Economic evaluation of vaccination programmes: a consensus statement focusing on viral hepatitis

The methods that have been used to estimate the clinical and economic impact of vaccination programmes are not always uniform, which makes it difficult to compare results between economic analyses. Furthermore, the relative efficiency of vaccination programmes can be sensitive to some of the more controversial aspects covered by general guidelines for the economic evaluation of healthcare programmes, such as discounting of health gains and the treatment of future unrelated costs. In view of this, we interpret some aspects of these guidelines with respect to vaccination and offer recommendations for future analyses. These recommendations include more transparency and validation, more careful choice of models (tailored to the infection and the target groups), more extensive sensitivity analyses, and for all economic evaluations (also nonvaccine related) to be in better accordance with general guidelines. We use these recommendations to interpret the evidence provided by economic evaluation applied to viral hepatitis vaccination. We conclude that universal hepatitis B vaccination (of neonates, infants or adolescents) seems to be the most optimal strategy worldwide, except in the few areas of very low endemicity, where the evidence to enable a choice between selective and universal vaccination remains inconclusive. While targeted hepatitis A vaccination seems economically unattractive, universal hepatitis A vaccination strategies have not yet been sufficiently investigated to draw general conclusions.     

Rotavirus vaccine RIX4414 (Rotarix™): a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in the prevention of rotavirus gastroenteritis in developed countries

The most common cause of severe diarrhoea in infants and young children is rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE), which is associated with significant morbidity, healthcare resource use and direct and indirect costs in industrialized nations. The monovalent rotavirus vaccine RIX4414 (Rotarix?) is administered as a two-dose oral series in infants and has demonstrated protective efficacy against RVGE in clinical trials conducted in developed countries. In addition, various naturalistic studies have demonstrated 'real-world' effectiveness after the introduction of widespread rotavirus vaccination programmes in the community setting. Numerous cost-effectiveness analyses have been conducted in developed countries in which a universal rotavirus vaccination programme using RIX4414 was compared with no universal rotavirus vaccination programme. There was a high degree of variability in base-case results across studies even when conducted in the same country, often reflecting differences in the selection of data sources or assumptions used to populate the models. In addition, results were sensitive to plausible changes in a number of key input parameters. As such, it is not possible to definitively state whether a universal rotavirus vaccination programme with RIX4414 is cost effective in developed countries, although results of some analyses in some countries suggest this is the case. In addition, international guidelines advocate universal vaccination of infants and children against rotavirus. It is also difficult to draw conclusions regarding the cost effectiveness of rotavirus vaccine RIX4414 relative to that of the pentavalent rotavirus vaccine, which is administered as a three-dose oral series. Although indirect comparisons in cost-effectiveness analyses indicate that RIX4414 provided more favourable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios when each vaccine was compared with no universal rotavirus vaccination programme, results were generally sensitive to vaccine costs. Actual tender prices of a full vaccination course for each vaccine were not known at the time of the analyses and therefore had to be estimated.     

Pharmacoeconomic Spotlight on Rotavirus Vaccine RIX4414 (Rotarix?) in Developed Countries

The most common cause of severe diarrhea in infants and young children is rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE), which is associated with significant morbidity, healthcare resource use, and direct and indirect costs in industrialized nations. The monovalent rotavirus vaccine RIX4414 (Rotarix™) is administered as a two-dose oral series in infants and has demonstrated protective efficacy against RVGE in clinical trials conducted in developed countries. In addition, various naturalistic studies have demonstrated ‘real-world’ effectiveness after the introduction of widespread rotavirus vaccination programs in the community setting.Numerous cost-effectiveness analyses have been conducted in developed countries in which a universal rotavirus vaccination program using RIX4414 was compared with no universal rotavirus vaccination program. There was a high degree of variability in base-case results across studies even when the studies were conducted in the same country, often reflecting differences in the selection of data sources or assumptions used to populate the models. In addition, results were sensitive to plausible changes in a number of key input parameters. As such, it is not possible to definitively state whether a universal rotavirus vaccination program with RIX4414 is cost effective in developed countries, although results of some analyses in some countries suggest this is the case. In addition, international guidelines advocate universal vaccination of infants and children against rotavirus. It is also difficult to draw conclusions regarding the cost effectiveness of rotavirus vaccine RIX4414 relative to that of the pentavalent rotavirus vaccine, which is administered as a three-dose oral series. Although indirect comparisons in cost-effectiveness analyses indicate that RIX4414 provided more favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios when each vaccine was compared with no universal rotavirus vaccination program, results were generally sensitive to vaccine costs. Actual tender prices of a full vaccination course for each vaccine were not known at the time of the analyses and therefore had to be estimated.     

