Value Of Vaccination Research Articles

Capturing the Value of Vaccination within Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics-Practical Considerations for Expanding Valuation by Including Key Concepts.

Following the development of a value of vaccination (VoV) framework for health technology assessment/cost-effectiveness analysis (HTA/CEA), and identification of three vaccination benefits for near-term inclusion in HTA/CEA, this final paper provides decision makers with methods and examples to consider benefits of health systems strengthening (HSS), equity, and macroeconomic gains. Expert working groups, targeted literature reviews, and case studies were used. Opportunity cost methods were applied for HSS benefits of rotavirus vaccination. Vaccination, with HSS benefits included, reduced the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) by 1.4-50.5% (to GBP 11,552-GBP 23,016) depending on alternative conditions considered. Distributional CEA was applied for health equity benefits of meningococcal vaccination. Nearly 80% of prevented cases were among the three most deprived groups. Vaccination, with equity benefits included, reduced the ICER by 22-56% (to GBP 7014-GBP 12,460), depending on equity parameters. Macroeconomic models may inform HTA deliberative processes (e.g., disease impact on the labour force and the wider economy), or macroeconomic outcomes may be assessed for individuals in CEAs (e.g., impact on non-health consumption, leisure time, and income). These case studies show how to assess broader vaccination benefits in current HTA/CEA, providing decision makers with more accurate and complete VoV assessments. More work is needed to refine inputs and methods, especially for macroeconomic gains.

How the Timing of Annual COVID-19 Vaccination of Nursing Home Residents and Staff Affects Its Value

ObjectivesTo evaluate the epidemiologic, clinical, and economic value of an annual nursing home (NH) COVID-19 vaccine campaign and the impact of when vaccination starts. DesignAgent-based model representing a typical NH. Setting and ParticipantsNH residents and staff. MethodsWe used the model representing an NH with 100 residents, its staff, their interactions, COVID-19 spread, and its health and economic outcomes to evaluate the epidemiologic, clinical, and economic value of varying schedules of annual COVID-19 vaccine campaigns. ResultsAcross a range of scenarios with a 60% vaccine efficacy that wanes starting 4 months after protection onset, vaccination was cost saving or cost-effective when initiated in the late summer or early fall. Annual vaccination averted 102 to 105 COVID-19 cases when 30-day vaccination campaigns began between July and October (varying with vaccination start), decreasing to 97 and 85 cases when starting in November and December, respectively. Starting vaccination between July and December saved $3340 to $4363 and $64,375 to $77,548 from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and societal perspectives, respectively (varying with vaccination start). Vaccination's value did not change when varying the COVID-19 peak between December and February. The ideal vaccine campaign timing was not affected by reducing COVID-19 levels in the community, or varying transmission probability, preexisting immunity, or COVID-19 severity. However, if vaccine efficacy wanes more quickly (over 1 month), earlier vaccination in July resulted in more cases compared with vaccinating later in October. Conclusions and ImplicationsAnnual vaccination of NH staff and residents averted the most cases when initiated in the late summer through early fall, at least 2 months before the COVID-19 winter peak but remained cost saving or cost-effective when it starts in the same month as the peak. This supports tethering COVID vaccination to seasonal influenza campaigns (typically in September-October) for providing protection against SARS-CoV-2 winter surges in NHs.

The value of vaccines.

Optimizing vaccine spending depends on recognizing the full value of vaccination (VoV). Existing taxonomies of such value are not comprehensive because they are not guided by general theories. I rely on two such theories: subjective-value theory claims that what has value is determined by what people actually or ideally want in life. A welfarist theory of government states that a fundamental objective of government is to promote social value (or social welfare). These jointly imply that any aspect of life that individuals actually or ideally value and that could be negatively affected by vaccine-preventable diseases (and therefore positively affected by preventive vaccines) is an element of VoV. I build a more comprehensive-value taxonomy than currently exists based on this implication.

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

BackgroundVaccination 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. MethodsFollowing 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. ResultsForty-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. ConclusionsThe 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.

