Economic Analysis of Vaccination Programs: An ISPOR Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force Report

PCV20 for the prevention of invasive pneumococcal disease in the Mexican pediatric population: A cost-effectiveness analysis

The introduction of a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) covering 13 serotypes (PCV13) into the Mexican pediatric national immunization program (NIP) has substantially reduced the burden of pneumococcal disease (PD) since 2010. This study aimed to estimate the impact of replacing either PCV13 or 15valent PCV (PCV15) with 20-valent PCV (PCV20) in the Mexican pediatric NIP. A decision-analytic Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of PCV20 versus lower-valent vaccines from a Mexican public health sector (payer) perspective over 10 years. Epidemiological and cost inputs were sourced from Mexican data. Direct and indirect vaccine effects were estimated using PCV13 clinical effectiveness, 7-valent PCV efficacy studies, and PCV13 impact data in Mexico. The estimated disease and cost impact of PCV20 was compared with PCV13 and PCV15, all under a 2 + 1 dosing schedule. A discount rate of 5% per annum was applied to costs and health outcomes. Model robustness was evaluated through sensitivity analyses, including deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA), probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), and additional scenario assessments. PCV20 was estimated to provide considerably more health benefits than both comparators by averting more cases of PD compared with both PCV13 and PCV15, as well as a total cost saving of over 10 billion Mexican pesos. The DSA, PSA, and scenario assessments confirmed minimal deviation from the base case. Therefore, the introduction of PCV20 (2 + 1) into the Mexican pediatric NIP is expected to reduce the burden of PD and medical costs compared with lower-valent alternatives.

Estimating the Fiscal Value of Children Conceived from Assisted Reproduction Technology in Australia Applying a Public Economic Perspective

Background: Public funding for assisted reproduction varies across countries, which can influence the numbers of infertile couples treated annually, and consequently the numbers of children born each year from this technology. As infertility is a medical condition treated within the healthcare system, it must compete against all other medical interventions for funding. This raises questions about how to evaluate a technology that gives rise to human life compared with other healthcare interventions that reduce morbidity and mortality. Objective: To evaluate annual public spending on assisted reproduction technology (ART) in Australia to determine the likely fiscal impact for government over the projected lifetime of an ART-conceived birth cohort. Methods: A public economic framework was used to evaluate the number of children born from ART procedures performed in Australia in 2021 based on projected future lifetime tax contributions and public benefits received. We leveraged data from the Survey of Income and Housing conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and imputations from tax-transfer microsimulations over the lifetime of the cohort estimating cumulative net-taxes. Public spending per pupil for education and lifetime health costs (in Australian dollars) were included in the benefits estimates. Results: We estimated lifetime gross taxes per individual of A 841   631 , c o n s i s t i n g o f A 580 182 in direct taxation of earnings and A 261   448 i n c o n s u m p t i o n t a x e s . A f t e r d e d u c t i n g l i f e t i m e t r a n s f e r s r e c e i v e d a n d A R T t r e a t m e n t c o s t s , a n A R T - c o n c e i v e d c h i l d w a s p r o j e c t e d t o g e n e r a t e A 70 688 in discounted lifetime net tax revenue. Based on average government spend per child, a lifetime fiscal benefit-cost ratio of 2.68 was observed. Based on the 2021 ART treatment cohort, the government was projected to net A$1.29 billion in future taxes over the lifetime of the 18 364 children born. Conclusion: A positive net fiscal gain was achieved from current government spending on ART. We observed that every A 1 s p e n t o n a s s i s t e d r e p r o d u c t i o n y i e l d e d A 2.68 in future discounted net tax revenue. These findings were sensitive to economic conditions such as future wage growth and inflation.

Cost-Effectiveness of Introducing Nuvaxovid to COVID-19 Vaccination in the United Kingdom: A Dynamic Transmission Model

Background/Objectives: Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 remains a key measure to control COVID-19. Nuvaxovid, a recombinant Matrix-M-adjuvanted protein-based vaccine, showed similar efficacy to mRNA vaccines in clinical trials and real-world studies, with lower rates of reactogenicity. Methods: To support decision making on UK vaccine selection, a population-based compartmental dynamic transmission model with a cost-utility component was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Nuvaxovid compared with mRNA vaccines from a UK National Health Service perspective. The model was calibrated to official epidemiology statistics for mortality, incidence, and hospitalisation. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: In the probabilistic base case, a Nuvaxovid-only strategy provided total incremental cost savings of GBP 1,338,323 and 1558 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with an mRNA-only vaccination strategy. Cost savings were driven by reduced cold chain-related operational costs and vaccine wastage, while QALY gains were driven by potential differences in vaccine tolerability. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated an approximately 70% probability of cost-effectiveness with Nuvaxovid-only versus mRNA-only vaccination across most cost-effectiveness thresholds (up to GBP 300,000/QALY gained). Conclusions: Nuvaxovid remained dominant over mRNA vaccines in scenario analyses assessing vaccine efficacy waning, Nuvaxovid market shares, and the vaccinated population.

Cost-Effectiveness of Varicella Vaccination for 1-4-Year-Olds in Shanghai, China

INTRODUCTION

Varicella has not yet been included in the National Immunization Program (NIP) in China, and varicella vaccination strategies vary by region. To determine the optimal varicella vaccination strategy in Shanghai, China, the cost-effectiveness and 5-year costs of 5 immunization scenarios were analyzed.

METHODS

A static decision tree-Markov model was developed in 2022 to assess the cost-effectiveness and 5-year costs of voluntary and routine varicella vaccination programs in the 2019 birth cohort in Shanghai from a societal perspective. Parameters were collected in 2022 from the varicella surveillance system, a questionnaire survey of 414 guardians of patients with childhood varicella, and semi-structured interviews with 20 experts on varicella outbreaks from different institutions in Shanghai. The outcomes included varicella cases avoided, quality-adjusted life year (QALY) loss, and incremental costs per QALY (ICER). The 5-year costs were compared with local medical expenditures.

RESULTS

Among the 5 scenarios, one dose of routine varicella vaccination was the most cost-saving (USD 70.2) and cost-effective (Dominant) with a 5-year immunization expenditure of USD 9.9 million. Two doses of routine varicella vaccination had the highest QALY (29.9), and its ICER (USD 791.9/QALY) was below the willingness-to-pay threshold (USD 5,203-23,767/QALY). The 5-year immunization expenditure was USD 19.8 million. The effectiveness and price of vaccines, vaccination coverage, and per capita income are the 4 main factors that affect ICERs.

