Health Technology Assessment for Vaccines Against Rare, Severe Infections: Properly Accounting for Serogroup B Meningococcal Vaccination's Full Social and Economic Benefits

Joint consensus on reducing the burden of invasive meningococcal disease in the Asia-Pacific region

Invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) imposes a heavy burden of mortality and life-long sequelae on infected individuals and has devastating impacts on their family members. International data show that meningococcal vaccination programs have reduced IMD incidence and changed the serogroup distribution of the disease. Furthermore, newer data show that although the public health measures in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic temporarily reduced the incidence of IMD, there has been a resurgence in the years since. In the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region, many countries do not include meningococcal vaccines in their routine vaccination programs, and approaches to IMD surveillance are inconsistent. This review summarizes recent data and consensus statements from a group of experts from selected APAC countries on the burden of IMD in the region, evidence for vaccination, and how barriers to IMD vaccination may be addressed.

Market and Non-Market Productivity Losses Associated with Invasive Meningococcal Disease in the USA

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) is an uncommon but serious disease associated with a risk of death and severe long-term sequelae, impacting both patients and their caregivers. Productivity losses due to IMD have not previously been comprehensively evaluated in the USA. This study evaluated both market and non-market productivity losses to better estimate the economic burden of IMD in the USA.

METHODS

An economic model estimated lifetime market (labour) and non-market (unpaid household, caring and voluntary services) productivity losses due to acute IMD, premature death due to IMD, reduced life expectancy in IMD survivors and IMD-related sequelae for patients 16 years of age or older and their caregivers based on IMD cases diagnosed in the USA in 2021 (due to data availability). Time use data were used to characterise IMD-incurred disruptions as market or non-market productivity losses. Time lost during the acute phase (assumed equal for patients and caregivers) was estimated based on hospital length-of-stay data. Time lost due to premature death from acute IMD or reduced remaining life expectancy (only calculated for patients) was estimated by subtracting the age at IMD acquisition or life expectancy of IMD survivors from average life expectancy. Time lost due to IMD-related sequelae was estimated based on sequelae event rates. Time lost was multiplied by earnings per hour (derived from median salary) to estimate productivity losses. Assumptions about sequelae impact on productivity were derived from the literature and expert clinical opinion. Scenario and sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of different inputs and assumptions on the results. Costs were inflated to 2023 US dollars.

RESULTS

Lifetime productivity losses for IMD cases diagnosed in the USA in 2021 (N = 121) totalled $87.4 million ($722,458 per case) for patients 16 years of age and older and their caregivers, with market and non-market losses accounting for approximately 72% and 28%, respectively. Premature death, reduced life expectancy and long-term sequelae were responsible for the majority of total productivity losses for patients and caregivers ($87.1 million); the acute phase accounted for $314,850. Results were most sensitive to the ratio of total benefits, median salary, case-fatality rates and specific sequelae included.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite being an uncommon disease, the high mortality rate and severe long-term consequences of IMD result in a substantial economic impact. Comprehensive market and non-market productivity losses for both patients and caregivers should be considered when evaluating and communicating the true burden of IMD.

Do current economic evaluations fully capture vaccine value: a review of evidence from India

INTRODUCTION

Traditional economic evaluations typically focus on direct health effects and costs offset to the healthcare system. However, vaccines offer significant indirect benefits beyond direct health effects, such as herd immunity, reduced force of infection, reduction in antimicrobial resistance, and others. Failure to consider these benefits while evaluating vaccines may undervalue vaccines. Therefore, it is argued that the full value of vaccines should be estimated by incorporating these broader benefits.

AREAS COVERED

This review presents the broader value domains proposed in literature by various frameworks, and their definitions. The review of economic evidence of vaccine use in India to discuss to what extent these broader value domains have been considered in economic evaluations in India has been presented. We also discuss specific considerations that need to be taken care of while developing value frameworks or guidelines for the economic evaluation of vaccines.

EXPERT OPINION

To develop a comprehensive framework tailored to the country needs, prioritize relevant value domains and optimal methodologies based on the country's healthcare context, and data availability. These value domains must align with people's as well as decision-makers preferences to ensure economic assessments are relevant and actionable.

