IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1003003.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The projected impact of geographic targeting of oral cholera vaccination in sub-Saharan Africa: A modeling study

Author

Listed:
  • Elizabeth C Lee
  • Andrew S Azman
  • Joshua Kaminsky
  • Sean M Moore
  • Heather S McKay
  • Justin Lessler

Abstract

Background: Cholera causes an estimated 100,000 deaths annually worldwide, with the majority of burden reported in sub-Saharan Africa. In May 2018, the World Health Assembly committed to reducing worldwide cholera deaths by 90% by 2030. Oral cholera vaccine (OCV) plays a key role in reducing the near-term risk of cholera, although global supplies are limited. Characterizing the potential impact and cost-effectiveness of mass OCV deployment strategies is critical for setting expectations and developing cholera control plans that maximize the chances of success. Methods and findings: We compared the projected impacts of vaccination campaigns across sub-Saharan Africa from 2018 through 2030 when targeting geographically according to historical cholera burden and risk factors. We assessed the number of averted cases, deaths, and disability-adjusted life years and the cost-effectiveness of these campaigns with models that accounted for direct and indirect vaccine effects and population projections over time. Under current vaccine supply projections, an approach optimized to targeting by historical burden is projected to avert 828,971 (95% CI 803,370–859,980) cases (equivalent to 34.0% of projected cases; 95% CI 33.2%–34.8%). An approach that balances logistical feasibility with targeting historical burden is projected to avert 617,424 (95% CI 599,150–643,891) cases. In contrast, approaches optimized for targeting locations with limited access to water and sanitation are projected to avert 273,939 (95% CI 270,319–277,002) and 109,817 (95% CI 103,735–114,110) cases, respectively. We find that the most logistically feasible targeting strategy costs US$1,843 (95% CI 1,328–14,312) per DALY averted during this period and that effective geographic targeting of OCV campaigns can have a greater impact on cost-effectiveness than improvements to vaccine efficacy and moderate increases in coverage. Although our modeling approach does not project annual changes in baseline cholera risk or directly incorporate immunity from natural cholera infection, our estimates of the relative performance of different vaccination strategies should be robust to these factors. Conclusions: Our study suggests that geographic targeting substantially improves the cost-effectiveness and impact of oral cholera vaccination campaigns. Districts with the poorest access to improved water and sanitation are not the same as districts with the greatest historical cholera incidence. While OCV campaigns can improve cholera control in the near term, without rapid progress in developing water and sanitation services or dramatic increases in OCV supply, our results suggest that vaccine use alone is unlikely to allow us to achieve the 2030 goal. In this modeling study, Elizabeth Lee and colleagues estimate the effectiveness of different strategies for targeting oral cholera vaccination in sub-Saharan Africa.Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • Elizabeth C Lee & Andrew S Azman & Joshua Kaminsky & Sean M Moore & Heather S McKay & Justin Lessler, 2019. "The projected impact of geographic targeting of oral cholera vaccination in sub-Saharan Africa: A modeling study," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(12), pages 1-17, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1003003
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003003
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003003&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1003003. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.