CONCLUSIONS

In Shanghai, the 2 doses of routine varicella vaccination strategy for 1- and 4-year-olds with a 95% coverage rate was found to be the optimal varicella immunization strategy.

Challenges in Value Assessment for One-Time Gene Therapies for Inherited Retinal Diseases: Are We Turning a Blind Eye?

OBJECTIVES

X-linked retinitis pigmentosa (XLRP) is a rare inherited retinal disease with no available treatment. Gene therapies in clinical trials will pose challenges for health technology assessment (HTA) if found to be safe and effective. We evaluated 2 of these challenges, namely acceptability and difficulties in assessing value beyond short-term patient health and healthcare savings and discounting in economic evaluation.

METHODS

We conducted a narrative literature review on the socioeconomic burden of XLRP to identify relevant components of value for a hypothetical gene therapy from a societal perspective and to assess their relative importance. We compared the resulting value profile against the value frameworks of three European HTA agencies. We also reviewed their guidelines on discounting and potential discounting issues specific to XLRP.

RESULTS

Much of the societal value of an XLRP gene therapy is likely to originate from productivity effects, carer spillovers, and value elements related to patient uncertainty. The evidence on these effects, however, is often limited, making it difficult for HTA agencies to assess them. Cost-effectiveness results are likely to be highly sensitive to the discount rate, and discounting will compound the effects of omitting important sources of value.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified and detailed important components of societal value, key evidence gaps, and potential discounting issues for an XLRP gene therapy, which can inform future value assessments. Many of these may apply to gene therapies in other disease areas. Revisiting existing HTA approaches is recommended to ensure these are fit for purpose for such new classes of treatment.

A unified framework for diagnostic test development and evaluation during outbreaks of emerging infections

Evaluating diagnostic test accuracy during epidemics is difficult due to an urgent need for test availability, changing disease prevalence and pathogen characteristics, and constantly evolving testing aims and applications. Based on lessons learned during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we introduce a framework for rapid diagnostic test development, evaluation, and validation during outbreaks of emerging infections. The framework is based on the feedback loop between test accuracy evaluation, modelling studies for public health decision-making, and impact of public health interventions. We suggest that building on this feedback loop can help future diagnostic test evaluation platforms better address the requirements of both patient care and public health.

A Structured Narrative Literature Review of the Broader Value of Adult Immunisation Programmes

Vaccine-preventable diseases continue to generate a substantial burden on health, healthcare systems, and societies, which is projected to increase with population ageing. There is a need to better understand the full value of adult immunisation programmes corresponding to the broader value of vaccine frameworks that are recommended for evidence-based decision-making. This review aims to summarise and map evidence for the value of selected adult immunisation programmes (seasonal influenza, pneumococcal disease, RSV, and HZ) in ten diverse countries. We conducted a structured literature review of evidence published from 2017 to 2023. An existing framework was used to structure the assessment, developing matrices demonstrating the elements of value evidenced for each vaccine and country of focus. Our analysis showed substantial evidence base on the value of adult immunisation programmes, but the availability of evidence varied by value element and by vaccine. The impact on the quality of life of the vaccinated individual was the most evidenced value element. Mortality benefits for vaccinated individuals and cost-offsets to healthcare systems were also well-evidenced. The availability of evidence for 'broader' societal value elements (such as transmission value, carer productivity and impact on social equity, and antimicrobial resistance prevention) varied. No evidence was identified relating to the broader value elements of macroeconomic effects, value to other interventions, or effects on the quality of life of caregivers. Robust evidence exists to show that adult immunisation programmes generate substantial value for population health and health systems, yet some elements of broader value remain underrepresented in the academic literature. Without such evidence, the full value of immunisation programmes is underestimated, risking suboptimal policy decisions.

Impact of including productivity costs in economic analyses of vaccines for C. difficile infections and infant respiratory syncytial virus, in a UK setting

OBJECTIVES

It has been estimated that vaccines can accrue a relatively large part of their value from patient and carer productivity. Yet, productivity value is not commonly or consistently considered in health economic evaluations of vaccines in several high-income countries. To contribute to a better understanding of the potential impact of including productivity value on the expected cost-effectiveness of vaccination, we illustrate the extent to which the incremental costs would change with and without productivity value incorporated.

METHODS

For two vaccines currently under development, one against Cloistridioides difficile (C. difficile) infection and one against respiratory syncytial disease (RSV), we estimated their incremental costs with and without productivity value included and compared the results.

RESULTS

In this analysis, reflecting a UK context, a C. difficile vaccination programme would prevent £12.3 in productivity costs for every person vaccinated. An RSV vaccination programme would prevent £49 in productivity costs for every vaccinated person.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering productivity costs in future cost-effectiveness analyses of vaccines for C. difficile and RSV will contribute to better-informed reimbursement decisions from a societal perspective.

Fiscal analysis of the pediatric immunization program in Belgium applying a lifetime government perspective framework

OBJECTIVES

A public economic framework was used to explore lifetime government costs and benefits in relation to the Pediatric Immunization Program (PIP) in Belgium based on cases and deaths averted.

METHODS

To estimate changes in net government revenue, we developed a decision-analytic model that quantifies lifetime tax revenues and transfers based on changes in morbidity and mortality arising from Belgium's Pediatric Immunization Program (PIP). The model considered differences in incidence rates with vaccines included in Belgium's PIP: compared with the pre-vaccine era. Changes in deaths and comorbid conditions attributed to PIP on the Belgium 2020 birth cohort were used to estimate gross lifetime earnings changes, tax revenue gains attributed to averted morbidity and mortality avoidance, disability transfer cost savings, and averted special education costs associated with each vaccine.

RESULTS

Vaccinating a single birth cohort according to the PIP gives rise to fiscal gains of €56 million in averted tax revenue loss, €8 million disability savings, and €6 million special education cost-savings. Based on the costs of implementing the PIP, we estimate the fiscal benefit-cost ratio (fBCR) of €2.2 investment return for the government from every €1 invested excluding longevity costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Reducing vaccine-preventable conditions generates tax revenue for the government, providing fiscal justification for sustained immunization investments.

Public health impact and return on investment of the pediatric National Immunization Program in Italy

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the pediatric National Immunization Program (NIP) in Italy.

METHODS

An economic model evaluated the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of the Italian pediatric NIP, including 10 pathogens for mandatory vaccines and 4 pathogens for recommended vaccines for children aged 0-10 years from the healthcare-sector and societal perspectives. Separate decision trees were used to model each vaccine-preventable disease (VPD). The 2020 birth cohort (n = 420,084) was followed over their lifetime; the model projected and compared discounted disease cases, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs (2021 euros) with and without immunization (based on current and pre - vaccine era disease incidence estimates, respectively).

