Capturing the value of vaccination within health technology assessment and health economics: Literature review and novel conceptual framework.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination provides significant health gains to individuals and society and can potentially improve health equity, healthcare systems and national economies. Policy decisions, however, are rarely informed by comprehensive economic evaluations (EE) including vaccination's wide-ranging value. The objective of this analysis was to focus on health technology assessment systems to identify relevant value concepts in order to improve current EE of non-pandemic vaccines. METHODS: Following a literature review, a novel Value of Vaccination (VoV) framework was developed with experts in vaccine EE from developed countries with established health technology assessment systems. RESULTS: Forty-four studies presenting value frameworks or concepts applicable to vaccination were included. Eighteen unique value concepts relevant to EE were identified and defined. These were categorised within the VoV framework using three dimensions, moving from a narrow payer perspective to a more expansive and societal perspective. The dimensions were: (I) conventional payer perspective concepts (e.g., health gains in vaccinees, direct medical costs); (II) conventional societal perspective concepts (e.g., indirect health/economic gains to caregivers/households, productivity in vaccinees); and (III) novel societal concepts (e.g., financial risk protection, peace of mind, societal health gains, healthcare systems security, political stability, social equity and macroeconomic gains). While good quality evidence and methods are available to support concepts in Dimensions I and II, further work is needed to generate the required evidence for vaccination impact on Dimension III concepts. CONCLUSIONS: The devastating effect on nations of the COVID-19 pandemic has helped to highlight the potential far-reaching benefits that many vaccination programmes can offer. This VoV framework is particularly relevant to policy decisions considering EE, and the potential future expansion of non-pandemic vaccination value considerations. The framework helps to understand and compare current value considerations across countries and payer versus societal perspectives. It provides decision-makers with a transparent and logical path to broaden consideration of VoV in EE.

Capturing the value of vaccination within health technology assessment and health economics: Country analysis and priority value concepts.

BACKGROUND: A value of vaccination framework for economic evaluation (EE) identified unique value concepts for the broad benefits vaccination provides to individuals, society, healthcare systems and national economies. The objectives of this paper were to work with experts in developed countries to objectively identify three priority concepts to extend current EE. METHODS: The previously developed classification of value concepts in vaccination distinguished 18 concepts, categorised as conventional payer and societal perspective concepts and novel broader societal concepts. Their inclusion in current EE guidelines was assessed. Experts identified eight criteria relevant to decision-making and measurement feasibility, which were weighted and used to score each concept. The relative ranking of concepts by importance and the gaps in guidelines were used to identify three priority concepts on which to focus immediate efforts to extend EE. RESULTS: The EE guidelines review highlighted differences across countries and between guidelines and practice. Conventional payer perspective concepts (e.g., individual and societal health gains and medical costs) were generally included, while gaps were evident for conventional societal perspective concepts (e.g., family/caregiver health and economic gains). Few novel broader societal benefits were considered, and only in ad hoc cases. The top-three concepts for near-term consideration: macroeconomic gains (e.g., benefiting the economy, tourism), social equity and ethics (e.g., equal distribution of health outcomes, reduced health/financial equity gaps) and health systems strengthening, resilience and security (e.g., efficiency gains, reduced disruption, increased capacity). CONCLUSIONS: Gaps, inconsistencies and limited assessment of vaccination value in EE can lead to differences in policy and vaccination access. The three priority concepts identified provide a feasible approach for capturing VoV more broadly in the near-term. Robust methods for measuring and valuing these concepts in future assessments will help strengthen the evidence used to inform decisions, improving access to vaccines that are demonstrably good value for money from society's point of view.

Economic evaluation of an ultra-high density mapping system compared to non-ultra-high density mapping systems for radiofrequency catheter ablation procedures in patients with atrial fibrillation.

PURPOSE: Advanced non-fluoroscopic mapping systems for radiofrequency ablation (RFA) have shown to be an effective treatment of atrial fibrillation. This study analyzes the resource usage and subsequent costs associated with the implementation of an ultra-high density mapping system (UHDMS) compared to non-ultra-high density mapping systems (NUHDMS). METHODS: This retrospective observational study included 120 patients (18 years or older) with paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation who underwent RFA for de novo pulmonary vein isolation guided either by an UHDMS (n=63) or NUHDMS (n=57) for their index procedure. We compared patient characteristics, short- and long-term procedural outcomes, resource usage, and clinical outcomes followed up to 16 months between the two treatment groups. The cost analysis was conducted from the perspective of a single center in Spain (Clinica Universidad de Navarra). RESULTS: Neither baseline patient characteristics nor complication rate differed between groups. Repeat RFAs following recurrent arrhythmia at 16 months was lower in the UHDMS patient group than in the NUHDMS group (6 vs. 14, respectively; P=0.027). The average total cost per patient was €1,600 lower in the UHDMS group, compared to the NUHDMS group (€11,061 and €12,661, respectively; P=0.03). CONCLUSION: In patients treated with an NUHDMS, 25% had a repeat ablation for recurrent arrhythmia, whereas only 9% of patients treated with a UHDMS had one (61% relative risk reduction), resulting in an average cost saving per patient of €1,600.

