Economic evaluation of meningococcal vaccines: considerations for the future
Por:
Christensen H, Al-Janabi H, Levy P, Postma MJ, Bloom DE, Landa P, Damm O, Salisbury DM, Diez-Domingo J, Towse AK, Lorgelly PK, Shah KK, Hernandez-Villafuerte K, Smith V, Glennie L, Wright C, York L and Farkouh R
Publicada:
1 mar 2020
Ahead of Print:
1 nov 2019
Resumen:
In 2018, a panel of health economics and meningococcal disease experts convened to review methodologies, frameworks, and decision-making processes for economic evaluations of vaccines, with a focus on evaluation of vaccines targeting invasive meningococcal disease (IMD). The panel discussed vaccine evaluation methods across countries; IMD prevention benefits that are well quantified using current methods, not well quantified, or missing in current cost-effectiveness methodologies; and development of recommendations for future evaluation methods. Consensus was reached on a number of points and further consideration was deemed necessary for some topics. Experts agreed that the unpredictability of IMD complicates an accurate evaluation of meningococcal vaccine benefits and that vaccine cost-effectiveness evaluations should encompass indirect benefits, both for meningococcal vaccines and vaccines in general. In addition, the panel agreed that transparency in the vaccine decision-making process is beneficial and should be implemented when possible. Further discussion is required to ascertain: how enhancing consistency of frameworks for evaluating outcomes of vaccine introduction can be improved; reviews of existing tools used to capture quality of life; how indirect costs are considered within models; and whether and how the weighting of quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), application of QALY adjustment factors, or use of altered cost-effectiveness thresholds should be used in the economic evaluation of vaccines.
Filiaciones:
Christensen H:
Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2BN, UK.
Al-Janabi H:
Health Economics Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
Levy P:
Université Paris-Dauphine, PSL Research University, LEDa [LEGOS], 75775, Paris, France
Postma MJ:
Department of Pharmacy, University Medical Center/University of Groningen, 9712 CP, Groningen, The Netherlands
Department of Health Sciences, University Medical Center/University of Groningen, 9712 CP, Groningen, The Netherlands
Department of Economics, Econometrics and Finance, University Medical Center/University of Groningen, 9712 CP, Groningen, The Netherlands
Bloom DE:
Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 02115, USA
Landa P:
Institute of Health Research, Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK
Damm O:
School of Public Health, Bielefeld University, 33615, Bielefeld, Germany
Salisbury DM:
Centre on Global Health Security, Royal Institute of International Affairs, London, SW1Y 4LE, UK
:
Área de Investigación en Vacunas. FISABIO-Public Health, 46020, Valencia, Spain
Towse AK:
Office of Health Economics, London, SW1E 6QT, UK
Lorgelly PK:
Office of Health Economics, London, SW1E 6QT, UK
Shah KK:
Office of Health Economics, London, SW1E 6QT, UK
Hernandez-Villafuerte K:
Office of Health Economics, London, SW1E 6QT, UK
German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
Smith V:
Meningitis Research Foundation, Newminster House, 27-29 Baldwin Street, Bristol, BS1 1LT, UK.
Glennie L:
Meningitis Research Foundation, Newminster House, 27-29 Baldwin Street, Bristol, BS1 1LT, UK
Wright C:
Meningitis Research Foundation, Newminster House, 27-29 Baldwin Street, Bristol, BS1 1LT, UK
York L:
Vaccine Medical Development, Scientific and Clinical Affairs, Pfizer Inc, Collegeville, PA, 19426, USA
Farkouh R:
Pfizer Inc, Collegeville, PA, 19426, USA
hybrid, Green Published
|