The structure, role, and procedures of the U.S. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)

Meningococcal Vaccination in the United States: Past, Present, And Future

Meningococcal disease is rare but serious, often striking previously healthy adolescents or young adults, with substantial morbidity and mortality. The incidence of meningococcal disease in the USA declined even prior to the issuance of routine recommendations for vaccination, although an uptick in incidence has occurred since 2022. Routine recommendations for adolescent MenACWY vaccination were issued in 2005, and recommendations for adolescent MenB vaccination based on shared clinical decision-making (SCDM) were issued in 2015. Although meningococcal vaccines are safe and effective, their limited duration of protection coupled with low disease incidence result in a high cost per case averted by vaccination, most notably with MenB vaccines. The low cost-effectiveness raises ethical concerns about resource use and the role of economic analyses in policy decisions. However, the potential for substantial public health impact remains. Outer membrane vesicle (OMV)-containing MenB vaccines provide some protection against gonorrhea infections. The recent development of pentavalent ABCWY vaccines provide the opportunity to reduce the number of injections and simplify implementation, provided MenACWY and MenB vaccine schedules are harmonized. Vaccine attributes, implementation issues, and resource utilization will be important considerations in optimization of the US adolescent meningococcal vaccination strategy.

Stakeholder perspective and sentiment in a rapidly growing United States adult vaccination environment

The United States adult vaccine landscape is rapidly expanding, raising critical questions about prioritizing vaccines. Through comprehensive market research involving healthcare providers, pharmacies, integrated delivery networks, policy influencers, and pharmaceutical leaders, this study identifies key barriers to vaccine uptake. Findings reveal significant trends including pharmacy-led vaccination, patient adherence challenges, misinformation influence, and operational constraints. Results underscore the need for coordinated efforts to improve vaccine accessibility, streamline processes, enhance public trust, and develop clearer guidelines. Insights provide actionable strategies for stakeholders to collaborate and ensure optimal uptake in an increasingly complex market.

Invalid Vaccine Doses Among Children Aged 0 to 35 Months: 2011 to 2020

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Vaccine doses provided outside the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for minimum and maximum ages of vaccination and minimum intervals between doses are considered invalid. Our objective was to quantify the prevalence of and factors associated with invalid doses among US children aged 0 to 35 months.

METHODS

We analyzed provider-verified vaccination records from the nationally representative 2011-2020 National Immunization Survey-Child. We quantified the number of children with at least 1 invalid vaccine dose overall, by survey year, and by vaccine type. Among children who received vaccine doses before the minimum age or minimum dose interval, we quantified the prevalence of receiving extra doses such that series were completed with the recommended number of valid doses. We used logistic regression models to identify factors associated with receipt of an invalid vaccination.

RESULTS

Of 161 187 children, 22 209 (weighted percent: 15.4%, 95% CI, 15.0%-15.8%) had an invalid vaccine dose. Of children with a minimum age or minimum interval invalid dose, 44.9% (95% CI, 43.2%-46.6%) received extra doses and completed the series. The highest prevalence of invalid doses was for 3-dose rotavirus (n = 5733, 4.4%), with the first dose being administered after the maximum age (n = 3996, 3.1%). Overall, the percentage of children with an invalid dose decreased from 2011 (16.9%) to 2020 (12.5%). Children who moved across state lines vs not (adjusted odds ratio: 1.5 [95% CI, 1.4-1.6]) had higher odds of an invalid vaccine dose.

CONCLUSIONS

Although invalid vaccine doses have decreased over time, many children with invalid doses lacked the doses necessary to complete a vaccine series.

Reflections on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Pediatricians and primary care providers serve an important role in building trust with families and communities. To support the critical role of front-line providers, this perspective seeks to reflect on the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to support COVID-19 pandemic response efforts. Although Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP) recommends vaccines for all age groups, this perspective focuses on the pediatric lens and is tailored to Academic Pediatrics. ACIP adapted from in-person meetings 3 times yearly to virtual meetings on an emergency basis to ensure a thorough review and presentation of all the components of the evidence to recommendation framework, including explicit consideration of equity in the decision-making process. The need for diverse enrollment in clinical trials was highlighted as critical for supporting recommendations and enhancing trust. Near real-time vaccine safety surveillance was implemented at scale and emphasized the importance of collaboration between federal partners engaged in vaccine safety in the United States and extended to other countries with similar safety surveillance systems to enable early recognition and response to safety concerns. A key equity opportunity for future pandemics is to shorten the time between vaccines being available for adults and young children.

Exploring the future adult vaccine landscape-crowded schedules and new dynamics

Amidst the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccine innovation has garnered significant attention, but this field was already on the cusp of a groundbreaking renaissance. Propelling these advancements are scientific and technological breakthroughs, alongside a growing understanding of the societal and economic boons vaccines offer, particularly for non-pediatric populations like adults and the immunocompromised. In a departure from previous decades where vaccine launches could be seamlessly integrated into existing processes, we anticipate potentially than 100 novel, risk-adjusted product launches over the next 10 years in the adult vaccine market, primarily addressing new indications. However, this segment is infamous for its challenges: low uptake, funding shortfalls, and operational hurdles linked to delivery and administration. To unlock the societal benefits of this burgeoning expansion, we need to adopt a fresh perspective to steer through the dynamics sparked by the rapid growth of the global adult vaccine market. This article aims to provide that fresh perspective, offering a detailed analysis of the anticipated number of adult vaccine approvals by category and exploring how our understanding of barriers to adult vaccine uptake might evolve. We incorporated pertinent insights from external stakeholder interviews, spotlighting shifting preferences, perceptions, priorities, and decision-making criteria. Consequently, this article aspires to serve as a pivotal starting point for industry participants, equipping them with the knowledge to skillfully navigate the anticipated surge in both volume and complexity.

