Establishing a regional network of academic centers to support decision making for new vaccine introduction in Latin America and the Caribbean: The ProVac experience

Toscano, Cristiana M.; Jaúregui, Bárbara; Janusz, Cara Bess; Sinha, Anushua; Clark, Andrew; Sanderson, Colin; Resch, Stephen; Matus, Cuauhtémoc Ruiz; Andrus, Jon Kim

doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.05.033

Cited by 15 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 2010, this academic team became a ProVac Center of Excellence and contributed with the development of methodological guidelines and epidemiologic and costs estimates to validate some PAHO decision models. 38 Most studies included in this review (13/20, 65%) evaluated vaccines introduced in the Brazilian NIP within the last 10 y (pneumococcal conjugate, HPV, rotavirus, meningococcal C conjugate, and hepatitis A) reflecting the local scenario at the time. Pneumococcal conjugate and HPV vaccines, which are used in multi-dose schedules, had high costs soon after marketing, and triggered more debates in the media and intense social pressure for incorporation, 29,39 were subject of more studies (4 and 3 Brazilian studies, respectively).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of health economic evaluations of vaccines in Brazil

Sartori

Rozman

Decimoni

et al. 2017

Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Methods: Systematic review of the literature. We searched multiple databases. Two researchers independently selected the studies and extracted the data. The methodological quality of individual studies was evaluated using CHEERS items. Results: Twenty studies were reviewed. The most evaluated vaccines were pneumococcal (25%) and HPV (15%). The most used types of HEE were cost-effectiveness analysis (45%) and cost-utility analysis (20%). The research question and compared strategies were stated in all 20 studies and the target population was clear in 95%. Nevertheless, many studies did not inform the perspective of analysis or data sources. Conclusions: HEE of vaccines in Brazil has increased since 2008. However, the studies still have methodological deficiencies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of health economic evaluations of vaccines in Brazil

Sartori

Rozman

Decimoni

et al. 2017

Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The strengths of our study are several. First, we used the TRIVAC model, which has been previously used in several countries in LAC: Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Paraguay [15,16,40] and validated by an external expert panel [16,67]. Second, the development of this study was transparent, with various independent, public and private institutions participating; all participants were required to declare any potential conflicts of interest and none were reported; data was registered and based on official communications by organizations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This study employed the TRIVAC cost-effectiveness model, developed by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in collaboration with the PAHO ProVac Initiative [14,15]. The pneumococcal component of TRIVAC (version 2.0) [16] was adapted for Peru to conduct the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) from the perspective of the Government of Peru, including direct costs borne by its public health system-MINSA and the EsSalud Social Security System [17].…”

Section: General Modeling Approach and Comparatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this context, the National Institute of Health of Peru (Instituto Nacional de Salud, INS), the MINSA scientific research branch that provides evidence for public health decision-making, with support from the ProVac Initiative of the Pan American Health Organization (Washington, DC, USA; PAHO) [14,15], carried out this EE. The study objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of introducing the PCV10 versus the PCV13 to the National Immunization Schedule for prevention of IPD in children <5 years of age in Peru.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cost-effectiveness analysis of 10- and 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines in Peru

Mezones‐Holguín

Canelo‐Aybar

Clark

et al. 2015

Vaccine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tObjective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of introducing the 10-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV10) versus the 13-valent PCV (PCV13) to the National Immunization Schedule in Peru for prevention of pneumococcal disease (PD) in children <5 years of age. Methods: The integrated TRIVAC vaccine cost-effectiveness model from the Pan American Health Organization's ProVac Initiative (version 2.0) was applied from the perspective of the Government of Peru. Twenty successive cohorts of children from birth to 5 years were evaluated. Clinical outcomes were pneumococcal pneumonia (PP), pneumococcal meningitis (PM), pneumococcal sepsis (PS) and acute otitis media from any causes (AOM). Measures included prevention of cases, neurological sequelae (NS), auditory sequelae (AS), deaths and disability adjusted life years (DALYs). A sensitivity analyses was also performed. Findings: For the 20 cohorts, net costs with PCV10 and PCV13 were US$ 363.26 million and US$ 408.26 million, respectively. PCV10 prevented 570,273 AOM; 79,937 PP; 2217 PM; 3049 PS; 282 NS; 173 AS; and 7512 deaths. PCV13 prevented 419,815 AOM; 112,331 PN; 3116 PM; 4285 PS; 404 NS; 248 AS;and 10,386 deaths. Avoided DALYs were 226,370 with PCV10 and 313,119 with PCV13. Saved treatment costs were US$ 37.39 million with PCV10 and US$ 47.22 million with PCV13. Costs per DALY averted were US$ 1605 for PCV10, and US$ 1304 for PCV13. Sensitivity analyses showed similar results. PCV13 has an extended dominance over PCV10. Conclusion: Both pneumococcal vaccines are cost effective in the Peruvian context. Although the net cost of vaccination with PCV10 is lower, PCV13 prevented more deaths, pneumococcal complications and sequelae. Costs per each prevented DALY were lower with PCV13. Thus, PCV13 would be the preferred policy; PCV10 would also be reasonable (and cost-saving relative to the status quo) if for some reason 13-valent were not feasible.

show abstract

“…While similar initiatives to strengthen evidence-based national decision-making for the introduction of new vaccines have been developed, these have focused on existing vaccines for diseases such as Haemophilus influenzae type B and pneumococcal infections [32]. However, Mexico has already had experience in being an early introducer of vaccines, such as in the case of the 2005 rotavirus vaccine, in which it played a crucial role in generating the appropriate evidence for the first licensing of the vaccine worldwide, doing so even before the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) [33].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%