RESULTS

The pediatric NIP was estimated to prevent 1.8 million cases of VPDs and 3,330 deaths, resulting in 45,900 fewer life-years lost and 57,000 fewer QALYs lost. Vaccination costs of €285 million were offset by disease cost savings of €1.6 billion, resulting in a BCR of 5.6 from a societal perspective (BCR = 1.7 from a healthcare-sector perspective). When QALYs gained were valued, the BCR increased to 15.6.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefits of the Italian pediatric NIP, including averted disease-related morbidity, mortality, and associated costs, highlight the value of continued investment in pediatric immunization.

The broader benefits of vaccines: methodologies for inclusion in economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

As the societal value of vaccines is increasingly recognized, there is a need to examine methodological approaches that could be used to integrate these various benefits in the economic evaluation of a vaccine.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A literature review and two expert panel meetings explored methodologies to value herd immunity, health spillover effects (beyond herd immunity), impact on antimicrobial resistance, productivity, and equity implications of vaccines.

RESULTS

The consideration of broader benefits of vaccines in economic evaluation is complicated and necessitates technical expertise. Whereas methodologies to account for herd immunity and work productivity are relatively well established, approaches to investigate equity implications are developing and less frequently applied. Modeling the potential impact on antimicrobial resistance not only depends on the multi-faceted causal relationship between vaccination and resistance but also on data availability.

CONCLUSIONS

Different methods are available to value the broad impact of vaccines, and it is important that analysts are aware of their strengths and limitations and justify their choice of method. In the future, we expect that an increasing number of economic evaluations will consider the broader benefits of vaccines as part of their base-case analysis or in sensitivity analyses.

Cost-effectiveness of high-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine versus standard-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine for older people in a country with high influenza vaccination rate

The highdose quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIVHD) has shown improved protection against influenza and its complications in older adults. We aimed to evaluate the costeffectiveness of QIVHD compared with QIVSD among Korean adults aged ≥ 65 years in reducing influenzarelated disease burden. We evaluated the 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 seasons and their average values using a static decision tree model. The difference in efficacy between standard-dose (SD) and high-dose (HD) was calculated based on the results of a clinical trial comparing Fluzone® High-Dose Vaccine and Fluzone® Vaccine in older adults. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were assessed from the healthcare system perspective. A discount rate of 4.5% was applied to life-year-gained (LYG) values and utilities. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to account for both epidemiological and economic sources of uncertainty. In the analysis of the 2017/2018 season, the QIV-HD strategy generated an excess of 0.00182 life-years (Lys)/person and 0.003953 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)/person compared with QIV-SD. The ICER was 6,467.56 United States Dollars (USD)/QALY. In the analysis from the 2016/2017 season, QIV-HD caused a surplus of 0.00117 Lys/person and 0.003272 QALYs/person compared with QIV-SD. ICER was 7,902.46 USD /QALY. From the average data of the 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 seasons, an excess of 0.00147 Lys/person and 0.003561 QALYs/person were generated using QIV-HD compared with QIV-SD, while the ICER was 7,190.44 USD /QALY. From the healthcare system perspective, QIV-HD was a more cost-effective vaccination option in reducing influenza-related disease burden and healthcare costs in Koreans aged ≥ 65 years compared with QIV-SD.

Public economic gains from tax-financed investments in childhood immunization in the United States

The emergence of COVID-19 has displayed the importance of immunization and the need for continued public investment in vaccination programs. Globally, national vaccination programs rely heavily on tax-financed expenditure, requiring upfront investments and ongoing financial commitments. To evaluate annual public investments, we conducted a fiscal analysis that quantifies the public economic consequences to government in the United States attributable to childhood vaccination. To estimate the change in net government revenue, we developed a decision-analytic model that quantifies lifetime tax revenues and transfers based on changes in morbidity and mortality arising from vaccination of the 2017 U.S. birth cohort. Reductions in deaths and comorbid conditions attributed to pediatric vaccines were used to derive gross lifetime earnings gains, tax revenue gains attributed to averted morbidity and mortality avoided, disability transfer cost savings, and averted special education costs associated with each vaccine. Our analysis indicates a fiscal dividend of $41.7 billion from vaccinating this cohort. The bulk of this gain for government reflects avoiding the loss of $30.6 billion in present-value tax revenues. All pediatric vaccines raise tax revenues by reducing vaccine-preventable morbidity and mortality in amounts ranging from $7.3 million (hepatitis A) to $20.3 billion (diphtheria) over the life course. Based on public investments in pediatric vaccines, a benefit-cost ratio of 17.8 was calculated for each dollar invested in childhood immunization. The public economic yield attributed to childhood vaccination in the U.S. is significant from a government perspective, providing fiscal justification for ongoing investment.

Recognizing the Broader Value of Meningococcal Vaccination: A Matter of Evidence, Ability, or Willingness?

OBJECTIVES

It is widely argued that the value of meningococcal vaccination extends beyond the narrow value elements traditionally considered in health technology assessment. Nevertheless, measuring broader value presents challenges, whereas assessment methods and outcomes vary widely. This article investigates the extent to which the broader value of meningococcal vaccination is recognized, considering the available evidence and decision maker's methodological ability and willingness.

METHODS

A targeted literature review informed the classification of broader value elements according to their relevance to meningococcal vaccination and the quality of existing evidence. Focusing on relevant value elements with good evidentiary standards, decision makers' perspectives and methodological ability to consider them were assessed through case studies of health technology assessment of meningococcal B vaccination in England and The Netherlands.

RESULTS

Value elements of high relevance to meningococcal vaccination with good quality evidence include caregivers' health gains, patients' lifetime productivity gains, and disease severity. The willingness and methodological ability to incorporate them into value assessments have been mixed. This is attributable to the scope of the value assessment perspective and the use of evaluation methods that do not fully capture broader value. For other broader value elements, evidence gaps are another potential barrier to value demonstration and recognition.

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence base confirms that the value of meningococcal vaccination spans beyond healthcare sector effects to health-related externalities, allocative value, and societal economic benefits. To ensure that the most efficient resource allocation outcomes are achieved, countries should consider how to improve their perspective and methodological ability to assess broader value elements accurately.

