Impact of changing the measles vaccine vial size on Niger's vaccine supply chain: a computational model

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many countries, such as Niger, are considering changing their vaccine vial size presentation and may want to evaluate the subsequent impact on their supply chains, the series of steps required to get vaccines from their manufacturers to patients. The measles vaccine is particularly important in Niger, a country prone to measles outbreaks.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We developed a detailed discrete event simulation model of the vaccine supply chain representing every vaccine, storage location, refrigerator, freezer, and transport device (e.g., cold trucks, 4 × 4 trucks, and vaccine carriers) in the Niger Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI). Experiments simulated the impact of replacing the 10-dose measles vial size with 5-dose, 2-dose and 1-dose vial sizes.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Switching from the 10-dose to the 5-dose, 2-dose and 1-dose vial sizes decreased the average availability of EPI vaccines for arriving patients from 83% to 82%, 81% and 78%, respectively for a 100% target population size. The switches also changed transport vehicle's utilization from a mean of 58% (range: 4-164%) to means of 59% (range: 4-164%), 62% (range: 4-175%), and 67% (range: 5-192%), respectively, between the regional and district stores, and from a mean of 160% (range: 83-300%) to means of 161% (range: 82-322%), 175% (range: 78-344%), and 198% (range: 88-402%), respectively, between the district to integrated health centres (IHC). The switch also changed district level storage utilization from a mean of 65% to means of 64%, 66% and 68% (range for all scenarios: 3-100%). Finally, accounting for vaccine administration, wastage, and disposal, replacing the 10-dose vial with the 5 or 1-dose vials would increase the cost per immunized patient from $0.47US to$0.71US and $1.26US, respectively.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The switch from the 10-dose measles vaccines to smaller vial sizes could overwhelm the capacities of many storage facilities and transport vehicles as well as increase the cost per vaccinated child.</p

Maintaining Vaccine Delivery Following the Introduction of the Rotavirus and Pneumococcal Vaccines in Thailand

Although the substantial burdens of rotavirus and pneumococcal disease have motivated many countries to consider introducing the rotavirus vaccine (RV) and heptavalent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV-7) to their National Immunization Programs (EPIs), these new vaccines could affect the countries' vaccine supply chains (i.e., the series of steps required to get a vaccine from their manufacturers to patients). We developed detailed computational models of the Trang Province, Thailand, vaccine supply chain to simulate introducing various RV and PCV-7 vaccine presentations and their combinations. Our results showed that the volumes of these new vaccines in addition to current routine vaccines could meet and even exceed (1) the refrigerator space at the provincial district and sub-district levels and (2) the transport cold space at district and sub-district levels preventing other vaccines from being available to patients who arrive to be immunized. Besides the smallest RV presentation (17.1 cm3/dose), all other vaccine introduction scenarios required added storage capacity at the provincial level (range: 20 L–1151 L per month) for the three largest formulations, and district level (range: 1 L–124 L per month) across all introduction scenarios. Similarly, with the exception of the two smallest RV presentation (17.1 cm3/dose), added transport capacity was required at both district and sub-district levels. Added transport capacity required across introduction scenarios from the provincial to district levels ranged from 1 L–187 L, and district to sub-district levels ranged from 1 L–13 L per shipment. Finally, only the smallest RV vaccine presentation (17.1 cm3/dose) had no appreciable effect on vaccine availability at sub-districts. All other RV and PCV-7 vaccines were too large for the current supply chain to handle without modifications such as increasing storage or transport capacity. Introducing these new vaccines to Thailand could have dynamic effects on the availability of all vaccines that may not be initially apparent to decision-makers

Augmenting Transport versus Increasing Cold Storage to Improve Vaccine Supply Chains