The role of economic evaluation in vaccine decision making: focus on meningococcal group C conjugate vaccine

In recent years, several countries have experienced increases in the incidence of serogroup C meningococcal disease. It can be controlled with older polysaccharide vaccines and particularly the recently developed conjugate vaccines. For 21 developed countries, we investigated the role that economic evaluation played in the decision to introduce the conjugate vaccine into either the routine childhood vaccination schedule, as a mass vaccination 'catch-up' campaign or not at all. A literature review was performed and experts from these countries were contacted. For six countries, we identified published economic evaluations for meningococcal C conjugate vaccination. In four of them (Australia, Canada [Quebec], The Netherlands and the UK) the analyses were performed before a decision about the use of the conjugate vaccine was made. In all of these countries, the economic evaluation offered guidance as to the most efficient way to add the conjugate vaccine to the routine infant immunisation schedule and, in three countries, this advice was adopted by decision makers. In Portugal and Switzerland, initial vaccination decisions were made without the economic evaluations that are influencing current decision making. Of the countries without economic evaluations, six implemented vaccination programmes. Overall, there was a positive correlation between the reported incidence of meningococcal C disease and (a) the decision to vaccinate and (b) performing an economic evaluation. All economic evaluations were modelling studies. The reported cost-effectiveness ratios were sensitive to the age of vaccination, the future meningococcal incidence, vaccine price and some methodological characteristics that varied widely between studies making direct comparisons difficult. In conclusion, in almost all countries where economic evaluations for meningococcal C conjugate vaccinations have been conducted, their results had an important role in the decision-making process. However, in most countries with strongly increasing meningococcal incidence, public health considerations took precedence. In order to improve the international comparability of such studies, firmer national and international modelling guidelines and better adherence to such guidelines seem necessary.     

Design, analysis and presentation of multinational economic studies: the need for guidance

Over the last decade, there has been a proliferation in the number of economic evaluations of pharmaceuticals to meet the growing demand for information about the economic benefits of healthcare technologies. The majority of these studies have been commissioned by pharmaceutical companies for the purposes of drawing attention to the resource and quality-of-life aspects of new or existing products. Such information has become important in overcoming a new obstacle, namely the demonstration of cost effectiveness (the so-called 'fourth hurdle'), in addition to the three well-established criteria of quality, tolerability and efficacy. To ensure the maintenance of standards, guidance for economic evaluations has emerged lately in the form of guidelines, regulations, principles, policies and positions. Drummond outlined three purposes of these guidelines, as follows: as a requirement prior to reimbursement, as statements of methodological standards, and as a statement of ethical standards. Such guidelines are designed to assist both the economic analyst and the decision-maker. In laying out the state of the art regarding the methodology of economic evaluation, guidelines assist the analyst in performing high-quality, scientifically valid studies, and assist the decision-maker in properly interpreting and assessing their quality. In response to these growing requirements for cost-effectiveness data globally, it has become increasingly common for economic evaluations to be conducted on an international scale. However, the recommendations in pharmacoeconomics guidelines regarding the manner in which these multinational economic evaluations should be designed, analysed and presented are too limited to be of any real value. This article examines the various issues that must be taken into consideration when conducting multinational studies, and provides a review of the techniques and approaches that have been suggested to date. It concludes with recommendations for potential inclusion in future sets of pharmacoeconomic guidelines.     

