On Discounting of Health Gains from Human Papillomavirus Vaccination: Effects of Different Approaches

Department of Medical Microbiology, Molecular Virology Section, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Value in Health (Impact Factor: 2.89). 05/2012; 15(3):562-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.01.005
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Discounting has long been a matter of controversy in the field of health economic evaluations. How to weigh future health effects has resulted in ongoing discussions. These discussions are imminently relevant for health care interventions with current costs but future benefits. Different approaches to discount health effects have been proposed. In this study, we estimated the impact of different approaches for discounting health benefits of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination.
An HPV model was used to estimate the impact of different discounting approaches on the present value of health effects. For the constant discount approaches, we varied the discount rate for health effects ranging from 0% to 4%. Next, the impact of relevant alternative discounting approaches was estimated, including hyperbolic, proportional, stepwise, and time-shifted discounting.
The present value of health effects gained through HPV vaccination varied strongly when varying discount rates and approaches. The application of the current Dutch guidelines resulted in a present value of health effects that was eight or two times higher than that produced when using the proportional discounting approach or when using the internationally more common 4% discount rate for health effects, respectively. Obviously, such differences translate into large variations in corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.
The exact discount rate and approach chosen in an economic evaluation importantly impact the projected value of health benefits of HPV vaccination. Investigating alternative discounting approaches in health-economic analysis is important, especially for vaccination programs yielding health effects far into the future. Our study underlines the relevance of ongoing discussions on how and at what rates to discount.

Download full-text


Available from: Toos Daemen, Jun 21, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting because substantial information must be conveyed to allow scrutiny of study findings. Despite a growth in published reports, existing reporting guidelines are not widely adopted. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user-friendly manner. A checklist is one way to help authors, editors, and peer reviewers use guidelines to improve reporting. OBJECTIVE: The task force's overall goal was to provide recommendations to optimize the reporting of health economic evaluations. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines into one current, useful reporting guidance. The CHEERS Elaboration and Explanation Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force facilitates the use of the CHEERS statement by providing examples and explanations for each recommendation. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. METHODS: The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. Previously published checklists or guidance documents related to reporting economic evaluations were identified from a systematic review and subsequent survey of task force members. A list of possible items from these efforts was created. A two-round, modified Delphi Panel with representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, and government, as well as the editorial community, was used to identify a minimum set of items important for reporting from the larger list. RESULTS: Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed, with some specific recommendations for single study-based and model-based economic evaluations. The final recommendations are subdivided into six main categories: 1) title and abstract, 2) introduction, 3) methods, 4) results, 5) discussion, and 6) other. The recommendations are contained in the CHEERS statement, a user-friendly 24-item checklist. The task force report provides explanation and elaboration, as well as an example for each recommendation. The ISPOR CHEERS statement is available online via Value in Health or the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices - CHEERS Task Force webpage ( CONCLUSIONS: We hope that the ISPOR CHEERS statement and the accompanying task force report guidance will lead to more consistent and transparent reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate wider dissemination and uptake of this guidance, we are copublishing the CHEERS statement across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups to consider endorsing the CHEERS statement. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in 5 years.
    Value in Health 03/2013; 16(2):231-250. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.002 · 2.89 Impact Factor
  • Vaccine 12/2012; 31(16). DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.11.082 · 3.49 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Backgound: Oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) associated with human papilloma virus (HPV OPC) shows better treatment outcomes than non-HPV OPC. We investigated the expression of p53, beta-tubulin, bcl-2 and ERCC 1, which are well-known biomarkers to predict the chemotherapy response, according to HPV status in OPC patients.
    BMC Cancer 11/2014; 14(1):824. DOI:10.1186/1471-2407-14-824 · 3.32 Impact Factor