Search

Background National vaccine adoption decisions may be better understood by linking multiple data sources. When examining countries’ decisions to adopt the hepatitis A vaccine, applying multiple research methods can facilitate assessments of gaps between evidence and policy. We conducted a literature review on hepatitis A and stakeholder interviews about decisions to adopt the vaccine in six countries (Chile, India, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, and Taiwan). Methods A systematic literature review was conducted across five literature databases. The review identified and abstracted 340 articles, supplemented by internet search. In addition, we interviewed 62 experts and opinion leaders on hepatitis A and/or vaccines. Data from the two sources were analyzed to identify gaps around epidemiologic data, economic data, and barriers/facilitators of hepatitis A vaccine adoption. Results Epidemiologic data gaps were found in Chile and Russia, where stakeholders believed data to be more solid than the literature documented. Economic data on hepatitis A was found to be weak across all countries despite stakeholders’ agreement on its importance. Barriers and facilitators of vaccine adoption such as political will, prioritization among vaccines, and global or local recommendations were discussed more by stakeholders than the literature. Stakeholders in India and Mexico were not concerned with the lack of data, despite growing recognition in the literature of the epidemiological transition and threat of outbreaks. Conclusions Triangulation of results from two methods captured a richer story behind vaccine adoption decisions for hepatitis A. The discrepancy between policymakers’ beliefs and existing data suggest a decline in priority of hepatitis A or weak investment in data collection. Filling the confirmed data gaps in seroprevalence or economic data is important to help guide policy decisions. Greater communication of the risk of hepatitis A and the benefits of the vaccine may help countries undergoing the epidemiologic transition.

Objectives The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) anticipated that growing demand for new vaccines could sufficiently impact the vaccines market to allow low-income countries (LICs) to self-finance new vaccines. But the time required to lower vaccine prices was underestimated and the amount that prices would decline overestimated. To better understand how prices in the LIC vaccine market can be impacted, the vaccine market was retrospectively examined. Design GAVI archives and the published literature on the vaccine markets in LICs were reviewed for the purpose of identifying GAVI’s early assumptions for the evolution of vaccine prices, and contrasting these retrospectively with actual outcomes. Results The prices in Phases I and II of GAVI-supported vaccines failed to decline to a desirable level within a projected 5-year timeframe. GAVI-eligible countries were unable to sustain newly introduced vaccines without prolonged donor support. Two key lessons can be applied to future vaccine market-shaping strategies: (1) accurate demand forecasting together with committed donor funding can increase supply to the LIC vaccines market, but even greater strides can be made to increase the certainty of purchase; and (2) the expected time to lower prices took much longer than 5 years; market competition is inherently linked to the development time for new vaccines—a minimum of 5–10 or more years. Other factors that can lower vaccine prices include: large-scale production or alternate financing mechanisms that can hasten vaccine price maturation. Conclusions The impacts of competition on vaccine prices in the LIC new-vaccines market occurred after almost 10 years. The time for research and development, acquisition of technological know-how and to scale production must be accounted for to more accurately predict significant declines on vaccine prices. Alternate financing mechanisms and the use of purchase agreements should also be considered for lowering prices when planning new vaccine introductions.

For the influenza pandemic of 2009–2010, countries responded to the direct threat of influenza but may have missed opportunities and strategies to limit secondary pneumococcal infections. Delivering both vaccines together can potentially increase pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) immunization rates and prevent additional hospitalizations and mortality in the elderly and other high-risk groups. We used PubMed to review the literature on the concomitant use of PPV23 with seasonal influenza vaccines. Eight of 9 clinical studies found that a concomitant program conferred clinical benefits. The 2 studies that compared the cost-effectiveness of different strategies found concomitant immunization to be more cost-effective than either vaccine given alone. Policymakers should consider a stepwise strategy to reduce the burden of secondary pneumococcal infections during seasonal and pandemic influenza outbreaks.

Rapid uptake of new vaccines can improve health and wealth and contribute to meeting Millennium Development Goals. In the past, however, the introduction and use of new vaccines has been characterized by delayed uptake in the countries where the need is greatest. Based on experience with accelerating the adoption of Hib, pneumococcal and rotavirus vaccines, we propose here a framework for new vaccine adoption that may be useful for future efforts. The framework organizes the major steps in the process into a continuum from evidence to policy, implementation and finally access. It highlights the important roles of different actors at various times in the process and may allow new vaccine initiatives to save time and improve their efficiency by anticipating key steps and actions.