Economic evaluation of meningococcal vaccines: considerations for the future

Hannah Christensen, Hareth Al-Janabi, Pierre Lévy, Maarten J. Postma, David E. Bloom, Paolo Landa, David M. Salisbury, Javier Diez-Domingo, Adrian K. Towse, Paula Lorgelly, Koonal K. Shah, Karla Hernandez-Villafuerte, Vinny Smith, Linda Glennie, Claire Wright, Laura York and Raymond Farkouh
Additional contact information
Hannah Christensen: Bristol Renal, Bristol Medical School - University of Bristol [Bristol]
Hareth Al-Janabi: Department of Economics - University of Birmingham [Birmingham]
Pierre Lévy: Legos - Laboratoire d'Economie et de Gestion des Organisations de Santé - Université Paris Dauphine-PSL - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres, LEDa - Laboratoire d'Economie de Dauphine - IRD - Institut de Recherche pour le Développement - Université Paris Dauphine-PSL - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
Maarten J. Postma: University of Groningen [Groningen]
David E. Bloom: Department of Society, Human Development, and Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston - Harvard School of Public Health
Paolo Landa: University of Exeter Medical School - University of Exeter
Javier Diez-Domingo: Unit of Public Health and Environmental Care, Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Valencia, Burjassot, Valencia, Spain - parent
Karla Hernandez-Villafuerte: Division of Molecular Genetic Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany - Division of Molecular Genetic Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
Raymond Farkouh: Pfizer Inc - Pfizer

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: In 2018, a panel of health economics and meningococcal disease experts convened to review methodologies, frameworks, and decision-making processes for economic evaluations of vaccines, with a focus on evaluation of vaccines targeting invasive meningococcal disease (IMD). The panel discussed vaccine evaluation methods across countries; IMD prevention benefits that are well quantified using current methods, not well quantified, or missing in current cost-effectiveness methodologies; and development of recommendations for future evaluation methods. Consensus was reached on a number of points and further consideration was deemed necessary for some topics. Experts agreed that the unpredictability of IMD complicates an accurate evaluation of meningococcal vaccine benefits and that vaccine cost-effectiveness evaluations should encompass indirect benefits, both for meningococcal vaccines and vaccines in general. In addition, the panel agreed that transparency in the vaccine decision-making process is beneficial and should be implemented when possible. Further discussion is required to ascertain: how enhancing consistency of frameworks for evaluating outcomes of vaccine introduction can be improved; reviews of existing tools used to capture quality of life; how indirect costs are considered within models; and whether and how the weighting of quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), application of QALY adjustment factors, or use of altered cost-effectiveness thresholds should be used in the economic evaluation of vaccines.

Keywords: Cost-effectiveness; Meningitis; Meningococcal; QALY; Vaccine (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Published in European Journal of Health Economics, 2020, 21, ⟨10.1007/s10198-019-01129-z⟩

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
Journal Article: Economic evaluation of meningococcal vaccines: considerations for the future (2020)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03120553

DOI: 10.1007/s10198-019-01129-z

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().