Economic evaluations of influenza vaccination in healthy working-age adults. Employer and society perspective

OBJECTIVE: To determine what benefits to the employer and to society are associated with influenza (flu) vaccination in healthy adults. DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a literature review concerning cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness evaluations of influenza vaccination in healthy, working-age adults. Up to the end of 1999, we found 6 published economic evaluations on the use of influenza vaccine in healthy, working-age adults: 3 prospective studies, 1 retrospective evaluation and 2 model-based simulations. Evaluations were performed from the perspective of an employer or society. Costs were reported in the local currency used in the published evaluation, with conversions into US dollars (when not provided in the article), for comparative purposes only, according to the exchange rates of June 8 1998. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: Estimations of the cost-benefit of vaccination, compared with a no vaccination strategy, varied widely from a net loss of $US106.59 per infection averted in one study to savings of varying sizes in the 5 others (savings ranged from $US2.58 per dollar invested to $US46.85 per vaccinee). Studies differed in the definition of illness and the measurement of costs associated with vaccination or illness. CONCLUSIONS: Decision makers have not yet extended existing vaccine recommendations to cover healthy, working-age adults, partly because of the disparity among economic studies in their methods of estimating costs and measuring effects. However, the published studies seem to suggest that influenza vaccination in the healthy, working adult would be a cost-effective health intervention, at least from the perspective of an employer.     

早产儿疫苗免疫接种研究进展

目的：疫苗的免疫程序和疫苗使用指导原则是保证疫苗免疫效果的重要环节,也是《疫苗管理法》的重要内容之一。早产儿免疫系统发育不成熟,对于各种疫苗免疫反应低于足月儿。本综述为制定早产儿免疫程序提供参考。方法：本文对在早产儿中使用灭活脊髓灰质炎疫苗、百日咳-白喉-破伤风疫苗、乙型肝炎疫苗、肺炎链球菌疫苗、脑膜炎球菌结合疫苗和流感嗜血杆菌疫苗、轮状病毒疫苗、麻疹、腮腺炎、风疹和水痘疫苗等疫苗的免疫效果、安全性及耐受性研究进展进行了归纳整理。结果：本文对早产儿在接种不同疫苗、采取不同免疫策略时体液免疫和细胞免疫效果的研究进行了归纳总结,结果表明虽然早产儿的免疫功能相对较弱,但参照足月新生儿免疫方案接种疫苗后,大部分早产儿可以具有足够的免疫保护力。结论：本文为疫苗免疫程序的制定提供更全面的理解,为制定疫苗使用指导原则提供参考。     

Varicella vaccination in Italy : an economic evaluation of different scenarios

AIM: To determine the economic impact (cost-benefit analysis) of childhood varicella vaccination, with the Oka/Merck varicella zoster virus vaccine live (Varivax) in Italy. METHODS: This analysis is based on an epidemiological model of varicella zoster virus (VZV) dynamics adapted to the Italian situation. Cost data (Euro, 2002 values) were collected through a literature review. Several vaccination scenarios were analysed: (i) routine vaccination programme for children aged 1-2 years with different levels of vaccination coverage (90%, 70% and 45%) without any catch-up programme; (ii) routine vaccination programme for children aged 1-2 years with different levels of vaccination coverage (90%, 70% and 45%) completed by a catch-up programme for 6-year-old children over the first 5 years of vaccine marketing; and (iii) routine vaccination programme for children aged 1-2 years with different levels of vaccination coverage (90%, 70% and 45%) completed by a catch-up programme during the first year of vaccine marketing for children aged 2-11 years. PERSPECTIVES: A societal perspective, including both direct and indirect costs, and a health-system perspective, limited to costs supported by Italian Health Authorities, were considered. RESULTS: A routine vaccination programme has a clearly positive impact on chickenpox morbidity. Respectively, 68% and 57% of chickenpox-related hospitalisations and deaths could be prevented with a 90% coverage rate. With vaccination costs being more than offset by a reduction in chickenpox treatment costs in the base case, such a programme could also induce savings from both a societal and a health-system perspective (40% and 12% savings, respectively for a 90% coverage rate). A lower coverage rate reduces cost savings, but there is still a 9% decrease in overall societal costs for a 45% coverage rate. Although the reduction in total societal costs was robust to the sensitivity analyses performed, a slight uncertainty remains regarding cost reduction from a health-system perspective. However, in this latter perspective, even in the worst-case scenario of the sensitivity analysis, routine vaccination programmes may be cost effective, the worst-case scenario for cost parameters leading to cost per life-year gained of Euro2853. Catch-up programmes combined with routine vaccination should lead to further cost reductions from a societal perspective: 15% for a massive catch-up during the first year of vaccine marketing compared with toddlers' vaccination alone, and 11% for a catch-up focused on 6-year-old children for a period of 5 years. However, the impact of catch-up programmes on the costs from an Italian health-system perspective remains close to zero (+/-1%). CONCLUSION: This model suggests, with its underlying assumptions and data, that routine ZVZ vaccination may be cost saving from both a societal and a health system perspective in the base case. In the worst-case scenario of the sensitivity analysis, vaccination remains cost effective.     

