Categorization of methods used in cost-effectiveness analyses of vaccination programs based on outcomes from dynamic transmission models

Efficacy of virtual reality-based cognitive behavioral group therapy in enhancing emotional well-being and quality of life in Parkinson's disease: A randomized controlled trial

Objective

This study evaluates the effectiveness of virtual reality-based cognitive behavioral group therapy (VR-CBGT) in improving emotional well-being and quality of life in individuals with Parkinson's disease.

Methods

A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 2023 at Roozbeh Hospital, Tehran, with 90 Parkinson's patients. Participants were randomly assigned to an intervention group receiving 12 VR-CBGT sessions over three months with a control group receiving standard medical care without psychological intervention. Emotional well-being was assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and quality of life was measured with the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39 (PDQ-39) before and after the intervention. Data were analyzed using Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) in SPSS-25.

Results

The intervention group demonstrated a significant improvement in emotional well-being (HADS-total score reduction of 7.2 points, P < 0.001) and quality of life (PDQ-39 total score improvement of 12.5 %, P = 0.002) compared to the control group. VR-CBGT explained 18 % of the variance in emotional well-being and 26 % in quality of life.

Conclusion

These findings highlight VR-CBGT as an effective complementary intervention for enhancing psychological health and overall quality of life in Parkinson's patients. The immersive nature of VR fosters engagement and facilitates cognitive and emotional processing, supporting its integration into multidisciplinary treatment approaches.

Going Forward: Potential Impact of Protein-Based COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage on Population Outcomes and Costs in the United States

Policymakers in the United States (US) recommend coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination with a monovalent 2023-2024 vaccine formulation based on the Omicron XBB.1.5 variant. We estimated the potential US population-level health and economic impacts of increased COVID-19 vaccine coverage that might be expected with the availability of a protein-based vaccine with simpler storage requirements in addition to messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines. A Markov model was developed to estimate 1-year COVID-19-related costs, cases, hospitalizations, and deaths with and without the availability of a protein-based vaccine option. The model population was stratified by age and risk status. Model inputs were sourced from published literature or derived from publicly available data. Our model estimated that a five-percentage-point increase in coverage due to the availability of a protein-based vaccine option would prevent over 500,000 cases, 66,000 hospitalizations, and 3000 COVID-19-related deaths. These clinical outcomes translated to 42,000 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD 16,141/QALY from a third-party payer perspective. In sensitivity analyses, outcomes were most sensitive to COVID-19 incidence and severity across age groups. The availability of a protein-based vaccine option in the US could reduce hospitalizations and deaths and is predicted to be cost-effective.

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

This report provides recommendations for budget holders and decision makers in high-, middle, and low-income countries requiring economic analyses of new vaccination programs to allocate scarce resources given budget constraints. ISPOR's Economic Evaluation of Vaccines Designed to Prevent Infectious Disease: Good Practices Task Force wrote guidelines for three analytic methods and solicited comments on them from external reviewers. Cost-effectiveness analyses use decision-analytic models to estimate cumulative changes in resource use, costs, and changes in quality- or disability-adjusted life-years attributable to changes in disease outcomes. Constrained optimization modeling uses a mathematical objective function to be optimized (e.g. disease cases avoided) for a target population for a set of interventions including vaccination programs within established constraints. Fiscal health modeling estimates changes in net present value of government revenues and expenditures attributable to changes in disease outcomes. The task force recommends that those designing economic analyses for new vaccination programs take into account the decision maker's policy objectives and country-specific decision context when estimating: uptake rate in the target population; vaccination program's impact on disease cases in the population over time using a dynamic transmission epidemiologic model; vaccination program implementation and operating costs; and the changes in costs and health outcomes of the target disease(s). The three approaches to economic analysis are complementary and can be used alone or together to estimate a vaccination program's economic value for national, regional, or subregional decision makers in high-, middle-, and low-income countries.

Capturing Budget Impact Considerations Within Economic Evaluations: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Rotavirus Vaccine in Low- and Middle-Income Countries and a Proposed Assessment Framework

BACKGROUND

In low- and middle-income countries, budget impact is an important criterion for funding new interventions, particularly for large public health investments such as new vaccines. However, budget impact analyses remain less frequently conducted and less well researched than cost-effectiveness analyses.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to fill the gap in research on budget impact analyses by assessing (1) the quality of stand-alone budget impact analyses, and (2) the feasibility of extending cost-effectiveness analyses to capture budget impact.

METHODS

We developed a budget impact analysis checklist and scoring system for budget impact analyses, which we then adapted for cost-effectiveness analyses, based on current International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Task Force recommendations. We applied both budget impact analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis checklists and scoring systems to examine the extent to which existing economic evaluations provide sufficient evidence about budget impact to enable decision making. We used rotavirus vaccination as an illustrative case in which low- and middle-income countries uptake has been limited despite demonstrated cost effectiveness. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify economic evaluations of rotavirus vaccine in low- and middle-income countries published between January 2000 and February 2017. We critically appraised the quality of budget impact analyses, and assessed the extension of cost-effectiveness analyses to provide useful budget impact information.