Overview of the global vaccine ecosystem

INTRODUCTION

Vaccination is an effective, relatively inexpensive, and easy to deliver approach to combating infectious diseases. Widespread vaccination of children has led to the eradication of smallpox and allowed for regional elimination or control of diseases like polio, measles, mumps, tetanus, diphtheria, and whooping cough. But, as we learned from efforts to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, a successful global vaccination program must overcome several hurdles. Failure at any stage can limit vaccine uptake and disease control.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we break down the vaccine journey from research and development to delivery into several steps. We also list all the important international organizations trying to support this ecosystem. Then we identify the role of each of these organizations in supporting each of the necessary steps for a successful vaccination program.

EXPERT OPINION

The bottlenecks in vaccination can be different for different countries, based on their income and geography. Policy makers need to identify the weaknesses of this ecosystem in different regions of the world and make sure there is adequate global and local support to fill the gaps in the system.

Vaccine timeliness and prevalence of undervaccination patterns in children ages 0-19 months, U.S., National Immunization Survey-Child 2017

OBJECTIVES

Typically, early childhood vaccination coverage in the U.S. is measured as the proportion of children by age 24 months who completed recommended vaccine series. However, these measures do not reflect whether vaccine doses were received at the ages recommended by the U.S. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or whether children received vaccines concomitantly, per the ACIP recommended schedule. This study's objective was to quantify vaccine timeliness and prevalence of specific patterns of undervaccination in U.S. children ages 0-19 months.

METHODS

Using 2017 National Immunization Survey-Child data, we calculated days undervaccinated for the combined 7-vaccine series and distinguished undervaccination patterns indicative of parental vaccine hesitancy, such as spreading out vaccines across visits ("shot-limiting") or starting some but not all recommended vaccine series ("selective vaccination"), from other non-hesitancy patterns, such as missing final vaccine doses or receiving all doses, with some or all late. We measured associations between demographic, socioeconomic and other characteristics with undervaccination patterns using multivariable log-linked binomial regression. Analyses accounted for the complex survey design.

RESULTS

Among n = 15,333 U.S. children, only 41.2% received all recommended vaccine doses on-time by age 19 months. Approximately 20.9% of children had an undervaccination pattern suggestive of parental vaccine hesitancy, and 36.2% had other undervaccination non-hesitancy patterns. Uninsured children and those with lower levels of maternal education were more likely to exhibit undervaccination patterns suggestive of parental hesitancy. Lower levels of maternal education were also associated with other non-hesitancy undervaccination patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

More than half of children in the U.S. are undervaccinated at some point by 19 months of age. Ongoing assessment of vaccine timeliness and immunization schedule adherence could facilitate timely and targeted public health interventions in populations with high levels of undervaccination.

Towards a Broader Assessment of Value in Vaccines: The BRAVE Way Forward

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic shows that the impact of effective vaccines can extend well beyond vaccinated individuals and healthcare systems. Yet, these broader value elements are not typically considered in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) which may underestimate vaccines' broader value.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to (1) describe the gap between broader value elements identified in value frameworks for vaccines and those recognised in HTA of vaccines in nine developed markets, and (2) develop expert-informed, consensus-based recommendations on how hurdles for broader value recognition could be overcome.

METHODS

We used a four-step modified Delphi method consisting of literature research (phase I, pearl-growing approach using PubMed Web of Science and Google covering the years 2000-2019), two consecutive phases of expert elicitation (phase II and III, including two email surveys and one virtual round table with 10 experts from 9 countries) and synthesis of recommendations (phase IV).

RESULTS

Results show that about half of the broader value elements relevant to vaccines are not (consistently) considered in HTA processes of multiple higher-income countries. Experts identified five priority areas for broader value recognition, including considering (1) more comprehensive cost offsets within the health care system, (2) carer quality of life, (3) transmission value, (4) prevention of antimicrobial resistance and (5) macroeconomic effects.

CONCLUSION

To achieve a broader recognition of the value of vaccines, a three-pronged approach was recommended, focusing on (1) Evidence: proactively steering generation of high-quality evidence to quantify the broader value of vaccines to society; (2) Ability: leveraging and further developing existing methodological and analytic expertise to appropriately recognise the broad value of vaccines within HTA processes; (3) Willingness: Stimulating stakeholder engagement to change the status quo and move towards more transparent and comprehensive value assessment processes for vaccines globally.

Moroccan National Immunization Technical Advisory Group: a valuable asset for the national immunization program and the immunization agenda in the EMRO region

The main mission of a National Immunization Technical Advisory Group (NITAG) is to provide impartial, evidence-based recommendations on immunization to the Ministry of Health. We report on the findings from an evaluation of the Moroccan NITAG with emphasis on its functionality, quality of work processes and outputs, and its integration into the immunization policy process. We conducted a cross-sectional study from October to December 2019. We used the standardized, US-CDC/WHO-developed "simplified assessment tool for national immunization technical advisory groups". The evaluation included eight participants. The evaluation has shown that it fully complies with the WHO recommendations. Among its strengths, the Moroccan NITAG has a solid legal basis, diverse expertise and many years of combined experience. This composition contributed to the credibility and strength of its recommendations and facilitated their implementation. The NITAG could, however, benefit from implementing written declarations of interests and standardized operating procedures in addition to establishing a standardized methodology to guide and document the decision-making process. The Moroccan NITAG could also gain from inviting members with public health/epidemiology research experience and from exchanging with other NITAGs in the region and globally. Finally, ensuring sustainable funding for the NITAG's activities will be crucial, so that it can continue its valuable support to the national immunization program.

