Appraising the cost-effectiveness of vaccines in the UK: Insights from the Department of Health Consultation on the revision of methods guidelines

Expert Consensus on the Structure, Role, and Procedures of the Korea Expert Committee on Immunization Practices

BACKGROUND

The Korea Expert Committee on Immunization Practices (KECIP) is a key advisory body the government to develop guidelines and provide technical advisory activities on immunization policies in Korea. A recent policy study, inspired by global best practices, aims to enhance KECIP's functionality for providing timely and transparent recommendations in the face of evolving vaccine science and emerging infectious diseases like COVID-19.

METHODS

This study reviewed the current status of KECIP and collected expert opinions through surveys and consultations. Among the 40 panel members who were surveyed, 19 responded to a questionnaire specifically designed to assess the potential areas of improvement within KECIP.

RESULTS

The majority of respondents favored maintaining the current member count and emphasized the need for a subcommittee. Opinions varied on issues such as the length of KECIP's term, the representation of vaccine manufacturers' perspectives, and the chairperson's role. However, there was a consensus on the importance of expertise, transparency, and fair proceedings within the committee.

CONCLUSION

This study underscores the pivotal role of KECIP in shaping national immunization policies, emphasizing the necessity for informed guidance amidst evolving vaccine science and emerging infectious diseases. Furthermore, it stressed the importance of enhancing KECIP's capacity to effectively address evolving public health challenges and maintain successful immunization programs in South Korea.

Cost‑Effectiveness Risk‑Aversion Curves: Comparison of Risk-Adjusted Performance Measures and Expected-Utility Approaches

Accounting for risk attitudes in medical decision making under uncertainty has attracted little research. A recent proposal recommended using the results of a cost-effectiveness analysis to construct a cost-effectiveness risk-aversion curve (CERAC) to inform risk-averse decision makers choosing among healthcare programs with uncertain costs and effects. The CERAC is based on a risk-adjusted performance measure widely used in financial economics called the Sortino ratio. This paper evaluates the CERAC based on the Sortino ratio, derives its various properties, discusses the implications of using it to inform decision making under uncertainty, and compares it with the expected-utility approach. Analytic formulae for the CERAC, relating it to the means and standard deviations of costs and effects of a healthcare program, are derived for both approaches. Compared with the expected-utility approach, the CERAC based on the Sortino ratio implicitly assumes that the decision maker is highly risk averse.

Generating, Presenting, and Interpreting Cost-Effectiveness Results in the Context of Uncertainty: A Tutorial for Deeper Knowledge and Better Practice

This tutorial aims to help make the best available methods for generating and presenting cost-effectiveness results with uncertainty common practice. We believe there is a need for such type of tutorial because some erroneous practices persist (e.g., identifying the cost-effective intervention as the one with the highest probability to be cost-effective), while some of the more advanced methods are hardly used (e.g., the net loss statistic ‘NL’, expected net loss curves and frontier). The tutorial explains with simple examples the pros and cons of using ICER, incremental net benefit and NL to identify the cost-effective intervention, both with and without uncertainty accounted for probabilistically. A flowchart provides practical guidance on when and how to use ICER, incremental net benefit or NL. Different ways to express and present uncertainty in the results are described, including confidence and credible intervals, the probability that a strategy is cost-effective (as usually shown with cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs)) and the expected value of perfect information (EVPI). The tutorial clarifies and illustrates why EVPI is the only measure accounting fully for decision uncertainty, and why NL curves and the NL frontier may be preferred over CEACs and other plots for presenting cost-effectiveness results in the context of uncertainty. The easy calculations and a worked-out real-life example will help users to thoroughly understand and correctly interpret key cost-effectiveness results. Examples with mathematical calculations, interpretation, plots and R code are provided.

NICE's Discounting Review: Clear Thinking on Rational Revision Meets Obstacle of Industrial Interests

The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recently published a review of discounting practice and theory as part of a consultation on its current methods guidelines. The review examines the case for revision or retention of current methods. The changes considered include eliminating favourable rates in certain special cases and the reduction of the base-case rate for costs and health effects from 3.5 to 1.5%. The review also notes the potential need to reduce the cost-effectiveness threshold to accommodate a discount rate reduction, explaining that an agreement between the UK government and the pharmaceutical industry proscribes changing NICE's threshold range until the end of 2023. We believe NICE should be commended for a useful overview of the existing literature and relevant issues. We firmly endorse NICE's view that favourable discount rates are not a good way to apply a preference for certain interventions. Similarly, we support the option of reducing the discount rate to 1.5%, which better accords with real government borrowing costs. We suggest further work to clarify the appropriate theoretical basis for the NICE's social discount rate and the sensitivity of the threshold to changes in discounting. The prospects of a necessary discount rate reduction appear to depend on whether a threshold reduction can be achieved within NICE's current range or if the range itself must be revised downwards. NICE has usefully informed the debate around discount rates. Ultimately, the path to a methodologically consistent and evidence-based revision of discounting depends on whether NICE needs to adjust the threshold too and if it is free to do so.