RESULTS

Six budget impact analyses and 60 cost-effectiveness analyses were identified. Budget impact analyses adhered to most International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research recommendations, with key exceptions being provision of undiscounted financial streams for each budget period and model validation. Most cost-effectiveness analyses could not be extended to provide useful budget impact information; cost-effectiveness analyses also rarely presented undiscounted annual costs, or estimated financial streams during the first years of programme scale-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost-effectiveness analyses vastly outnumber budget impact analyses of rotavirus vaccination, despite both being critical for policy decision making. Straightforward changes to the presentation of cost-effectiveness analyses results could facilitate their adaptation into budget impact analyses.

Methods for Health Economic Evaluation of Vaccines and Immunization Decision Frameworks: A Consensus Framework from a European Vaccine Economics Community

BACKGROUND

Incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses [health economic evaluations (HEEs)] of vaccines are routinely considered in decision making on immunization in various industrialized countries. While guidelines advocating more standardization of such HEEs (mainly for curative drugs) exist, several immunization-specific aspects (e.g. indirect effects or discounting approach) are still a subject of debate within the scientific community.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to develop a consensus framework for HEEs of vaccines to support the development of national guidelines in Europe.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify prevailing issues related to HEEs of vaccines. Furthermore, European experts in the field of health economics and immunization decision making were nominated and asked to select relevant aspects for discussion. Based on this, a workshop was held with these experts. Aspects on 'mathematical modelling', 'health economics' and 'decision making' were debated in group-work sessions (GWS) to formulate recommendations and/or--if applicable--to state 'pros' and 'contras'.

RESULTS

A total of 13 different aspects were identified for modelling and HEE: model selection, time horizon of models, natural disease history, measures of vaccine-induced protection, duration of vaccine-induced protection, indirect effects apart from herd protection, target population, model calibration and validation, handling uncertainty, discounting, health-related quality of life, cost components, and perspectives. For decision making, there were four aspects regarding the purpose and the integration of HEEs of vaccines in decision making as well as the variation of parameters within uncertainty analyses and the reporting of results from HEEs. For each aspect, background information and an expert consensus were formulated.

CONCLUSIONS

There was consensus that when HEEs are used to prioritize healthcare funding, this should be done in a consistent way across all interventions, including vaccines. However, proper evaluation of vaccines implies using tools that are not commonly used for therapeutic drugs. Due to the complexity of and uncertainties around vaccination, transparency in the documentation of HEEs and during subsequent decision making is essential.

Dealing with Time in Health Economic Evaluation: Methodological Issues and Recommendations for Practice

Time is an important aspect of health economic evaluation, as the timing and duration of clinical events, healthcare interventions and their consequences all affect estimated costs and effects. These issues should be reflected in the design of health economic models. This article considers three important aspects of time in modelling: (1) which cohorts to simulate and how far into the future to extend the analysis; (2) the simulation of time, including the difference between discrete-time and continuous-time models, cycle lengths, and converting rates and probabilities; and (3) discounting future costs and effects to their present values. We provide a methodological overview of these issues and make recommendations to help inform both the conduct of cost-effectiveness analyses and the interpretation of their results. For choosing which cohorts to simulate and how many, we suggest analysts carefully assess potential reasons for variation in cost effectiveness between cohorts and the feasibility of subgroup-specific recommendations. For the simulation of time, we recommend using short cycles or continuous-time models to avoid biases and the need for half-cycle corrections, and provide advice on the correct conversion of transition probabilities in state transition models. Finally, for discounting, analysts should not only follow current guidance and report how discounting was conducted, especially in the case of differential discounting, but also seek to develop an understanding of its rationale. Our overall recommendations are that analysts explicitly state and justify their modelling choices regarding time and consider how alternative choices may impact on results.

Dissecting the indirect effects caused by vaccines into the basic elements

Vaccination directly protects vaccinated individuals, but it also has the potential for indirectly protecting the unvaccinated in a population (herd protection). Unintended negative consequences such as the re-manifestation of infection, mainly expressed as age shifts, result from vaccination programs as well. We discuss the necessary conditions for achieving optimal herd protection (i.e., high quality vaccine-induced immunity, substantial effect on the force of infection, and appropriate vaccine coverage and distribution), as well as the conditions under which age shifts are likely to occur. We show examples to illustrate these effects. Substantial ambiguity in observing and quantifying these indirect vaccine effects makes accurate evaluation troublesome even though the nature of these outcomes may be critical for accurate assessment of the economic value when decision makers are evaluating a novel vaccine for introduction into a particular region or population group. More investigation is needed to identify and develop successful assessment methodologies for precisely analyzing these outcomes.

Economics of vaccines revisited

Performing a total health economic analysis of a vaccine newly introduced into the market today is a challenge when using the conventional cost-effectiveness analysis we normally apply on pharmaceutical products. There are many reasons for that, such as: the uncertainty in the total benefit (direct and indirect) to be measured in a population when using a cohort model; (1) appropriate rules about discounting the long-term impact of vaccines are absent jeopardizing therefore their value at the initial investment; (2) the presence of opposite contexts when introducing the vaccine in developed vs. the developing world with high benefits, low initial health care investment for the latter vs. marginal benefit and high cost for the former; with a corresponding paradox for the vaccine becoming very cost-effective in low income countries but rather medium in middle low to high middle income countries; (3) and the type of trial assessment for the newer vaccines is now often performed with immunogenicity reaction instead of clinical endpoints which still leaves questions on their real impact and their head-to-head comparison. (4.)