Ritchie Adam John, Meeyai Aronrag, Trotter Caroline, Douglas Alexander D
Jenner Institute, Old Road Campus Research Building, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7DQ, UK.
Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LG, UK.
Vaccine. 2025 Feb 15;47:126703. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.126703. Epub 2025 Jan 11.
Pre-exposure prophylactic rabies vaccination (PrEP) is advised for travellers to countries with high rabies incidence, but rarely available for local residents. Some studies suggest poor cost-effectiveness of PrEP in such settings, but have generally focused upon post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) cost savings as the main benefit of PrEP, without considering lives saved by PrEP efficacy.
We compared incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of use of rabies PrEP, against an alternative of using only PEP, by adapting a decision-tree model previously used to inform Gavi's investment in rabies PEP. We consider scenarios including: a range of PrEP efficacies in individuals unable to access PEP; PrEP costs significantly below current prices (through single-dose approaches, inclusion in childhood vaccination schedules, increased manufacturing volume and/or new low-cost products); and variable rabies exposure risk and PEP access. We also present results from a simplified model, designed for ease of understanding.
Modelled ICERs were <1000 USD per quality adjusted life year (QALY) across a range of plausible combinations of rabies exposure risk, PEP access, PrEP cost and PrEP efficacy. If PrEP efficacy exceeds 50 % over 15 years, we estimate ICERs <500 USD/QALY where rabies incidence ≥3 per 100,000 per year and cost of vaccination is ≤5 USD/child. Under scenarios with lower rabies incidence of around 0.3 per 100,000 per year, due either to more limited exposure or greater access to PEP, ICERs <3000 USD may still be achieved even if PrEP efficacy is as low as 30 %.
Routine childhood PrEP may be cost-effective in settings with modest willingness-to-pay, and rabies exposure risks plausible across much of Africa and South Asia. Cost-effectiveness requires low-cost PrEP regimes and some efficacy of PrEP in individuals unable to access PEP. Under such conditions, PrEP may be an attractive additional tool in the fight against rabies.
对于前往狂犬病高发国家的旅行者,建议进行暴露前预防性狂犬病疫苗接种(PrEP),但当地居民很少能获得。一些研究表明,在这种情况下PrEP的成本效益较差,但通常将重点放在PrEP可节省暴露后预防(PEP)成本作为其主要益处,而未考虑PrEP的效力所挽救的生命。
我们通过调整先前用于为全球疫苗免疫联盟(Gavi)对狂犬病PEP的投资提供信息的决策树模型,比较了使用狂犬病PrEP与仅使用PEP这一替代方案的增量成本效益比(ICER)。我们考虑了以下情景:无法获得PEP的个体中一系列PrEP效力;PrEP成本显著低于当前价格(通过单剂量方法、纳入儿童疫苗接种计划、增加产量和/或新型低成本产品);以及可变的狂犬病暴露风险和PEP可及性。我们还展示了一个为便于理解而设计的简化模型的结果。
在一系列狂犬病暴露风险、PEP可及性、PrEP成本和PrEP效力的合理组合中,模拟的ICER低于每质量调整生命年1000美元(QALY)。如果PrEP效力在15年内超过50%,我们估计在狂犬病发病率≥每年每10万人3例且疫苗接种成本≤每个儿童5美元的情况下,ICER低于500美元/QALY。在狂犬病发病率较低(约为每年每10万人0.3例)的情景下,这要么是由于暴露更有限,要么是由于更容易获得PEP,即使PrEP效力低至30%,仍可能实现ICER低于3000美元。
在支付意愿适中且非洲和南亚大部分地区存在合理狂犬病暴露风险的环境中,常规儿童PrEP可能具有成本效益。成本效益需要低成本的PrEP方案以及PrEP在无法获得PEP的个体中具有一定效力。在这种情况下,PrEP可能是抗击狂犬病的一个有吸引力的额外工具。