Evaluation of Vaccination Strategies to Compare Efficient and Equitable Vaccine Allocation by Race and Ethnicity Across Time

Importance

Identifying the most efficient COVID-19 vaccine allocation strategy may substantially reduce hospitalizations and save lives while ensuring an equitable vaccine distribution.

Objective

To simulate the association of different vaccine allocation strategies with COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality and their distribution across racial and ethnic groups.

Design Setting and Participants

We developed and internally validated the risk of COVID-19 infection and risk of hospitalization models on randomly split training and validation data sets. These were used in a computer simulation study of vaccine prioritization among adult health plan members who were drawn from an integrated health care delivery system. The study was conducted from January 3, 2021, to June 1, 2021, in Oakland, California, and the data were analyzed during the same period.

Main Outcomes and Measures

We simulated the association of different vaccine allocation strategies, including (1) random, (2) a US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) proxy, (3) age based, and (4) combinations of models for the risk of adverse outcomes (CRS) and COVID-19 infection (PROVID), with COVID-19-related hospitalizations between May 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020, that were randomly permuted by month across 250 simulations and assessed vaccine allocation by race and ethnicity and the neighborhood deprivation index across time.

Results

The study included 3 202 679 adult patients (mean [SD] age, 48.2 [18.0] years; 1 677 637 women [52.4%]; 1 525 042 men [47.6%]; 611 154 Asian [19.1%], 206 363 Black [6.4%], 642 344 Hispanic [20.1%], and 1 390 638 White individuals [43.4%]), of whom 36 137 (1.1%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2. A risk-based strategy (CRS/PROVID) showed the largest avoidable hospitalization estimates (4954; 95% CI, 3452-5878) followed by age-based (4362; 95% CI, 2866-5175) and CDC proxy (4085; 95% CI, 2805-5109) strategies. Random vaccination showed substantially lower reductions in adverse outcomes. Risk-based strategies also showed the largest number of avoidable COVID-19 deaths (joint CRS/PROVID) and household transmissions. Risk-based (PROVID) and CDC proxy strategies were estimated to vaccinate the highest percentage of Hispanic and Black patients in 8 months (joint CRS/PROVID: 642 570 [100%] Hispanic, 185 530 [90%] Black; PROVID: 642 570 [100%] Hispanic, 198 480 [96%] Black; CDC proxy: 605 770 [95%] Hispanic and 151 772 [74%] Black) compared with an age-based approach (438 423 [68%] Hispanic, 154 714 [75%] Black). Overall, the PROVID and joint CRS/PROVID risk-based strategies were estimated to be followed by the most patients from areas with high neighborhood deprivation index being vaccinated early.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this simulation modeling study of adults from a large integrated health care delivery system, risk-based strategies were associated with the largest estimated reductions in COVID-19 hospitalizations, deaths, and household transmissions compared with the CDC proxy and age-based strategies, with a higher proportion of Hispanic and Black patients were estimated to be vaccinated early in the process compared with the CDC strategy.

SMART Vaccines 2.0 decision-support platform: a tool to facilitate and promote priority setting for sustainable vaccination in resource-limited settings

In resource-constrained environments, priority setting is critical to making sustainable decisions for introducing new and underused vaccines and choosing among vaccine products. Donor organisations and national governments in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) recognise the need to support prioritisation of vaccine decisions driven by local health system capacity, epidemiology and financial sustainability.

Successful efforts have supported the establishment of National Immunisation Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) to undertake evidence-informed decision making (EIDM) in LMICs. Now, attention is increasingly focused on supporting their function to leverage local expertise and priorities. EIDM and priority-setting functions are complex and dynamic processes. Here, we report a pilot of a web-based decision-support tool. Applying tenets of multicriteria decision analysis, SMART Vaccines 2.0 supported transparent, reproducible and evidence-informed priority setting with an easy-to-use interface and shareable outputs.

The pilot was run by the Uganda NITAG who were requested by the Ministry of Health (MOH) in 2016 to produce recommendations on the prioritised introduction of five new vaccines. The tool was acceptable to the NITAG and supported their recommendations to the MOH. The tool highlighted sensitivity in the prioritisation process to the inherent biases of different stakeholders. This feature also enabled examination of the implications of data uncertainty. Feedback from users identified areas where the tool could more explicitly support evidence-to-recommendation frameworks, ultimately informing the next generation of the platform, PriorityVax.

Country ownership and priority setting in vaccine decisions are central to sustainability. PriorityVax promotes auditable and rigorous deliberations; enables and captures the decision matrix of users; and generates shareable documentation of the process.

Pediatric Vaccines and Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: How Much is Too Much to Pay for Prevention?

