ArticleBMC medicine2018
Cost-effectiveness of a potential Zika vaccine candidate: a case study for Colombia.
Article in BMC medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing Interventions That Prevent Multiple Infectious Diseases: Simple Methods for Multidisease Modeling.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022Article
- Herd Immunity Effects in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses among Low- and Middle-Income Countries.Applied health economics and health policy · 2022Review
- Cost-effectiveness of Prophylactic Zika Virus Vaccine in the Americas.Emerging infectious diseases · 2019Article
- Determinants of Zika Transmission and Control.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA number of Zika vaccine platforms are currently being investigated, some of which have entered clinical trials. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a potential Zika vaccine candidate under the WHO Vaccine Target Product Profile for outbreak response, prioritizing women of reproductive age to prevent microcephaly and other neurological disorders.
methodsUsing an agent-based simulation model of ZIKV transmission dynamics in a Colombian population setting, we conducted cost-effectiveness analysis with and without pre-existing herd immunity. The model was parameterized with estimates associated with ZIKV infection, risks of microcephaly in different trimesters, direct medical costs, and vaccination costs. We assumed that a single dose of vaccine provides a protection efficacy in the range 60% to 90% against infection. Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a government perspective.
resultsUnder a favorable scenario when the reproduction number is relatively low (R
conclusionsOur study suggests that a Zika vaccine with protection efficacy as low as 60% could significantly reduce the incidence of microcephaly. From a government perspective, Zika vaccination is highly cost-effective, and even cost-saving in Colombia if vaccination costs per individual is sufficiently low. Efficacy data from clinical trials and number of vaccine doses will be important requirements in future studies to refine our estimates, and conduct similar studies in other at-risk populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.