient age across all settings. The combination of routine vaccination and large catch-up campaigns was found to enable a rapid reduction of dengue burden after vaccine introduction.
CONCLUSION: Our analysis suggests that dengue vaccination can significantly reduce the public health impact of dengue in countries where the disease is endemic.
METHODS: This retrospective population-based analysis estimated crude and standardized incidences of VLD and NLD in twelve hospitals in Brazil (n = 3), Mexico (n = 3), and Malaysia (n = 6) over a 1-year period before the introduction of the tetravalent dengue vaccine. Catchment areas were estimated using publicly available population census information and administrative data. The denominator population for incidence rates was calculated, and sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of important assumptions.
RESULTS: Total cases adjudicated as definite VLD were 5, 57, and 56 in Brazil, Mexico, and Malaysia, respectively. Total cases adjudicated as definite NLD were 103, 29, and 26 in Brazil, Mexico, and Malaysia, respectively. Crude incidence rates of cases adjudicated as definite VLD in Brazil, Mexico, and Malaysia were 1.17, 2.60, and 1.48 per 100,000 person-years, respectively. Crude incidence rates of cases adjudicated as definite NLD in Brazil, Mexico, and Malaysia were 4.45, 1.32, and 0.69 per 100,000 person-years, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Background incidence estimates of VLD and NLD obtained in Mexico, Brazil, and Malaysia could provide context for cases occurring after the introduction of the tetravalent dengue vaccine.
METHODS: In this phase IIIb, open-label, multicenter study (NCT02993757), participants were randomized 1:1 to receive 3 CYD-TDV doses 6 months apart and 2 doses of quadrivalent HPV vaccine concomitantly with, or 1 month before (sequentially), the first 2 CYD-TDV doses. Only baseline dengue-seropositive participants received the 3 doses. Antibody levels were measured at baseline and 28 days after each injection using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for HPV-6, -9, -16 and -18, and the 50% plaque reduction neutralization test for the 4 dengue serotypes; immunogenicity results are presented for baseline dengue-seropositive participants. Safety was assessed throughout the study for all participants.
RESULTS: At baseline, 197 of 528 (37.3%) randomized participants were dengue-seropositive [n = 109 (concomitant group) and n = 88 (sequential group)]. After the last HPV vaccine dose, antibody titers for HPV among baseline dengue-seropositive participants were similar between treatment groups, with between-group titer ratios close to 1 for HPV-6 and 0.8 for HPV-11, -16, and -18. After CYD-TDV dose 3, dengue antibody titers were similar between treatment groups for all serotypes [between-group ratios ranged from 0.783 (serotype 2) to 1.07 (serotype 4)]. No safety concerns were identified.
CONCLUSIONS: The immunogenicity and safety profiles of CYD-TDV and quadrivalent HPV vaccines were unaffected when administered concomitantly or sequentially in dengue-seropositive children.