Adam John Ritchie, Aronrag Meeyai, Caroline Trotter, Alexander D Douglas
{"title":"在中低收入国家,常规的儿童狂犬病暴露前预防措施具有成本效益。","authors":"Adam John Ritchie, Aronrag Meeyai, Caroline Trotter, Alexander D Douglas","doi":"10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.126703","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pre-exposure prophylactic rabies vaccination (PrEP) is advised for travellers to countries with high rabies incidence, but rarely available for local residents. Some studies suggest poor cost-effectiveness of PrEP in such settings, but have generally focused upon post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) cost savings as the main benefit of PrEP, without considering lives saved by PrEP efficacy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We compared incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of use of rabies PrEP, against an alternative of using only PEP, by adapting a decision-tree model previously used to inform Gavi's investment in rabies PEP. We consider scenarios including: a range of PrEP efficacies in individuals unable to access PEP; PrEP costs significantly below current prices (through single-dose approaches, inclusion in childhood vaccination schedules, increased manufacturing volume and/or new low-cost products); and variable rabies exposure risk and PEP access. We also present results from a simplified model, designed for ease of understanding.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Modelled ICERs were <1000 USD per quality adjusted life year (QALY) across a range of plausible combinations of rabies exposure risk, PEP access, PrEP cost and PrEP efficacy. If PrEP efficacy exceeds 50 % over 15 years, we estimate ICERs <500 USD/QALY where rabies incidence ≥3 per 100,000 per year and cost of vaccination is ≤5 USD/child. Under scenarios with lower rabies incidence of around 0.3 per 100,000 per year, due either to more limited exposure or greater access to PEP, ICERs <3000 USD may still be achieved even if PrEP efficacy is as low as 30 %.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Routine childhood PrEP may be cost-effective in settings with modest willingness-to-pay, and rabies exposure risks plausible across much of Africa and South Asia. Cost-effectiveness requires low-cost PrEP regimes and some efficacy of PrEP in individuals unable to access PEP. Under such conditions, PrEP may be an attractive additional tool in the fight against rabies.</p>","PeriodicalId":94264,"journal":{"name":"Vaccine","volume":"47 ","pages":"126703"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Routine childhood rabies pre-exposure prophylaxis can be cost effective in low- and middle-income countries.\",\"authors\":\"Adam John Ritchie, Aronrag Meeyai, Caroline Trotter, Alexander D Douglas\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.126703\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pre-exposure prophylactic rabies vaccination (PrEP) is advised for travellers to countries with high rabies incidence, but rarely available for local residents. Some studies suggest poor cost-effectiveness of PrEP in such settings, but have generally focused upon post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) cost savings as the main benefit of PrEP, without considering lives saved by PrEP efficacy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We compared incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of use of rabies PrEP, against an alternative of using only PEP, by adapting a decision-tree model previously used to inform Gavi's investment in rabies PEP. We consider scenarios including: a range of PrEP efficacies in individuals unable to access PEP; PrEP costs significantly below current prices (through single-dose approaches, inclusion in childhood vaccination schedules, increased manufacturing volume and/or new low-cost products); and variable rabies exposure risk and PEP access. We also present results from a simplified model, designed for ease of understanding.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Modelled ICERs were <1000 USD per quality adjusted life year (QALY) across a range of plausible combinations of rabies exposure risk, PEP access, PrEP cost and PrEP efficacy. If PrEP efficacy exceeds 50 % over 15 years, we estimate ICERs <500 USD/QALY where rabies incidence ≥3 per 100,000 per year and cost of vaccination is ≤5 USD/child. Under scenarios with lower rabies incidence of around 0.3 per 100,000 per year, due either to more limited exposure or greater access to PEP, ICERs <3000 USD may still be achieved even if PrEP efficacy is as low as 30 %.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Routine childhood PrEP may be cost-effective in settings with modest willingness-to-pay, and rabies exposure risks plausible across much of Africa and South Asia. Cost-effectiveness requires low-cost PrEP regimes and some efficacy of PrEP in individuals unable to access PEP. Under such conditions, PrEP may be an attractive additional tool in the fight against rabies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94264,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vaccine\",\"volume\":\"47 \",\"pages\":\"126703\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vaccine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.126703\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vaccine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.126703","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:建议前往狂犬病高发国家的旅行者接种暴露前预防性狂犬病疫苗 (PrEP),但当地居民很少接种。一些研究表明,在这种情况下,PrEP 的成本效益较低,但一般都将接触后预防(PEP)成本的节省作为 PrEP 的主要效益,而没有考虑到 PrEP 的疗效所挽救的生命:我们比较了使用狂犬病 PrEP 和仅使用 PEP 的增量成本效益比 (ICER),方法是调整以前用于为 Gavi 投资狂犬病 PEP 提供信息的决策树模型。我们考虑的方案包括:在无法获得 PEP 的个人中使用一系列 PrEP 效果;PrEP 成本大大低于当前价格(通过单剂量方法、纳入儿童疫苗接种计划、增加生产量和/或新的低成本产品);以及可变的狂犬病暴露风险和 PEP 获取途径。我们还介绍了为便于理解而设计的简化模型的结果:结果:模拟的 ICER 为在支付意愿不高、非洲和南亚大部分地区狂犬病暴露风险合理的情况下,常规儿童 PrEP 可能具有成本效益。要实现成本效益,就必须采用低成本的 PrEP 方案,并且 PrEP 对无法获得 PEP 的人具有一定的疗效。在这样的条件下,PrEP 可能会成为抗击狂犬病的一个有吸引力的额外工具。
Routine childhood rabies pre-exposure prophylaxis can be cost effective in low- and middle-income countries.
Background: Pre-exposure prophylactic rabies vaccination (PrEP) is advised for travellers to countries with high rabies incidence, but rarely available for local residents. Some studies suggest poor cost-effectiveness of PrEP in such settings, but have generally focused upon post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) cost savings as the main benefit of PrEP, without considering lives saved by PrEP efficacy.
Methods: We compared incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of use of rabies PrEP, against an alternative of using only PEP, by adapting a decision-tree model previously used to inform Gavi's investment in rabies PEP. We consider scenarios including: a range of PrEP efficacies in individuals unable to access PEP; PrEP costs significantly below current prices (through single-dose approaches, inclusion in childhood vaccination schedules, increased manufacturing volume and/or new low-cost products); and variable rabies exposure risk and PEP access. We also present results from a simplified model, designed for ease of understanding.
Results: Modelled ICERs were <1000 USD per quality adjusted life year (QALY) across a range of plausible combinations of rabies exposure risk, PEP access, PrEP cost and PrEP efficacy. If PrEP efficacy exceeds 50 % over 15 years, we estimate ICERs <500 USD/QALY where rabies incidence ≥3 per 100,000 per year and cost of vaccination is ≤5 USD/child. Under scenarios with lower rabies incidence of around 0.3 per 100,000 per year, due either to more limited exposure or greater access to PEP, ICERs <3000 USD may still be achieved even if PrEP efficacy is as low as 30 %.
Conclusions: Routine childhood PrEP may be cost-effective in settings with modest willingness-to-pay, and rabies exposure risks plausible across much of Africa and South Asia. Cost-effectiveness requires low-cost PrEP regimes and some efficacy of PrEP in individuals unable to access PEP. Under such conditions, PrEP may be an attractive additional tool in the fight against rabies.