Documenting the Full Value of Vaccination: A Systematic Review of Value Frameworks

OBJECTIVES

Economic evaluations of vaccination may not fully account for nonhealth patient impacts on families, communities, and society (ie, broader value elements). Omission of broader value elements may reflect a lack of established measurement methodology, lack of agreement over which value elements to include in economic evaluations, and a lack of consensus on whether the value elements included should vary by vaccination type or condition. We conducted a systematic review of value frameworks to identify broader value elements and measurement guidance that may be useful for capturing the full value of vaccination.

METHODS

We searched Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and the gray literature to identify value frameworks for all health interventions, and we extracted information on each framework's context, value elements, and any available guidance on how these elements should be measured. We used descriptive statistics to analyze and compare the prevalence of broader value elements in vaccination value frameworks and other healthcare-related value frameworks.

RESULTS

Our search identified 62 value frameworks that met inclusion criteria, 9 of which were vaccination specific. Although vaccination frameworks included several broader value elements, such as reduced transmissibility and public health benefits, the elements were represented inconsistently across the frameworks. Vaccination frameworks omitted several value elements included in nonvaccination-specific frameworks, including dosing and administration complexity and affordability. In addition, guidance for measuring broader value elements was underdeveloped.

CONCLUSIONS

Future efforts should further evaluate inclusion of broader value elements in economic evaluations of vaccination and develop standards for their subsequent measurement.

Meningococcal Disease in the Post-COVID-19 Era: A Time to Prepare

The global invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) landscape changed considerably during the COVID-19 pandemic, as evidenced by decreased incidence rates due to COVID-19 mitigation measures, such as limited social contact, physical distancing, mask wearing, and hand washing. Vaccination rates were also lower during the pandemic relative to pre-pandemic levels. Although policymakers may have shifted their focus away from IMD vaccination programs to COVID-19 vaccination programs, strong arguments support implementation and prioritization of IMD vaccination programs; IMD cases have increased in some countries and IMD rates may even have exceeded pre-pandemic levels. Additional concerns include increased susceptibility due to vaccination coverage gaps, increased incidence of other respiratory pathogens, immunity debt from lockdown restrictions, and increased IMD epidemiologic variability. The full range of benefits of widely available and effective meningococcal vaccines needs to be considered, especially in health technology assessments, where the broad benefits of these vaccines are neither accurately quantified nor captured in implementation policy decisions. Importantly, implementation of meningococcal vaccination programs in the current IMD climate also appeals to broader healthcare principles, including preparedness rather than reactive approaches, generally accepted benefit-risk approaches to vaccination, historical precedent, and the World Health Organization's goal of defeating meningitis by 2030. Countries should therefore act swiftly to bolster existing meningococcal vaccination strategies to provide broad coverage across age groups and serogroups given the recent increases in IMD incidence.

Recognizing the Broader Value of Meningococcal Vaccination: A Matter of Evidence, Ability, or Willingness?

OBJECTIVES

It is widely argued that the value of meningococcal vaccination extends beyond the narrow value elements traditionally considered in health technology assessment. Nevertheless, measuring broader value presents challenges, whereas assessment methods and outcomes vary widely. This article investigates the extent to which the broader value of meningococcal vaccination is recognized, considering the available evidence and decision maker's methodological ability and willingness.

METHODS

A targeted literature review informed the classification of broader value elements according to their relevance to meningococcal vaccination and the quality of existing evidence. Focusing on relevant value elements with good evidentiary standards, decision makers' perspectives and methodological ability to consider them were assessed through case studies of health technology assessment of meningococcal B vaccination in England and The Netherlands.

RESULTS

Value elements of high relevance to meningococcal vaccination with good quality evidence include caregivers' health gains, patients' lifetime productivity gains, and disease severity. The willingness and methodological ability to incorporate them into value assessments have been mixed. This is attributable to the scope of the value assessment perspective and the use of evaluation methods that do not fully capture broader value. For other broader value elements, evidence gaps are another potential barrier to value demonstration and recognition.

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence base confirms that the value of meningococcal vaccination spans beyond healthcare sector effects to health-related externalities, allocative value, and societal economic benefits. To ensure that the most efficient resource allocation outcomes are achieved, countries should consider how to improve their perspective and methodological ability to assess broader value elements accurately.

Capturing the value of vaccination within health technology assessment and health economics: Literature review and novel conceptual framework

BACKGROUND

Vaccination provides significant health gains to individuals and society and can potentially improve health equity, healthcare systems and national economies. Policy decisions, however, are rarely informed by comprehensive economic evaluations (EE) including vaccination's wide-ranging value. The objective of this analysis was to focus on health technology assessment systems to identify relevant value concepts in order to improve current EE of non-pandemic vaccines.

