Infectious diseases are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide with vaccines playing a critical role in preventing deaths. To better understand the impact of low vaccination rates and previous epidemics on infectious disease rates, and how these may help to understand the potential impacts of the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a targeted literature review was conducted. Globally, studies suggest past suboptimal vaccine coverage has contributed to infectious disease outbreaks in vulnerable populations. Disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have contributed to a decline in vaccination uptake and a reduced incidence in several infectious diseases; however, these rates have increased following the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions with modeling studies suggesting a risk of increased morbidity and mortality from several vaccine-preventable diseases. This suggests a window of opportunity to review vaccination and infectious disease control measures before we see further disease resurgence in populations and age-groups currently unaffected.

BackgroundChildren with growth hormone deficiency (GHD) are treated with daily somatropin injections; however, poor treatment persistence and adherence have been recognized previously and have been shown to negatively impact growth outcomes. A recent real-world study of a US pediatric GHD population found that a substantial proportion of children discontinued somatropin therapy, but similar data for a real-world UK population are lacking.ObjectivesTo describe the discontinuation of, and persistence with, daily somatropin treatment among children with GHD in the UK.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of children (≥3 and <16 years old) with ≥1 medication prescription for daily injectable somatropin from 1 July 2000 to 31 December 2020 in the IQVIA Medical Research DATA (IMRD) database. Early persistence was defined as the proportion of children prescribed ≥1 somatropin refill (≥2 prescriptions). Discontinuation was defined as the first date at which a medication gap for somatropin (of >60 or >90 days between prescriptions) occurred. Kaplan–Meier methods were used to evaluate persistence (non-discontinuation) over time to assess time to first discontinuation event. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the relationship between patient characteristics and time to medication discontinuation.ResultsAmong the cohort identified in this study (n = 117), the majority (n = 84, 71.8%) had 48 months of available follow-up; 56.4% were boys and the mean (median) age was 8.6 (8.0) years. About 98% exhibited early persistence, but persistence over the follow-up period decreased with follow-up duration. Using the conservative 90-day gap definition of persistence, an estimated 72.4%, 52.8%, and 43.3% were persistent at 12, 36, and 48 months. Lower persistence rates were observed using the 60-day definition. No significant patient predictors of time to discontinuation were identified.ConclusionsDespite high early persistence with somatropin, a high percentage of children with GHD were increasingly non-persistent over time. More than 1 in 4 were non-persistent at 12 months and more than 1 in 2 were non-persistent at 48 months of follow-up. These results suggest that strategies to support improved medication-taking behavior among children with GHD in the UK are warranted.

Background: Traditional health economic evaluations of antimicrobials currently underestimate their value to wider society. They can be supplemented by additional value elements including insurance value, which captures the value of an antimicrobial in preventing or mitigating impacts of adverse risk events. Despite being commonplace in other sectors, constituents of the impacts and approaches for estimating insurance value have not been investigated. Objectives: This study assessed the insurance value of a novel gram-negative antimicrobial from operational healthcare, wider population health, productivity, and informal care perspectives. Methods: A novel mixed-methods approach was used to model insurance value in the United Kingdom: (1) literature review and multidisciplinary expert workshops to identify risk events for 4 relevant scenarios: ward closures, unavoidable shortage of conventional antimicrobials, viral respiratory pandemics, and catastrophic antimicrobial resistance (AMR); (2) parameterizing mitigable costs and frequencies of risk events across perspectives and scenarios; (3) estimating insurance value through a Monte Carlo simulation model for extreme events and a dynamic disease transmission model. Results: The mean insurance value across all scenarios and perspectives over 10 years in the UK was £718 million, should AMR remain unchanged, where only £134 million related to operational healthcare costs. It would be 50%-70% higher if AMR steadily increased or if a more risk-averse view (1-in-10 year downside) of future events is taken. Discussion: The overall insurance value if AMR remains at current levels (a conservative projection), is over 5 times greater than insurance value from just the operational healthcare costs perspective, traditionally the sole perspective used in health budgeting. Insurance value was generally larger for nationwide or universal (catastrophic AMR, pandemic, and conventional antimicrobial shortages) rather than localized (ward closure) scenarios, across perspectives. Components of this insurance value match previously published estimates of operational costs and mortality impacts. Conclusions: Insurance value of novel antimicrobials can be systematically modeled and substantially augments their traditional health economic value in normal circumstances. These approaches are generalizable to similar health interventions and form a framework for health systems and governments to capture broader value in health technology assessments, improve healthcare access, and increase resilience by planning for adverse scenarios.

