| Literature DB >> 29966516 |
Affan Shoukat1, Thomas Vilches2, Seyed M Moghadas3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A number of Zika vaccine platforms are currently being investigated, some of which have entered clinical trials. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a potential Zika vaccine candidate under the WHO Vaccine Target Product Profile for outbreak response, prioritizing women of reproductive age to prevent microcephaly and other neurological disorders.Entities:
Keywords: Agent-based modeling; Cost-effectiveness; Microcephaly; Vaccination; Zika
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29966516 PMCID: PMC6029035 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-018-1091-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med ISSN: 1741-7015 Impact factor: 8.775
Parameter values and their associated ranges used for simulations and cost-effectiveness analysis
| Parameter description | Baseline value (range) | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Transmission probability for infection | Baseline for | [ |
| Human to mosquito | 0.2851 to 0.3947 depending on the assumed relative transmissibility of asymptomatic infection compared to symptomatic infection from 0.9 down to 0.1 | Transmissibility was estimated by calibrating the model to the basic reproduction number in the range 1.9–2.8 [ |
| Mosquito to human | Assumed the same as human to mosquito | |
| Relative transmissibility of asymptomatic infection | 0.1–0.9 | [ |
| Human infection parameters | ||
| Intrinsic incubation period | Mean: 5.7 days (Lognormal); shape = 1.72; scale = 0.21 | [ |
| Infectious period | Mean: 4.7 days (Lognormal); shape = 1.54; scale = 0.12 | [ |
| Risk of infection through sexual encounter | 1–5% | [ |
| Fraction of infected cases experiencing asymptomatic infection | 40–80% | [ |
| Risk of Guillain–Barré Syndrome (GBS) | 0.025–0.06% | [ |
| Mosquito lifespan and infection parameters | ||
| Seasonal lifespan determined by a hazard function (Additional file | Mean for high temperature season: 19.6 days | [ |
| Extrinsic incubation period | Mean: 10 days (Lognormal); shape = 2.28; scale = 0.21 | [ |
| Number of mosquito bites | Determined by Poisson sampling with the mean of half-life for each mosquito | [ |
| Risk of microcephaly | ||
| First trimester (ends at 97 days of pregnancy) | 5–14% | [ |
| Second and third trimester | 3–5% | |
| Life expectancy | ||
| Without microcephaly | 70 years | [ |
| With microcephaly | 35 years | |
| Probability of survival past first year of life for infants with microcephaly | 0.798 | [ |
| Pre-existing level of herd immunity | ||
| From previous outbreaks | 8% (2.2–11%) | [ |
| Vaccination coverage | ||
| Non-pregnant women from 15 to 49 years of age | 60% | Assumed |
| Pregnant women | 80% | |
| Other individuals from 9 to 60 years of age | 10% | |
| Vaccine efficacy | ||
| Preventing infection | 60–90% | Assumed; sampled for each vaccinated individual |
| Costs | ||
| Direct medical costs of microcephaly | US$91,925 per lifetime | [ |
| Direct medical costs of GBS | US$29,027 per lifetime | |
| Costs of physician visit for symptomatic cases | US$65 | [ |
| Zika test for symptomatic pregnant women | US$150 | [ |
| Vaccine costs per individual (includes dose, transportation, administration, wastage) | US$2–$50 | Assumed [ |
| Cost-effectiveness rates | ||
| Disability weight for microcephaly | 0.16 | [ |
| Annual discount rate | 3% | Assumed |
Fig. 1Boxplots for ICER values obtained using bootstrap method for a range of VCPI with R0=2.2. Subplots correspond to the scenarios without pre-existing immunity (a, b), and with an average of 8% pre-existingimmunity (c, d) in the population. The relative transmissibility of asymptomatic infection was set to 10% (a, c) and 90% (b, d). Solid (grey) line represents the willingness-to-pay threshold corresponding to the averageof per capita GDP of Colombia between 2013 and 2017
