Introduction
Every year, more than ten million children from low- and middle-income countries die before reaching the age of five years. Most of these children die because they cannot access effective interventions to combat preventable childhood diseases. In most parts of the developed world, immunization programs have been remarkably successful, managing to eliminate virtually diseases such as polio and measles in most parts. Experts, however, have registered worries for countries that may not be able to afford such vaccines even at the basic level. Such weaknesses may allow outbreaks of diseases even though vaccines are readily available. This paper provides a look at the current state of countries that are unable to afford vaccination, the devastating outcome, statistics, as well as how the adoption of quality by design philosophy may reduce costs.
Although the coverage for global immunization has increased considerably over the past decade to about 78% for tetanus, diphtheria, and pertusis-3 (DTP-3), the African region has fallen behind consistently. According to MSF, the cost of vaccinating a child today is 68 times more expensive than it was in 2001 (Kelland 1). Many countries are unable to afford the new high-cost vaccines such as those against pneumococcal disease that is responsible for over one million children deaths annually. Some developing countries like Tunisia and Morocco pay more (Tunisia US$67.3; Morocco US$63.70) for the pneumococcal vaccine than a developed country like France (US$58.4) does (Kelland 1; Yadav 28). Countries such as Central African Republic, Chad, and Angola register appalling figures for children who die from preventable childhood diseases (Kelland 1).
Pharmaceutical companies can lower the costs of vaccines by adopting a quality-by-design approach (QbD). A quality-by-design approach involves a systematic approach to the development of vaccines. This process begins with a set of predefined objectives. It emphasizes understanding of the process control and product (Kourti and Davis 1). It is also based on sound quality risk management and science. QbD can be implemented to reduce the costs of vaccines so that they can become available to those countries that cannot afford them. There are different ways in which quality-by-design approach reduces the cost of vaccine development. First, the QbD approach reduces wastage in the production process. Wastes contribute to the high price of vaccines (Kourti and Davis 1). Introducing QbD approaches help use all the resources economically, reducing the need for more resources. Secondly, QbD reduces process inefficiencies. Process inefficiencies are those qualities that slow down the process or increase the production costs. They may include long waiting times, poor transport methods, etc. Such inefficiencies increase fixed costs because they increase the amount of time required to manufacture vaccines (Kourti and Davis 1). QbD also reduces costs by finding less expensive approaches to doing work.
Conclusion
Despite the obvious gains made in preventing childhood diseases through vaccination, many children are dying from preventable childhood diseases. In developing countries such as Chad, Angola, and the Central African Republic, families cannot afford vaccinations. To further exacerbate the issue, the cost of vaccinating a child today is 68 times more expensive than it was in 2001. Using quality-by-design approach (QbD) can help reduce the cost of vaccines by reducing wastage in the production process, reducing inefficiencies in the manufacturing process as well as using high-quality process improvements to reduce the running costs associated with production.
Work Cited
Kelland, Cate. "MSF Slams Expensive Vaccines, Urges GSK And Pfizer To Cut Prices."Reuters UK. N.p., 2016. Web. 18 Mar. 2016.
Kourti, Theodora, and Bruce Davis. "The Business Benefits Of Quality-By-Design Approach (Qbd)." Pharmaceutical Engineering 32.4 (2012): 1-10. Print.
Yadav, Prashant. "Differential Pricing For Pharmaceuticals Review Of Current Knowledge, New Findings And Ideas For Action." U.K. Department for International Development (DFID) 3.2 (2010): 1-55. Print.
