Despite limitations of glass packaging for vaccines, the industry has been slow to implement alternative formats. Polymer containers may address many of these limitations, such as breakage and delamination. However, the ability of polymer containers to achieve cost of goods sold (COGS) and total cost of delivery (TCOD) competitive with that of glass containers is unclear, especially for cost-sensitive low- and lower-middle-income countries.COGS and TCOD models for oral and parenteral vaccine packaging formats were developed based on information from subject matter experts, published literature, and Kenya’s comprehensive multiyear plan for immunization. Rotavirus and inactivated poliovirus vaccines (IPV) were used as representative examples of oral and parenteral vaccines, respectively. Packaging technologies evaluated included glass vials, blow-fill-seal (BFS) containers, preformed polymer containers, and compact prefilled auto-disable (CPAD) devices in both BFS and preformed formats.For oral vaccine packaging, BFS multi-monodose (MMD) ampoules were the least expensive format, with a COGS of $0.12 per dose. In comparison, oral single-dose glass vials had a COGS of $0.40. BFS MMD ampoules had the lowest TCOD of oral vaccine containers at $1.19 per dose delivered, and ten-dose glass vials had a TCOD of $1.61 per dose delivered. For parenteral vaccines, the lowest COGS was achieved with ten-dose glass vials at $0.22 per dose. In contrast, preformed CPAD devices had the highest COGS at $0.60 per dose. Ten-dose glass vials achieved the lowest TCOD of the parenteral vaccine formats at $1.56 per dose delivered. Of the polymer containers for parenteral vaccines, BFS MMD ampoules achieved the lowest TCOD at $1.89 per dose delivered, whereas preformed CPAD devices remained the most expensive format, at $2.25 per dose delivered.Given their potential to address the limitations of glass and reduce COGS and TCOD, polymer containers deserve further consideration as alternative approaches for vaccine packaging.
Background: After SARS-CoV-2 vaccines become available, they will be deployed to many countries with limited immunization systems. Methods: We conducted a cold chain capacity assessment of a simulated country in the WHO African Region. We combined region-specific data regarding immunization, population, healthcare workforce, and cold storage capacity (upper and lower range and quartile values for national and subnational levels). We used seasonal influenza vaccines as proxies for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. We evaluated the increase in vaccine doses to be administered, doses administered per vaccinator, and cold storage volumes for SARS-CoV-2 campaigns targeting risk groups compared to routine immunization baselines. Findings: Compared to routine immunization, a SARS-CoV-2 vaccination campaign would increase monthly doses administered when targeting risk groups: ≥65 years (29.9%), chronic diseases patients (101.5%), and healthcare workers (1.2%). SARS-CoV-2 vaccination campaigns would increase doses administered per vaccinator for risk groups: ≥65 years (32.5%), chronic diseases patients (110.4%), or healthcare workers (1.4%). Routine vaccine volumes already exceed national level storage capacity for at least 75% of African Region countries, but subnational levels would have sufficient storage capacity for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in all but the lower 25% of African Region countries. Interpretation: SARS-CoV-2 vaccination campaigns would substantially increase doses per vaccinator and cold chain capacity requirements over routine immunization baselines. Pandemic vaccination campaigns would add volume to national level stores already at their limits, but substantial capacity exists at subnational levels for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Immediate attention to strengthening delivery systems is essential to support pandemic vaccine responses in the African Region. Funding: None
Introduction Inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) shortages and evidence of improved immunogenicity of two intradermal (ID) fractional IPV (fIPV) doses compared with one full intramuscular dose led to recommendations for fIPV delivery. To provide evidence on the economics of fIPV, we estimated the cost per child vaccinated using full-dose IPV compared with fIPV in routine and campaign settings. We evaluated the impact on costs of alternative devices facilitating ID administration, vaccine vial sizes, and prices. Methods We used an Excel-based model to estimate the commodity and delivery costs for providing IPV. Commodity costs included vaccine price per dose adjusted for wastage, prices for vaccine administration devices, and safety boxes. Delivery costs included storage costs at each level of the supply chain, transport costs for commodities between levels, and human resource costs for vaccine administration. Model inputs were obtained from various databases and published literature. All costs are reported in 2018 US dollars. Results In both campaign and routine settings, fIPV had a lower cost per child vaccinated than full dosing, despite the assumed higher vaccine wastage with fIPV in routine settings, and even when novel ID administration devices were used. In routine settings, costs per child fully vaccinated with fractional doses were 15% to 48% lower than those with full-dose delivery across different vial sizes. The cost per child vaccinated ranged from $1.84 to $2.65 for fractional doses, depending on the administration device, compared with $3.57 for full dose, when using 5-dose vials. The magnitude of cost reductions with fIPV relative to full-dose IPV was largest with smaller vial sizes and higher vaccine price. Conclusion Adopting fIPV can reduce costs per child vaccinated compared with using full doses, especially as IPV prices increase in the short term and more so when two full doses could be recommended in the future.
Background Influenza vaccination is uncommon in low-resource settings. We evaluated aspects of operational feasibility of influenza vaccination programs targeting risk groups in the WHO African (AFR) and South-East Asian (SEAR) Regions. Methods We estimated routine immunization and influenza vaccination campaign doses, doses per vaccinator, and cold storage requirements for one simulated country in each region using evidence-based population distribution, vaccination schedule, and vaccine volumes. Influenza vaccination targeted persons <5 years, pregnant women, persons with chronic diseases, persons ≥65 years, and healthcare workers (HCW). For the AFR country, we compared vaccine volumes to actual storage capacities. Results Targeting HCW had a small operational impact, and subsequent findings exclude this group. During three-month influenza vaccination campaigns, monthly doses delivered in the AFR country increased from 15.0% for ≥65 years to 93.1% for <5 years and in the SEAR country from 19.6% for pregnant women to 145.0% for persons with chronic diseases. National-level cold storage capacity requirements increased in the AFR country from 4.1% for ≥65 years to 20.3% for <5 years and in the SEAR country from 3.9% for pregnant women to 28.8% for persons with chronic diseases. Subnational-level cold storage capacity requirements increased in the AFR country from 5.9% for ≥65 years to 36.8% for <5 years and the SEAR country from 17.6% for pregnant women to 56.0% for persons with chronic diseases. Conclusions Influenza vaccination of most risk groups will require substantial increases in doses, doses per vaccinator, and cold storage capacity in countries where infrastructure and resources are limited.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.