SummaryBackgroundIntroduction of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) has substantially reduced disease burden due to Streptococcus pneumoniae, a leading cause of childhood morbidity and mortality globally. However, PCVs are among the most expensive vaccines, hindering their introduction in some settings and threatening sustainability in others. We aimed to assess the effect and cost-effectiveness of introduction of 13-valent PCV (PCV13) vaccination globally.MethodsWe assessed the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of PCV13 introduction by integrating two models: an ecological model (a parsimonious, mechanistic model validated with data from post-seven-valent PCV introduction in 13 high-income settings) to predict the effect of PCV on childhood invasive pneumococcal disease, and a decision-tree model to predict a range of clinical presentations and economic outcomes under vaccination and no-vaccination strategies. The models followed 30 birth cohorts up to age 5 years in 180 countries from 2015 to 2045. One-way scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were done to explore model uncertainties.FindingsWe estimate that global PCV13 use could prevent 0·399 million child deaths (95% credible interval 0·208 million to 0·711 million) and 54·6 million disease episodes (51·8 million to 58·1 million) annually. Global vaccine costs (in 2015 international dollars) of $15·5 billion could be partially offset by health-care savings of $3·19 billion (2·62 billion to 3·92 billion) and societal cost savings of $2·64 billion (2·13 billion to 3·28 billion). PCV13 use is probably cost-effective in all six UN regions. The 71 countries eligible for support from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, account for 83% of PCV13-preventable deaths but only 18% of global vaccination costs. The expected cost of PCV vaccination globally is around $16 billion per year.InterpretationOur findings highlight the value of Gavi's support for PCV introduction in low-income countries and of efforts to improve the affordability of PCVs in countries not eligible for, or transitioning from, Gavi support.FundingWorld Health Organization; Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

BackgroundRecognizing the close relationship between poverty and health, national program managers, policy-makers and donors are increasingly including economic interventions as part of their core strategies to improve population health. However, there is often confusion among stakeholders about the definitions and operational differences between distinct types of economic interventions and financial instruments, which can lead to important differences in interpretation and expectations.MethodsWe conducted a scoping study to define and clarify concepts underlying key economic interventions - price interventions (taxes and subsidies), income transfer programs, incentive programs, livelihood support programs and health-related financial services – and map the evidence currently available from systematic reviews.ResultsWe identified 195 systematic reviews on economic interventions published between 2005 and July 2015. Overall, there was an increase in the number of reviews published after 2010. The majority of reviews focused on price interventions, income transfer programs and incentive programs, with much less evidence available from systematic reviews on livelihood support programs and health-related financial services. We also identified a lack of evidence on: health outcomes in low income countries; unintended or perverse outcomes; implementation challenges; scalability and cost-effectiveness of economic interventions.ConclusionsWe conclude that while more research is clearly needed to assess suitability and effectiveness of economic interventions in different contexts, before interventions are tested and further systematic reviews conducted, a consistent and accurate understanding of the fundamental differences in terminology and approaches is essential among researchers, public health policy makers and program planners.