Cost-effectiveness evaluations play an important role in recommendations for use of pediatric vaccines that are set forth by the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). The fact that these evaluations are undertaken and accorded weight suggests that a critical value for designating pediatric vaccines as cost-effective (or not) must exist. For recommended pediatric vaccines, however, reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) have varied greatly, and there does not appear to be an explicit threshold used by the ACIP to define how much is too much to pay for the prevention of communicable diseases in children. Further complicating this issue is the fact that conventional ICER thresholds—expressed in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained—accord value only to length and quality of life and may not reflect our preferences as individuals or a society. For example, risk, an important attribute of many healthcare decisions, is ignored by the QALY model, as is the distribution of health benefits across different members of society. Are we indeed indifferent about risk and do we really believe that the value of disease prevention in children should be measured by the same “yardstick” as that for older adults? Accordingly, do we really believe that “a QALY is a QALY”? These issues, which are reviewed and discussed in this article, are more than just of theoretical interest; the answers impact how public health policy is determined, which impacts the lives and well-being of entire populations as well as the budgets of payers.

Principles of Vaccine Licensure, Approval, and Recommendations for Use

The licensure and recommendation processes for vaccines are complex. In the United States, vaccines are licensed for the civilian and military populations on the basis of review of Biologics License Applications submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by vaccine manufacturers. For FDA-licensed vaccines, the product label includes indications, contraindications, and precautions for each vaccine. Package inserts do not include recommendations for vaccine use from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). The ACIP is chartered as a federal advisory committee to provide expert external advice and guidance to the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the use of vaccines and related agents for control of vaccine preventable diseases in the civilian and military populations of the United States. As an external advisory committee to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the ACIP has no regulatory authority but the committee does have responsibility for approving vaccines to be covered under the Vaccines for Children program. To implement ACIP vaccine recommendations in the public and private sectors, a collaboration of federal, state, and local governments as well as private organizations dealing with public health, vaccine supply, vaccine administration, vaccine finance, outcomes monitoring, public perception, and public trust and support must work together. Issues including vaccine misinformation, declining community immunity (herd protection), and need for risk communication add stress to this complex and fragile system. This study describes the functions of and interactions between FDA and ACIP.

A review of the cost-effectiveness of adult influenza vaccination and other preventive services

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend annual influenza vaccination of persons ≥6 months old. However, in 2016-17, only 43.3% of U.S. adults reported receiving an influenza vaccination. Limited awareness about the cost-effectiveness (CE) or the economic value of influenza vaccination may contribute to low vaccination coverage. In 2017, we conducted a literature review to survey estimates of the CE of influenza vaccination of adults compared to no vaccination. We also summarized CE estimates of other common preventive interventions that are recommended for adults by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Results are presented as costs in US$2015 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved. Among adults aged 18-64, the CE of influenza vaccination ranged from $8000 to $39,000 per QALY. Assessments for adults aged ≥65 yielded lower CE ratios, ranging from being cost-saving to $15,300 per QALY. Influenza vaccination was cost-saving to $85,000 per QALY for pregnant women in moderate or severe influenza seasons and $260,000 per QALY in low-incidence seasons. For other preventive interventions, CE estimates ranged from cost-saving to $170,000 per QALY saved for breast cancer screening among women aged 50-74, from cost-saving to $16,000 per QALY for colorectal cancer screening, and from $27,000 to $600,000 per QALY for hypertension screening and treatment. Influenza vaccination in adults appears to have a similar CE profile as other commonly utilized preventive services for adults. Efforts to improve adult vaccination should be considered by adult-patient providers, healthcare systems and payers given the health and economic benefits of influenza vaccination.

The MMR Vaccine and Autism

Autism is a developmental disability that can cause significant social, communication, and behavioral challenges. A report published in 1998, but subsequently retracted by the journal, suggested that measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine causes autism. However, autism is a neurodevelopmental condition that has a strong genetic component with genesis before one year of age, when MMR vaccine is typically administered. Several epidemiologic studies have not found an association between MMR vaccination and autism, including a study that found that MMR vaccine was not associated with an increased risk of autism even among high-risk children whose older siblings had autism. Despite strong evidence of its safety, some parents are still hesitant to accept MMR vaccination of their children. Decreasing acceptance of MMR vaccination has led to outbreaks or resurgence of measles. Health-care providers have a vital role in maintaining confidence in vaccination and preventing suffering, disability, and death from measles and other vaccine-preventable diseases.

Review of the economic evidence presented to the United States Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, 2012-2016

We identified 16 Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) presentations from 2012 to 2016 that indicated 'cost' or 'economic' content. Characteristics were reviewed, abstracted, and tabulated to quantify and assess the transparency and consistency of economic evidence presented to ACIP. To assess transparency, we documented if each study identified author affiliation, conflicts of interest, study limitations, a clearly described model structure and other model attributes. To assess consistency, we identified the frequency of specific modeling choices, including the perspective, types of health outcomes considered, inclusion of specific types of costs, discount rate, and use of sensitivity analyses. Our results indicate that the content in these presentations appear to be transparent overall and consistent in several important areas, such as study perspective and health outcomes. However, we find the inclusion of particular types of direct costs, indirect costs, program costs, and sensitivity analyses are areas that could improve consistency.

Conflicts of interest and the (in)dependence of experts advising government on immunization policies

There has been increasing attention to financial conflicts of interest (COI) in public health research and policy making, with concerns that some decisions are not in the public interest. One notable problematic area is expert advisory committee (EAC). While COI management has focused on disclosure, it could go further and assess experts' degree of (in)dependence with commercial interests. We analyzed COI disclosures of members of Québec's immunization EAC (in Canada) using (In)DepScale, a tool we developed for assessing experts' level of (in)dependence. We found great variability of independence with industry and that companies with the highest vaccine sales were predominantly associated with disclosed COIs. We argue that EACs can use the (In)DepScale to better assess and disclose the COIs that affect their experts. Going forward our scale could help manage risk and select members who are less conflicted to foster a culture of transparency and trust in advisors and policy-makers.

