The role of health economic analyses in vaccine decision making

Center for Global Health, Cincinnati Children's Hospital, 3333 Burnett Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45229, USA. Electronic address: .
Vaccine (Impact Factor: 3.62). 08/2013; 31(51). DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.08.008
Source: PubMed


Beginning in the 20th century with the consideration of the seven-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in the US, the cost effectiveness became a topic of discussion when this vaccine was being considered for universal use by the US Advisory Committee on Immunization practices (ACIP). In 2008, the ACIP began using formal criteria for the presentation of such data and their inclusion in ACIP discussions. More recently, the US Institute of Medicine has recommended that health economic considerations play a primary role in the prioritization of future vaccine for development. However, such analyses can be biased towards vaccines that provide economic benefit rather than those that reduce severe morbidity and mortality. This is because the economic impact of minor common events that result in medical utilization or time lost from work for parents can outweigh the economic impact of severe morbidity and mortality. Thus diseases with a low mortality and morbidity but with a common clinical manifestation such as the common cold could be prioritized over vaccines against diseases such as meningococcal sepsis where the morbidity and mortality associated with each case is very high, but there is no associated common clinical syndrome. Thus the use of cost effectiveness analyses as a 'gating criteria' to decide which vaccines should be developed or routinely used runs the risk of transforming vaccines into primarily a tool for achieving cost savings within the health care system rather than a public health intervention targeting human suffering, death and disability. It is the purpose of this article to review the framework under which health economic evaluations can be undertaken, to review the experience with and reliability of such analyses, and to discuss the potential negative implications of the use of health economic analyses as a primary decision making tool.

15 Reads
  • Source
    • "Several potential reasons exist for not recommending an available vaccine for the general population or for a defined subgroup. Besides few vaccines with an adverse medical risk–benefit ratio, the majority of vaccines are not generally recommended since the medical benefit is not regarded sufficiently balanced with the costs from the view of the general population (cost effectiveness), although being potentially beneficial in a specific individual [6, 7]. Some guidelines address this problem by an ‘opening clause’ indicating that even vaccinations not recommended by the guideline may be beneficial on an individual basis. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Public health vaccination guidelines cannot be easily transferred to elite athletes. An enhanced benefit from preventing even mild diseases is obvious but stronger interference from otherwise minor side effects has to be considered as well. Thus, special vaccination guidelines for adult elite athletes are required. In most of them, protection should be strived for against tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, influenza, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, measles, mumps and varicella. When living or traveling to endemic areas, the athletes should be immune against tick-borne encephalitis, yellow fever, Japanese encephalitis, poliomyelitis, typhoid fever, and meningococcal disease. Vaccination against pneumococci and Haemophilus influenzae type b is only relevant in athletes with certain underlying disorders. Rubella and papillomavirus vaccination might be considered after an individual risk-benefit analysis. Other vaccinations such as cholera, rabies, herpes zoster, and Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) cannot be universally recommended for athletes at present. Only for a very few diseases, a determination of antibody titers is reasonable to avoid unnecessary vaccinations or to control efficacy of an individual's vaccination (especially for measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, hepatitis B and, partly, hepatitis A). Vaccinations should be scheduled in a way that possible side effects are least likely to occur in periods of competition. Typically, vaccinations are well tolerated by elite athletes, and resulting antibody titers are not different from the general population. Side effects might be reduced by an optimal selection of vaccines and an appropriate technique of administration. Very few discipline-specific considerations apply to an athlete's vaccination schedule mainly from the competition and training pattern as well as from the typical geographical distribution of competitive sites.
    Sports Medicine 07/2014; 44(10). DOI:10.1007/s40279-014-0217-3 · 5.04 Impact Factor

  • Science translational medicine 09/2013; 5(204):204ed16. DOI:10.1126/scitranslmed.3007588 · 15.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Funded immunization programs are best able to achieve high participation rates, optimal protection of the target population, and indirect protection of others. However, in many countries public funding of approved vaccines can be substantially delayed, limited to a portion of the at-risk population or denied altogether. In these situations, unfunded vaccines are often inaccessible to individuals at risk, allowing potentially avoidable morbidity and mortality to continue to occur. We contend that private access to approved but unfunded vaccines should be reconsidered and encouraged, with recognition that individuals have a prerogative to take advantage of a vaccine of potential benefit to them whether it is publicly funded or not. Moreover, numbers of “approved but unfunded” vaccines are likely to grow because governments will not be able to fund all future vaccines of potential benefit to some citizens. New strategies are needed to better use unfunded vaccines even though the net benefits will fall short of those of funded programs.
    Vaccine 12/2013; 32(7). DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.12.027 · 3.62 Impact Factor
Show more

Similar Publications

Preview (2 Sources)

15 Reads
Available from