ArticlePLoS medicine2019
The projected impact of geographic targeting of oral cholera vaccination in sub-Saharan Africa: A modeling study.
Article in PLoS medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strategies for achieving a healthy oral cholera vaccine market: Model-enabled scenario exploration of supply and demand dynamics.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Article
- Article
- Geographical shifting of cholera burden in Africa and its implications for disease control.Nature medicine · 2025Article
- Allocation of Oral Cholera Vaccines in Africa.Vaccines · 2025Article
- Economic Analyses for Disease Surveillance Planning and Advocacy.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Geographic disparities impacting oral vaccine performance: Observations and future directions.Clinical and experimental immunology · 2025Review
- Cholera outbreaks: Public health implications, economic burden, and preventive strategies.AIMS public health · 2025Review
- Systematic testing in cholera surveillance enhances vaccine impact and cost-effectiveness.Nature medicine · 2024Article
- Water, Sanitation, and Cholera in Sub-Saharan Africa.Environmental science & technology · 2023Article
- Can Geographically Targeted Vaccinations Be Ethically Justified? The Case of Norway During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Public health ethics · 2023Article
- Cholera past and future in Nigeria: Are the Global Task Force on Cholera Control's 2030 targets achievable?PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2023Article
- Mitigating the effects of climate change on human health with vaccines and vaccinations.Frontiers in public health · 2023Review
- Improving the Efficiency of Geographic Target Regions for Healthcare Interventions.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Article
- Overcoming inefficiencies arising due to the impact of the modifiable areal unit problem on single-aggregation disease maps.International journal of health geographics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCholera 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
findingsWe 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.
conclusionsOur 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.
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.