Development of a Choice-framework for Covid vaccines in India using a multi-criteria decision analysis approach.

BACKGROUND: Vaccines were crucial in controlling the Covid-19 pandemic. As more vaccines receive regulatory approval, stakeholders will be faced with several options and must make an appropriate choice for themselves. We proposed a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework to guide decision-makers in comparing vaccines for the Indian context. METHODS: We adhered to the ISPOR guidance for the MCDA process. Seven vaccine options were compared under ten criteria. Through three virtual workshops, we obtained opinions and weights from citizens, private-sector hospitals, and public health organisations. Available evidence was rescaled and incorporated into the performance matrix. The final score for each vaccine was calculated for the different groups. We performed different sensitivity analyses to assess the consistency of the rank list. RESULTS: The cost, efficacy and operational score of the vaccines had the highest weights among the stakeholders. From the six scenario groups, Janssen had the highest score in four. This was driven by the advantage of having a single dose of vaccination. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis for the overall group, Covaxin, Janssen, and Sputnik were the first three options. The participants expressed that availability, WHO approvals and safety, among others, would be crucial when considering vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: The MCDA process has not been capitalised on in healthcare decision-making in India and LMICs. Considering the available data and stakeholder preference at the time of the study, Covaxin, Janssen, and Sputnik were preferred options. The choice framework with the dynamic performance matrix is a valuable tool that could be adapted to different population groups and extended based on increasing vaccine options and emerging evidence. *ISPOR - The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research.

Efficacy and safety of AP-Bio®(KalmCold®) in participants with uncomplicated upper respiratory tract viral infection (common cold) - A phase III, double-blind, parallel group, randomized placebo-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Kalmegh (Andrographis paniculata) is commonly used for treating uncomplicated Upper Respiratory Tract Infection (URTI) in complementary and alternative system of medicine. AP-Bio®(KalmCold®) is a standardized extract derived from the leaves of A. paniculata. This study was proposed to evaluate its efficacy using validated scales and objective measures. METHODS: Participants were randomized in a ratio of 1:1:1 to receive either AP-Bio® 200 mg/day, AP-Bio® 400 mg/day or placebo for 7 days. The primary outcome measure was Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey (WURSS-21) score. The secondary outcome measures were nasal mucous weight, nasal muco-ciliary clearance function and Interleukin-8 in nasal wash, as well as safety and tolerability. RESULTS: A total of n = 331 participants were screened and N = 300 participants were enrolled. The absolute WURSS-21 global score [mean (Standard Deviation - SD)] in the AP-Bio® 400 mg group [5.70 (5.31)] was less than the AP-Bio® 200 mg group [5.81 (4.83)] on Day-3. However, it was much higher in the placebo group [9.55 (14.27)]. AP-Bio® 400 mg group (Mean Difference - MD [Standard Error - SE] = -3.85 [1.52]; 95% CI = -6.85, - 0.85; adjusted p = 0.034) and 200 mg group (MD [SE] = -3.74 [1.51]; 95% CI = -6.73, - 0.76; adjusted p = 0.038) had significantly lower score than placebo. Similarly, on Day-3, the change in global score from baseline was significantly better in the AP-Bio® 400 mg group (MD [SE] = -3.91; [1.82] 95% CI = -7.50, - 0.32; adjusted p = 0.038) and AP-Bio® 200 mg group (MD [SE] = -3.84 [1.97]; 95% CI = -7.72, - 0.04; adjusted p = 0.044) in comparison to the placebo group. Nasal mucous weight, tissue paper counts used, and interleukin-8 showed a trend towards AP-Bio® groups having a favourable outcome when compared with placebo but did not reach statistical significance due to a small sample size. None of the study participants complained of any adverse physical symptoms. However, incident eosinophilia was noted in n = 20 participants on day 3. (n = 6 in AP-Bio® 200 mg group, n = 7 in Ap-Bio® 400 mg group and n = 13 in placebo group; p = 0.181). CONCLUSIONS: Participants in both the AP-Bio® dose groups showed positive tendency towards resolution of URTI symptoms when compared with placebo on Day-3 but not on Day-5 and Day-7.