Avoiding Trouble Ahead: Lessons Learned and Suggestions for Economic Evaluations of COVID-19 Vaccines.

With vaccines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) being introduced in countries across the world, policy makers are facing many practical considerations about how best to implement a vaccination programme. The supply of vaccines is insufficient for the global population, so decisions must be made as to which groups are prioritised for any vaccination and when. Furthermore, the aims of vaccination programmes will differ between countries, with some prioritising economic benefits that could stem from the relaxation of non-pharmaceutical interventions and others seeking simply to reduce the number of COVID-19 cases or deaths. This paper aims to share the experiences and lessons learned from conducting economic evaluations in Singapore and Thailand on hypothetical COVID-19 vaccines to provide a basis for other countries to develop their own contextualised economic evaluations, with particular focus on the key uncertainties, technical challenges, and characteristics that modellers should consider in partnership with key stakeholders. Which vaccines, vaccination strategies, and policy responses are most economically beneficial remains uncertain. It is therefore important for all governments to conduct their own analyses to inform local policy responses to COVID-19, including the implementation of COVID-19 vaccines in both the short and the long run. It is essential that such studies are designed, and ideally conducted, before vaccines are introduced so that policy decisions and implementation procedures are not delayed.

The CAPACITI Decision-Support Tool for National Immunization Programs.

OBJECTIVES: Immunization programs in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) are faced with an ever-growing number of vaccines of public health importance recommended by the World Health Organization, while also financing a greater proportion of the program through domestic resources. More than ever, national immunization programs must be equipped to contextualize global guidance and make choices that are best suited to their setting. The CAPACITI decision-support tool has been developed in collaboration with national immunization program decision makers in LMICs to structure and document an evidence-based, context-specific process for prioritizing or selecting among multiple vaccination products, services, or strategies. METHODS: The CAPACITI decision-support tool is based on multi-criteria decision analysis, as a structured way to incorporate multiple sources of evidence and stakeholder perspectives. The tool has been developed iteratively in consultation with 12 countries across Africa, Asia, and the Americas. RESULTS: The tool is flexible to existing country processes and can follow any type of multi-criteria decision analysis or a hybrid approach. It is structured into 5 sections: decision question, criteria for decision making, evidence assessment, appraisal, and recommendation. The Excel-based tool guides the user through the steps and document discussions in a transparent manner, with an emphasis on stakeholder engagement and country ownership. CONCLUSIONS: Pilot countries valued the CAPACITI decision-support tool as a means to consider multiple criteria and stakeholder perspectives and to evaluate trade-offs and the impact of data quality. With use, it is expected that LMICs will tailor steps to their context and streamline the tool for decision making.

Immunization funding across 28 European countries.

INTRODUCTION: Disease prevention and improving vaccination coverage in Europe are key elements contributing to resilient health systems and ensuring better health outcomes for all. The aim of this study was to describe the immunization funding landscape across all European Union 28 countries (EU28). AREAS COVERED: Data collected in a targeted literature review supported descriptive analysis on the different indicators that were looked at: vaccines included in the EU28 national immunization programs (NIP), national immunization funding, immunization funding per capita (2015-2019) and percentage of health-care budget allocated to immunization. EXPERT OPINION: Immunization funding represents a small proportion of total healthcare spend in Europe (median 0.3%). In the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic, demographic changes, and the potential introduction of new vaccines; the need for adequate financing of immunization programs will be important, to establish resilient immunization systems and provide sustainable protection of the population against vaccine-preventable diseases.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARYWhat is the context?Herpes zoster, or shingles, is a viral disease characterized by a painful, localized skin rash. It affects approximately 32% of US citizens at least once in their lifetime.The risk of contracting shingles increases with age.Most American adults over 50 years have not received the shingles vaccine, and vaccination rates are especially low for African-Americans.What is new?This is the first study to evaluate what drives shingles vaccination decisions among US adults ≥ 50 years of age. We also assessed the differences between African-American and non-African-American adults, and inside the African-American group.In this choice experiment, 1,454 people ≥ 50 years completed a survey of 8 choice questions, as well as questions on their previous experiences with vaccines, socioeconomic, and demographic characteristics. Seven factors were evaluated.We found that American adults preferred to get vaccinated, and the most influential factors were costs and vaccine effectiveness while location of vaccination was the least important. There were differences in preferences between African-American and non-African-American adults, mainly driven by costs and vaccine effectiveness. 3 different groups of African-American adults with systematically different preferences could be identified; two were likely to vaccinate, with one being more cost sensitive at lower price thresholds, and the third was unlikely to vaccinate.What is the impact?Decisions on shingles vaccination appear to be mostly driven by costs, which could be a barrier to those who do not have appropriate insurance, especially among some African-Americans.However, healthcare professionals should continue to educate patients on other vaccine characteristics, as they also influence vaccination decisions.

