Dataset Information

Impact of vaccine herd-protection effects in cost-effectiveness analyses of childhood vaccinations. A quantitative comparative analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Inclusion of vaccine herd-protection effects in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) can impact the CEAs-conclusions. However, empirical epidemiologic data on the size of herd-protection effects from original studies are limited.

Methods

We performed a quantitative comparative analysis of the impact of herd-protection effects in CEAs for four childhood vaccinations (pneumococcal, meningococcal, rotavirus and influenza). We considered CEAs reporting incremental-cost-effectiveness-ratios (ICERs) (per quality-adjusted-life-years [QALY] gained; per life-years [LY] gained or per disability-adjusted-life-years [DALY] avoided), both with and without herd protection, while keeping all other model parameters stable. We calculated the size of the ICER-differences without vs with-herd-protection and estimated how often inclusion of herd-protection led to crossing of the cost-effectiveness threshold (of an assumed societal-willingness-to-pay) of $50,000 for more-developed countries or X3GDP/capita (WHO-threshold) for less-developed countries.

Results

We identified 35 CEA studies (20 pneumococcal, 4 meningococcal, 8 rotavirus and 3 influenza vaccines) with 99 ICER-analyses (55 per-QALY, 27 per-LY and 17 per-DALY). The median ICER-absolute differences per QALY, LY and DALY (without minus with herd-protection) were $15,620 (IQR: $877 to $48,376); $54,871 (IQR: $787 to $115,026) and $49 (IQR: $15 to $1,636) respectively. When the target-vaccination strategy was not cost-saving without herd-protection, inclusion of herd-protection always resulted in more favorable results. In CEAs that had ICERs above the cost-effectiveness threshold without herd-protection, inclusion of herd-protection led to crossing of that threshold in 45% of the cases. This impacted only CEAs for more developed countries, as all but one CEAs for less developed countries had ICERs below the WHO-cost-effectiveness threshold even without herd-protection. In several analyses, recommendation for the adoption of the target vaccination strategy depended on the inclusion of the herd protection effect.

Conclusions

Inclusion of herd-protection effects in CEAs had a substantial impact in the estimated ICERs and made target-vaccination strategies more attractive options in almost half of the cases where ICERs were above the societal-willingness to pay threshold without herd-protection. More empirical epidemiologic data are needed to determine the size of herd-protection effects across diverse settings and also the size of negative vaccine effects, e.g. from serotype substitution.

SUBMITTER: Holubar M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5332092 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSeveral studies have shown that inactivated, whole-cell oral cholera vaccines (OCVs) confer both direct protection on vaccinees and herd protection on populations. Because our earlier cluster-randomized effectiveness trial (CRT) in urban Bangladesh failed to detect OCV herd protection, we reanalysed the trial to assess whether herd effects were masked in our original analysis.MethodsA total of 267 270 persons were randomized to 90 approximately equal-sized clusters. In 60 clusters persons aged 1 year and older were eligible to receive OCV and in 30 clusters persons received no intervention and served as controls. We analysed OCV protection against severely dehydrating cholera for the entire clusters, as in our original analysis, and for subclusters consisting of residents of innermost households. We hypothesized that if OCV herd protection was attenuated by cholera transmission into the clusters from the outside in this densely populated setting, herd protection would be most evident in the innermost households.ResultsDuring 2 years of follow-up of all residents of the clusters, total protection (protection of OCV recipients relative to control residents) was 58% [95% confidence interval (CI): 43%, 70%; P<0.0001], indirect protection (protection of non-OCV recipients in OCV clusters relative to control participants) was 16% (95% CI: -20%, 41%; P=0.35) and overall OCV protection (protection of all residents in the OCV clusters relative to control residents) was 46% (95% CI: 30%, 59%; P<0.0001). Analyses of the inner 75% and 50% households of the clusters showed similar findings. However, total protection was 75% (95% CI: 50%, 87%, P<0.0001), indirect protection 52% (95% CI: -9%, 79%; P=0.08) and overall protection 72% (95% CI: 49%, 84%; P<0.0001) for the innermost 25% households.ConclusionConsistent with past studies, substantial OCV herd protective effects were identified, but were unmasked only by analysing innermost households of the clusters. Caution is needed in defining clusters for analysis of vaccine herd effects in CRTs of vaccines.

Project description:BackgroundTreatment of metastatic prostate cancer is associated with high personal and economic burden. Recently, new treatment options for castration-resistant prostate cancer became available with promising survival advantages. However, cost-effectiveness of those new treatment options is sometimes ambiguous or given only under certain circumstances. The aim of this study was to systematically review studies on the cost-effectiveness of treatments and costs of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and metastasizing castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) on their methodological quality and the risk of bias.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed in the databases PubMed, CINAHL Complete, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science Core Collection for costs-effectiveness analyses, model-based economic evaluations, cost-of-illness analyses and budget impact analyses. Reported costs were inflated to 2015 US$ purchasing power parities. Quality assessment and risk of bias assessment was performed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist and the Bias in Economic Evaluations checklist, respectively.ResultsIn total, 38 articles were identified by the systematic literature search. The methodological quality of the included studies varied widely, and there was considerable risk of bias. The cost-effectiveness treatments for CRPC and mCRPC was assessed with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from dominance for mitoxantrone to $562,328 per quality-adjusted life year gained for sipuleucel-T compared with prednisone alone. Annual costs for the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer ranged from $3,067 to $77,725.ConclusionThe cost-effectiveness of treatments of CRPC strongly depended on the willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life year gained/life-year saved throughout all included costs-effectiveness analyses and model-based economic evaluations. High-quality cost-effectiveness analyses based on randomized controlled trials are needed in order to make informed decisions on the management of castration-resistant prostate cancer and the resulting financial impact on the healthcare system.