Typhoid remains a preventable disease that primarily affects low- and middle-income countries. We conducted a scoping review to synthesize evidence on the epidemiological models and economic analyses of typhoid conjugate vaccine (TCV), focusing on the cost of illness of typhoid, the cost of vaccination, cost-effectiveness, and public health benefits of TCV.

A search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, International Health Technology Assessment, Scopus, and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, following Arksey and O’Malleys’s framework. Screening and data extraction were managed using Covidence and an Excel-based template. Extracted data included study design, population, outcomes, model parameters, and cost-effectiveness data, converted to 2024, United States Dollars (USD) for comparability. Findings were summarized by key outcomes.

The economic burden of typhoid varied by region, care type, and demographics. Direct medical costs ranged from USD 1.3 to USD 1543, direct non-medical costs varied from USD 1.3 to USD 60.1, and indirect costs ranged from USD 14.1 to USD 794. Cost of vaccination per dose ranged from USD 2.80 - USD 5.40 (India), USD 0.87 - USD 1.01 (Malawi), and USD 2.99 (Zimbabwe), while the cost of delivering the vaccine ranged from USD 0.48- USD 0.99 (financial) and USD 1.11 - USD 1.87 (economic) per dose. Models predicted 2-94% case reductions and 0-100% mortality reductions. Economic evaluations reported ICERs of USD 124 to USD 53,773 per DALY averted and USD - 4,251 to USD 103,344 per QALY gained, with high-incidence settings often resulting in cost savings. Sensitive parameters were typhoid incidence rate, vaccine efficacy, and vaccination costs.

TCV introduction is influenced by disease burden, vaccination costs, and health outcomes, which vary by region. Cost-effectiveness depends on incidence, perspective, and vaccine strategy, emphasizing the need for context-specific evaluations. Targeted strategies, particularly in high-incidence and urban areas, are often cost-effective and sometimes cost-saving.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This work was supported by funding from the Wellcome Discretionary Award (228187/Z/23/Z). The funders had no role in the study design, data analysis, decision to publish, drafting, or submission of the manuscript.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Not Applicable

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

This study is a scoping review of publicly available literature and did not involve human participants or identifiable personal data. As such, it did not require ethical approval or exemption from an institutional review board.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Not Applicable

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Not Applicable

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Not Applicable

All data extracted and analyzed during this scoping review are included in the article and its supplementary materials.