Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015:49:8.
doi: 10.1590/s0034-8910.2015049005492. Epub 2015 Feb 27.

Polio inactivated vaccine costs into routine childhood immunization in Brazil

Polio inactivated vaccine costs into routine childhood immunization in Brazil

Ana Marli Christovam Sartori et al. Rev Saude Publica. 2015.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To analyze the costs of vaccination regimens for introducing inactivated polio vaccine in routine immunization in Brazil. METHODS A cost analysis was conducted for vaccines in five vaccination regimens, including inactivated polio vaccine, compared with the oral polio vaccine-only regimen. The costs of the vaccines were estimated for routine use and for the "National Immunization Days", during when the oral polio vaccine is administered to children aged less than five years, independent of their vaccine status, and the strategic stock of inactivated polio vaccine. The presented estimated costs are of 2011. RESULTS The annual costs of the oral vaccine-only program (routine and two National Immunization Days) were estimated at US$19,873,170. The incremental costs of inclusion of the inactivated vaccine depended on the number of vaccine doses, presentation of the vaccine (bottles with single dose or ten doses), and number of "National Immunization Days" carried out. The cost of the regimen adopted with two doses of inactivated vaccine followed by three doses of oral vaccine and one "National Immunization Day" was estimated at US$29,653,539. The concomitant replacement of the DTPw/Hib and HepB vaccines with the pentavalent vaccine enabled the introduction of the inactivated polio without increasing the number of injections or number of visits needed to complete the vaccination. CONCLUSIONS The introduction of the inactivated vaccine increased the annual costs of the polio vaccines by 49.2% compared with the oral vaccine-only regimen. This increase represented 1.13% of the expenditure of the National Immunization Program on the purchase of vaccines in 2011.

OBJETIVO: Analisar os custos de esquemas de vacinação para a introdução da vacina inativada de pólio na imunização de rotina no Brasil.

MÉTODOS: Foi realizada análise de custos das vacinas de cinco esquemas de vacinação, incluindo vacina pólio inativada, comparados ao esquema apenas-vacina oral de pólio. Foram estimados custos das vacinas para rotina, para os “Dias Nacionais de Imunização”, quando a vacina de pólio oral é administrada para menores de cinco anos, independentemente da situação vacinal, e do estoque estratégico de vacina pólio inativada. Os custos estimados foram os de 2011.

RESULTADOS: Os custos anuais do programa apenas-vacina de pólio oral (de rotina e de dois Dias Nacionais de Imunização) foram estimados em US$19.873.170. Os custos incrementais da inclusão da vacina pólio inativada dependeram: do número de doses da vacina, da apresentação da vacina (frascos com dose única ou dez doses) e do número de “Dias Nacionais de Imunização” realizados. O esquema adotado, com duas doses de VIP seguidas de três doses de VOP e um “Dia Nacional de Imunização”, foi estimado em US$29.653.539. A concomitante substituição das vacinas DTPw/Hib e HepB pela vacina pentavalente permitiu a introdução da vacina pólio inativada sem aumento do número de injeções ou visitas necessárias para completar a vacinação.

CONCLUSÕES: A introdução da vacina pólio inativada aumentou os custos anuais das vacinas de pólio em 49,2%, comparado ao esquema apenas-vacina de pólio oral. Esse aumento representou 1,13% dos gastos do Programa Nacional de Imunização com a compra de vacinas em 2011.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Alexander LN, Seward JF, Santibanez TA, Pallansch MA, Kew OM, Prevots DR, et al. Vaccine policy changes and epidemiology of poliomyelitis in the United States. 10.1001/jama.292.14.1696JAMA. 2004;292(14):1696–1701. - PubMed
    1. Alvis N, De la Hoz F, Narváez J. Economic impact of introducing the injectable inactivated polio vaccine in Colombia. 10.1590/S1020-49892010000500005Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2010;27(5):352–359. - PubMed
    1. Asturias EJ, Dueger EL, Omer SB, Melville A, Nates SV, Laasri M, et al. Randomized trial of inactivated and live polio vaccine schedules in Guatemalan infants. 10.1086/520546J Infect Dis. 2007;196(5):692–698. - PubMed
    1. Aylward RB, Alwan A. Polio in Syria. 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60132-XLancet. 2014;383(9916):489–491. - PubMed
    1. Barata RB, Ribeiro MC, Moraes JC, Flannery B, Vaccine Coverage Survey 2007 Group Socioeconomic inequalities and vaccination coverage: results of an immunisation coverage survey in 27 Brazilian capitals, 2007-2008. 10.1136/jech-2011-200341J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66(10):934–941. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances