Suchergebnisse

BACKGROUND: There is substantial burden of seasonal influenza in Kenya, which led the government to consider introducing a national influenza vaccination programme. Given the cost implications of a nationwide programme, local economic evaluation data are needed to inform policy on the design and benefits of influenza vaccination. We set out to estimate the cost-effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccination in Kenya. METHODS: We fitted an age-stratified dynamic transmission model to active surveillance data from patients with influenza from 2010 to 2018. Using a societal perspective, we developed a decision tree cost-effectiveness model and estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted for three vaccine target groups: children 6–23 months (strategy I), 2–5 years (strategy II) and 6–14 years (strategy III) with either the Southern Hemisphere influenza vaccine (Strategy A) or Northern Hemisphere vaccine (Strategy B) or both (Strategy C: twice yearly vaccination campaigns, or Strategy D: year-round vaccination campaigns). We assessed cost-effectiveness by calculating incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 1–51% of the annual gross domestic product per capita ($17–$872). RESULTS: The mean number of infections across all ages was 2–15 million per year. When vaccination was well timed to influenza activity, the annual mean ICER per DALY averted for vaccinating children 6–23 months ranged between $749 and $1385 for strategy IA, $442 and $1877 for strategy IB, $678 and $4106 for strategy IC and $1147 and $7933 for strategy ID. For children 2–5 years, it ranged between $945 and $1573 for strategy IIA, $563 and $1869 for strategy IIB, $662 and $4085 for strategy IIC, and $1169 and $7897 for strategy IID. For children 6–14 years, it ranged between $923 and $3116 for strategy IIIA, $1005 and $2223 for strategy IIIB, $883 and $4727 for strategy IIIC and $1467 and $6813 for strategy IIID. Overall, no vaccination ...

BACKGROUND: There is substantial burden of seasonal influenza in Kenya, which led the government to consider introducing a national influenza vaccination programme. Given the cost implications of a nationwide programme, local economic evaluation data are needed to inform policy on the design and benefits of influenza vaccination. We set out to estimate the cost-effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccination in Kenya. METHODS: We fitted an age-stratified dynamic transmission model to active surveillance data from patients with influenza from 2010 to 2018. Using a societal perspective, we developed a decision tree cost-effectiveness model and estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted for three vaccine target groups: children 6-23 months (strategy I), 2-5 years (strategy II) and 6-14 years (strategy III) with either the Southern Hemisphere influenza vaccine (Strategy A) or Northern Hemisphere vaccine (Strategy B) or both (Strategy C: twice yearly vaccination campaigns, or Strategy D: year-round vaccination campaigns). We assessed cost-effectiveness by calculating incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 1-51% of the annual gross domestic product per capita ($17-$872). RESULTS: The mean number of infections across all ages was 2-15 million per year. When vaccination was well timed to influenza activity, the annual mean ICER per DALY averted for vaccinating children 6-23 months ranged between $749 and $1385 for strategy IA, $442 and $1877 for strategy IB, $678 and $4106 for strategy IC and $1147 and $7933 for strategy ID. For children 2-5 years, it ranged between $945 and $1573 for strategy IIA, $563 and $1869 for strategy IIB, $662 and $4085 for strategy IIC, and $1169 and $7897 for strategy IID. For children 6-14 years, it ranged between $923 and $3116 for strategy IIIA, $1005 and $2223 for strategy IIIB, $883 and $4727 for strategy IIIC and $1467 and $6813 for strategy IIID. Overall, no vaccination strategy was cost-effective at the minimum ($17) and median ($445) WTP thresholds. Vaccinating children 6-23 months once a year had the highest mean INMB value at $872 (WTP threshold upper limit); however, this strategy had very low probability of the highest net benefit. CONCLUSION: Vaccinating children 6-23 months once a year was the most favourable vaccination option; however, the strategy is unlikely to be cost-effective given the current WTP thresholds.

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccination during pregnancy benefits mothers and children. Kenya and other low- and middle-income countries have no official influenza vaccination policies to date but are moving towards issuing such policies. Understanding determinants of influenza vaccine uptake during pregnancy in these settings is important to inform policy decisions and vaccination rollout. METHODS: We interviewed a convenience sample of women at antenatal care facilities in four counties (Nairobi, Mombasa, Marsabit, Siaya) in Kenya. We described knowledge and attitudes regarding influenza vaccination and assessed factors associated with willingness to receive influenza vaccine. RESULTS: We enrolled 507 pregnant women, median age was 26 years (range 15–43). Almost half (n = 240) had primary or no education. Overall, 369 (72.8%) women had heard of influenza. Among those, 288 (78.1%) believed that a pregnant woman would be protected if vaccinated, 252 (68.3%) thought it was safe to receive a vaccine while pregnant, and 223 (60.4%) believed a baby would be protected if mother was vaccinated. If given opportunity, 309 (83.7%) pregnant women were willing to receive the vaccine. Factors associated with willingness to receive influenza vaccine were mothers' belief in protective effect (OR 3.87; 95% CI 1.56, 9.59) and safety (OR 5.32; 95% CI 2.35, 12.01) of influenza vaccines during pregnancy. CONCLUSION: Approximately one third of pregnant women interviewed had never heard of influenza. Willingness to receive influenza vaccine was high among women who had heard about influenza. If the Kenyan government recommends influenza vaccine for pregnant women, mitigation of safety concerns and education on the benefits of vaccination could be the most effective strategies to improve vaccine acceptance.

BACKGROUND: Maternal immunization is a key strategy for reducing morbidity and mortality associated with infectious diseases in mothers and their newborns. Recent developments in the science and safety of maternal vaccinations have made possible development of new maternal vaccines ready for introduction in low- and middle-income countries. Decisions at the policy level remain the entry point for maternal immunization programs. We describe the policy and decision-making process in Kenya for the introduction of new vaccines, with particular emphasis on maternal vaccines, and identify opportunities to improve vaccine policy formulation and implementation process. METHODS: We conducted 29 formal interviews with government officials and policy makers, including high-level officials at the Kenya National Immunization Technical Advisory Group, and Ministry of Health officials at national and county levels. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. We analyzed the qualitative data using NVivo 11.0 software. RESULTS: All key informants understood the vaccine policy formulation and implementation processes, although national officials appeared more informed compared to county officials. County officials reported feeling left out of policy development. The recent health system decentralization had both positive and negative impacts on the policy process; however, the negative impacts outweighed the positive impacts. Other factors outside vaccine policy environment such as rumours, sociocultural practices, and anti-vaccine campaigns influenced the policy development and implementation process. CONCLUSIONS: Public policy development process is complex and multifaceted by its nature. As Kenya prepares for introduction of other maternal vaccines, it is important that the identified policy gaps and challenges are addressed. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-021-01101-7.