Table 8.
Impact of efficacy and transmission setting on the number and cost of events averted
| % decrease in public health impact (events averted) | % increase in cost/event averted | Increase in cost/case averted 2011 USD, undiscounted (discounted) | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Uncomplicated cases | |||
| Efficacy |
13 |
16 |
3 (2) |
| Transmission |
21 |
26 |
5 (3) |
| Both |
33 |
47 |
9 (5) |
|
Severe cases | |||
| Efficacy |
14 |
16 |
91 (50) |
| Transmission |
21 |
26 |
145 (80) |
| Both |
31 |
46 |
258 (142) |
|
Deaths | |||
| Efficacy |
19 |
24 |
650 (358) |
| Transmission |
21 |
26 |
711 (392) |
| Both |
36 |
57 |
1528 (842) |
|
DALYs | |||
| Efficacy |
18 |
22 |
23 (12) |
| Transmission |
21 |
26 |
27 (14) |
| Both | 35 | 54 | 55 (30) |
Legend: Table shows the results from the scenarios modeled as part of the sensitivity analysis. Percentage decrease or increase in public health impact or cost is relative to the demonstration scenario results, presented in Table 7. “Efficacy” refers to a decrease in the vaccine efficacy from 85% in the demonstration scenario to 75%. “Transmission” refers to a change in future transmission from the demonstration scenario, in which one-quarter of the population in each category of risk was shifted to the next lowest category, to the sensitivity analysis, in which one-half the population was at reduced risk of infection. “Both” refers to a scenario in which both efficacy and transmission setting were decreased as described above.