Cost-effectiveness of nonavalent HPV vaccination among males aged 22 through 26 years in the United States

INTRODUCTION

In the United States, routine human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is recommended for females and males at age 11 or 12 years; the series can be started at age 9 years. Vaccination is also recommended for females through age 26 years and males through age 21 years. The objective of this study was to assess the health impact and cost-effectiveness of harmonizing female and male vaccination recommendations by increasing the upper recommended catch-up age of HPV vaccination for males from age 21 to age 26 years.

METHODS

We updated a published model of the health impact and cost-effectiveness of 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine (9vHPV). We examined the cost-effectiveness of (1) 9vHPV for females aged 12 through 26 years and males aged 12 through 21 years, and (2) an expanded program including males through age 26 years.

RESULTS

Compared to no vaccination, providing 9vHPV for females aged 12 through 26 years and males aged 12 through 21 years cost an estimated $16,600 (in 2016 U.S. dollars) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The estimated cost per QALY gained by expanding male vaccination through age 26 years was $228,800 and ranged from $137,900 to $367,300 in multi-way sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness ratios we estimated are not so favorable as to make a strong economic case for recommending expanding male vaccination, yet are not so unfavorable as to preclude consideration of expanding male vaccination. The wide range of plausible results we obtained may underestimate the true degree of uncertainty, due to model limitations. For example, the cost per QALY might be less than our lower bound estimate of $137,900 had our model allowed for vaccine protection against re-infection. Models that specifically incorporate men who have sex with men (MSM) are needed to provide a more comprehensive assessment of male HPV vaccination strategies.

Preferences for health economics presentations among vaccine policymakers and researchers

PURPOSE

Measure the preferences of decision makers and researchers associated with the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the recommended format for presenting health economics studies to the ACIP.

METHODS

We conducted key informant interviews and an online survey of current ACIP work group members, and current and previous ACIP voting members, liaison representatives, and ex-officio members to understand preferences for health economics presentations. These preferences included the presentation of results and sensitivity analyses, the role of health economics studies in decision making, and strategies to improve guidelines for presenting health economics studies. Best-worst scaling was used to measure the relative value of seven attributes of health economics presentations in vaccine decision making.

RESULTS

The best-worst scaling survey had a response rate of 51% (n = 93). Results showed that summary results were the most important attribute for decision making (mean importance score: 0.69) and intermediate outcomes and disaggregated results were least important (mean importance score: -0.71). Respondents without previous health economics experience assigned sensitivity analysis lower importance and relationship of the results to other studies higher importance than the experienced group (sensitivity analysis scores: -0.15 vs. 0.15 respectively; relationship of the results: 0.13 vs. -0.12 respectively). Key informant interviews identified areas for improvement to include additional information on the quality of the analysis and increased role for liaisons familiar with health economics.

CONCLUSION

Additional specificity in health economics presentations could allow for more effective presentations of evidence for vaccine decision making.

Timely Antiviral Administration During an Influenza Pandemic: Key Components

Prompt treatment of ill persons with influenza antivirals will be an important part of a future pandemic influenza response. This essay reviews key lessons learned from the 2009 H1N1 pandemic and the changing landscape of antiviral drug availability, and identifies and describes the multiple components needed to ensure the timely administration of antiviral drugs during a future pandemic. Fortunately, many of these planning efforts can take place before a pandemic strikes to improve outcomes during a future public health emergency.

Efficacy and effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccination for older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Influenza is responsible for a significant disease burden annually, especially in older adults. This study reviews the relative vaccine efficacy or effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine (HD-IIV3) compared to standard-dose influenza vaccines (SD-IIV3) in adults ≥65 against influenza-associated outcomes to inform evidence-based decision-making to shift clinical practice and standard of care in this population.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted for studies assessing the rVE of HD-IIV3 against probable/laboratory-confirmed influenza-like illness (ILI), hospital admissions, and death in adults ≥65. Results from individual seasons were meta-analyzed and a random-effects model was used to estimate pooled rVEs.

RESULTS

After screening 992 studies, seven studies were meta-analyzed. HD-IIV3 demonstrated better protection against ILI compared to SD-IIV3 (rVE = 19.5%; 95% CI: 8.6-29.0%). HD-IIV3 was also more effective at preventing hospital admissions from all-causes (rVE = 9.1%; 95% CI: 2.4-15.3%), as well as from influenza (rVE = 17.8%; 95% CI: 8.1-26.5%), pneumonia (rVE = 24.3%, 95% CI: 13.9-33.4%), and cardiorespiratory events (rVE = 18.2%; 95% CI: 6.8-28.1%). rVE against post-influenza mortality was 22.2% (95% CI: -18.2-48.8%) and 2.5% (95% CI: -5.2-9.5%) against all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence suggests HD-IIV3 is more effective than SD-IIV3 at reducing the clinical outcomes associated with influenza infection in older adults and should be considered for routine use in the 65+ population.

