OBJECTIVES: To examine implementation status for vaccine interventions evaluated in studies using “cost-effectiveness” measured in terms of cost-per-DALY averted, and catalogued in Tufts Medical Center’s Global Health Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GHCEA) Registry. METHODS: We reviewed the GHCEA Registry, which includes 479 cost-per-DALY averted studies published through 2015. We limited our search to vaccine-related interventions in countries eligible at some point from 2000 to 2016 for financial aid from the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI). The 62 identified studies reported 590 incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), each of which compares an intervention’s cost and health impacts to a comparator program (or to no action). We classified ICERs as “cost-saving” (lower costs, better health), “highly cost-effective” (ICER < 1x per capita GDP), or “cost-effective” (ICER from 1x to 3x per capita GDP). Finally, for interventions with implementation status information (as characterized by GAVI and in-country sources), we used the Fisher exact test to assess the relationship between implementation and favorable cost-effectiveness (“highly cost-effective” or “cost-saving”), vs. unfavorable cost-effectiveness (at least one ICER not “highly cost-effective” or better). This last analysis restricted attention to studies pertaining to 2016 GAVI-eligible countries. RESULTS: The Registry catalogs articles on vaccines for 10 diseases. The most frequently reviewed interventions addressed HPV (49% of ICERs) and rotavirus (33%). Regions most studied included the WHO Africa Region (43%) and Southeast Asia (21%). The most common study sponsors were the Gates Foundation (40%) and government institutions (31%). The 590 ICERs were “cost-saving” (10%), “highly cost-effective” (80%), “cost-effective” (6%), or not cost-effective (4%). We had implementation information for 101 favorably “highly cost-effective” interventions and for 8 interventions with unfavorable cost-effectiveness. The implementation odds ratio for favorable vs. not favorable cost-effectiveness was 20 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Favorably “highly cost-effective” vaccine interventions are most likely to be implemented.