Public health impact and cost-effectiveness of gonorrhoea vaccination: an integrated transmission-dynamic health-economic modelling analysis

SummaryBackgroundGonorrhoea is a rapidly growing public health threat, with rising incidence and increasing drug resistance. Evidence that the MeNZB and four-component serogroup B meningococcal (4CMenB) vaccines, designed against Neisseria meningitidis, can also offer protection against gonorrhoea has created interest in using 4CMenB for this purpose and for developing gonorrhoea-specific vaccines. However, cost-effectiveness, and how the efficacy and duration of protection affect a gonorrhoea vaccine's value, have not been assessed.MethodsWe developed an integrated transmission-dynamic health-economic model, calibrated using Bayesian methods to surveillance data (from the Genitourinary Medicine Clinic Activity Dataset and the Gonococcal Resistance to Antimicrobials Surveillance Programme) on men who have sex with men (MSM) in England. We considered vaccination of MSM from the perspective of sexual health clinics, with and without vaccination offered to all adolescents in schools (vaccination before entry [VbE]), comparing three realistic approaches to targeting: vaccination on attendance (VoA) for testing; vaccination on diagnosis (VoD) with gonorrhoea; or vaccination according to risk (VaR), offered to patients diagnosed with gonorrhoea plus individuals who test negative but report having more than five sexual partners per year. For the primary analysis, vaccine impact was assessed relative to no vaccination in a conservative baseline scenario wherein time-varying behavioural parameters (sexual risk behaviour and screening rates) stabilise. To calculate the value of vaccination per dose administered, the value of vaccination was calculated by summing the averted costs of testing and treatment, and the monetary value of quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains with a QALY valued at £20 000. Costs were in 2018–19 GB£, and both costs and QALYs were discounted at 3·5% per year. We analysed the effects of varying vaccine uptake (0·5, 1, or 2 times HPV vaccine uptake by MSM in sexual health clinics in England), vaccine efficacy (1–100%) and duration of protection (1–20 years), and the time-horizon considered (10 years and 20 years). In addition, we calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the use of 4CMenB using assumed vaccine prices.FindingsVbE has little impact on gonorrhoea diagnoses, with only 1·7% of MSM vaccinated per year. VoA has the largest impact but requires more vaccine doses than any other strategy, whereas VoD has a moderate impact but requires many fewer doses than VoA. VaR has almost the same impact as VoA but with fewer doses administered than VoA. VaR is the most cost-effective strategy for vaccines of moderate efficacy or duration of protection (or both), although VoD is more cost-effective for very protective and long-lasting vaccines. Even under conservative assumptions (efficacy equivalent to that of MeNZB and protection lasting for 18 months after two-dose primary vaccination and 36 months after single-dose booster vaccination), 4CMenB administered under VaR would likely be cost-saving at its current National Health Service price, averting an estimated mean 110 200 cases (95% credible interval 36 500–223 600), gaining a mean 100·3 QALYs (31·0–215·8), and saving a mean £7·9 million (0·0–20·5) over 10 years. A hypothetical gonorrhoea vaccine's value is increased more by improving its efficacy than its duration of protection—eg, 30% protection lasting 2 years has a median value of £48 (22–85) per dose over 10 years; doubling efficacy increases the value to £102 (53–144) whereas doubling the duration of protection increases it to £72 (34–120).InterpretationWe recommend that vaccination of MSM against gonorrhoea according to risk in sexual health clinics in England with the 4CMenB vaccine be considered. Development of gonorrhoea-specific vaccines should prioritise maximising efficacy over duration of protection.FundingMedical Research Council (UK), National Institute for Health Research (UK).

Indicated or elective? The association of providers' words with HPV vaccine receipt

