BackgroundMalaria is the number one public health problem in Nigeria, responsible for about 30% of deaths in under-fives and 25% of deaths in infants and 11% maternal mortality. This study estimated the economic burden of malaria in Nigeria using the cost of illness approach.MethodsA cross-sectional study was undertaken in two malaria holo-endemic communities in Nigeria, involving both community and hospital based surveys. A random sample of 500 households was interviewed using interviewer administered questionnaire. In addition, 125 exit interviews for inpatient department stays (IPD) and outpatient department visits (OPD) were conducted and these were complemented with data abstraction from 125 patient records.ResultsFrom the household survey, over half of the households (57.6%) had an episode of malaria within one month to the date of the interview. The average household expenditure per case was 12.57US$ and 23.20US$ for OPD and IPD respectively. Indirect consumer costs of treatment were higher than direct consumer medical costs. From a health system perspective, the recurrent provider costs per case was 30.42 US$ and 48.02 US$ for OPD and IPD while non recurrent provider costs were 133.07US$ and 1857.15US$ for OPD and IPD. The mode of payment was mainly through out-of-pocket spending (OOPS).ConclusionPrivate expenditure on treatment of malaria constitutes a high economic burden to households and to the health system. Removal of user fees and interventions that will decrease the use of OOPS for treatment of malaria will significantly decrease the economic burden of malaria to both households and the health system.

To empower governments to formulate rational policies without pressure from any group, and to increase the use of evidence-based decision-making to adapt global recommendations on immunization to their local context, the WHO has recommended on multiple occasions that countries should establish National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs). The World Health Assembly (WHA) reinforced those recommendations in 2012 when Member States endorsed the Decade of Vaccines Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP). NITAGs are multidisciplinary groups of national experts responsible for providing independent, evidence-informed advice to health authorities on all policy-related issues for all vaccines across all populations. In 2012, according to the WHO-UNICEF Joint Reporting Form, among 57 countries eligible for immunization program financial support from the GAVI Alliance, only 9 reported having a functional NITAG. Since 2008, the Supporting Independent Immunization and Vaccine Advisory Committees (SIVAC) Initiative (at the Agence de Médecine Préventive or AMP) in close collaboration with the WHO and other partners has been working to accelerate and systematize the establishment of NITAGs in low- and middle-income countries. In addition to providing direct support to countries to establish advisory groups, the initiative also supports existing NITAGs to strengthen their capacity in the use of evidence-based processes for decision-making aligned with international standards. After 5 years of implementation and based on lessons learned, we recommend that future efforts should target both expanding new NITAGs and strengthening existing NITAGs in individual countries, along three strategic lines: (i) reinforce NITAG institutional integration to promote sustainability and credibility, (ii) build technical capacity within NITAG secretariats and evaluate NITAG performance, and (iii) increase networking and regional collaborations. These should be done through the development and dissemination of tools and guidelines, and information through a variety of adapted mechanisms.

The majority of industrialized and some developing countries have established National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs). To enable systematic global monitoring of the existence and functionality of NITAGs, in 2011, WHO and UNICEF included related questions in the WHO/UNICEF Joint Reporting Form (JRF) that provides an official means to globally collect indicators of immunization program performance. These questions relate to six basic process indicators. According to the analysis of the 2013 JRF, data for 2012, notable progress was achieved between 2010 and 2012 and by the end of 2012, 99 countries (52%) reported the existence of a NITAG with a formal legislative or administrative basis (with a high of 86% in the Eastern Mediterranean Region - EMR), among the countries that reported data in the NITAG section of the JRF. There were 63 (33%) countries with a NITAG that met six process indicators (47% increase over the 43 reported in 2010) including a total of 38 developing countries. 11% of low income countries reported a NITAG that meets all six process criteria, versus 29% of middle income countries and 57% of the high income ones. Countries with smaller populations reported the existence of a NITAG that meets all six process criteria less frequently than more populated countries (23% for less populated countries versus 43% for more populated ones). However, progress needs to be accelerated to reach the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP) target of ensuring all countries have support from a NITAG. The GVAP represents a major opportunity to boost the institutionalization of NITAGs. A special approach needs to be explored to allow small countries to benefit from sub-regional or other countries advisory groups.

National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) provide independent, evidence-informed advice to assist their governments in immunization policy formation. However, many NITAGs face challenges in fulfilling their roles. Hence the many requests for formation of a network linking NITAGs together so they can learn from each other. To address this request, the Health Policy and Institutional Development (HPID) Center (a WHO Collaborating Center at the Agence de Médecine Préventive - AMP), in collaboration with WHO, organized a meeting in Veyrier-du-Lac, France, on 11 and 12 May 2016, to establish a Global NITAG Network (GNN). The meeting focused on two areas: the requirements for (a) the establishment of a global NITAG collaborative network; and (b) the global assessment/evaluation of the performance of NITAGs. 35 participants from 26 countries reviewed the proposed GNN framework documents and NITAG performance evaluation. Participants recommended that a GNN should be established, agreed on its governance, function, scope and a proposed work plan as well as setting a framework for NITAG evaluation.

Background.National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) are established by national authorities to provide them with independent, bias-free, objective, and evidence-based advice on vaccines and immunization challenges. As of December 2015, 125 countries have reported having set up an NITAG. The Health Policy and Institutional Development Center at the Agence de Médecine Préventive, a World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborative Center for evidence-informed immunization, through its Supporting Independent Immunization and Vaccine Advisory Committees (SIVAC) Initiative project, provides assistance to low- and middle-income countries in the establishment and strengthening of their NITAGs. The Indonesian NITAG (ITAGI) was formed in December 2006 and Uganda’s (UNITAG) was formed in November 2014. Both Uganda and Indonesia have introduced inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) as part of the Global Polio Eradication and Endgame Strategic Plan (the Endgame plan). The authors reflect on the process and the role played by NITAGs in the introduction of IPV in the routine immunization program and the lessons learned.Methods.This commentary is a reflection of the authors’ experience on NITAG’s role as observed in 2 particular local settings and applied to a global public health issue, the polio eradication Endgame plan. The reflection is backed up by the relevant (policy and technical) documents on polio eradication, along with minutes and reports from countries’ ministries of health, immunization programs, WHO, and NITAGs.Results.NITAGs are valuable tools for ministries of health to ensure sustainable, evidence-informed immunization policies that are trusted and accepted by their communities. Early engagement with NITAGs also ensures that the adoption of strategies addressing global public health threats at the country level reinforces the national immunization programs. On the other end, when NITAGs are proactive and forward-thinking, they can contribute to a smooth and effective introduction of the above-mentioned strategies. Time and resources are key factors to ensure optimal performance of NITAGs.