Leila A Haidari1, Brian Wahl2, Shawn T Brown3, Lois Privor-Dumm2, Cecily Wallman-Stokes2, Katie Gorham4, Diana L Connor5, Angela R Wateska5, Benjamin Schreiber6, Hamadou Dicko7, Philippe Jaillard7, Melanie Avella7, Bruce Y Lee8. 1. Public Health Computational and Operations Research (PHICOR), Pittsburgh PA (formerly) and Baltimore MD (currently), United States; Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center (PSC), Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, United States. 2. International Vaccine Access Center (IVAC), Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States. 3. Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center (PSC), Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, United States. 4. Public Health Computational and Operations Research (PHICOR), Pittsburgh PA (formerly) and Baltimore MD (currently), United States; International Vaccine Access Center (IVAC), Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States. 5. Public Health Computational and Operations Research (PHICOR), Pittsburgh PA (formerly) and Baltimore MD (currently), United States. 6. UNICEF, NY, NY, United States. 7. Agence de Médicine Préventive (AMP), Paris, France; Agence de Médicine Préventive (AMP), Cotonou, Benin. 8. Public Health Computational and Operations Research (PHICOR), Pittsburgh PA (formerly) and Baltimore MD (currently), United States; International Vaccine Access Center (IVAC), Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States. Electronic address: brucelee@jhu.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While the size and type of a vaccine container (i.e., primary container) can have many implications on the safety and convenience of a vaccination session, another important but potentially overlooked consideration is how the design of the primary container may affect the distribution of the vaccine, its resulting cost, and whether the vial is ultimately opened. METHODS: Using our HERMES software platform, we developed a simulation model of the World Health Organization Expanded Program on Immunization supply chain for the Republic of Benin and used the model to explore the effects of different primary containers for various vaccine antigens. RESULTS: Replacing vaccines with presentations containing fewer doses per vial reduced vaccine availability (proportion of people arriving for vaccines who are successfully immunized) by as much as 13% (from 73% at baseline) and raised logistics costs by up to $0.06 per dose administered (from $0.25 at baseline) due to increased bottlenecks, while reducing total costs by as much as $0.15 per dose administered (from $2.52 at baseline) due to lower open vial wastage. Primary containers with a greater number of doses per vial each improved vaccine availability by 19% and reduced logistics costs by $0.05 per dose administered, while reducing the total costs by up to $0.25 per dose administered. Changes in supply chain performance were more extreme in departments with greater constraints. Implementing a vial opening threshold reversed the direction of many of these effects. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that one size may not fit all when choosing a primary vaccine container. Rather, the choice depends on characteristics of the vaccine, the vaccine supply chain, immunization session size, and goals of decision makers. In fact, the optimal vial size may vary among locations within a country. Simulation modeling can help identify tailored approaches to improve availability and efficiency.
BACKGROUND: While the size and type of a vaccine container (i.e., primary container) can have many implications on the safety and convenience of a vaccination session, another important but potentially overlooked consideration is how the design of the primary container may affect the distribution of the vaccine, its resulting cost, and whether the vial is ultimately opened. METHODS: Using our HERMES software platform, we developed a simulation model of the World Health Organization Expanded Program on Immunization supply chain for the Republic of Benin and used the model to explore the effects of different primary containers for various vaccine antigens. RESULTS: Replacing vaccines with presentations containing fewer doses per vial reduced vaccine availability (proportion of people arriving for vaccines who are successfully immunized) by as much as 13% (from 73% at baseline) and raised logistics costs by up to $0.06 per dose administered (from $0.25 at baseline) due to increased bottlenecks, while reducing total costs by as much as $0.15 per dose administered (from $2.52 at baseline) due to lower open vial wastage. Primary containers with a greater number of doses per vial each improved vaccine availability by 19% and reduced logistics costs by $0.05 per dose administered, while reducing the total costs by up to $0.25 per dose administered. Changes in supply chain performance were more extreme in departments with greater constraints. Implementing a vial opening threshold reversed the direction of many of these effects. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that one size may not fit all when choosing a primary vaccine container. Rather, the choice depends on characteristics of the vaccine, the vaccine supply chain, immunization session size, and goals of decision makers. In fact, the optimal vial size may vary among locations within a country. Simulation modeling can help identify tailored approaches to improve availability and efficiency.
Authors: Shawn T Brown; Benjamin Schreiber; Brigid E Cakouros; Angela R Wateska; Hamadou M Dicko; Diana L Connor; Philippe Jaillard; Mercy Mvundura; Bryan A Norman; Carol Levin; Jayant Rajgopal; Mélanie Avella; Caroline Lebrun; Erin Claypool; Proma Paul; Bruce Y Lee Journal: Vaccine Date: 2014-05-09 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Bruce Y Lee; Bryan A Norman; Tina-Marie Assi; Sheng-I Chen; Rachel R Bailey; Jayant Rajgopal; Shawn T Brown; Ann E Wiringa; Donald S Burke Journal: Vaccine Date: 2010-06-03 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Bruce Y Lee; Tina-Marie Assi; Korngamon Rookkapan; Diana L Connor; Jayant Rajgopal; Vorasith Sornsrivichai; Shawn T Brown; Joel S Welling; Bryan A Norman; Sheng-I Chen; Rachel R Bailey; Ann E Wiringa; Angela R Wateska; Anirban Jana; Willem G Van Panhuis; Donald S Burke Journal: Vaccine Date: 2011-03-23 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Sarah N Cox; Patrick T Wedlock; Sarah W Pallas; Elizabeth A Mitgang; Tatenda T Yemeke; Sarah M Bartsch; Taiwo Abimbola; Sheryl S Sigemund; Aaron Wallace; Sachiko Ozawa; Bruce Y Lee Journal: Vaccine Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Bruce Y Lee; Patrick T Wedlock; Elizabeth A Mitgang; Sarah N Cox; Leila A Haidari; Manoja K Das; Srihari Dutta; Bhrigu Kapuria; Shawn T Brown Journal: BMJ Glob Health Date: 2019-09-05
Authors: Lassané Kaboré; Bertrand Meda; Isaie Médah; Stephanie Shendale; Laura Nic Lochlainn; Colin Sanderson; Mâ Ouattara; William M F Kaboré; Edouard Betsem; Ikechukwu U Ogbuanu Journal: Vaccine Date: 2020-10-17 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Allison Portnoy; Kelsey Vaughan; Emma Clarke-Deelder; Christian Suharlim; Stephen C Resch; Logan Brenzel; Nicolas A Menzies Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Patrick T Wedlock; Elizabeth A Mitgang; Sheryl S Siegmund; Jay DePasse; Jennifer Bakal; Jim Leonard; Joel Welling; Shawn T Brown; Bruce Y Lee Journal: Vaccine Date: 2018-08-23 Impact factor: 3.641