Contributions of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) to influenza vaccination policy for older adults in Europe

This review describes the importance of economic evaluations and real-world evidence (RWE) for the assessment of enhanced influenza vaccines for older adults in Europe. Individuals ≥65 years of age are at increased risk of severe influenza outcomes and many countries in Europe recommend enhanced vaccines for this population to mitigate immunosenescence. Some National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) may preferentially recommend a specific enhanced vaccine, necessitating comparative economic evaluation and estimation of relative vaccine effectiveness between enhanced vaccine options in the absence of direct head-to-head efficacy data. Distinct approaches to economic modeling and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) guide national vaccination policies in Europe, including how underlying data, such as RWE, are used in these models. RWE is an important evidence source for input into CEA models based on disease factors (e.g., antigenic shift and seasonal variation) and practical factors (e.g., limitations of performing multiple randomized clinical trials to capture seasonal variation; the need to obtain relevant patient-oriented, real-world endpoints, such as hospitalizations). CEA is considered crucial to vaccine assessment among certain countries in Europe, but further harmonization of economic evaluations, including the use of RWE, across NITAGs in Europe may be of benefit, alongside standardized approaches for vaccine appraisal. In the future, more countries may use RWE as an input in CEA models to support NITAG recommendations for enhanced influenza vaccines in older populations, especially considering the value of RWE for the assessment of influenza epidemiology and vaccine effectiveness as stated by the World Health Organization, and the availability of a broad RWE base for certain enhanced vaccines.

Real-World Evidence in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Enhanced Influenza Vaccines in Adults ≥ 65 Years of Age: Literature Review and Expert Opinion

Influenza vaccination can benefit most populations, including adults ≥ 65 years of age, who are at greater risk of influenza-related complications. In many countries, enhanced vaccines, such as adjuvanted, high-dose, and recombinant trivalent/quadrivalent influenza vaccines (aTIV/aQIV, HD-TIV/HD-QIV, and QIVr, respectively), are recommended in older populations to provide higher immunogenicity and increased relative vaccine efficacy/effectiveness (rVE) than standard-dose vaccines. This review explores how efficacy and effectiveness data from randomized controlled trials and real-world evidence (RWE) are used in economic evaluations. Findings from published cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) on enhanced influenza vaccines for older adults are summarized, and the assumptions and approaches used in these CEA are assessed alongside discussion of the importance of RWE in CEA. Results from many CEA showed that adjuvanted and high-dose enhanced vaccines were cost-effective compared with standard vaccines, and that differences in rVE estimates and acquisition price may drive differences in cost-effectiveness estimates between enhanced vaccines. Overall, RWE and CEA provide clinical and economic rationale for enhanced vaccine use in people ≥ 65 years of age, an at-risk population with substantial burden of disease. Countries that consider RWE when making vaccine recommendations have preferentially recommended aTIV/aQIV, as well as HD-TIV/HD-QIV and QIVr, to protect older individuals.

The Economic Value of Rotavirus Vaccination When Optimally Implemented in a High-Income Country

Rotavirus vaccination was introduced in high-income countries starting in 2006, with no recommendation for optimal implementation. Economic evaluations were presented before launch projecting potential impacts. Few economic reassessments have been reported following reimbursement. This study compares the short- to long-term economic value of rotavirus vaccination between pre-launch predictions and real-world evidence collected over 15 years, proposing recommendations for optimal vaccine launch. A cost-impact analysis compared rotavirus hospitalisation data after the introduction of vaccination between pre-launch modelled projections and observed data collected in the RotaBIS study in Belgium. A best model fit of the observed data was used to simulate launch scenarios to identify the optimal strategy. Data from other countries in Europe were used to confirm the potential optimal launch assessment. The Belgian analysis in the short term (first 8 years) indicated a more favourable impact for the observed data than predicted pre-launch model results. The long-term assessment (15 years) showed bigger economic disparities in favour of the model-predicted scenario. A simulated optimal vaccine launch, initiating the vaccination at least 6 months prior the next seasonal disease peak with an immediate very high vaccine coverage, indicated important additional potential gains, which would make vaccination very cost impactful. Finland and the UK are on such a route leading to long-term vaccination success, whereas Spain and Belgium have difficulties in achieving optimum vaccine benefits. An optimal launch of rotavirus vaccination may generate substantial economic gains over time. For high-income countries that are considering implementing rotavirus vaccination, achieving an optimal launch is a critical factor for long-term economic success.

Investing in the Prevention of Communicable Disease Outbreaks: Fiscal Health Modelling-The Tool of Choice for Assessing Public Finance Sustainability

National strategies for preparedness for future outbreaks of COVID-19 often include timely preparedness with vaccines. Fiscal health modelling (FHM) has recently been brought forward as an additional analysis by defining the public economic impact from a governmental perspective. As governments are the main decision-makers concerning pandemic preparedness, this study aimed to develop an FHM framework for infectious diseases in the Netherlands. Based on the Dutch COVID-19 outbreak of 2020 and 2021 and publicly available data on tax income and gross domestic product (GDP), the fiscal impact of COVID-19 was assessed using two approaches. Approach I: Prospective modelling of future fiscal impact based on publicly available laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases; and Approach II: Retrospective assessment of the extrapolated tax and benefit income and GDP. Approach I estimated the consequences that can be causally linked to the population counts reducing income taxes by EUR 266 million. The total fiscal loss amounted to EUR 164 million over 2 years (excluding pension payments averted). The total losses in terms of tax income (2020 and 2021) and GDP (2020) (Approach II), were estimated at, respectively, EUR 13.58 billion and EUR 96.3 billion. This study analysed different aspects of a communicable disease outbreak and its influence on government public accounts. The choice of the two presented approaches depends on the perspective of the analysis, the time horizon of the analysis and the availability of data.

Identification of an Optimal COVID-19 Booster Allocation Strategy to Minimize Hospital Bed-Days with a Fixed Healthcare Budget

Healthcare decision-makers face difficult decisions regarding COVID-19 booster selection given limited budgets and the need to maximize healthcare gain. A constrained optimization (CO) model was developed to identify booster allocation strategies that minimize bed-days by varying the proportion of the eligible population receiving different boosters, stratified by age, and given limited healthcare expenditure. Three booster options were included: B₁, costing US $1 per dose, B₂, costing US $2, and no booster (NB), costing US $0. B₁ and B₂ were assumed to be 55%/75% effective against mild/moderate COVID-19, respectively, and 90% effective against severe/critical COVID-19. Healthcare expenditure was limited to US$2.10 per person; the minimum expected expense using B_1, B_2, or NB for all. Brazil was the base-case country. The model demonstrated that B₁ for those aged <70 years and B₂ for those ≥70 years were optimal for minimizing bed-days. Compared with NB, bed-days were reduced by 75%, hospital admissions by 68%, and intensive care unit admissions by 90%. Total costs were reduced by 60% with medical resource use reduced by 81%. This illustrates that the CO model can be used by healthcare decision-makers to implement vaccine booster allocation strategies that provide the best healthcare outcomes in a broad range of contexts.