Economic evaluation of vaccination

With increasing expenditures in healthcare, in absolute terms as well as in relative terms, interest in the efficiency of certain interventions in healthcare has also increased. Faced with the limitations of the healthcare budget, budget holders try to find the optimal way of dividing their funds over different healthcare provisions, without discarding human and medical considerations. In economic terms, this process could be called the 'optimal allocation of scarce resources over the inputs of a function of production'. The means of production would then be 'the provision of healthcare', whereas the output would be 'improvement of health'. Clearly choices have to be made with regard to spending the healthcare budget. One of the instruments that can help in making such choices is the economic evaluation. In economic evaluations of vaccinations, different vaccination strategies are defined. The consequences in terms of costs and effects of each strategy are being calculated and compared with a reference strategy, which is often the nonintervention strategy, i.e. 'no vaccination'. According to the way in which the benefit or the output of vaccination-'improvement of health'-is measured, a distinction is made between various methods of economic evaluation: in a cost-effectiveness analysis, health gains are measured in natural units (e.g. prevented infections, prevented illness days, life-years gained, etc.); in a cost-utility analysis, the quality of the health gains is taken into account (e.g. quality-adjusted life-year); and in a cost-benefit analysis, health gains are converted into monetary units. Costs can be divided into direct and indirect costs. Direct costs are directly related to medical treatments (medication, laboratory tests, consultations, etc.) or to vaccination (e.g. purchasing price of the vaccine, costs for administering the vaccine, treatment of side effects, etc.). Costs indirectly related to treatments and vaccination are mainly costs of lost productivity due to disease morbidity or mortality, and opportunity costs. In comparison with other vaccine-preventable infections, influenza vaccination for the elderly seems acceptable from an economic point of view (about $US650 per life-year gained, in 1981). Cost-effectiveness ratios of other vaccinations range from about $US720 per life-year gained for universal hepatitis B vaccination to about $US190,000 per life-year gained for universal Haemophilus influenzae type by vaccination. Because of differences in methods, the representation of results, and country-specific parameters, different economic evaluations of the same vaccination strategy may show divergent results. Therefore, until sufficient standardisation of economic evaluations exists, comparisons of the sort we are making here should be interpreted with prudence.     

Economic evaluation of drug abuse treatment and HIV prevention programs in pregnant women: a systematic review

Drug abuse and transmission of HIV during pregnancy are public health problems that adversely affect pregnant women, their children and surrounding communities. Programs that address this vulnerable population have the ability to be cost-effective due to resulting cost savings for mother, child and society. Economic evaluations of programs that address these issues are an important tool to better understand the costs of services and create sustainable healthcare systems. This study critically examined economic evaluations of drug abuse treatment and HIV prevention programs in pregnant women. A systematic review was conducted using the criteria recommended by the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine and the British Medical Journal (BMJ) checklist for economic evaluations. The search identified 6 economic studies assessing drug abuse treatment for pregnant women, and 12 economic studies assessing programs that focus on prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) of HIV. Results show that many programs for drug abuse treatment and PMTCT among pregnant women are cost-effective or even cost-saving. This study identified several shortcomings in methodology and lack of standardization of current economic evaluations. Efforts to address methodological challenges will help make future studies more comparable and have more influence on policy makers, clinicians and the public.     

The case against universal varicella vaccination

In 1995, the United States became the first country to implement a Universal Varicella Vaccination Program. Several questions remain: Is the varicella (chickenpox) vaccine needed? Is it cost effective as a routine immunization for all susceptible children? Or is it more beneficial for the disease to remain endemic so that adults may receive periodic exogenous exposures (boosts) that help suppress the reactivation of herpes zoster (shingles). In addition, as vaccination coverage becomes widespread, does loss of immunologic boosting cause a decline in vaccine efficacy and result in a reduced period of immunity? Scientific literature regarding safety of the varicella vaccine and its associated cost-benefit analysis have often reported optimistic evaluations based on ideal assumptions. Deleterious outcomes and their associated costs must be included when making a circumspect assessment of the Universal Varicella Vaccination Program.     

