Bridging the gap: Need for a data repository to support vaccine prioritization efforts

Madhavan, Guruprasad; Phelps, Charles E.; Sangha, Kinpritma; Levin, Scott R.; Rappuoli, Rino

doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.02.032

Cited by 16 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It may be disappointing that the new tool does not generate one summary number that includes everything, which could be used for ranking different interventions and making an easy selection of the interventions based on that ranking [49]. It would be attractive to do so, but we prefer an evaluation to be more openly debatable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

3. How comprehensive can we be in the economic assessment of vaccines?

Standaert

Rappuoli²

2017

Journal of Market Access & Health Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two previous papers we argued on current vaccines economic assessment not fully comprehensive when using the incremental cost-utility analysis normally applied for treatments. Many differences exist between vaccines and drug treatments making vaccines economic evaluation more cumbersome. Four challenges overwhelmingly present in vaccines assessment are less important for treatments: requirements for population, societal perspectives, budget impact evaluation, and time focused objectives (control or elimination). Based on this, economic analysis of vaccines may need to be presented to many different stakeholders with various evaluation preferences, in addition to the current stakeholders involved for drugs treatment assessment. Then, we may need a tool making the inventory of the different vaccines health economic assessment programmes more comprehensive. The cauliflower value toolbox has been developed with that aim, and its use is illustrated here with rotavirus vaccine. Given the broader perspectives for vaccine assessment, it provides better value and cost evaluations. Cost-benefit analysis may be the preferred economic assessment method when considering substitution from treatment to active medical prevention. Other economic evaluation methods can be selected (i.e. optimisation modelling, return on investment) when project prioritisation is the main focus considered and when stakeholders would like to influence the development of the healthcare programme.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

3. How comprehensive can we be in the economic assessment of vaccines?

Standaert

Rappuoli²

2017

Journal of Market Access & Health Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These factors present unique challenges in defining the perspective, individual preferences versus effects of treatment of one person on unaffected persons (i.e., herd effects), and time horizon for a value framework. (39) Despite this complexity, the European guidelines for vaccine value assessment considers virtually all of the components in our taxonomy. (52) These guidelines explicitly address conflicts of interest: the developers excluded employees of drug or vaccine companies and required members to disclose potential conflicts.…”

Section: Value Taxonomymentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Frameworks That Provide Value Measures for Health Care Interventions

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recent acceleration of scientific discovery has led to greater choices in health care. These new technologies, diagnostic tests, and pharmaceuticals have widely varying impact on patients and populations in terms of benefits, toxicities, and costs, stimulating a resurgence of interest in the creation of frameworks intended to measure value in health. Many of these are offered by providers and/or advocate organizations with expertise and interest in specific diseases (e.g., cancer, heart disease). To help assess the utility of and potential biases embedded in these frameworks, we created an evaluation taxonomy with seven basic components: (1) define the purpose; (2) detail the conceptual approach, including perspectives, methods for obtaining preferences of decision makers (e.g., patients), and ability to incorporate multiple dimensions of value; (3) discuss inclusions and exclusions of elements included in the framework, and whether the framework assumes clinical intervention or offers alternatives such as palliative care or watchful waiting; (4) evaluate data sources and their scientific validity; (5) assess the intervention’s effect on total costs of treating a defined population; (6) analyze how uncertainty is incorporated; and (7) illuminates possible conflicts of interest among those creating the framework. We apply the taxonomy to four representative value frameworks recently published by professional organizations focused on treatment of cancer and heart disease and vaccine use. We conclude that each of these efforts has strengths and weaknesses when evaluated using our taxonomy, and suggest pathways to enhance the utility of value-assessing frameworks for policy and clinical decision-making.

show abstract

“…To implement SMART Vaccines for any particular population (its intended use), analysts must use data covering a wide range of issues-population demographics, disease burden data, and costs of treating each illness for which a candidate vaccine is evaluated [26]. SMART Vaccines has national population data built in for several dozen countries and limited disease burden data, but users must find or estimate numerous data elements to complete the model.…”

Section: Data Needsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Planning and priority setting for vaccine development and immunization

Phelps

Madhavan

Gellin³

2017

Vaccine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We review a sequence of strategic planning efforts over time in the United States, all involving processes to prioritize new vaccine candidates. The Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has been involved in three priority setting processes, each using different metrics and methodologies: infant mortality equivalents (1985-1986), cost-effectiveness (2000), and more recently, the implementation of a software system based on a broader multi-criteria systems approach that can include either of the earlier metrics among other various considerations (2015). The systems approach offers users the flexibility to select, combine, rank, weigh and evaluate different attributes representing their perspectives, assumptions, and particular needs. This approach also overcomes concerns relating to the previous single-metric ranking approaches that yielded lists that, once published, were static, and could not readily accommodate new information about emerging pathogens, new scientific advances, or changes in the costs and performance features of interventions. We discuss the rationale and reasoning behind the design of this multi-criteria decision support approach, stakeholder feedback about the tool, and highlight the potential advantages from using this expanded approach to better inform and support vaccine policies.

show abstract

Bridging the gap: Need for a data repository to support vaccine prioritization efforts

Cited by 16 publications

References 10 publications

3. How comprehensive can we be in the economic assessment of vaccines?

3. How comprehensive can we be in the economic assessment of vaccines?

Evaluating Frameworks That Provide Value Measures for Health Care Interventions

Planning and priority setting for vaccine development and immunization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About