Search results

Economic evaluation of vaccination is a key tool to inform effective spending on vaccines. However, many evaluations have been criticised for failing to capture features of vaccines which are relevant to decision makers. These include broader societal benefits (such as improved educational achievement, economic growth and political stability), reduced health disparities, medical innovation, reduced hospital beds pressures, greater peace of mind and synergies in economic benefits with non-vaccine interventions. Also, the fiscal implications of vaccination programmes are not always made explicit. Alternative methodological frameworks have been proposed to better capture these benefits. However, any broadening of the methodology for economic evaluation must also involve evaluations of non-vaccine interventions, and hence may not always benefit vaccines given a fixed health-care budget. The scope of an economic evaluation must consider the budget from which vaccines are funded, and the decision-maker's stated aims for that spending to achieve.

Economic evaluation of vaccination is a key tool to inform effective spending on vaccines. However, many evaluations have been criticised for failing to capture features of vaccines which are relevant to decision makers. These include broader societal benefits (such as improved educational achievement, economic growth and political stability), reduced health disparities, medical innovation, reduced hospital beds pressures, greater peace of mind and synergies in economic benefits with non-vaccine interventions. Also, the fiscal implications of vaccination programmes are not always made explicit. Alternative methodological frameworks have been proposed to better capture these benefits. However, any broadening of the methodology for economic evaluation must also involve evaluations of non-vaccine interventions, and hence may not always benefit vaccines given a fixed health-care budget. The scope of an economic evaluation must consider the budget from which vaccines are funded, and the decision-maker's stated aims for that spending to achieve.

National Immunisation Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) provide independent guidance to health ministries to support evidence-based and nationally relevant immunisation decisions. We examined NITAGs' value, sustainability, and need for support in low and middle-income countries, drawing from a mixed-methods study including 130 global and national-level key informant interviews. NITAGs were particularly valued for providing independent and nationally owned evidence-based decision-making (EBDM), but needed to be integrated within national processes to effectively balance independence and influence. Participants agreed that most NITAGs, being relatively new, would need developmental and strengthening support for at least a decade. While national governments could support NITAG functioning, external support is likely needed for requisite capacity building. This might come from Gavi mechanisms and WHO, but would require alignment among stakeholders to be effective.

Background Countries in the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region differ in terms of the COVID-19 vaccine supply conditions. We evaluated the health and economic impact of different age-based vaccine prioritisation strategies across this demographically and socio-economically diverse region. Methods We fitted age-specific compartmental models to the reported daily COVID-19 mortality in 2020 to inform the immunity level before vaccine roll-out. Models capture country-specific differences in population structures, contact patterns, epidemic history, life expectancy, and GDP per capita.We examined four strategies that prioritise: all adults (V+), younger (20-59 year-olds) followed by older adults (60+) (V20), older followed by younger adults (V60), and the oldest adults (75+) (V75) followed by incrementally younger age groups. We explored four roll-out scenarios (R1-4) - the slowest scenario (R1) reached 30% coverage by December 2022 and the fastest (R4) 80% by December 2021. Five decision-making metrics were summarised over 2021-22: mortality, morbidity, and losses in comorbidity-adjusted life expectancy, comorbidity- and quality-adjusted life years, and human capital. Six vaccine profiles were tested - the highest performing vaccine has 95% efficacy against both infection and disease, and the lowest 50% against diseases and 0% against infection. Findings Of the 20 decision-making metrics and roll-out scenario combinations, the same optimal strategy applied to all countries in only one combination; V60 was more or similarly desirable than V75 in 19 combinations. Of the 38 countries with fitted models, 11-37 countries had variable optimal strategies by decision-making metrics or roll-out scenarios. There are greater benefits in prioritising older adults when roll-out is slow and when vaccine profiles are less favourable. Interpretation The optimal age-based vaccine prioritisation strategies were sensitive to country characteristics, decision-making metrics, and roll-out speeds. A prioritisation strategy involving more age-based stages (V75) does not necessarily lead to better health and economic outcomes than targeting broad age groups (V60). Countries expecting a slow vaccine roll-out may particularly benefit from prioritising older adults. Funding World Health Organization, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Medical Research Council (United Kingdom), the National Institute of Health Research (United Kingdom), the European Commission, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (United Kingdom), Wellcome Trust.