Methodological quality of economic modelling studies. A case study with hepatitis B vaccines

The notable increase in the quantity of economic evaluations in the last 2 decades has not been matched by good methodological standards. This problem is particularly evident in the field of economic evaluations of hepatitis B vaccines. The results of 2 systematic reviews conducted by us in 1993 and 1996 showed three problem areas. A sizeable minority of study reports failed to provide a clear study aim, showing a basic ignorance of the first rule of conducting scientific research. The basic epidemiological assumptions upon which the economic models were based showed variability which persisted even after stratification, raising the question of the accuracy of the epidemiological knowledge base of hepatitis B infection and its progression. Lastly, many of the studies showed weaknesses in basic methods of conducting and reporting economic evaluations. Examination of these problem areas led us to conclude that no conclusions about the efficiency of hepatitis B vaccines could be drawn from the available evidence. Addressing the problem of poor methodological standards concerns the whole research community. However, as a proportion of economic evaluations are published, one obvious means of exerting pressure to increase and maintain methodological standards is the editorial and peer review process. Editors of specialist and general medical journals should agree on and enforce common explicit guidelines for study conduct and reporting, following the example of the British Medical Journal.     

Cost-effectiveness analyses of hepatitis A vaccine: a systematic review to explore the effect of methodological quality on the economic attractiveness of vaccination strategies

Hepatitis A vaccines have been available for more than a decade. Because the burden of hepatitis A virus has fallen in developed countries, the appropriate role of vaccination programmes, especially universal vaccination strategies, remains unclear. Cost-effectiveness analysis is a useful method of relating the costs of vaccination to its benefits, and may inform policy. This article systematically reviews the evidence on the cost effectiveness of hepatitis A vaccination in varying populations, and explores the effects of methodological quality and key modelling issues on the cost-effectiveness ratios.Cost-effectiveness/cost-utility studies of hepatitis A vaccine were identified via a series of literature searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, HSTAR and SSCI). Citations and full-text articles were reviewed independently by two reviewers. Reference searching, author searches and expert consultation ensured literature saturation. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were abstracted for base-case analyses, converted to $US, year 2005 values, and categorised to reflect various levels of cost effectiveness. Quality of reporting, methodological issues and key modelling issues were assessed using frameworks published in the literature.Thirty-one cost-effectiveness studies (including 12 cost-utility analyses) were included from full-text article review (n = 58) and citation screening (n = 570). These studies evaluated universal mass vaccination (n = 14), targeted vaccination (n = 17) and vaccination of susceptibles (i.e. individuals initially screened for antibody and, if susceptible, vaccinated) [n = 13]. For universal vaccination, 50% of the ICERs were <$US20 000 per QALY or life-year gained. Analyses evaluating vaccination in children, particularly in high incidence areas, produced the most attractive ICERs. For targeted vaccination, cost effectiveness was highly dependent on the risk of infection.Incidence, vaccine cost and discount rate were the most influential parameters in sensitivity analyses. Overall, analyses that evaluated the combined hepatitis A/hepatitis B vaccine, adjusted incidence for under-reporting, included societal costs and that came from studies of higher methodological quality tended to have more attractive cost-effectiveness ratios. Methodological quality varied across studies. Major methodological flaws included inappropriate model type, comparator, incidence estimate and inclusion/exclusion of costs.     

Live attenuated measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella zoster virus vaccine (Priorix-Tetra)

The live attenuated tetravalent vaccine against measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella zoster viruses (MMRV) is a combination of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and the varicella zoster virus vaccine. The immunogenicity after each dose of a two-dose vaccination course of MMRV vaccine was generally similar to that of two doses of separately administered MMR plus varicella zoster vaccines, or a single dose of separately administered MMR plus varicella zoster vaccines followed by a dose of MMR vaccine, in infants aged 9-24 months. In infants aged 9-24 months administered a two-dose course of MMRV vaccine, geometric mean titers for antibodies against all vaccine antigens increased after the second dose relative to the first dose, with the increase being most pronounced for varicella zoster virus antibodies (10- to 21-fold). MMRV as the second vaccination was immunogenic in children aged 5-6 years who had previously received either MMRV or MMR as the first vaccination at 12-24 months of age. The immunogenicity for measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella zoster viruses, in terms of seropositivity and antibody titers, was not altered when MMRV was coadministered with a booster dose of diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, hepatitis B, inactivated poliovirus, and Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine in infants aged 12-23 months. Nor was the immunogenicity of the latter vaccine altered by coadministration. The tolerability profile of MMRV vaccine was comparable to that of separately administered MMR plus varicella zoster vaccines or of MMR vaccine alone. Injection-site redness and fever (rectal temperature > or =38degreesC or axillary temperature > or =37.5degreesC) were the most frequent adverse events in both groups.     