METHODS

Following a literature review, a novel Value of Vaccination (VoV) framework was developed with experts in vaccine EE from developed countries with established health technology assessment systems.

RESULTS

Forty-four studies presenting value frameworks or concepts applicable to vaccination were included. Eighteen unique value concepts relevant to EE were identified and defined. These were categorised within the VoV framework using three dimensions, moving from a narrow payer perspective to a more expansive and societal perspective. The dimensions were: (I) conventional payer perspective concepts (e.g., health gains in vaccinees, direct medical costs); (II) conventional societal perspective concepts (e.g., indirect health/economic gains to caregivers/households, productivity in vaccinees); and (III) novel societal concepts (e.g., financial risk protection, peace of mind, societal health gains, healthcare systems security, political stability, social equity and macroeconomic gains). While good quality evidence and methods are available to support concepts in Dimensions I and II, further work is needed to generate the required evidence for vaccination impact on Dimension III concepts.

CONCLUSIONS

The devastating effect on nations of the COVID-19 pandemic has helped to highlight the potential far-reaching benefits that many vaccination programmes can offer. This VoV framework is particularly relevant to policy decisions considering EE, and the potential future expansion of non-pandemic vaccination value considerations. The framework helps to understand and compare current value considerations across countries and payer versus societal perspectives. It provides decision-makers with a transparent and logical path to broaden consideration of VoV in EE.

Capturing the value of vaccination within health technology assessment and health economics: Country analysis and priority value concepts

BACKGROUND

A value of vaccination framework for economic evaluation (EE) identified unique value concepts for the broad benefits vaccination provides to individuals, society, healthcare systems and national economies. The objectives of this paper were to work with experts in developed countries to objectively identify three priority concepts to extend current EE.

METHODS

The previously developed classification of value concepts in vaccination distinguished 18 concepts, categorised as conventional payer and societal perspective concepts and novel broader societal concepts. Their inclusion in current EE guidelines was assessed. Experts identified eight criteria relevant to decision-making and measurement feasibility, which were weighted and used to score each concept. The relative ranking of concepts by importance and the gaps in guidelines were used to identify three priority concepts on which to focus immediate efforts to extend EE.

RESULTS

The EE guidelines review highlighted differences across countries and between guidelines and practice. Conventional payer perspective concepts (e.g., individual and societal health gains and medical costs) were generally included, while gaps were evident for conventional societal perspective concepts (e.g., family/caregiver health and economic gains). Few novel broader societal benefits were considered, and only in ad hoc cases. The top-three concepts for near-term consideration: macroeconomic gains (e.g., benefiting the economy, tourism), social equity and ethics (e.g., equal distribution of health outcomes, reduced health/financial equity gaps) and health systems strengthening, resilience and security (e.g., efficiency gains, reduced disruption, increased capacity).

CONCLUSIONS

Gaps, inconsistencies and limited assessment of vaccination value in EE can lead to differences in policy and vaccination access. The three priority concepts identified provide a feasible approach for capturing VoV more broadly in the near-term. Robust methods for measuring and valuing these concepts in future assessments will help strengthen the evidence used to inform decisions, improving access to vaccines that are demonstrably good value for money from society's point of view.

Equity in vaccination policies to overcome social deprivation as a risk factor for invasive meningococcal disease

INTRODUCTION

Social deprivation is associated with poorer healthcare access. Vaccination is among the most effective public health interventions and achieving equity in vaccination access is vitally important. However, vaccines are often reimbursed by public funds only when recommended in national immunization programs (NIPs), which can increase inequity between high and low socioeconomic groups. Invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) is a serious vaccination-preventable disease. This review focuses on vaccination strategies against IMD designed to reduce inequity.

AREAS COVERED

We reviewed meningococcal epidemiology and current vaccination recommendations worldwide. We also reviewed studies demonstrating an association between social deprivation and risk of meningococcal disease, as well as studies demonstrating an impact of social deprivation on uptake of meningococcal vaccines. We discuss factors influencing inclusion of meningococcal vaccines in NIPs.

EXPERT OPINION

Incorporating meningococcal vaccines in NIPs is necessary to reduce inequity, but insufficient alone. Inclusion provides clear guidance to healthcare professionals and helps to ensure that vaccines are offered universally to all target groups. Beyond NIPs, cost of vaccination should be reimbursed especially for disadvantaged individuals. These approaches should help to achieve optimal protection against IMD, by increasing access and immunization rates, eventually reducing social inequities, and helping to protect those at greatest risk.

