Overview--combination vaccines and simultaneous administration. Past, present, and future

Prelicensure evaluation of combination vaccines

There is considerable public health interest in licensing safe and effective combination vaccines. Because combination vaccines may progress rapidly from phase 1 to a pivotal phase 2 immunogenicity trial, a rigorous approach to address product issues early in development is warranted. Clinical studies to evaluate the safety, immunogenicity, and (when necessary) clinical end point efficacy of combination vaccines should be randomized and well controlled in most cases. A large phase 3 safety study (i.e., a study that enrolls thousands of vaccinees) should be included in the development plan if a phase 3 (clinical end point) efficacy trial will not be conducted. Often, the new combination vaccine under development contains immunogens that have all been previously licensed, have demonstrated efficacy in earlier clinical trials, or both. For such products, comparative immunogenicity data may be sufficient to support efficacy. When applicable, clinical data to support simultaneous administration with other relevant vaccines should be obtained. Given the complexity of combination vaccine development, early consultation with United States Food and Drug Administration can be invaluable.

Challenges in the development, licensure, and use of combination vaccines

Before substantial public health benefits associated with use of combination vaccines can be realized, a variety of challenges must be addressed. In February 2000, the National Vaccine Program Office convened the International Symposium on Combination Vaccines to explore solutions for barriers to development, licensure, and use of safe and effective combination vaccines. The symposium focused on the following questions: (1) What immunologic standards should be used to evaluate new combination vaccines? (2) How should correlates of protection be developed, and how should the data they provide be interpreted? (3) What sample size is adequate for prelicensure safety trials of combination vaccines? (4) Should standards for evaluation of combination vaccines containing licensed components be different from standards for evaluation of combinations containing unlicensed components? (5) How can the "great expectations" of postlicensure surveillance be realized? Available data relevant to these issues were presented, providing a foundation for furthering the science of combination vaccines.

Potency tests of combination vaccines

Combination vaccines differ from single-component vaccines in composition and in how they are manufactured, which poses significant challenges to implementing effective quality-control tests, including measurement of potency. Because each combination vaccine is unique, existing guidelines often fail to provide sufficient information to overcome the inevitable problems encountered when developing and implementing potency tests. Success depends on careful consideration of scientific and regulatory issues. Significant problems may occur if potential interactions between different components in the vaccine are not taken into account during product and test development. Thorough analysis of critical assay parameters and attention to scientific and statistical justifications for the test increase the likelihood of its acceptance. Practical approaches based on experience include rational design of validation studies, complete evaluation and documentation of the potency tests under the conditions in which they are to be applied, and establishing the relationship between production lots of vaccine and lots used in clinical trials.

"Reverse engineering" a formulary selection algorithm to determine the economic value of pentavalent and hexavalent combination vaccines

INTRODUCTION

Combination vaccines with overlapping, noncomplementary components are being introduced to reduce the number of separate injections required to immunize children. A vaccine selection algorithm using operations research techniques was developed as a tool for vaccine purchasers to assemble formularies of monovalent and combination vaccines that would satisfy the recommended immunization schedule. The algorithm weighs distinguishing features of economic consequence among competing vaccines to achieve the lowest overall cost to payers and/or to society for immunization. This method was adapted here to solve for the purchase price of several hypothetical future pentavalent and hexavalent combination vaccines that would permit each to "win" a place in such a lowest cost formulary.

METHODS

Integer programming and an iterative bisection search method determined the maximum "inclusion price" of 4 vaccines not licensed in the United States as of September, 2001 [diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis (DTPa)-Haemophilus influenzae type b (HIB)-hepatitis B (HBV), DTPa-HIB-inactivated polio vaccine (IPV), DTPa-HBV-IPV and DTPa-HIB-HBV-IPV], in competition with 15 existing formulations of licensed vaccines for these diseases at their March, 2000, federal contract discount prices. Both 5-visit and 6-visit scenarios were studied. Different preparation costs were assigned to lyophilized powder ($1.50), liquid ($0.75) and prefilled-syringe ($0.25) formulations/packaging. Injection costs were varied stepwise from $5 through $45 for each dose administered, shifting from a payer's to a societal perspective.

RESULTS

Overall inclusion prices (maximum price for each candidate vaccine to be included in a lowest cost formulary) ranged from $9 to $129 per dose depending on cost assumptions and usage frequency (values would be higher if competing against private-sector vaccine prices). The range was $27 to $68 per dose for DTPa-HIB-HBV, at optimal utilization to avoid extra vaccination. Similarly, as injection costs varied from $5 to $45, DTPa-HIB-IPV ranged from $28 to $75. With the same assumptions, DTPa-HBV-IPV would earn a place in a best value formulary at prices from $35 to $76. As expected the inclusion prices for hexavalent DTPa-HIB-HBV-IPV, $40 to $123, were higher (reflecting more economic value) than for pentavalents. When the assumed injection costs rose to > or = $8, the more expensive HIB-HBV and DTPa-HIB tended to appear in lowest cost formularies, because their cost premium over separate monovalent and trivalent products was outweighed by the savings from one fewer injection.

CONCLUSION

Reverse engineering the vaccine selection algorithm provides a tool to demonstrate the economic value of new combination vaccines and to make pricing decisions.

New combination vaccines

Physicians can achieve full vaccination at each of the recommended visits by administering three or four injections, but for infants, four injections seem to be a maximum in light of the size of the infant thigh, which is the preferred injection site. Thus, physicians must make room for all of the new vaccines on the horizon. To accomplish that task, combinations will be necessary. Progress toward that goal is occurring.