Guidelines and challenges for estimating the economic costs and benefits of adolescent substance abuse treatments

Many economic evaluations have been conducted for adult substance abuse treatments, but only a few have been conducted for adolescent-specific treatments. This is the first article to present rigorous methodological guidelines for estimating the economic costs and benefits of adolescent substance abuse treatments while also addressing the potential challenges associated with such research activities. A representative case study of two adolescent substance abuse treatment programs (one residential and one outpatient) is presented to show some of the initial steps of a comprehensive economic evaluation (e.g., cost analyses, selection of treatment outcome measures, and valuation of outcome measures via monetary conversion factors). Cost data were collected and analyzed using the Drug Abuse Treatment Cost Analysis Program. Monetary conversion factors were obtained and presented for a variety of treatment outcomes. The methodological guidelines, discussion of analytic challenges, and recommendations set forth in this article provide a foundation for future economic studies on adolescent substance abuse treatments.     

Analysis sans frontières: can we ever make economic evaluations generalisable across jurisdictions?

Over the last decade or so, a number of healthcare systems have used economic evaluations as a formal input into decisions about the coverage or reimbursement of new healthcare interventions. This change in the policy landscape has placed some important demands on the design and characteristics of economic evaluation and these are increasingly evident in studies being presented to decision makers. One challenge has been to make studies specific to the context in which the decision is being taken. This is because of the inevitable geographical variation in many of the parameters within an analysis. There has been a series of important contributions to the published literature in recent years on how to quantify geographical heterogeneity within economic analyses based on randomised controlled trials. However, there are good reasons for economic evaluation for decision making to be undertaken using methods of evidence synthesis and decision analytical modelling, but issues of geographical variation still need to be handled appropriately. The key requirements of economic evaluations for decision making within healthcare systems can be defined as follows: (i) a design that meets the objectives and constraints of the healthcare system; (ii) coherent and complete specification of the decision problem; (iii) inclusion of all relevant evidence; and (iv) recognition and appropriate handling of uncertainty. In satisfying these requirements, it is important to be aware of variation between jurisdictions, and this imposes some important analytical requirements on economic studies. While many agencies have produced guidelines on preferred methods for healthcare economic evaluation, these exhibit considerable variation. Some of this variation can be justified by genuine differences between systems in clinical practice, objectives and constraints, while some of the variation relates to differences of opinion about appropriate analysis given methodological uncertainty. However, some of the variation in guidance is difficult to justify and is inconsistent with the aims and objectives of the systems the analyses are seeking to inform. Decision makers and analysts need to work together to streamline and where possible harmonise guidelines on methods for economic evaluations, whilst recognising legitimate variation in the needs of different healthcare systems. Otherwise, there is the risk that scarce resources will be wasted in producing country-specific analyses in situations where these are not justified. Expected value of information analyses are also emerging as a tool that could be considered by decision makers to guide their policy on the acceptance or non-acceptance of data from other jurisdictions.     

Introducing economic evaluation as a policy tool in Korea: will decision makers get quality information? : a critical review of published Korean economic evaluations

Interest in the use of economic evaluations in Korea as an aid for healthcare decision makers has been growing rapidly since the financial crisis of the Korean National Health Insurance fund and the separation in 2000 of the roles of prescribing and dispensing drugs. The Korean Health Insurance Review Agency (HIRA) is considering making it mandatory for pharmaceutical companies to submit the results of an economic evaluation when demanding reimbursement of new pharmaceuticals. The usefulness of the results of economic evaluations depends highly on the quality of the studies. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to provide a critical review of economic evaluations of healthcare technologies published in the Korean context.Our results show that many studies did not meet international standards. Study designs were suboptimal, study perspectives and types were often stated incompletely, time periods were often too short, and outcome measures were often less than ideal. In addition, some articles did not distinguish between measurement and valuation of resource use. Capital, overhead and productivity costs were often omitted. Only half of the studies performed sensitivity analyses.In order to further rationalise resource allocation in the Korean healthcare sector, the quality of the information provided through economic evaluations needs to improve. Developing clear guidelines and educating and training researchers in performing economic evaluations is necessary.     

