Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2BN, UK.
Health Economics Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Eur J Health Econ. 2020 Mar;21(2):297-309. doi: 10.1007/s10198-019-01129-z. Epub 2019 Nov 21.
In 2018, a panel of health economics and meningococcal disease experts convened to review methodologies, frameworks, and decision-making processes for economic evaluations of vaccines, with a focus on evaluation of vaccines targeting invasive meningococcal disease (IMD). The panel discussed vaccine evaluation methods across countries; IMD prevention benefits that are well quantified using current methods, not well quantified, or missing in current cost-effectiveness methodologies; and development of recommendations for future evaluation methods. Consensus was reached on a number of points and further consideration was deemed necessary for some topics. Experts agreed that the unpredictability of IMD complicates an accurate evaluation of meningococcal vaccine benefits and that vaccine cost-effectiveness evaluations should encompass indirect benefits, both for meningococcal vaccines and vaccines in general. In addition, the panel agreed that transparency in the vaccine decision-making process is beneficial and should be implemented when possible. Further discussion is required to ascertain: how enhancing consistency of frameworks for evaluating outcomes of vaccine introduction can be improved; reviews of existing tools used to capture quality of life; how indirect costs are considered within models; and whether and how the weighting of quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), application of QALY adjustment factors, or use of altered cost-effectiveness thresholds should be used in the economic evaluation of vaccines.
2018 年,一组卫生经济学和脑膜炎球菌病专家召开会议,审查疫苗经济评估的方法、框架和决策过程,重点是针对侵袭性脑膜炎球菌病(IMD)的疫苗评估。专家组讨论了各国的疫苗评估方法;使用当前方法充分量化、未充分量化或在当前成本效益方法学中缺失的 IMD 预防效益;并为未来的评估方法制定建议。专家组就一些要点达成了共识,而对一些主题则认为有必要进一步考虑。专家们一致认为,IMD 的不可预测性使脑膜炎球菌疫苗效益的准确评估变得复杂,疫苗成本效益评估应包括间接效益,不仅针对脑膜炎球菌疫苗,而且针对一般疫苗。此外,专家组一致认为,疫苗决策过程的透明度是有益的,在可能的情况下应予以实施。还需要进一步讨论,以确定:如何提高评估疫苗引入结果的框架的一致性;对用于捕捉生活质量的现有工具的审查;如何在模型中考虑间接成本;以及在疫苗的经济评估中是否以及如何使用质量调整生命年(QALY)的权重、应用 QALY 调整因素或使用改变的成本效益阈值。