ArticleBMJ public health2026
Guiding vaccine policy for chikungunya in Brazil: a cost-effectiveness analysis of live-attenuated versus recombinant chikungunya vaccines in Brazilian adults ≥18 years.
Article in BMJ public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) causes substantial burden in Brazil, with 3.2 million cases and US$9.8 billion in costs from 2011 to 2020. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of live-attenuated and recombinant vaccines for adults ≥18 years to guide vaccination strategies. Design: A modified Susceptible-Vaccinated-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered-Deceased model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of live-attenuated and recombinant chikungunya vaccines vs no vaccination in a cohort of 1000 Brazilian adults ≥18 years over 10 years. Costs (2025 US dollars, US$/Brazilian reais, R$) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated from both the Brazilian healthcare sector and societal perspective assuming a 5.00% annual social discount rate. Model inputs were derived from published data, clinical trials and assumptions. Main outcome measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) were calculated for each vaccine compared with no vaccination. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted to assess the impact of parameter uncertainty. Results: In the base case, and from both healthcare sector and societal perspectives, the live-attenuated vaccine was more effective (336 011 QALYs) and less costly (healthcare: US$0.12 million/R$0.68 million; societal: US$2.85 million/R$15.93 million) than the recombinant vaccine (335 787 QALYs; US$0.15 million/R$0.83 million; US$2.88 million/R$16.11 million) or no vaccination (335 472 QALYs; US$0.02 million/R$0.11 million; US$2.76 million/R$15.44 million), thus dominating both. At a societal willingness-to-pay threshold of US$10 306 (R$57 601) per QALY, its INMB was US$5.46 million (R$30.50 million) and US$5.47 million (R$30.58 million) from the healthcare and societal perspectives, respectively, compared with US$3.12 million (R$17.44 million) and US$3.13 million (R$17.49 million) for the recombinant vaccine. PSA and a battery of sensitivity analyses showed the live-attenuated vaccine remained dominant at this threshold. Conclusions: Chikungunya vaccination is a highly cost-effective strategy to reduce the health and economic burden of CHIKV in Brazil, with the live-attenuated vaccine favoured over the recombinant formulation.
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.