Cost-Effectiveness of Alternative Uses of Polyvalent Meningococcal Vaccines in Niger: An Agent-Based Transmission Modeling Study

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force

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 the 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, and social care). This Explanation and Elaboration Report presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist with recommendations and explanation and examples for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals and the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. Nevertheless, 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, given that there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Meningococcal Serogroup ACWYX Conjugate Vaccine in Malian Toddlers

BACKGROUND

Neisseria meningitidis serogroups A, B, C, W, X, and Y cause outbreaks of meningococcal disease. Quadrivalent conjugate vaccines targeting the A, C, W, and Y serogroups are available. A pentavalent vaccine that also includes serogroup X (NmCV-5) is under development.

METHODS

We conducted a phase 2, observer-blinded, randomized, controlled trial involving Malian children 12 to 16 months of age. Participants were assigned in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive nonadjuvanted NmCV-5, alum-adjuvanted NmCV-5, or the quadrivalent vaccine MenACWY-D, administered intramuscularly in two doses 12 weeks apart. Participants were followed for safety for 169 days. Immunogenicity was assessed with an assay for serum bactericidal antibody (SBA) with rabbit complement on days 0, 28, 84, and 112.

RESULTS

A total of 376 participants underwent randomization, with 150 assigned to each NmCV-5 group and 76 to the MenACWY-D group; 362 participants received both doses of vaccine. A total of 1% of the participants in the nonadjuvanted NmCV-5 group, 1% of those in the adjuvanted NmCV-5 group, and 4% of those in the MenACWY-D group reported local solicited adverse events; 6%, 5%, and 7% of the participants, respectively, reported systemic solicited adverse events. An SBA titer of at least 128 was seen in 91 to 100% (for all five serotypes) of the participants in the NmCV-5 groups and in 36 to 99% (excluding serogroup X) of those in the MenACWY-D group at day 84 (before the second dose); the same threshold was met in 99 to 100% (for all five serotypes) of the participants in the NmCV-5 groups and in 92 to 100% (excluding serogroup X) of those in the MenACWY-D group at day 112. Immune responses to the nonadjuvanted and adjuvanted NmCV-5 formulations were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

No safety concerns were identified with two doses of NmCV-5. A single dose of NmCV-5 elicited immune responses that were similar to those observed with two doses of MenACWY-D. Adjuvanted NmCV-5 provided no discernible benefit over nonadjuvanted NmCV-5. (Funded by the U.K. Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03295318.).

Vaccines to Prevent Meningitis: Historical Perspectives and Future Directions

Despite advances in the development and introduction of vaccines against the major bacterial causes of meningitis, the disease and its long-term after-effects remain a problem globally. The Global Roadmap to Defeat Meningitis by 2030 aims to accelerate progress through visionary and strategic goals that place a major emphasis on preventing meningitis via vaccination. Global vaccination against Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) is the most advanced, such that successful and low-cost combination vaccines incorporating Hib are broadly available. More affordable pneumococcal conjugate vaccines are becoming increasingly available, although countries ineligible for donor support still face access challenges and global serotype coverage is incomplete with existing licensed vaccines. Meningococcal disease control in Africa has progressed with the successful deployment of a low-cost serogroup A conjugate vaccine, but other serogroups still cause outbreaks in regions of the world where broadly protective and affordable vaccines have not been introduced into routine immunization programs. Progress has lagged for prevention of neonatal meningitis and although maternal vaccination against the leading cause, group B streptococcus (GBS), has progressed into clinical trials, no GBS vaccine has thus far reached Phase 3 evaluation. This article examines current and future efforts to control meningitis through vaccination.