The Societal Value of Vaccines: Expert-Based Conceptual Framework and Methods Using COVID-19 Vaccines as a Case Study

Health technology assessments (HTAs) of vaccines typically focus on the direct health benefits to individuals and healthcare systems. COVID-19 highlighted the widespread societal impact of infectious diseases and the value of vaccines in averting adverse clinical consequences and in maintaining or resuming social and economic activities. Using COVID-19 as a case study, this research work aimed to set forth a conceptual framework capturing the broader value elements of vaccines and to identify appropriate methods to quantify value elements not routinely considered in HTAs. A two-step approach was adopted, combining a targeted literature review and three rounds of expert elicitation based on a modified Delphi method, leading to a conceptual framework of 30 value elements related to broader health effects, societal and economic impact, public finances, and uncertainty value. When applying the framework to COVID-19 vaccines in post-pandemic settings, 13 value elements were consensually rated highly important by the experts for consideration in HTAs. The experts reviewed over 10 methods that could be leveraged to quantify broader value elements and provided technical forward-looking recommendations. Limitations of the framework and the identified methods were discussed. This study supplements ongoing efforts aimed towards a broader recognition of the full societal value of vaccines.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: Updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Switching from trivalent to quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccines in Uruguay: a cost-effectiveness analysis

We evaluated the cost-utility of replacing trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) with quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV) in the current target populations in Uruguay. An existing decision-analytic static cost-effectiveness model was adapted for Uruguay. The population was stratified into age groups. Costs and outcomes were estimated for an average influenza season, based on observed rates from 2013 to 2019 inclusive. Introducing QIV instead of TIV in Uruguay would avoid around 740 additional influenza cases, 500 GP consultations, 15 hospitalizations, and three deaths, and save around 300 workdays, for the same vaccination coverage during an average influenza season. Most of the influenza-related consultations and hospitalizations would be avoided among children ≤4 and adults ≥65 years of age. Using QIV rather than TIV would cost an additional ~US$729,000, but this would be partially offset by savings in consultations and hospitalization costs. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with QIV would be in the order of US$18,000 for both the payor and societal perspectives, for all age groups, and around US$12,000 for adults ≥65 years of age. The main drivers influencing the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were the vaccine efficacy against the B strains and the percentage of match each season with the B strain included in TIV. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that switching to QIV would provide a favorable cost-utility ratio for 50% of simulations at a willingness-to-pay per QALY of US$20,000. A switch to QIV is expected to be cost-effective for the current target populations in Uruguay, particularly for older adults.

A guideline for economic evaluations of vaccines and immunization programs in China

This study aimed to develop a consensus framework for economic evaluations of vaccines as a national guideline in China. Some unique and important aspects were particularly emphasized. Nineteen Chinese experts in the field of health economics and immunization decision-making were nominated to select and discuss relevant aspects of vaccine economic evaluations in China. A workshop attended by external experts was held to summarize unique and important aspects and formulate consensus recommendations. There were ten unique and/or important aspects identified for economic evaluations of vaccines in China, including study perspectives, comparator strategies, analysis types, model choices, costing approaches, utility measures, discounting, uncertainty, equity, and evaluation purposes. Background information and expert recommendations were provided for each aspect. Economic evaluations of vaccines should play an important role in China's immunization policy-making. This guideline can help improve the quality of economic evaluations as a good practice consensus.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc.). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Using Health Economics to Inform Immunization Policy Across All Levels of Government

Publicly funded immunization programs have grown in both complexity and scope, resulting in increased costs and more complex programmatic decision making. Economic evaluations can provide crucial information to support informed decision making. While very few countries have National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups that analyze economic information, many have started to develop processes for this purpose. Since these guidelines are being developed at the national level, we propose that regional jurisdictions, especially those responsible for healthcare (e.g., provinces, territories, states), need clear processes for incorporating this information into their immunization decision making and program implementation. We interviewed Canadian vaccine experts involved in provincial vaccine policy decision making to identify current practices, perceptions, and recommendations around incorporating economic analysis into that process. Based on these interviews, we make five recommendations: (1) economic evidence should be routinely incorporated into the decision making process; (2) economic experts should sit on, or be available to, regional advisory committees; (3) efforts should be made to build on regional expertise by increasing educational opportunities on economic evaluation; (4) processes should include guidelines for when economic analysis is not required; and (5) clarification on the role of regional advisory groups in economic analysis is needed in relation to national expertise. The information presented here provides a starting point for regional health policy experts and decision makers to work collaboratively with national partners to create transparent and effective approaches to incorporating economic analysis into vaccine decision making.

Simulation applications to support teaching and research in epidemiological dynamics

BACKGROUND

An understanding of epidemiological dynamics, once confined to mathematical epidemiologists and applied mathematicians, can be disseminated to a non-mathematical community of health care professionals and applied biologists through simple-to-use simulation applications. We used Numerus Model Builder RAMP ^Ⓡ (Runtime Alterable Model Platform) technology, to construct deterministic and stochastic versions of compartmental SIR (Susceptible, Infectious, Recovered with immunity) models as simple-to-use, freely available, epidemic simulation application programs.

RESULTS

We take the reader through simulations used to demonstrate the following concepts: 1) disease prevalence curves of unmitigated outbreaks have a single peak and result in epidemics that 'burn' through the population to become extinguished when the proportion of the susceptible population drops below a critical level; 2) if immunity in recovered individuals wanes sufficiently fast then the disease persists indefinitely as an endemic state, with possible dampening oscillations following the initial outbreak phase; 3) the steepness and initial peak of the prevalence curve are influenced by the basic reproductive value R₀, which must exceed 1 for an epidemic to occur; 4) the probability that a single infectious individual in a closed population (i.e. no migration) gives rise to an epidemic increases with the value of R₀>1; 5) behavior that adaptively decreases the contact rate among individuals with increasing prevalence has major effects on the prevalence curve including dramatic flattening of the prevalence curve along with the generation of multiple prevalence peaks; 6) the impacts of treatment are complicated to model because they effect multiple processes including transmission, recovery and mortality; 7) the impacts of vaccination policies, constrained by a fixed number of vaccination regimens and by the rate and timing of delivery, are crucially important to maximizing the ability of vaccination programs to reduce mortality.

CONCLUSION

Our presentation makes transparent the key assumptions underlying SIR epidemic models. Our RAMP simulators are meant to augment rather than replace classroom material when teaching epidemiological dynamics. They are sufficiently versatile to be used by students to address a range of research questions for term papers and even dissertations.

