Article

Using Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Support Research and Development Portfolio Prioritization for Product Innovations in Measles Vaccination

Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program, Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
The Journal of Infectious Diseases (Impact Factor: 5.85). 07/2011; 204 Suppl 1:S124-32. DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jir114
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Several potential measles vaccine innovations are in development to address the shortcomings of the current vaccine. Funders need to prioritize their scarce research and development resources. This article demonstrates the usefulness of cost-effectiveness analysis to support these decisions.
This study had 4 major components: (1) identifying potential innovations, (2) developing transmission models to assess mortality and morbidity impacts, (3) estimating the unit cost impacts, and (4) assessing aggregate cost-effectiveness in United Nations Children's Fund countries through 2049.
Four promising technologies were evaluated: aerosol delivery, needle-free injection, inhalable dry powder, and early administration DNA vaccine. They are projected to have a small absolute impact in terms of reducing the number of measles cases in most scenarios because of already improving vaccine coverage. Three are projected to reduce unit cost per dose by $0.024 to $0.170 and would improve overall cost-effectiveness. Each will require additional investments to reach the market. Over the next 40 years, the aggregate cost savings could be substantial, ranging from $98.4 million to $689.4 million.
Cost-effectiveness analysis can help to inform research and development portfolio prioritization decisions. Three new measles vaccination technologies under development hold promise to be cost-saving from a global perspective over the long-term, even after considering additional investment costs.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
77 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This narrative review paper briefly and anecdotally discusses the current reality and future requirements across nations to invest in public health prevention strategies to ensure global health. Many novel public health campaigns have been underway and much of the research literature to date have explored a myriad of modalities to promote global health in the context of human and health security. We propose that a back-to-basics approach may benefit states and health policy. In light of the long emergency that is financial austerity for many nation-states with regional conflict displacing millions, prevention may be the best option for public health institutions to maximize best medical outcomes for populations. Comment is also made about disease prevention and the exploding non-communicable disease wave hitting both the developed and developing world. This review paper makes the case for prevention of disease and emphasizes the benefits of vaccination. - See more at: http://www.sciencedomain.org/abstract.php?iid=591&id=31&aid=5679#.VABHL7xdVME
    08/2014; 212:918-925019. DOI:10.9734/AIR/2014/10279
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Seit mehreren Jahrzehnten gehört die Impfung gegen Masern und Röteln zum Standard der meisten nationalen Impfprogramme. Im vorliegenden Übersichtsbeitrag sollen die Evidenz für die Effektivität der beiden Impfungen auf Basis veröffentlichter systematischer Reviews dargestellt sowie die epidemiologischen und gesundheitsökonomischen Gesamteffekte der Impfung auf Bevölkerungsebene beschrieben werden. Zahlreiche epidemiologische Beobachtungsstudien belegen die gute Effektivität (> 90 %) beider Impfungen. Die Reduktion der weltweiten Maserntodesfälle sowie die dramatische Reduktion der Masern- und Rötelnkrankheitsinzidenz nach Einführung der Impfungen tragen zu einer sehr hohen Qualität der Evidenz bei. Die Länder des amerikanischen Kontinents konnten beweisen, dass durch sehr hohe Impfquoten in einem Routineimpfprogramm mit 2 Masern/Röteln-Impfdosen und mit zusätzlichen Impfaktivitäten zur Schließung von Immunitätslücken in höheren Altersgruppen eine Eliminierung beider Erkrankungen möglich ist. Eine gesundheitsökonomische Evaluation der Masern- bzw. Rötelnimpfung speziell für Deutschland gibt es nicht. Im Rahmen eines eigenen systematischen Reviews wurden jedoch 11 gesundheitsökonomische Studien aus anderen Industrieländern und eine für ein hypothetisches Industrieland identifiziert. In allen wurden sowohl der Masern- als auch der Rötelnimpfung stets ein kosteneffektives und teils sogar ein kostensparendes Potenzial zugerechnet, sodass dieses mit Einschränkungen auch für Deutschland anzunehmen ist. Zusammenfassend besteht ausreichend Evidenz für die hohe Effektivität der beiden Impfungen, mit denen die Masern- und Rötelneliminierung machbar ist, sofern eine adäquate Impfstrategie umgesetzt wird. In Deutschland sind dazu breit angelegte und koordinierte Maßnahmen zu Nachholimpfungen unter Kindern, Jugendlichen und jungen Erwachsenen speziell in den westlichen Bundesländern dringend notwendig.
    Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz 09/2013; 56(9). DOI:10.1007/s00103-013-1801-7 · 1.01 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Rationale More efficient and better informed healthcare systems are expected to have improved knowledge of the impact of interventions on patient outcomes and resources used by patients and providers in specific health conditions. Objectives To describe trends related to putting patients at the center of healthcare decision making, regulatory trends and best practice recommendations for developing high-quality patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and strategic issues related to including PROs in studies. Materials and Methods We summarize PRO concepts, definitions, and broadly-accepted scientific standards for developing, assessing, and interpreting PROs. Three conceptual models are presented as examples for assessing PROs in relation to other outcomes. We discuss different perspectives for stakeholders, including regulatory issues pertaining to formal guidance for PRO development and for use in trials. We provide examples of PROs used in studies for assessing health outcomes in oncology and resource-use outcomes in low back pain patients. Results Psychometric scientists working closely with multi-disciplinary teams and regulatory authorities have greatly improved the science of collecting, assessing, and understanding patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials. A simplified framework is presented for strategic considerations for including PROs in studies, such as the appropriate timing for PRO endpoints. Asking patients about their health status and/or use of resources improves our understanding of how interventions and care processes may impact their lives and their budgets. We provide examples from a back pain trial of patient-reported resource-use questionnaires for medicines taken and other services or products used by patients. Conclusions Healthcare stakeholders are placing increased emphasis on resource use and the impact of interventions on patients, including effects associated with diagnostic tests. Patient-reported outcomes are being used in clinical practice and in clinical research, supported by formal best-practice guidelines. Radiology has a role as an engaged stakeholder in the design, conduct, and interpretation of patient-based evidence, and in its relevance to health policy implementation.
    Academic Radiology 09/2014; 21(9):1129–1137. DOI:10.1016/j.acra.2014.05.008 · 2.08 Impact Factor