Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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 %. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Original publication

DOI

10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.126703

Type

Journal article

Journal

Vaccine

Publication Date

11/01/2025

Volume

47

Keywords

Cost-effectiveness, Modelling, Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), Rabies, Vaccination