Human Papillomavirus Vaccination After COVID-19.

The current global novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic threatens to derail the uptake of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in low- and lower-middle income countries with major disruptions to routine immunization and the introduction of new vaccines delayed. This has a major impact on the World Health Organization cervical cancer elimination strategy, where it is dependent on HPV vaccination as well as cervical cancer screening and treatment. We discuss current opportunities and barriers to achieve high uptake of HPV vaccination in low- and lower-middle income countries as well as the impact of COVID-19. Implementation of 4 key recommendations for HPV vaccination in low- and lower-middle income countries is needed: increased global financial investment; improved vaccine supply and accelerated use of a single-dose schedule; education and social marketing; and adoption of universal school-based delivery. With the commitment of the global health community, the adoption of these strategies would underpin the effective elimination of cervical cancer.

How Should the World Pay for a Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Vaccine?

The potential health and economic value of a vaccine for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is self-evident given nearly 2 million deaths, "collateral" loss of life as other conditions go untreated, and massive economic damage. Results from the first licensed products are very encouraging; however, there are important reasons why we will likely need second and third generation vaccines. Dedicated incentives and funding focused explicitly on nurturing and advancing competing second and third generation vaccines are essential. This article proposes a collaborative, market-based financing mechanism for the world to incentivize and pay for the development of, and provide equitable access to, second and third generation COVID-19 vaccines. Specifically, we propose consideration of a Benefit-Based Advance Market Commitment (BBAMC). The BBAMC uses health technology assessment to determine value-based prices to guarantee overall market revenues, not revenue for any specific product or company. The poorest countries would not pay a value-based price but a discounted "tail-price." Innovators must agree to supply them at this tail price or to facilitate technology transfer to local licensees at low or zero cost to enable them to supply at this price. We expect these purchases to be paid for in full or large part by global donors. The BBAMC therefore sets prices in relation to value, protects intellectual property rights, encourages competition, and ensures all populations get access to vaccines, subject to agreed priority allocation rules.

An Updated Economic Analysis of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative.

Despite a strong global commitment, polio eradication efforts continue now more than 30 years after the 1988 World Health Assembly resolution that established the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI), and 20 years after the original target of the year 2000. Prior health economic analyses estimated incremental net benefits of the GPEI of 40-50 billion in 2008 U.S. dollars (US$2008, equivalent to 48-59 billion US$2019), assuming the achievement of polio eradication by 2012. Given the delays in achieving polio eradication and increased costs, we performed an updated economic analysis of the GPEI using an updated integrated global model, and considering the GPEI trajectory as of the beginning of 2020. Applying similar methods and assuming eradication achievement in 2023, we estimate incremental net benefits of the GPEI of 28 billion US$2019, which falls below the prior estimate. Delays in achieving polio eradication combined with the widescale introduction of relatively expensive inactivated poliovirus vaccine significantly increased the costs of the GPEI and make it less cost-effective, although the GPEI continues to yield expected incremental net benefits at the global level when considered over the time horizon of 1988-2029. The overall health and financial benefits of the GPEI will depend on whether and when the GPEI can achieve its goals, when eradication occurs, the valuation method applied, and the path dependence of the actions taken. Reduced expected incremental net benefits of the GPEI and the substantial economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic pose large financial risks for the GPEI.

The legacy of MeNZB and possible implications for COVID-19 vaccination.

It is now over a decade since the meningococcal B vaccine, MeNZB, was in routine use in New Zealand. From July 2004 until June 2008 it was administered in a three-dose schedule to over a million individuals, aged six weeks to 20 years, to provide protection against the epidemic strain of group B Meningococci. The cost of the campaign, including the development of the vaccine was substantial, in excess of $200M, but it contributed to a reduced incidence of meningococcal infections along with a reduction in morbidity and mortality. The campaign led to the development of a national immunisation register (NIR), which is still in existence today. As well as considering the legacies of the MeNZB vaccination programme, this paper examines whether there are any lessons to be learned, specifically concerning active vaccine safety monitoring, which may be important if, and when, a COVID-19 vaccine is developed and a national immunisation campaign instituted.

Survival of the Wealthiest?

A number of promising COVID-19 vaccine candidates may pass approval this month. However, the pandemic will only be brought into check through an equitable, epidemiologically informed distribution policy. The health emergency provides a unique opportunity for a new paradigm to mitigate between global health, national and commercial interests.