A combination vaccine against measles, mumps, rubella and varicella

A new combination vaccine against measles, mumps, rubella and varicella (MMRV) from GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals has recently been approved in Europe. It combines the components from two well-established, live, attenuated vaccines against measles, mumps and rubella. This review presents a summary of the development of this MMRV vaccine from published clinical studies. Seroconversion rates and antibody titers after the first and second dose are similar to those observed after concomitant administration of the MMR and varicella vaccines. Furthermore, the clinical profile of this combination vaccine, in terms of injection- site and general tolerability, is similar to that of the component vaccines. A higher incidence of low-grade fever has been noted following the first dose of MMRV vaccine, although it is no different from component vaccines following the second dose. MMRV vaccines were recommended in Germany in 2006 for administration in two doses to children aged 11-14 months and 15-23 months. They offer a convenient way to implement varicella vaccination and to achieve high vaccine coverage rates mirroring those of MMR vaccines. For other countries considering introducing these vaccines, the advantages for children, parents and healthcare providers of protecting against four diseases in a single vaccine should be noted.     

Self-reported healthcare decision-makers’ attitudes towards economic evaluations of medical technologies

ABSTRACT

Background: Increasing costs have generated concern among governments and healthcare providers who have realized the need for cost containment measures and more efficient resource utilization. Health economics is one potential source of information that can make healthcare more efficient.

Scope: This review article summarizes the published literature on self-reported attitudes of healthcare decision-makers towards economic evaluations of medical technologies and examines the extent to which economic evaluations are used in health policy decisions.

Methods: A systematic literature review of published English language studies was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and HEED from January 1995 to December 2007.

Findings: Fifty-five articles investigated the use of economic evaluations on three levels of decision-making: central, local, and physician level. Results indicate the use of economic evaluation information increased from limited/minor to moderate use. The influence of economic evalu-ations increased with the level of centralization of healthcare system. Barriers to use health economics research varied across levels and included health economics research-related barriers such as timely availability, lack of credibility, insufficient methodological quality and decision-context-related barriers including limited decision makers’ knowledge, inflexibility in healthcare budgets and variability among healthcare organizations.

Conclusions: For consistent policy-making it is important that similar recommendations for cost-effective interventions and programs are developed at all levels and that implementation is promoted by incorporating the appropriate incentives in healthcare provision.     

Issues in the economic evaluation of influenza vaccination by injection of healthy working adults in the US: a review and decision analysis of ten published studies

The objective was to review recent economic evaluations of influenza vaccination by injection in the US, assess their evidence, and conclude on their collective findings. The literature was searched for economic evaluations of influenza vaccination injection in healthy working adults in the US published since 1995. Ten evaluations described in nine papers were identified. These were synopsized and their results evaluated, the basic structure of all evaluations was ascertained, and sensitivity of outcomes to changes in parameter values were explored using a decision model. Areas to improve economic evaluations were noted. Eight of nine evaluations with credible economic outcomes were favourable to vaccination, representing a statistically significant result compared with a proportion of 50% that would be expected if vaccination and no vaccination were economically equivalent. Evaluations shared a basic structure, but differed considerably with respect to cost components, assumptions, methods, and parameter estimates. Sensitivity analysis indicated that changes in parameter values within the feasible range, individually or simultaneously, could reverse economic outcomes. Given stated misgivings, the methods of estimating influenza reduction ascribed to vaccination must be researched to confirm that they produce accurate and reliable estimates. Research is also needed to improve estimates of the costs per case of influenza illness and the costs of vaccination. Based on their assumptions, the reviewed papers collectively appear to support the economic benefits of influenza vaccination of healthy adults. Yet the underlying assumptions, methods and parameter estimates themselves warrant further research to confirm they are accurate, reliable and appropriate to economic evaluation purposes.