BACKGROUND: Countries in the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region differ in terms of the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out speed. We evaluated the health and economic impact of different age-based vaccine prioritisation strategies across this demographically and socio-economically diverse region. METHODS: We fitted country-specific age-stratified compartmental transmission models to reported COVID-19 mortality in the WHO European Region to inform the immunity level before vaccine roll-out. Building upon broad recommendations from the WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunisation (SAGE), we examined four strategies that prioritise: all adults (V+), younger (20–59 year-olds) followed by older adults (60+) (V20), older followed by younger adults (V60), and the oldest adults (75+) (V75) followed by incremental expansion to successively younger five-year age groups. We explored four roll-out scenarios based on projections or recent observations (R1–4) - the slowest scenario (R1) covers 30% of the total population by December 2022 and the fastest (R4) 80% by December 2021. Five decision-making metrics were summarised over 2021–22: mortality, morbidity, and losses in comorbidity-adjusted life expectancy (cLE), comorbidity- and quality-adjusted life years (cQALY), and the value of human capital (HC). Six sets of infection-blocking and disease-reducing vaccine efficacies were considered. FINDINGS: The optimal age-based vaccine prioritisation strategies were sensitive to country characteristics, decision-making metrics and roll-out speeds. Overall, V60 consistently performed better than or comparably to V75. There were greater benefits in prioritising older adults when roll-out is slow and when VE is low. Under faster roll-out, V+ was the most desirable option. INTERPRETATION: A prioritisation strategy involving more age-based stages (V75) does not necessarily lead to better health and economic outcomes than targeting broad age groups (V60). Countries expecting a slow vaccine roll-out may particularly benefit ...

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic resistance (ABR) poses a major threat to health and economic wellbeing worldwide. Reducing ABR will require government interventions to incentivise antibiotic development, prudent antibiotic use, infection control and deployment of partial substitutes such as rapid diagnostics and vaccines. The scale of such interventions needs to be calibrated to accurate and comprehensive estimates of the economic cost of ABR. METHODS: A conceptual framework for estimating costs attributable to ABR was developed based on previous literature highlighting methodological shortcomings in the field and additional deductive epidemiological and economic reasoning. The framework was supplemented by a rapid methodological review. RESULTS: The review identified 110 articles quantifying ABR costs. Most were based in high-income countries only (91/110), set in hospitals (95/110), used a healthcare provider or payer perspective (97/110), and used matched cohort approaches to compare costs of patients with antibiotic-resistant infections and antibiotic-susceptible infections (or no infection) (87/110). Better use of methods to correct biases and confounding when making this comparison is needed. Findings also need to be extended beyond their limitations in (1) time (projecting present costs into the future), (2) perspective (from the healthcare sector to entire societies and economies), (3) scope (from individuals to communities and ecosystems), and (4) space (from single sites to countries and the world). Analyses of the impact of interventions need to be extended to examine the impact of the intervention on ABR, rather than considering ABR as an exogeneous factor. CONCLUSIONS: Quantifying the economic cost of resistance will require greater rigour and innovation in the use of existing methods to design studies that accurately collect relevant outcomes and further research into new techniques for capturing broader economic outcomes.

This report provides recommendations for budget holders and decision makers in high-, middle, and low-income countries requiring economic analyses of new vaccination programs to allocate scarce resources given budget constraints. ISPOR's Economic Evaluation of Vaccines Designed to Prevent Infectious Disease: Good Practices Task Force wrote guidelines for three analytic methods and solicited comments on them from external reviewers. Cost-effectiveness analyses use decision-analytic models to estimate cumulative changes in resource use, costs, and changes in quality- or disability-adjusted life-years attributable to changes in disease outcomes. Constrained optimization modeling uses a mathematical objective function to be optimized (e.g. disease cases avoided) for a target population for a set of interventions including vaccination programs within established constraints. Fiscal health modeling estimates changes in net present value of government revenues and expenditures attributable to changes in disease outcomes. The task force recommends that those designing economic analyses for new vaccination programs take into account the decision maker's policy objectives and country-specific decision context when estimating: uptake rate in the target population; vaccination program's impact on disease cases in the population over time using a dynamic transmission epidemiologic model; vaccination program implementation and operating costs; and the changes in costs and health outcomes of the target disease(s). The three approaches to economic analysis are complementary and can be used alone or together to estimate a vaccination program's economic value for national, regional, or subregional decision makers in high-, middle-, and low-income countries.

