Abstract
Introduction Rapid outbreak response vaccination is a strategy for measles control and elimination. Measles vaccines must be stored and transported within a specified temperature range, but this can present significant challenges when targeting remote populations. Measles vaccine licensure for delivery outside cold chain (OCC) could provide more vaccine transport/storage space without ice packs, and a solution to shorten response times. However, due to vaccine safety and wastage considerations, the OCC strategy will require other operational changes, potentially including the use of 1-dose (monodose) instead of 10-dose vials, requiring larger transport/storage equipment currently achieved with 10-dose vials. These trade-offs require quantitative comparisons of vaccine delivery options to evaluate their relative benefits.
Methods We developed a modelling framework combining elements of the vaccine supply chain - cold chain, vial, team, and transport equipment types - with a measles transmission dynamics model to compare vaccine delivery options. We compared 10 strategies resulting from combinations of the vaccine supply elements and grouped into three main classes: OCC, partial cold chain (PCC), and full cold chain (FCC). For each strategy, we explored a campaign with 20 teams sequentially targeting 5 locations with 100,000 individuals each. We characterised the time needed to freeze ice packs and complete the campaign (campaign duration), vaccination coverage, and cases averted, assuming a fixed pre-deployment delay before campaign commencement. We performed sensitivity analyses of the pre-deployment delay, population sizes, and two team allocation schemes.
Results The OCC, PCC, and FCC strategies achieve campaign durations of 50, 51, and 52 days, respectively. Nine of the ten strategies can achieve a vaccination coverage of 80%, and OCC averts the most cases.
Discussion The OCC strategy, therefore, presents improved operational and epidemiological outcomes relative to current practice and the other options considered.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work is based on the research supported by the Department of Science and Innovation and the National Research Foundation. Any opinion, finding, and conclusion or recommendation expressed in this material is that of the authors and the NRF does not accept any liability in this regard.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This research does not need ethical approval.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵# denotes joint senior authorship
Data Availability
All data generated in the analysis are shared in the manuscript.
