Thumbnail - Request a copy

Economic evaluation of meningococcal vaccines: considerations for the future

Christensen, Hannah; Al-Janabi, Hareth; Lévy, Pierre; Postma, Maarten J.; Bloom, David E.; Landa, Paolo; Salisbury, David M.; Diez-Domingo, Javier; Towse, Adrian K.; Lorgelly, Paula K.; Shah, Koonal K.; Hernandez-Villafuerte, Karla; Smith, Vinny; Glennie, Linda; Wright, Claire; York, Laura; Farkouh, Raymond (2020), Economic evaluation of meningococcal vaccines: considerations for the future, The European Journal of Health Economics, 21, p. 297-309. 10.1007/s10198-019-01129-z

Type
Article accepté pour publication ou publié
Date
2020
Journal name
The European Journal of Health Economics
Volume
21
Publisher
Springer
Pages
297-309
Publication identifier
Metadata
Show full item record
Author(s)
Christensen, Hannah
Bristol Renal, Bristol Medical School
Al-Janabi, Hareth
Department of Economics
Lévy, Pierre
Laboratoire d'Economie et de Gestion des Organisations de Santé [Legos]
Laboratoire d'Economie de Dauphine [LEDa]
Postma, Maarten J.
FACULTY OF ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN PAYS- BAS NLD
Bloom, David E.
Department of Society, Human Development, and Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston
Landa, Paolo
University of Exeter Medical School
Salisbury, David M.

Diez-Domingo, Javier
Unit of Public Health and Environmental Care, Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Valencia, Burjassot, Valencia, Spain
Towse, Adrian K.

Lorgelly, Paula K.

Shah, Koonal K.

Hernandez-Villafuerte, Karla
Division of Molecular Genetic Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
Smith, Vinny

Glennie, Linda

Wright, Claire

York, Laura

Farkouh, Raymond
Pfizer Inc
Abstract (EN)
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.
Subjects / Keywords
Cost-effectiveness; Meningitis; Meningococcal; QALY; Vaccine
JEL
I18 - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health