Background: Traditional health economic evaluations of antimicrobials currently underestimate their value to wider society. They can be supplemented by additional value elements including insurance value, which captures the value of an antimicrobial in preventing or mitigating impacts of adverse risk events. Despite being commonplace in other sectors, constituents of the impacts and approaches for estimating insurance value have not been investigated. Objectives: This study assessed the insurance value of a novel gram-negative antimicrobial from operational healthcare, wider population health, productivity, and informal care perspectives. Methods: A novel mixed-methods approach was used to model insurance value in the United Kingdom: (1) literature review and multidisciplinary expert workshops to identify risk events for 4 relevant scenarios: ward closures, unavoidable shortage of conventional antimicrobials, viral respiratory pandemics, and catastrophic antimicrobial resistance (AMR); (2) parameterizing mitigable costs and frequencies of risk events across perspectives and scenarios; (3) estimating insurance value through a Monte Carlo simulation model for extreme events and a dynamic disease transmission model. Results: The mean insurance value across all scenarios and perspectives over 10 years in the UK was £718 million, should AMR remain unchanged, where only £134 million related to operational healthcare costs. It would be 50%-70% higher if AMR steadily increased or if a more risk-averse view (1-in-10 year downside) of future events is taken. Discussion: The overall insurance value if AMR remains at current levels (a conservative projection), is over 5 times greater than insurance value from just the operational healthcare costs perspective, traditionally the sole perspective used in health budgeting. Insurance value was generally larger for nationwide or universal (catastrophic AMR, pandemic, and conventional antimicrobial shortages) rather than localized (ward closure) scenarios, across perspectives. Components of this insurance value match previously published estimates of operational costs and mortality impacts. Conclusions: Insurance value of novel antimicrobials can be systematically modeled and substantially augments their traditional health economic value in normal circumstances. These approaches are generalizable to similar health interventions and form a framework for health systems and governments to capture broader value in health technology assessments, improve healthcare access, and increase resilience by planning for adverse scenarios.

Prevention is better than cure-but how to value prevention and incentivise investment?The health of the population is inextricably linked to wider economic prosperity, and COVID-19 has brought this into sharp relief (1). With deaths due to COVID-19 reaching 7 million worldwide (2), there has never been a more pivotal time to call for greater protection against future health threats. However, one of the greatest challenges is recognizing and quantifying the full value of prevention and preparedness to patients, health systems and society. Any such valuation must be comprehensively estimated to include not only the adverse consequences avoided, but also the wider benefits of effective interventions. This will align incentives to invest in patient and population health.The COVID-19 pandemic has starkly revealed how interventions that prevent illness and maintain good health, such as vaccines, antimicrobials and antivirals, provide value beyond the healthcare system alone. Not only do they alleviate illness, they also mitigate disease transmission, protecting the wider population and enabling education, work, caring and social interactions to continue. Prevention of non-communicable diseases such as heart disease and diabetes also confer similar types of value. However, traditional approaches to assessing the effectiveness of such interventions rarely capture value added beyond the healthcare setting. Something needs to change. Realigning incentives to promote investment in population health prioritiesBy viewing through a lens of health being an asset rather than illness being a cost, the healthcare system could promote health in communities, rather than paying for treatment of ill health. Unfortunately, neither good health nor the resilience across health systems that this would support are commonly valued or incentivised (3).There are signs of progress. NICE is exploring wider definitions of value (4, 5), and its latest guidance on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is designed to reward innovation and delink payment from quantity sold (5, 6), to support appropriate use of the antimicrobials. This echoes recent research that found therapeutic benefit was most commonly regarded as a measure of innovation (7). Secondly, the societal impacts of vaccines (8) and antivirals