Effective RI microplanning requires accurate population estimates and maps showing health facilities and locations of villages and target populations. Traditional microplanning relies on census figures to project target populations and on community estimates of distances, while GIS microplanning uses satellite imagery to estimate target populations and spatial analyses to estimate distances. This paper estimates the cost-effectiveness of geographical information systems (GIS)-based microplanning for routine immunization (RI) programming in two states in northern Nigeria. For our cost-effectiveness analysis, we captured the cost of all inputs for both approaches to capture the incremental cost of GIS over traditional microplanning and present the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for each vaccine-preventable illness, death, and disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. We considered two scenarios for estimating vaccine requirements for each microplanning approach, one based on administrative vaccination coverage rates and one based on National Nutrition and Health Survey rates. With the administrative rates, GIS microplanning projected approximately 194,000 and 157,000 more required vaccinations than traditional microplanning in Bauchi and Sokoto States; with the survey rates, the additional number of vaccinations required was nearly 113,000 in Bauchi and about 47,000 in Sokoto. For each state under each scenario, we present numbers of and costs per measles and pertussis cases, deaths, and DALYs averted by the additional vaccinations, as well as annual costs. As expected, GIS-based microplanning incurs higher costs than traditional microplanning, due mainly to the additional vaccinations required for populations previously unreached. Our estimates of cost per DALY averted suggest, however, that GIS microplanning is more cost-effective than traditional microplanning in both states under both coverage scenarios and that the higher costs incurred by GIS microplanning are worth adopting.

Most cases of rubella and congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) occur in low- and middle-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recently recommended that countries accelerate the uptake of rubella vaccination and the GAVI Alliance is now supporting large scale measles-rubella vaccination campaigns. We performed a review of health economic evaluations of rubella and CRS to identify gaps in the evidence base and suggest possible areas of future research to support the planned global expansion of rubella vaccination and efforts towards potential rubella elimination and eradication.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommended widespread use of the RTS,S/AS01 (RTS,S) malaria vaccine among children residing in regions of moderate to high malaria transmission. This recommendation is informed by RTS,S evidence, including findings from the pilot rollout of the vaccine in Ghana, Kenya, and Malawi. This study estimates the incremental costs of introducing and delivering the malaria vaccine within routine immunization programs in the context of malaria vaccine pilot introduction, to help inform decision-making. An activity-based, retrospective costing was conducted from the governments' perspective. Vaccine introduction and delivery costs supported by the donors during the pilot introduction were attributed as costs to the governments under routine implementation. Detailed resource use data were extracted from the pilot program expenditure and activity reports for 2019-2021. Primary data from representative health facilities were collected to inform recurrent operational and service delivery costs.Costs were categorized as introduction or recurrent costs. Both financial and economic costs were estimated and reported in 2020 USD. The cost of donated vaccine doses was evaluated at $2, $5 and $10 per dose and included in the economic cost estimates. Financial costs include the procurement add on costs for the donated vaccines and immunization supplies, along with other direct expenses. At a vaccine price of $5 per dose, the incremental cost per dose administered across countries ranges from $2.30 to $3.01 (financial), and $8.28 to $10.29 (economic). The non-vaccine cost of delivery ranges between $1.04 and $2.46 (financial) and $1.52 and $4.62 (economic), by country. Considering only recurrent costs, the non-vaccine cost of delivery per dose ranges between $0.29 and $0.89 (financial) and $0.59 and $2.29 (economic), by country. Introduction costs constitute between 33% and 71% of total financial costs. Commodity and procurement add-on costs are the main cost drivers of total cost across countries. Incremental resource needs for implementation are dependent on country's baseline immunization program capacity constraints. The financial costs of introducing RTS,S are comparable with costs of introducing other new vaccines. Country resource requirements for malaria vaccine introduction are most influenced by vaccine price and potential donor funding for vaccine purchases and introduction support.

Background Since 2000, the incidence of measles and rubella has declined as measles–rubella (MR) vaccine coverage increased due to intensified routine immunisation (RI) and supplementary immunisation activities (SIAs). The World Health Assembly commissioned a feasibility assessment of eliminating measles and rubella. The objective of this paper is to present the findings of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of ramping up MR vaccination with a goal of eliminating transmission in every country. Methods We used projections of impact of routine and SIAs during 2018–2047 for four scenarios of ramping up MR vaccination. These were combined with economic parameters to estimate costs and disability-adjusted life years averted under each scenario. Data from the literature were used for estimating the cost of increasing routine coverage, timing of SIAs and introduction of rubella vaccine in countries. Results The CEA showed that all three scenarios with ramping up coverage above the current trend were more cost-effective in most countries than the 2018 trend for both measles and rubella. When the measles and rubella scenarios were compared with each other, the most cost-effective scenario was likely to be the most accelerated one. Even though this scenario is costlier, it averts more cases and deaths and substantially reduces the cost of treatment. Conclusions The Intensified Investment scenario is likely the most cost-effective of the vaccination scenarios evaluated for reaching both measles and rubella disease elimination. Some data gaps on costs of increasing coverage were identified and future efforts should focus on filling these gaps.

In this article, we review the feasibility of mass vaccination against cholera and estimate the global population at risk for epidemic cholera. We then examine the cost of establishing and managing a cholera vaccine stockpile and summarize published mathematical models of the estimated impact of reactive vaccination campaigns developed for the current Haitian outbreak and a recent outbreak in Zimbabwe. On the basis of these evaluations, we recommend a stockpile that starts at 2 million doses, with an estimated annual cost of $5.5–$13.9 million in 2013, and grows to 10 million doses per year by 2017, with an annual cost of $27–$51 million. We believe that the stockpile can enhance efforts to mitigate future cholera outbreaks by guaranteeing the availability of cholera vaccines and, through use of the stockpile, by revealing knowledge about the efficient use of cholera vaccines during and after crises.