Fig. 2Probabilities of vaccine being cost-effective for a range of VCPI and willingness-to-pay, with R0 =2.2. Subplots correspond to the scenarios without pre-existing immunity (a, b), and with an average of 8% pre-existingimmunity (c, d) in the population. The relative transmissibility of asymptomatic infection was set to 10% (a,c) and 90% (b,d). Solid line represents the willingness-to-pay threshold corresponding to the average of per capita GDP of Colombia between 2013 and 2017. Dashed line represents three times the average of per capita GDP of Colombia. The red curve represents the 90% probability of vaccine being cost-effective for a given VCPI
Fig. 3Boxplots for ICER values obtained using bootstrap method for a range of VCPI with R0 =2.8. Subplots correspond to the scenarios without pre-existing immunity (a, b), and with an average of 8% pre-existing immunity (c, d) in the population. The relative transmissibility of asymptomatic infection was set to 10% (a, c) and 90% (b, d). Solid (grey) line represents the willingness-to-pay threshold corresponding to the average of per capita GDP of Colombia between 2013 and 2017
Fig. 4Probabilities of vaccine being cost-effective for a range of VCPI and willingness-to-pay, with R0 =2.8. Subplots correspond to the scenarios without pre-existing immunity (a, b), and with an average of 8% pre-existingimmunity (c, d) in the population. The relative transmissibility of asymptomatic infection was set to 10% (a,c) and 90% (b, d). Solid line represents the willingness-to-pay threshold corresponding to the average of percapita GDP of Colombia between 2013 and 2017. Dashed line represents three times the average of per capita GDP of Colombia. The red curve represents the 90% probability of vaccine being cost-effective for a given VCPI
Upper range of vaccination costs per individual (US dollar) for a Zika vaccine candidate to be cost-saving (ICER < 0), highly cost-effective (WTP of per capita GDP) or cost-effective (WTP of three times per capita GDP)
| 0% herd immunity | 8% herd immunity | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RTA | 10% | 90% | 10% | 90% | ||||||||
| WTP | WTP | WTP | WTP | |||||||||
|
| ICER < 0 | $6610 | $19,832 | ICER < 0 | $6610 | $19,832 | ICER < 0 | $6610 | $19,832 | ICER < 0 | $6610 | $19,832 |
| 2.2 | $6 | $10 | $16 | $12 | $16 | $29 | $4 | $7 | $13 | $6 | $8 | $14 |
| 2.8 | $29 | $38 | $53 | $35 | $45 | $66 | $16 | $22 | $35 | $20 | $27 | $45 |
ICER incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, RTA relative transmissibility of asymptomatic infection, WTP willingness-to-pay
Fig. 5Distribution of percentage reduction of microcephaly obtained using bootstrap method, with R0 =2.2. Subplots correspond to the scenarios without pre-existing immunity (a, b), and with an average of 8% pre-existingimmunity (c, d) in the population. The relative transmissibility of asymptomatic infection was set to 10% (a ,c) and 90% (b, d). The median percentage reduction is (a) 0·739 (IQR: 0·715 – 0·759); (b) 0·723 (IQR: 0·709-0·736); (c) 0·687 (IQR: 0·652 – 0·717); (d) 0·711 (IQR: 0·694 – 0·728)
Fig. 6Distribution of percentage reduction of microcephaly obtained using bootstrap method, with R0 =2.8. Subplots correspond to the scenarios without pre-existing immunity (a, b), and with an average of 8% pre-existing immunity (c, d) in the population. The relative transmissibility of asymptomatic infection was set to 10%(a, c) and 90% (b, d). The median percentage reduction is (a) 0·699 (IQR: 0·687 – 0·712); (b) 0·695 (IQR: 0·687-0·704); (c) 0·666 (IQR: 0·649 – 0·683); (d) 0·670 (IQR: 0·658 – 0·682).