Economic evaluation of vaccination: Capturing the full benefits, with an application to human papillomavirus

Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA  Africa Centre for Health and Population Studies, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Mtubatuba, South Africa.
Clinical Microbiology and Infection (Impact Factor: 5.77). 07/2012; 18 Suppl 5(s5):70-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2012.03977.x
Source: PubMed


Clin Microbiol Infect 2012; 18 (Suppl. 5): 70–76
Vaccination has been among the greatest contributors to the past century’s dramatic improvements in health and life expectancy. Recent advances in vaccinology have resulted in new vaccines that will likely lead to substantial future health gains. However, the high cost of these new vaccines, such as the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, poses an obstacle to their widespread adoption in many countries. Economic evaluation can help to determine if investment in vaccine introduction is worthwhile. However, existing economic evaluations usually focus on a narrow set of vaccination-mediated benefits—most notably avoided medical-care costs—and fail to account for several categories of potentially important gains. We consider three sources of such benefit and discuss them with respect to HPV vaccination: (i) outcome-related productivity gains, (ii) behaviour-related productivity gains, and (iii) externalities. We also highlight that HPV vaccination protects against more than just cervical cancer and that these other health gains should be taken into account. Failing to account for these broader benefits of HPV vaccination could result in substantial underestimation of the value of HPV vaccination, thereby leading to ill-founded decisions regarding its introduction into national immunization programmes.

18 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Performing a total health economic analysis of a vaccine newly introduced into the market today is a challenge when using the conventional cost-effectiveness analysis we normally apply on pharmaceutical products. There are many reasons for that, such as: the uncertainty in the total benefit (direct and indirect) to be measured in a population when using a cohort model; (1) appropriate rules about discounting the long-term impact of vaccines are absent jeopardizing therefore their value at the initial investment; (2) the presence of opposite contexts when introducing the vaccine in developed vs. the developing world with high benefits, low initial health care investment for the latter vs. marginal benefit and high cost for the former; with a corresponding paradox for the vaccine becoming very cost-effective in low income countries but rather medium in middle low to high middle income countries; (3) and the type of trial assessment for the newer vaccines is now often performed with immunogenicity reaction instead of clinical endpoints which still leaves questions on their real impact and their head-to-head comparison. (4.)
    Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 01/2013; 9(5). DOI:10.4161/hv.23447 · 2.37 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Low-income rural Indians have poor access to nearby health-care services, preventive products, and insurance. These factors motivated this intervention wherein a composite health-care package was delivered by a telemedicine-enabled community health worker (CHW)—an important actor in the Indian health system given the shortage of doctors. Few studies that evaluate composite programmes of this type exist. Much of the research to date has been evaluations of health insurance, largely using quasi-experimental approaches on inpatient (or composite inpatient and outpatient cover) products with mixed findings. The CARE Foundation created a programme that offered an opportunity to assess, in an experimental setting, incentives to promote primary and preventive care and their likely follow-on effects on hospitalisation/serious illness episodes against alternative approaches that do not do so. This study expands the economic literature base to include research on the impact of outpatient insurance in a developing country using a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and to draw a link to hospitalisation.
    The Lancet 06/2013; 381:S87. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61341-0 · 45.22 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The incidence of dengue has been on the rise since at least the 1960s, bringing greater urgency to the need for a vaccine to prevent the disease. Recent advances suggest that the scientific world is moving closer to an effective dengue vaccine. However, there are concerns that the price of a future vaccine could limit its uptake. High prices, in addition to other challenges, have already weighed negatively in government decisions to include other new vaccines in national immunization programs, e.g., the pneumococcal, rotavirus, and human papillomavirus vaccines. Recent research on the value of vaccination, however, suggests that vaccination confers benefits that are often neglected by traditional economic evaluations. In the case of dengue, commonly overlooked benefits are likely to include reduced spending on outbreak control, averted losses in tourism flows, and avoided productivity losses due to long-term dengue sequelae. Accounting for these and other broader benefits of dengue vaccination could reveal significantly greater economic value and strengthen the case for inclusion of dengue vaccination in national immunization programs. In this article we discuss a framework for the broader value of vaccination and review its application in the context of dengue vaccination for Brazil.
    Seminars in Immunology 07/2013; 25(2). DOI:10.1016/j.smim.2013.04.010 · 5.17 Impact Factor
Show more