Background:When addressing the urgent task of improving vaccine supply chains, especially to accommodate the introduction of new vaccines, there is often a heavy emphasis on stationary storage. Currently, donations to vaccine supply chains occur largely in the form of storage equipment.Methods:This study utilized a HERMES-generated detailed, dynamic, discrete event simulation model of the Niger vaccine supply chain to compare the impacts on vaccine availability of adding stationary cold storage versus transport capacity at different levels and to determine whether adding stationary storage capacity alone would be enough to relieve potential bottlenecks when pneumococcal and rotavirus vaccines are introduced by 2015.Results:Relieving regional level storage bottlenecks increased vaccine availability (by 4%) more than relieving storage bottlenecks at the district (1% increase), central (no change), and clinic (no change) levels alone. Increasing transport frequency (or capacity) yielded far greater gains (e.g., 15% increase in vaccine availability when doubling transport frequency to the district level and 18% when tripling). In fact, relieving all stationary storage constraints could only increase vaccine availability by 11%, whereas doubling the transport frequency throughout the system led to a 26% increase and tripling the frequency led to a 30% increase. Increasing transport frequency also reduced the amount of stationary storage space needed in the supply chain. The supply chain required an additional 61,269L of storage to relieve constraints with the current transport frequency, 55,255L with transport frequency doubled, and 51,791L with transport frequency tripled.Conclusions:When evaluating vaccine supply chains, it is important to understand the interplay between stationary storage and transport. The HERMES-generated dynamic simulation model showed how augmenting transport can result in greater gains than only augmenting stationary storage and can reduce stationary storage needs. © 2013 Haidari et al

Cost-effectiveness of increasing vaccination in high-risk adults aged 18–64 Years: a model-based decision analysis

Abstract Background Adults aged 18–64 years with comorbid conditions are at high risk for complications of certain vaccine-preventable diseases, including influenza and pneumococcal disease. The 4 Pillars™ Practice Transformation Program (4 Pillars Program) increases uptake of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, influenza vaccine and tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine by 5–10% among adults with high-risk medical conditions, but its cost-effectiveness is unknown. Methods A decision tree model estimated the cost-effectiveness of implementing the 4 Pillars Program in primary care practices compared to no program for a population of adults 18–64 years of age at high risk of illness complications over a 10 year time horizon. Vaccination rates and intervention costs were derived from a randomized controlled cluster trial in diverse practices in 2 U.S. cities. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results From a third-party payer perspective, which considers direct medical costs, the 4 Pillars Program cost $28,301 per quality-adjusted life year gained; from a societal perspective, which adds direct nonmedical and indirect costs, the program was cost saving and more effective than no intervention. Cost effectiveness results favoring the program were robust in sensitivity analyses. From a public health standpoint, the model predicted that the intervention reduced influenza cases by 1.4%, with smaller decreases in pertussis and pneumococcal disease cases. Conclusion The 4 Pillars Practice Transformation Program is an economically reasonable, and perhaps cost saving, strategy for protecting the health of adults aged < 65 years with high-risk medical condition

An intervention to improve pneumococcal vaccination uptake in high risk 50-64 year olds vs. expanded age-based recommendations: an exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis

In the U.S., pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) uptake among high-risk adults aged <65 years is consistently low and improvement is needed. One barrier to improved vaccine coverage is the complexity of the adult vaccination schedule. This exploratory analysis compared the cost-effectiveness of strategies to increase pneumococcal vaccine uptake in high-risk adults aged 50–64 years. We used a Markov model to compare strategies for non-immunocompromised 50–64 year olds: 1) current pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) recommendations; 2) current recommendations enhanced by an intervention; 3) PPSV23 plus pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) for high-risk patients with no intervention; or 4) both vaccines for all 50-year-olds with no intervention. Parameters included CDC data and other US data, varied extensively in sensitivity analyses. In the analysis, vaccinating high-risk individuals with PPSV23/PCV13 was the least costly strategy, with total costs of $424/person. Vaccinating all 50 year olds with PPSV23/PCV13 cost$40 more and gained 0.00068 quality-adjusted life years (QALY), or $57,786/QALY gained. Current recommendations with or without an intervention program were more expensive and less effective than other strategies. In multi-way sensitivity analyses, the current recommendations/intervention program strategy was favored at a$100,000/QALY threshold only if non-bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia rate or PCV13 serotype coverage were substantially lower than base case values. Thus, an intervention program to improve pneumococcal vaccine uptake among high-risk 50–64 year-olds was not cost-effective in most scenarios. High-risk individuals receiving both PCV13 and PPSV23 could be economically favorable, and vaccinating all 50-year-olds with both vaccines could be considered