Real-world implementation of 4-component meningococcal serogroup B vaccine (4CMenB): implications for clinical practices

INTRODUCTION

Invasive meningococcal disease due to serogroup B (MenB) is an uncommon but life-threatening disease. The 4-component meningococcal serogroup B vaccine (4CMenB) is the only MenB vaccine with real-world evidence supporting a reduction in incidence without safety concerns.

AREAS COVERED

We reviewed recommendations and real-world implementation of 4CMenB in National Immunization Programs (NIPs) and implications for clinical practice through a non-systematic literature search.

EXPERT OPINION

4CMenB is registered in 45 countries, 33 of which recommend it clinically: nine for infants, children, adolescents, and high-risk groups; 11 for infants and high-risk groups; the US for individuals aged 16-23 years and high-risk groups; two for infants; 10 for high-risk groups and/or outbreak control. Dosing schedule varies between countries. To date, nine countries include 4CMenB in their NIP: UK, Andorra, Ireland, Italy, San Marino, Lithuania, Malta, Czech Republic, and Portugal. Australia funds it for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children under 2 years, and high-risk individuals. South Australia funds for all infants and adolescents. Many factors influenced introduction into NIPs: disease burden, public awareness, cost-effectiveness, prior meningococcal vaccination programs, efficacy and safety profile. In the future, more countries might consider including 4CMenB in their NIP due to growing evidence on effectiveness and safety.

Cost-effectiveness of meningococcal vaccination of Norwegian teenagers with a quadrivalent ACWY conjugate vaccine

In Norway, the incidence of invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) is higher among 16–19-year-olds than in the general population. Most IMD cases among teenagers are caused by serogroup Y. Since 2011, one dose of meningococcal ACWY conjugate vaccine (MCV4) has been recommended for teenagers with out-of-pocket payment. The teenagers are usually vaccinated through the school health service at age 18. This study aimed to estimate costs and health gains of introducing MCV4 to Norwegian teenagers through the national immunization program (NIP). A Markov model was used to analyze the cost-effectiveness of universal MCV4 vaccination of either 15-year-olds or 18-years-olds. Occurrences of IMD were simulated from 15 until 23 years of age. Costs were estimated from a healthcare perspective. Sensitivity analyses evaluated the impact of vaccine price, vaccination uptake, IMD incidence and discount rate. Compared to today’s practice of vaccinating 18-year-olds with out-of-pocket payment, introducing MCV4 to 15-year-olds in a NIP-setting, with 90% vaccine uptake and 50% rebate on vaccine price, prevented 3.2 hospitalizations, 0.20 sequelae and 0.47 deaths among 15–23-year-olds, annually. Total costs were reduced by €30,000 and 9.7 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were gained per birth cohort. The probability of cost-effectiveness was 99.0%, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of €86,000/QALY for severe diseases in Norway. Cost-effectiveness was highly dependent on vaccine price. Vaccination of 18-year-olds in a NIP-setting was also cost-effective, but less than NIP-vaccination of 15-year-olds. Introduction of MCV4 to the 15-year-olds in the Norwegian NIP is likely to be cost-effective given a rebate on the vaccine price.

Monetary Valuation of Children's Cognitive Outcomes in Economic Evaluations from a Societal Perspective: A Review

Cognitive ability in childhood is positively associated with economic productivity in adulthood. Expected gains in economic output from interventions that protect cognitive function can be incorporated in benefit-cost and cost-effectiveness analyses conducted from a societal perspective. This review summarizes estimates from high-income countries of the association of general cognitive ability, standardized as intelligence quotient (IQ), with annual and lifetime earnings among adults. Estimates of the association of adult earnings with cognitive ability assessed in childhood or adolescence vary from 0.5% to 2.5% per IQ point. That range reflects differences in data sources and analytic methods. We take a conservative published estimate of a 1.4% difference in market productivity per IQ point in the United States from a recent study that controlled for confounding by family background and behavioral attributes. Using that estimate and the present value of lifetime earnings calculated using a 3% discount rate, the implied lifetime monetary valuation of an IQ point in the United States is USD 10,600-13,100. Despite uncertainty and the exclusion of non-market productivity, incorporation of such estimates could lead to a fuller assessment of the benefits of public health and clinical interventions that protect the developing brains of fetuses, infants, and young children.