AbstractBackgroundEven with good progress on vaccination, SARS-CoV-2 infections in the UK may continue to impose a high burden of disease and therefore pose substantial challenges for health policy decision makers. Stringent government-mandated physical distancing measures (lockdown) have been demonstrated to be epidemiologically effective, but can have both positive and negative economic consequences. The duration and frequency of any intervention policy could, in theory, could be optimised to maximise economic benefits while achieving substantial reductions in disease.MethodsHere we use a pre-existing SARS-CoV-2 transmission model to assess the health and economic implications of different strengths of control through time in order to identify optimal approaches to non-pharmaceutical intervention stringency in the UK, considering the role of vaccination in reducing the need for future physical distancing measures. The model is calibrated to the COVID-19 epidemic in England and we carry out retrospective analysis of the optimal timing of precautionary breaks in 2020 and the optimal relaxation policy from the January 2021 lockdown, considering the willingness to pay for health improvement.ResultsWe find that the precise timing and intensity of interventions is highly dependent upon the objective of control. As intervention measures are relaxed, we predict a resurgence in cases, but the optimal intervention policy can be established dependent upon the willingness to pay (WTP) per QALY loss avoided. Our results show that establishing an optimal level of control can result in a reduction in net monetary loss of billions of pounds, dependent upon the precise WTP value.ConclusionsIt is vital, as the UK emerges from lockdown, but continues to face an on-going pandemic, to accurately establish the overall health and economic costs when making policy decisions. We demonstrate how some of these can be quantified, employing mechanistic infectious disease transmission models to establish optimal levels of control for the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: China has an aging population with an increasing number of adults aged ≥ 60 years. Influenza causes a heavy disease burden in older adults, but can be alleviated by vaccination. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of a potential government-funded seasonal influenza vaccination program in older adults in China. METHODS: We characterized the health and economic impact of a fully funded influenza vaccination program for older adults using China-specific influenza disease burden, and related cost data, etc. Using a decision tree model, we calculated the incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained of vaccination from the societal perspective, at a willingness-to-pay threshold equivalent to GDP per capita (US$8840). Moreover, we estimated the threshold vaccination costs, under which the fully funded vaccination program is cost-effective using GDP per capita as the willingness-to-pay threshold. RESULTS: Compared to current self-paid vaccination, a fully funded vaccination program is expected to prevent 19,812 (95% uncertainty interval, 7150–35,783) influenza-like-illness outpatient consultations per year, 9418 (3386–17,068) severe acute respiratory infection hospitalizations per year, and 8800 (5300–11,667) respiratory excess deaths due to influenza per year, and gain 70,212 (42,106–93,635) QALYs per year. Nationally, the incremental costs per QALY gained of the vaccination program is US$4832 (3460–8307), with a 98% probability of being cost-effective. The threshold vaccination cost is US$10.19 (6.08–13.65). However, variations exist between geographical regions, with Northeast and Central China having lower probabilities of cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the implementation of a government fully funded older adult vaccination program in China. The regional analysis provides results across settings that may be relevant to other countries with similar disease burden and economic status, especially for low- and middle-income countries where such analysis is limited. ...

BACKGROUND: China has an aging population with an increasing number of adults aged ≥ 60 years. Influenza causes a heavy disease burden in older adults, but can be alleviated by vaccination. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of a potential government-funded seasonal influenza vaccination program in older adults in China. METHODS: We characterized the health and economic impact of a fully funded influenza vaccination program for older adults using China-specific influenza disease burden, and related cost data, etc. Using a decision tree model, we calculated the incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained of vaccination from the societal perspective, at a willingness-to-pay threshold equivalent to GDP per capita (US$8840). Moreover, we estimated the threshold vaccination costs, under which the fully funded vaccination program is cost-effective using GDP per capita as the willingness-to-pay threshold. RESULTS: Compared to current self-paid vaccination, a fully funded vaccination program is expected to prevent 19,812 (95% uncertainty interval, 7150-35,783) influenza-like-illness outpatient consultations per year, 9418 (3386-17,068) severe acute respiratory infection hospitalizations per year, and 8800 (5300-11,667) respiratory excess deaths due to influenza per year, and gain 70,212 (42,106-93,635) QALYs per year. Nationally, the incremental costs per QALY gained of the vaccination program is US$4832 (3460-8307), with a 98% probability of being cost-effective. The threshold vaccination cost is US$10.19 (6.08-13.65). However, variations exist between geographical regions, with Northeast and Central China having lower probabilities of cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the implementation of a government fully funded older adult vaccination program in China. The regional analysis provides results across settings that may be relevant to other countries with similar disease burden and economic status, especially for low- and middle-income countries where such analysis is limited.