The Opportunity of Point-of-Care Diagnostics in General Practice: Modelling the Effects on Antimicrobial Resistance

OBJECTIVES

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a public health threat associated with antibiotic consumption. Community-acquired acute respiratory tract infections (CA-ARTIs) are a major driver of antibiotic consumption in primary care. We aimed to quantify the investments required for a large-scale rollout of point-of care (POC) diagnostic testing in Dutch primary care, and the impact on AMR due to reduced use of antibiotics.

METHODS

We developed an individual-based model that simulates consultations for CA-ARTI at GP practices in the Netherlands and compared a scenario where GPs test all CA-ARTI patients with a hypothetical diagnostic strategy to continuing the current standard-of-care for the years 2020-2030. We estimated differences in costs and future AMR rates caused by testing all patients consulting for CA-ARTI with a hypothetical diagnostic strategy, compared to the current standard-of-care in GP practices.

RESULTS

Compared to the current standard-of-care, the diagnostic algorithm increases the total costs of GP consultations for CA-ARTI by 9% and 19%, when priced at €5 and €10, respectively. The forecast increase in Streptococcus pneumoniae resistance against penicillins can be partly restrained by the hypothetical diagnostic strategy from 3.8 to 3.5% in 2030, albeit with considerable uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that implementing a hypothetical diagnostic strategy for all CA-ARTI patients in primary care raises the costs of consultations, while lowering antibiotic consumption and AMR. Novel health-economic methods to assess and communicate the potential benefits related to AMR may be required for interventions with limited gains for individual patients, but considerable potential related to antibiotic consumption and AMR.

Data-Related Challenges in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Vaccines

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) are often prepared to quantify the expected economic value of potential vaccination strategies. Estimated outcomes and costs of vaccination strategies depend on numerous data inputs or assumptions, including estimates of vaccine efficacy and disease incidence in the absence of vaccination. Limitations in epidemiologic data can meaningfully affect both CEA estimates and the interpretation of those results by groups involved in vaccination policy decisions. Developers of CEAs should be transparent with regard to the ambiguity and uncertainty associated with epidemiologic information that is incorporated into their models. We describe selected data-related challenges to conducting CEAs for vaccination strategies, including generalizability of estimates of vaccine effectiveness, duration and functional form of vaccine protection that can change over time, indirect (herd) protection, and serotype replacement. We illustrate how CEA estimates can be sensitive to variations in specific epidemiologic assumptions, with examples from CEAs conducted for the USA that assessed vaccinations against human papillomavirus and pneumococcal disease. These challenges are certainly not limited to these two case studies and may be relevant to other vaccines.

Criteria for New Vaccine Introduction in a National Expanded Program on Immunization: A Survey of Expanded Program on Immunization Managers

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to critically review the decision-making (DM) processes for new vaccines introduction in Latin America's Expanded Program on Immunization (EPIs) and role of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs).

METHODS

An online survey was conducted between August and December 2019 to Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) EPI managers, participants of the National Immunization Technical Advisory Group (NITAG). Information about criteria to introduce the most recent vaccine was asked. CEA role in that decision and technical knowledge of informants were investigated. Frequencies of categorical data were calculated. Bar plots and stacked bar plots were used to visualize the data.

RESULTS

A total of 26 EPI managers and stakeholders participated in the survey from 14 LAC countries. Respondents worked at the Ministry of Health and the Pan American Health Organization. Most recent vaccines included were human papillomavirus (42.3%), injectable polio (26.9%), and varicella (15.4%). High burden of disease and cost-effectiveness/cost-utility were identified as the main a priori criteria used to new vaccine introduction, but not all inputs are available or good quality. Discussion about vaccine introduction was conducted at NITAG meetings, reported as independent by most countries. Nevertheless, NITAG members did not master the essential CEAs concepts.

CONCLUSIONS

DM of vaccine introduction in LAC is reported by EPI managers as a process of discussion with participation of several actors where economic rationalities had a high role in the decision. It is necessary to strengthen the technical capacity to understand economical inputs to inform DM and advocate to include other rationalities as important in the discussion.

Assessing the Health and Economic Outcomes of a 9-Valent HPV Vaccination Program in the United Kingdom

Background: The United Kingdom (UK) switched from using the 4-valent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine (Gardasil®) to the 9-valent vaccine (Gardasil 9®) in 2021. Objective: To estimate and compare the health and economic outcomes of 2 HPV vaccination programs in the UK targeting girls and boys aged 12-13 years from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. The 2 vaccination strategies were (1) universal vaccination 4-valent (UV4V), using the 4-valent HPV vaccine (4vHPV), and (2) universal vaccination 9-valent (UV9V), using the 9-valent HPV vaccine (9vHPV). Methods: A deterministic heterosexual compartmental disease transmission model was used to track health and economic outcomes over a 100-year time horizon. Outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 3.5% and 1.5%. All costs were adjusted to 2020 British pounds (£). Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the summary results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (£/QALY gained) when comparing UV4V with UV9V. Results: Using the same vaccine coverage for both programs, the total cumulative cases of HPV-related health outcomes tracked over the 100-year horizon indicated that the relative number of cases averted (UV9V vs UV4V) ranged from 4% (anal male cancers and deaths) to 56% (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN1]). Assuming that 9vHPV cost £15.18 more than 4vHPV (a cost differential based on discounted list prices), the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £8600/QALY gained when discounted at 3.5%, and £3300/QALY gained when discounted at 1.5%. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from the sensitivity analyses remained <£28000/QALY over a wide range of parameter inputs and demonstrated that disease utilities, discount rate, and vaccine efficacy were the 3 most influential parameters. Discussion: Consistent with other published studies, the results from this study found that the 9vHPV vaccine prevented a substantial number of cases when compared with the 4vHPV vaccine and was highly cost-effective. Conclusions: These results demonstrate that replacing universal 4vHPV with 9vHPV can prevent a substantial additional number of HPV-related cases/deaths (in both women and men) and remain cost-effective over a range of 9vHPV price premiums.

The public economic burden of suboptimal type 2 diabetes control upon taxpayers in Sweden: Looking beyond health costs

AIM

To estimate the fiscal burden for taxpayers in Sweden associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D) attributed to diabetes-related complications in patients failing to meet HbA1c targets.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We developed a public economic framework to assess how changes in diabetes-related complications influenced projected tax contributions and government disability payments for people with T2D. The analysis applied accepted disease-modelling practices to estimate different rates of diabetes-related complications based on an HbA1c of 6.9% (52 mmol/mol) and of 6.0% (42 mmol/mol). We adjusted the employment activity rates for those experiencing T2D-related events, applying age-specific earnings to estimate lifetime tax losses. Furthermore, the likelihood of receiving payments for health-related employment inactivity was estimated. Direct healthcare costs are excluded from this analysis.

