Cargando…

3. How comprehensive can we be in the economic assessment of vaccines?

In two previous papers we argued on current vaccines economic assessment not fully comprehensive when using the incremental cost-utility analysis normally applied for treatments. Many differences exist between vaccines and drug treatments making vaccines economic evaluation more cumbersome. Four cha...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Standaert, Baudouin, Rappuoli, Rino
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Routledge 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5956290/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29785253
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2017.1336044
_version_ 1783323858243158016
author Standaert, Baudouin
Rappuoli, Rino
author_facet Standaert, Baudouin
Rappuoli, Rino
author_sort Standaert, Baudouin
collection PubMed
description In two previous papers we argued on current vaccines economic assessment not fully comprehensive when using the incremental cost-utility analysis normally applied for treatments. Many differences exist between vaccines and drug treatments making vaccines economic evaluation more cumbersome. Four challenges overwhelmingly present in vaccines assessment are less important for treatments: requirements for population, societal perspectives, budget impact evaluation, and time focused objectives (control or elimination). Based on this, economic analysis of vaccines may need to be presented to many different stakeholders with various evaluation preferences, in addition to the current stakeholders involved for drugs treatment assessment. Then, we may need a tool making the inventory of the different vaccines health economic assessment programmes more comprehensive. The cauliflower value toolbox has been developed with that aim, and its use is illustrated here with rotavirus vaccine. Given the broader perspectives for vaccine assessment, it provides better value and cost evaluations. Cost-benefit analysis may be the preferred economic assessment method when considering substitution from treatment to active medical prevention. Other economic evaluation methods can be selected (i.e. optimisation modelling, return on investment) when project prioritisation is the main focus considered and when stakeholders would like to influence the development of the healthcare programme.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5956290
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Routledge
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59562902018-05-21 3. How comprehensive can we be in the economic assessment of vaccines? Standaert, Baudouin Rappuoli, Rino J Mark Access Health Policy Review Article In two previous papers we argued on current vaccines economic assessment not fully comprehensive when using the incremental cost-utility analysis normally applied for treatments. Many differences exist between vaccines and drug treatments making vaccines economic evaluation more cumbersome. Four challenges overwhelmingly present in vaccines assessment are less important for treatments: requirements for population, societal perspectives, budget impact evaluation, and time focused objectives (control or elimination). Based on this, economic analysis of vaccines may need to be presented to many different stakeholders with various evaluation preferences, in addition to the current stakeholders involved for drugs treatment assessment. Then, we may need a tool making the inventory of the different vaccines health economic assessment programmes more comprehensive. The cauliflower value toolbox has been developed with that aim, and its use is illustrated here with rotavirus vaccine. Given the broader perspectives for vaccine assessment, it provides better value and cost evaluations. Cost-benefit analysis may be the preferred economic assessment method when considering substitution from treatment to active medical prevention. Other economic evaluation methods can be selected (i.e. optimisation modelling, return on investment) when project prioritisation is the main focus considered and when stakeholders would like to influence the development of the healthcare programme. Routledge 2017-08-31 /pmc/articles/PMC5956290/ /pubmed/29785253 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2017.1336044 Text en © 2017 GSK group of companies http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review Article
Standaert, Baudouin
Rappuoli, Rino
3. How comprehensive can we be in the economic assessment of vaccines?
title 3. How comprehensive can we be in the economic assessment of vaccines?
title_full 3. How comprehensive can we be in the economic assessment of vaccines?
title_fullStr 3. How comprehensive can we be in the economic assessment of vaccines?
title_full_unstemmed 3. How comprehensive can we be in the economic assessment of vaccines?
title_short 3. How comprehensive can we be in the economic assessment of vaccines?
title_sort 3. how comprehensive can we be in the economic assessment of vaccines?
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5956290/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29785253
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2017.1336044
work_keys_str_mv AT standaertbaudouin 3howcomprehensivecanwebeintheeconomicassessmentofvaccines
AT rappuolirino 3howcomprehensivecanwebeintheeconomicassessmentofvaccines