ABSTRACTBackground: Appropriate provider recommendation is crucial to raising HPV vaccination uptake, yet scant research has explored actual conversations between providers and parents, the effect of parental pre-visit vaccine intention on vaccination, or the effect of conversation style on parental satisfaction with that conversation.Methods: We analyzed 146 audio-recorded clinical encounters between providers, parents/guardians, and HPV vaccine-eligible adolescents, from May 2015 to March 2017, at eight practices in Northeastern U.S. Parents completed pre-visit measures of intent to vaccinate and post-visit assessments of satisfaction with vaccine conversations. We qualitatively analyzed transcribed audio recordings and evaluated associations between providers' vaccine introductions and vaccine receipt.Results: Provider recommendations were empirically defined as “indicated” (clear recommendation that the child receive HPV vaccination at that visit), “elective” (vaccination presented as optional), or “contraindicated” (delay recommended). The vaccination rates were 87%, 68%, and 0% following “indicated,” “elective,” and “contraindicated” presentations respectively. Providers' statements attesting to the vaccine's value to the child did not affect receipt. Parental pre-visit intent to vaccinate was associated with vaccine receipt: 100% for likely/very likely compared to 28% for very unlikely. The association between vaccine recommendation style and vaccine receipt was most pronounced with undecided parents, with 92% accepting vaccination after an “indicated” recommendation vs. 68% after an “elective” recommendation. Satisfaction with vaccine conversations was high regardless of recommendation style.Conclusions: The results suggest that the words used to introduce HPV vaccination have the potential to inform parents' HPV vaccination decisions. Providers should be encouraged to simply state, “Your child is due for the HPV vaccine today.”

Personal Choice or Evidence-Based Nursing Intervention: Nurses' Decision-Making about Influenza Vaccination

Nursing interventions are actions taken by nurses to enhance patient outcomes. Little is known about nursing interventions such as influenza vaccination in which the nurse's decision to adopt a health behavior impacts patient outcomes. There is strong evidence that immunization of health care workers (HCWs) against influenza is effective in preventing the spread of this disease and lowers mortality among patients. Yet, worldwide influenza vaccination rates among HCWs are low, with nurse vaccination rates among the lowest. To understand the factors influencing nurses' decision-making about personally receiving immunization against influenza. A qualitative descriptive design in which data were collected using semistructured interviews was used. Participants were 14 RNs who indicated on a prior survey that they were uncertain about, or would not receive an influenza vaccine during the next vaccination season. Data were analyzed using content analysis. The overarching theme is that influenza immunization is a low priority for nurses. Subthemes include a sense of good health, skepticism of the vaccine's value, fear of vaccine side effects, hand washing as prevention, and inconvenient immunization locations. The nurse participants in this study viewed influenza vaccination as a personal health choice, not as an evidence-based nursing intervention. As a result, the decision to decline influenza vaccination was made in the context of personal health choice and/or risk of injury or illness to the nurse. Patient safety outcomes were not expressed as a factor in making the decision to decline influenza vaccination.

Pediatricians' Views on Financial Barriers and Values for Pneumococcal Vaccine for Children

To 1) describe barriers to pneumococcal conjugate vaccine adoption and 2) estimate the value of the vaccine based on pediatricians' responses to willingness-to-pay questions. In June 2000, we mailed a random sample of pediatricians in Massachusetts a questionnaire about barriers to adoption of the vaccine and willingness to pay for the vaccine and associated outcomes. Respondents were assigned at random to 1 of 2 survey versions: the Personal Perspective version, for which they imagined spending their own money for their own child, or the Public Perspective version, for which they imagined spending the government's money for the average child. Of the 546 pediatricians who responded (estimated completion rate, 80%), only 9% were using the vaccine routinely at the time of the survey. Most said that if the state did not provide the vaccine, financial barriers including inadequate insurance reimbursement would limit their use of the vaccine either a great deal (61%) or a moderate amount (25%). Pediatricians who were asked how much they would pay for the vaccine for their own child (personal perspective) gave a mean of $56 per dose, whereas those who were asked how much the government should pay on behalf of an average child (public perspective) gave a mean of $36 per dose. Alternatively, when we used a decision analysis model and incorporated pediatricians' values for preventing pneumococcal infections to estimate the vaccine's value, the value per dose was $38 from the personal perspective and $34 from the public perspective. Pediatricians in Massachusetts identified significant financial barriers to the adoption of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine related to insurance arrangements. Based on willingness-to-pay questions, the value of the vaccine is lower than the current list price. The methods used to estimate the value of a vaccine, including the perspective used to frame questions, may substantially influence the results.

Vaccine Safety: Injecting a Dose of Common Sense

Vaccine Safety: Injecting a Dose of Common Sense