Approaches to Aggregation and Decision Making-A Health Economics Approach: An ISPOR Special Task Force Report [5]

The fifth section of our Special Task Force report identifies and discusses two aggregation issues: 1) aggregation of cost and benefit information across individuals to a population level for benefit plan decision making and 2) combining multiple elements of value into a single value metric for individuals. First, we argue that additional elements could be included in measures of value, but such elements have not generally been included in measures of quality-adjusted life-years. For example, we describe a recently developed extended cost-effectiveness analysis (ECEA) that provides a good example of how to use a broader concept of utility. ECEA adds two features-measures of financial risk protection and income distributional consequences. We then discuss a further option for expanding this approach-augmented CEA, which can introduce many value measures. Neither of these approaches, however, provide a comprehensive measure of value. To resolve this issue, we review a technique called multicriteria decision analysis that can provide a comprehensive measure of value. We then discuss budget-setting and prioritization using multicriteria decision analysis, issues not yet fully resolved. Next, we discuss deliberative processes, which represent another important approach for population- or plan-level decisions used by many health technology assessment bodies. These use quantitative information on CEA and other elements, but the group decisions are reached by a deliberative voting process. Finally, we briefly discuss the use of stated preference methods for developing "hedonic" value frameworks, and conclude with some recommendations in this area.

Planning and priority setting for vaccine development and immunization

We review a sequence of strategic planning efforts over time in the United States, all involving processes to prioritize new vaccine candidates. The Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has been involved in three priority setting processes, each using different metrics and methodologies: infant mortality equivalents (1985–1986), cost-effectiveness (2000), and more recently, the implementation of a software system based on a broader multi-criteria systems approach that can include either of the earlier metrics among other various considerations (2015). The systems approach offers users the flexibility to select, combine, rank, weigh and evaluate different attributes representing their perspectives, assumptions, and particular needs. This approach also overcomes concerns relating to the previous single-metric ranking approaches that yielded lists that, once published, were static, and could not readily accommodate new information about emerging pathogens, new scientific advances, or changes in the costs and performance features of interventions. We discuss the rationale and reasoning behind the design of this multi-criteria decision support approach, stakeholder feedback about the tool, and highlight the potential advantages from using this expanded approach to better inform and support vaccine policies.

Evaluating Harms in the Assessment of Net Benefit: A Framework for Newborn Screening Condition Review

BACKGROUND

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children ("Advisory Committee") makes recommendations to the HHS Secretary regarding addition of new conditions to the national Recommended Uniform Screening Panel for newborns. The Advisory Committee's decision-making process includes assessing the net benefit of screening for nominated conditions, informed by systematic evidence reviews generated by an independent Condition Review Workgroup. The evidence base regarding harms associated with screening for specific conditions is often more limited than that for benefits.

PROCEDURES

The process for defining potential harms from newborn screening reviewed the frameworks from other public health evidence-based review processes, adapted to newborn screening by experts in systematic review, newborn screening programs and bioethics, with input from and approval by the Advisory Committee.

MAIN FINDINGS

To support the Advisory Committee's review of nominated conditions, the Workgroup has developed a standardized approach to evaluation of harms and relevant gaps in the evidence. Types of harms include the physical burden to infants; psychosocial and logistic burdens to families from screening or diagnostic evaluation; increased risk of medical treatment for infants diagnosed earlier than children with clinical presentation; delayed diagnosis from false negative results; psychosocial harm from false positive results; uncertainty of clinical diagnosis, age of onset or clinical spectrum; and disparities in access to diagnosis or therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Estimating the numbers of children at risk, the magnitude, timing and likelihood of harms will be integrated into Workgroup reports to the Advisory Committee.

Economic evaluation of vaccines in Canada: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluations should form part of the basis for public health decision making on new vaccine programs. While Canada's national immunization advisory committee does not systematically include economic evaluations in immunization decision making, there is increasing interest in adopting them. We therefore sought to examine the extent and quality of economic evaluations of vaccines in Canada.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review of economic evaluations of vaccines in Canada to determine and summarize: comprehensiveness across jurisdictions, studied vaccines, funding sources, study designs, research quality, and changes over time.

METHODS

Searches in multiple databases were conducted using the terms "vaccine," "economics" and "Canada." Descriptive data from eligible manuscripts was abstracted and three authors independently evaluated manuscript quality using a 7-point Likert-type scale scoring tool based on criteria from the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR).

RESULTS

42/175 articles met the search criteria. Of these, Canada-wide studies were most common (25/42), while provincial studies largely focused on the three populous provinces of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia. The most common funding source was industry (17/42), followed by government (7/42). 38 studies used mathematical models estimating expected economic benefit while 4 studies examined post-hoc data on established programs. Studies covered 10 diseases, with 28/42 addressing pediatric vaccines. Many studies considered cost-utility (22/42) and the majority of these studies reported favorable economic results (16/22). The mean quality score was 5.9/7 and was consistent over publication date, funding sources, and disease areas.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed diverse approaches to evaluate vaccine economics in Canada. Given the increased complexity of economic studies evaluating vaccines and the impact of results on public health practice, Canada needs improved, transparent and consistent processes to review and assess the findings of the economic evaluations of vaccines.

Influenza vaccination policy-making processes in France and The Netherlands: Framework and determinants

OBJECTIVES

Target groups for seasonal influenza vaccination are nationally defined based on several factors. However, few studies have explored the policy-making processes at the country-level. We investigated key differences in the policy-making process for the development of vaccination recommendations between France (FR) and The Netherlands (NL). This paper presents preliminary results on the evidence used in the decision-making process and focuses on the interactions between the experts and stakeholders.