RESULTS

The estimated per person earnings loss for immediate and delayed HbA1c control was Swedish krona (SEK) 42 299 and SEK 44 157, respectively, over 10 years. The lost employment activity of people with T2D translates to lost tax revenues of SEK 23 265 and SEK 24 287 for immediate and delayed control, respectively. The estimated difference in disability payments was SEK 538. Combining the tax revenue loss and excess disability payments defines the broader fiscal costs, where we observe combined fiscal losses that favour immediate and sustained control by SEK 1560 over 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

We show that conducting fiscal analysis of diabetes interventions offers an enriched perspective capturing a range of costs that fall on government in relation to lost tax revenue and disability payments. Tax-financed health systems may benefit from broadening the consideration of costs and benefits when evaluating new interventions and treatment practices.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, and the increased role of stakeholder involvement, including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as healthcare, public health, education, social care, etc.). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Acceptance and application of a broad population health perspective when evaluating vaccine

The traditional health economic analysis is limited to estimating the impact on the treated patient. As vaccines are usually aimed at preventing infectious diseases, they may be associated with additional values for the non-treated wider population. Although there are valid reasons for treating vaccines differently, and a wide support for a broader perspective in the literature (i.e., beyond the net costs and health gain related to the outcome for the vaccinated individual), it remains unclear to what extent the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies accept and apply a broader perspective.

The purpose of this study is to examine and discuss what type of consequences are relevant for a health economic analysis of vaccines and which consequences are considered by HTA agencies. The study includes a strategic review of literature and HTA decisions in Sweden and other countries, online round-table discussions with stakeholders in Sweden, and a basic estimation of the value of a COVID-19 vaccination in Sweden.

The study shows that, other than herd effect, broader economic consequences for the population are generally not included in the economic evaluation of vaccines. Also, all economic consequences for the treated patient (production loss) and caregiver (health loss) are not always considered. The perspective chosen can have a major impact on the outcome of the analysis. A vaccine for COVID-19 is estimated to provide a value of €744–€956 per dose when using a societal perspective including broader consequences for the population.

Providing a complete and appropriate picture of the value of vaccination is of importance to allocate resources efficiently, to provide incentives for vaccine development, and to show the cost of delaying decisions to implement a new vaccine.

Economic Evaluation of Universal Varicella Vaccination in Mexico

BACKGROUND

Universal varicella vaccination has proven to be cost-effective (CE) in countries where implemented. However, this has not been evaluated for Mexico.

METHODS

The yearly disease burden (varicella cases/deaths, outpatient visits, and hospitalizations) was derived from Mexican seroprevalence data adjusted to the 2020 population. The yearly economic burden was calculated by combining disease with Mexican unit cost data from both health care and societal perspectives. Four different vaccination strategies were evaluated: (1) 1 dose of varicella vaccine at 1 year old; (2) 2 doses at 1 and 6 years; (3) 1 dose of varicella vaccine at 1 year, and quadrivalent measles-mumps-rubella-varicella vaccine at 6 years; (4) 2 doses of measles-mumps-rubella-varicella vaccine at 1 and 6 years. We developed an economic model for each vaccination strategy where 20 consecutive birth cohorts were simulated. Vaccination impact (number of avoided cases/deaths) was evaluated for a 20-year follow-up period based on vaccine effectiveness (87% and 97.4% for 1 and 2 doses), and assuming a 95% coverage. We estimated annual costs saved, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and costs per life year gained.

RESULTS

Avoided cases during the 20-year follow-up with 1, and 2 doses were 20,570,722 and 23,029,751, respectively. Strategies 1 and 2 were found to be cost saving, and strategy 3 to be CE. Strategy 4 was not CE. Strategies 1 and 2 would allow saving annually $53.16 and $34.41 million USD, respectively, to the Mexican society.

CONCLUSIONS

Universal varicella vaccination, using 1 dose or 2 doses, would result in a cost-beneficial and CE public health intervention in Mexico.

Economic Evaluation of Vaccination Programs: A Guide for Selecting Modeling Approaches

OBJECTIVES

Illustrate 3 economic evaluation methods whose value measures may be useful to decision makers considering vaccination programs.

METHODS

Keyword searches identified example publications of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), fiscal health modeling (FHM), and constrained optimization (CO) for economic evaluation of a vaccination program in countries where at least 2 of the methods had been used. We examined the extent to which different value measures may be useful for decision makers considering adoption of a new vaccination program. With these findings, we created a guide for selecting modeling approaches illustrating the decision-maker contexts and policy objectives for which each method may be useful.

RESULTS

We identified 8 countries with published evaluations for vaccination programs using >1 method for 4 infections: influenza, human papilloma virus, rotavirus, and malaria. CEA studies targeted health system decision makers using a threshold to determine the efficiency of a new vaccination program. FHM studies targeted public sector spending decision makers estimating lifetime changes in government tax revenue net of transfer payments. CO studies targeted decision makers selecting from a mix of options for preventing an infectious disease within budget and feasibility constraints. Cost and utility inputs, epidemiologic models, comparators, and constraints varied by modeling method.

CONCLUSIONS

Although CEAs measures of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are critical for understanding vaccination program efficiency for all decision makers determining access and reimbursement, FHMs provide measures of the program's impact on public spending for government officials, and COs provide measures of the optimal mix of all prevention interventions for public health officials.

A Response to: Letter to the Editor Regarding "Cost-Effectiveness of the 13-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine (PCV13) Versus Lower-Valent Alternatives in Filipino Infants"

This communication seeks to address the questions of Dhere and colleagues in their letter on our study “Cost-effectiveness of the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) versus lower-valent alternatives in Filipino infants.” We hope to provide clarity on each of the three potential misunderstandings of our cost-effectiveness analysis that were raised by Dhere and colleagues.

