BackgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) recommended ‘pre-vaccination screening’ as its preferred implementation strategy when using the licensed dengue vaccine (CYD-TDV; Dengvaxia, Sanofi), so that only individuals with previous dengue infection are vaccinated. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended use of CYD-TDV to prevent dengue in children with previous laboratory-confirmed dengue infection in regions where dengue is endemic. Here, we evaluate the public health impact and cost-effectiveness of a ‘pre-vaccination screening’ strategy in Puerto Rico. MethodsThe current analysis builds upon a previously published transmission model used to assess the benefits/risks associated with dengue vaccination. For ‘pre-vaccination screening’, three alternative testing methods were assessed: one using an immunoglobulin G (IgG) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) dengue serotest, another with dengue serotesting using a rapid diagnostic test (RDT), and one using both sequentially (as recommended in Puerto Rico). The time horizon considered was 10 years. ResultsIn Puerto Rico, the disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted for ‘pre-vaccination screening’ with an ELISA-based program, RDT-based program, and both sequentially would be a median 1,192 (95% CI: 716–2,232), 2,812 (95% CI: 1,579–5,019), and 1,017 (95% CI: 561–1,738), respectively. These benefits would arise from the reduction in cases: median 24,961 (95% CI: 17,480–36,782), 58,273 (95% CI: 40,729–84,796), 20,775 (95% CI: 14,637–30,374) fewer cases, respectively. The cost per DALY averted from a payer perspective would be US$12,518 (95 %CI: US$4,749–26,922), US$10,047 (95% CI: US$3,350–23,852), and US$12,334 (95% CI: US$4,965–26,444), respectively. All three strategies would be cost saving from a societal perspective. ConclusionsOur study supports the WHO and CDC ‘pre-vaccination screening’ guidance for CYD-TDV implementation. In Puerto Rico, regardless of the testing strategy and even with a relatively low rate of testing, it would be cost-effective from a payer perspective and cost saving from a societal perspective.
Read full abstract