4.5 Article

Economic evaluation of typhoid vaccination in a prolonged typhoid outbreak setting: The case of Kasese district in Uganda

期刊

VACCINE
卷 33, 期 17, 页码 2079-2085

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.02.027

关键词

Typhoid; Typhoid vaccination; Uganda; Cost-effectiveness

资金

  1. Intramural CDC HHS [CC999999] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Vaccination has been increasingly promoted to help control epidemic and endemic typhoid fever in high-incidence areas. Despite growing recognition that typhoid incidence in some areas of sub-Saharan Africa is similar to high-incidence areas of Asia, no large-scale typhoid vaccination campaigns have been conducted there. We performed an economic evaluation of a hypothetical one-time, fixed-post typhoid vaccination campaign in Kasese, a rural district in Uganda where a large, multi-year outbreak of typhoid fever has been reported. Methods: We used medical cost and epidemiological data retrieved on-site and campaign costs from previous fixed-post vaccination campaigns in Kasese to account for costs from a public sector health care delivery perspective. We calculated program costs and averted disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and medical costs as a result of vaccination, to calculate the cost of the intervention per DALY and case averted. Results: Over the 3 years of projected vaccine efficacy, a one-time vaccination campaign was estimated to avert 1768 (90%CI: 684-4431) typhoid fever cases per year and a total of 3868 (90%CI: 1353-9807) DALYs over the duration of the immunity conferred by the vaccine. The cost of the intervention per DALY averted was US$ 484 (90%CI: 18-1292) and per case averted US$ 341 (90%CI: 13-883). Conclusion: We estimated the vaccination campaign in this setting to be highly cost-effective, according to WHO's cost-effective guidelines. Results may be applicable to other African settings with similar high disease incidence estimates. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据