Economic Value of Vaccines to Address the COVID-19 Pandemic in Hong Kong: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Objective The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has imposed significant costs on economies. Safe and effective vaccines are a key tool to control the pandemic; however, vaccination programs can be costly. Are the benefits they bestow worth the costs they incur? The relative value of COVID-19 vaccines has not been widely assessed. In this study, a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to provide evidence of the economic value of vaccines in Hong Kong. Method We developed a Markov model of COVID-19 infections using a susceptible–infected–recovered structure over a 1-year time horizon from a Hong Kong healthcare sector perspective to measure resource utilization, economic burden, and disease outcomes. The model consisted of two arms: do nothing and implement a vaccination program. We assessed effectiveness using units of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to measure the incremental cost-effectiveness at a HKD 1,000,000/QALY threshold. Results The vaccination program, which has reached approximately 72% of the population of Hong Kong with two vaccine doses, was found to have a cost of HKD 22,339,700 per QALY gained from February 2021 to February 2022. At a willingness-to-pay threshold, the vaccination program was not cost-effective in the context of the low prevalence of COVID-19 cases before the Omicron wave. However, the cost-effectiveness of a COVID-19 vaccine is sensitive to the infection rate. Hong Kong is now experiencing the fifth wave of the Omicron. It is estimated that the ICER of the vaccination program from February 2022 to February 2023 was HKD 310,094. The vaccination program in Hong Kong was cost-effective in the context of the Omicron. Conclusions Vaccination programs incur a large economic burden, and we therefore need to acknowledge their limitations in the short term. This will help relevant departments implement vaccination programs. From a longer-term perspective, the vaccination program will show great cost-effectiveness once infection rates are high in a regional outbreak. Compared with other age groups, it is suggested that the elderly population should be prioritized to improve the vaccine coverage rate.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Economic evaluations of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines in six Western Pacific and South East Asian countries and regions: A modeling study

OBJECTIVE

The present study aimed to document the economic profiles of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines in Hong Kong SAR, Indonesia, mainland China, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand, the evidence on which is currently absent.

METHODS

Decision tree models were developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of two doses of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines at a population vaccination rate of 50% in the base case, which was an estimate of feasible vaccination coverage according to previous studies. Epidemiological, mortality, cost, and health state utility information were sourced from the literature. Vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 cases by severity were estimated using meta-analyses of publicly accessible phase 3 trial results of inactivated vaccines. The health outcomes were quantified as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and compared across the vaccination and no vaccination strategies. In scenario analyses, incidence and vaccination rates were changed semi-continuously over spectrums, the results of which were presented as contour lines informing the efficiency frontiers of vaccination strategies. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also conducted.

RESULTS

The vaccination strategy was dominant in all jurisdictions in the base case by producing 105.18, 98.15, 99.70, 60.48, 112.00, and 103.47 QALYs while saving US$40.26 million, US$5.26 million, US$7.60 million, US$5.91 million, US$21.33 million, and US$7.18 million in Hong Kong SAR, Indonesia, mainland China, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand per every 100,000 vaccinated individuals, respectively. Results were robust in alternative model specifications.

CONCLUSIONS

Inactivated COVID-19 vaccines may be cost-saving options in Hong Kong SAR, Indonesia, mainland China, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. Mass vaccination programs using inactivated COVID-19 vaccines should be considered in these jurisdictions.

Four Aspects Affecting Health Economic Decision Models and Their Validation

Health care decision makers in many jurisdictions use cost-effectiveness analysis based on health economic decision models for policy decisions regarding coverage and price negotiation for medicines and medical devices. While validation of health economic decision models has always been considered important, many reviews of model-based cost-effectiveness studies report limitations regarding their validation. The current opinion paper discusses four aspects of current health economic decision modeling with relevance for future directions in model validation: increased use of complex models, international cooperation, open-source modeling, and stakeholder involvement. First, new, more complex clinical study designs and treatment strategies may require relatively complex model structures and/or input data analyses. Simultaneously, more widespread technical knowledge along with wider data availability have led to a broader range of model types. This puts extra requirements on model validation and transparency. Second, increased international cooperation of policy makers and, in particular, health technology assessment (HTA) authorities in performing model assessments is discussed in relation to the repeated use of health economic models (multi-use disease models). We argue such coordinated efforts may benefit model validity. Third, open-source modeling is discussed as one possible answer to increased transparency requirements. Finally, involvement of all relevant stakeholders throughout the whole decision process is an ongoing development that necessarily also includes health economic modeling. We argue this implies that model validity should be considered in a broader perspective, with more focus on conceptual modeling, model transparency, accuracy requirements, and choice of relevant model outcomes than previously.

Priority setting of vaccine introduction in Bangladesh: a multicriteria decision analysis study

OBJECTIVE

To prioritise vaccines for introduction in Bangladesh.

METHODS

Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) process was used to prioritise potential vaccines for introduction in Bangladesh. A set of criteria were identified, weighted and assigned scores by relevant stakeholders (n=14) during workshop A. The performance matrix of the data of vaccines against the criteria set was constructed and validated with the experts (n=6) in workshop B. The vaccines were ranked and appraised by another group of stakeholders (n=10) in workshop C, and the final workshop D involved the dissemination of the findings to decision-makers (n=28).

RESULTS

Five criteria including incidence rate, case fatality rate, vaccine efficacy, size of the population at risk and type of population at risk were used quantitatively to evaluate and to score the vaccines. Two other criteria, cost-effectiveness and outbreak potentiality, were considered qualitatively. On deliberation, the Japanese encephalitis (JE) vaccine was ranked top to be recommended for introduction in Bangladesh.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the MCDA results, JE vaccine is planned to be recommended to the decision-makers for introduction into the national vaccine benefit package. The policymakers support the use of systematic evidence-based decision-making processes such as MCDA for vaccine introduction in Bangladesh, and to prioritise health interventions in the country.

The broader impacts of otitis media and sequelae for informing economic evaluations of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines

INTRODUCTION

Otitis media (OM) is a common childhood infection. Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) prevent OM episodes, thereby reducing short- and long-term clinical, economic, humanistic, and societal consequences. Most economic evaluations of PCVs focus on direct health gains and cost savings from prevented acute episodes but do not fully account for the broader societal impacts of OM prevention.

AREAS COVERED

This review explores the broader burden of OM on children, caregivers, and society to better inform future economic evaluations of PCVs.

EXPERT OPINION

OM causes a substantial burden to society through long-term sequelae, productivity losses, reduced quality of life for children and caregivers, and contribution to antimicrobial resistance from inappropriate antibiotic use. The effect of PCVs on acute OM has been recognized globally, yet the broader impact has not been consistently quantified, studied, or communicated. Economic evaluations of PCVs must evolve to include broader effects for patients, caregivers, and society from OM prevention. Future PCVs with broader coverage may further reduce OM incidence and antimicrobial resistance, but optimal uptake will depend on increasing the recognition and use of novel frameworks that include broader benefits. Communicating the full value of PCVs to decision makers may result in wider access and positive societal returns.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.