METHODS

A documentary analysis identified the stakeholders of this process as governmental authorities, research institutions, associations, and manufacturers. This qualitative study included at least one expert from each stakeholder group. Thirty-three semi-structured interviews were performed in 2013 (16 FR, 17 NL). We used NVivo10® to perform a thematic content analysis on the data.

RESULTS

National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) were the key stakeholders in the development of recommendations. There was no systematic standard evaluation of evidence during the decision-making process in both countries. Likewise, voting was not systematic, although it did occur more often in FR. A declaration of interests was obligatory in both countries. Experts with no conflicts of interest were rare because many depend on private funding for their research on influenza vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

The transparency of the NITAGs' procedures for the development of recommendations should be improved. We believe improvements might be achieved by the systematic standard evaluation of evidence, consistent voting, clear declarations of interest, and increased public funding for vaccination research.

Enhancing Vaccine Safety Capacity Globally: A Lifecycle Perspective

Major vaccine safety controversies have arisen in several countries beginning in the last decades of 20th century. Such periodic vaccine safety controversies are unlikely to go away in the near future as more national immunization programs mature with near elimination of target vaccine-preventable diseases that result in relative greater prominence of adverse events following immunizations, both true reactions and temporally coincidental events. There are several ways in which vaccine safety capacity can be improved to potentially mitigate the impact of future vaccine safety controversies. This paper aims to take a "lifecycle" approach, examining some potential pre- and post-licensure opportunities to improve vaccine safety, in both developed (specifically U.S. and Europe) and low- and middle-income countries.

Enhancing vaccine safety capacity globally: A lifecycle perspective

Major vaccine safety controversies have arisen in several countries beginning in the last decades of 20th century. Such periodic vaccine safety controversies are unlikely to go away in the near future as more national immunization programs mature with near elimination of target vaccine-preventable diseases that result in relative greater prominence of adverse events following immunizations, both true reactions and temporally coincidental events. There are several ways in which vaccine safety capacity can be improved to potentially mitigate the impact of future vaccine safety controversies. This paper aims to take a "lifecycle" approach, examining some potential pre- and post-licensure opportunities to improve vaccine safety, in both developed (specifically U.S. and Europe) and low- and middle-income countries.

Safety monitoring in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conduct post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a spontaneous (or passive) reporting system. This means that after a vaccine is approved, CDC and FDA continue to monitor safety while it is distributed in the marketplace for use by collecting and analyzing spontaneous reports of adverse events that occur in persons following vaccination. Various methods and statistical techniques are used to analyze VAERS data, which CDC and FDA use to guide further safety evaluations and inform decisions around vaccine recommendations and regulatory action. VAERS data must be interpreted with caution due to the inherent limitations of passive surveillance. VAERS is primarily a safety signal detection and hypothesis generating system. Generally, VAERS data cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused an adverse event. VAERS data interpreted alone or out of context can lead to erroneous conclusions about cause and effect as well as the risk of adverse events occurring following vaccination. CDC makes VAERS data available to the public and readily accessible online. We describe fundamental vaccine safety concepts, provide an overview of VAERS for healthcare professionals who provide vaccinations and might want to report or better understand a vaccine adverse event, and explain how CDC and FDA analyze VAERS data. We also describe strengths and limitations, and address common misconceptions about VAERS. Information in this review will be helpful for healthcare professionals counseling patients, parents, and others on vaccine safety and benefit-risk balance of vaccination.

Adult vaccination: Now is the time to realize an unfulfilled potential

Each year, vaccine-preventable diseases kill thousands of adults, both in the United States and across the planet, causing a significant human toll and severe economic burden on the world's healthcare systems. In the United States, while immunization is recognized as one of the most effective primary prevention services that improves health and well-being, adult immunization rates remain low and large gaps exist between national adult immunization goals and actual adult immunization rates. Closing these gaps requires a commitment by national leaders to a multifaceted national strategy to: (1) establish the value of adult vaccines in the eyes of the public, payers, policy makers, and health care professionals; (2) improve access to recommended adult vaccinations by improving the adult vaccine infrastructure in the United States and developing public-private partnerships to facilitate effective immunization behaviors; and (3) ensure fair and appropriate payment for adult immunization. Many of the situations that result in low adult immunizations rates in the United States also exist in many other countries around the world. Successful strategies to improve adult immunization coverage rates will result in reductions in morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. All medical and public health stakeholders must now collaborate to realize the significant health benefits that come with a strong adult immunization program.

How do economic evaluations inform health policy decisions for treatment and prevention in Canada and the United States?

Canadian and US health systems have often been characterized as having vastly different approaches to the financing and delivery of healthcare, with Canada portrayed as more reliant on rationing based on costs. In this article, we examine the similarities and differences between the two countries, the evolution and current role of health economic evaluation, and the roles played by health economists. We suggest both countries have similarly used economic evaluation to a limited extent for drug and immunization decisions, with variability in use more of a reflection of the incompleteness of both systems and their inherent institutional barriers rather than political ideology.

Vaccinating my way--use of alternative vaccination schedules in New York State

OBJECTIVE

To identify children vaccinated following an alternative vaccine schedule using immunization information system data and determine the impact of alternative schedule use on vaccine coverage.

STUDY DESIGN

Children born in New York State, outside New York City, between January 1, 2009 and August 14, 2011 were assessed for vaccination patterns consistent with use of an alternative schedule. Children who by 9 months of age had at least 3 vaccination visits recorded in the statewide mandatory immunization information system after 41 days of age were classified as either attempting to conform to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published recommended vaccination schedule or an alternative schedule. The number of vaccination visits and up-to-date status at age 9 months were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Of the 222 628 children studied, the proportion of children following an alternative schedule was 25%. These children were significantly less likely to be up-to-date at age 9 months (15%) compared with those conforming to the routine schedule (90%, P < .05). Children following an alternative schedule on average had about 2 extra vaccine visits compared with children following a routine schedule (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Almost 1 in 4 children in this study appear to be intentionally deviating from the routine schedule. Intentional deviation leads to poor vaccination coverage leaving children vulnerable to infection and increasing the potential for vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks.

The history of the United States Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)

The United States Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is a federal advisory committee that develops written recommendations for use of vaccines licensed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the U.S. civilian population. Vaccine development and disease outbreaks contributed to the need for a systematized, science-based, formal mechanism for establishing national immunization policy in this country. Formed in 1964, the ACIP was charged with this role. The committee has undergone significant changes in structure and operational activities during its 50-year history. The ACIP works closely with many liaison organizations to develop its immunization recommendations, which are harmonized among key professional medical societies. ACIP vaccine recommendations form two immunization schedules, which are updated annually: (1) the childhood and adolescent immunization schedule and (2) the adult immunization schedule. Today, once ACIP recommendations are adopted by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, these recommendations are published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), become official policy, and are incorporated into the appropriate immunization schedule.

Comparison of NITAG policies and working processes in selected developed countries

BACKGROUND

Vaccines are specific medicines characterized by two country-specific market access processes: (1) a recommendation by National Immunization Technical Advisory Group (NITAG), and (2) a funding policy decision.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare and analyze NITAGs of 13 developed countries by describing vaccination committees' bodies and working processes.

METHODS

Information about NITAGs bodies and working processes was searched from official sources from June 2011 to November 2012. Retrieved information was completed from relevant articles identified through a systematic literature review and by information provided by direct contact with NITAGs or parent organizations. An expert panel was also conducted to discuss, validate, and provide additional input on obtained results.

RESULTS

While complete information, defined as 100%, was retrieved only for the UK, at least 80% of data was retrieved for 9 countries out of the 13 selected countries. Terms of references were identified in 7 countries, and the main mission for all NITAGs was to provide advice for National immunization programs. However, these terms of references did not fully encompass all the actual missions of the NITAGs. Decision analysis frameworks were identified for 10 out of the 13, and all NITAGs considered at least four criteria for decision-making: disease burden, efficacy/effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness. Advices were published by most NITAGs, but few NITAGs published meeting agendas and minutes. Only the United States had open meetings.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports previous findings about the disparities in NITAGs processes which could potentially explain the disparity in access to vaccinations and immunization programs across Europe. With NITAGs recommendations being used by policy decision makers for implementation and funding of vaccine programs, guidances should be well-informed and transparent to ensure National Immunization Programs' (NIP) credibility among the public and health care professionals.

Structures, roles, and procedures of state advisory committees on immunization

CONTEXT

Advisory committees have the potential to play a critical role in decision making and implementation at the state level. Many states have advisory committees for their immunization programs to assist in decision making on topics such as implementing new vaccines in their states, school and childcare requirements and exemptions and addressing concerns about vaccine safety.

OBJECTIVE

This article describes how immunization advisory committees work; their roles, formation, organization, and structure; membership; the issues they address; and their benefit to state immunization programs.

DESIGN

In 2011, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, conducted an online survey of immunization program managers to determine which states have immunization advisory committees, how these committees function, and the perceived benefits of the committees to state immunization programs. Follow-up half-hour telephone interviews were conducted with 5 states to gain in-depth information on specific advisory committees.

RESULTS

One hundred percent of states and 3 territories responded, giving an overall response rate of 91%. Thirty-four of the 53 respondents (64%) reported having an advisory committee for immunization issues. Membership is composed of physicians, public health representatives, and nurses as well as public advocates and members of the public. States reported a variety of issues their committee has worked on; the most frequently mentioned issue was school and childcare vaccination requirements. Others included immunization information systems and vaccination of health care personnel.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, states with immunization advisory committees reported that the committees were helpful on issues faced by the program and worth the time and monetary commitment. Given the reported benefits of state immunization advisory committees and the complex program and policy decisions that states face in the dynamic immunization environment, additional states may want to consider establishing immunization advisory committees.

Overcoming perceptions of financial barriers to rotavirus vaccine introduction in Asia

Despite a WHO recommendation in 2009, reaffirmed in 2013, that all countries should consider introducing rotavirus vaccines into their National Immunization Programs, as of June 2013 only 45 have done so. One major consideration appears to have been the costs of the vaccine to countries. Of concern, is that Asian countries have been slow to introduce rotavirus vaccines despite having robust data that could inform the decision-making process. Although decisions on new vaccine introduction are very complex and vary by country and region, economic evaluations are often pivotal once vaccine efficacy and safety has been established, and disease burden documented and communicated. Unfortunately, with private sector list prices of vaccines often used in economic evaluations, rather than a potential public health sector pricing structure, policy-makers may defer decisions on rotavirus vaccine introduction based on the belief that "the vaccine price is too high," even though this might be based on erroneous data. The Pan American Health Organization's Revolving Fund provides one example of how vaccine price can be made more competitive and transparent through a regional tendering process. Other mechanisms, such as tiered pricing and UNICEF procurement, also exist that could help Asian and other countries move forward more quickly with rotavirus vaccine introduction.