Clinic Time Required for Remote and In-Person Management of Patients With Cardiac Devices: Time and Motion Workflow Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The number of patients with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) is increasing, creating a substantial workload for device clinics. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to characterize the workflow and quantify clinic staff time requirements for managing patients with CIEDs. METHODS: A time and motion workflow evaluation was performed in 11 US and European CIEDs clinics. Workflow tasks were repeatedly timed during 1 business week of observation at each clinic; these observations included all device models and manufacturers. The mean cumulative staff time required to review a remote device transmission and an in-person clinic visit were calculated, including all necessary clinical and administrative tasks. The annual staff time to manage a patient with a CIED was modeled using CIED transmission volumes, clinical guidelines, and the published literature. RESULTS: A total of 276 in-person clinic visits and 2173 remote monitoring activities were observed. Mean staff time required per remote transmission ranged from 9.4 to 13.5 minutes for therapeutic devices (pacemaker, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, and cardiac resynchronization therapy) and from 11.3 to 12.9 minutes for diagnostic devices such as insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs). Mean staff time per in-person visit ranged from 37.8 to 51.0 and from 39.9 to 45.8 minutes for therapeutic devices and ICMs, respectively. Including all remote and in-person follow-ups, the estimated annual time to manage a patient with a CIED ranged from 1.6 to 2.4 hours for therapeutic devices and from 7.7 to 9.3 hours for ICMs. CONCLUSIONS: The CIED patient management workflow is complex and requires significant staff time. Understanding process steps and time requirements informs the implementation of efficiency improvements, including remote solutions. Future research should examine heterogeneity in patient management processes to identify the most efficient workflow.

Clinical and economic impact of HeartLogic™ compared with standard care in heart failure patients.

AIMS: The implantable cardiac defibrillator/cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator-based HeartLogic™ algorithm has recently been developed for early detection of impending decompensation in heart failure (HF) patients; but whether this novel algorithm can reduce HF hospitalizations has not been evaluated. We investigated if activation of the HeartLogic algorithm reduces the number of hospital admissions for decompensated HF in a 1 year post-activation period as compared with a 1 year pre-activation period. METHODS AND RESULTS: Heart failure patients with an implantable cardiac defibrillator/cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator with the ability to activate HeartLogic and willingness to have remote device monitoring were included in this multicentre non-blinded single-arm trial with historical comparison. After a HeartLogic alert, the presence of HF symptoms and signs was evaluated. If there were two or more symptoms and signs apart from the HeartLogic alert, lifestyle advices were given and/or medication was adjusted. After activation of the algorithm, patients were followed for 1 year. HF events occurring in the 1 year prior to activation and in the 1 year after activation were compared. Of the 74 eligible patients (67.2 ± 10.3 years, 84% male), 68 patients completed the 1 year follow-up period. The total number of HF hospitalizations reduced from 27 in the pre-activation period to 7 in the post-activation period (P = 0.003). The number of patients hospitalized for HF declined from 21 to 7 (P = 0.005), and the hospitalization length of stay diminished from average 16 to 7 days (P = 0.079). Subgroup analysis showed similar results (P = 0.888) for patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy during the pre-activation period or not receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy, meaning that the effect of hospitalizations cannot solely be attributed to reverse remodelling. Subanalysis of a single-centre Belgian subpopulation showed important reductions in overall health economic costs (P = 0.025). CONCLUSION: Activation of the HeartLogic algorithm enables remote monitoring of HF patients, coincides with a significant reduction in hospitalizations for decompensated HF, and results in health economic benefits.

A report on the status of vaccination in Europe.

Vaccine policy, decision processes and outcomes vary widely across Europe. The objective was to map these factors across 16 European countries by assessing (A) national vaccination strategy and implementation, (B) attributes of healthcare vaccination systems, and (C) outcomes of universal mass vaccination (UMV) as a measure of how successful the vaccination policy is. A. Eleven countries use standardised assessment frameworks to inform vaccine recommendations. Only Sweden horizon scans new technologies, uses standard assessments, systematic literature and health economic reviews, and publishes its decision rationale. Time from European marketing authorisation to UMV implementation varies despite these standard frameworks. Paediatric UMV recommendations (generally government-funded) are relatively comparable, however only influenza vaccine is widely recommended for adults. B. Fourteen countries aim to report annually on national vaccine coverage rates (VCRs), as well as have target VCRs per vaccine across different age groups. Ten countries use either electronic immunisation records or a centralised registry for childhood vaccinations, and seven for other age group vaccinations. C. National VCRs for infant (primary diphtheria tetanus pertussis (DTP)), adolescent (human papillomavirus (HPV)) and older adult (seasonal influenza) UMV programmes found ranges of: 89.1% to 98.2% for DTP-containing vaccines, 5% to 85.9% for HPV vaccination, and 4.3% to 71.6% for influenza vaccine. Regarding reported disease incidence, a wide range was found across countries for measles, mumps and rubella (in children), and hepatitis B and invasive pneumococcal disease (in all ages). These findings reflect an individual approach to vaccination by country. High VCRs can be achieved, particularly for paediatric vaccinations, despite different approaches, targets and reporting systems; these are not replicated in vaccines for other age groups in the same country. Additional measures to improve VCRs across all age groups are needed and could benefit from greater harmonisation in target setting, vaccination data collection and sharing across EU countries.

The Economic Impact of Blindness in Europe.

PURPOSE: To estimate the annual loss of productivity from blindness and moderate to severe visual impairment (MSVI) in the population aged >50 years in the European Union (EU). METHODS: We estimated the cost of lost productivity using three simple models reported in the literature based on (1) minimum wage (MW), (2) gross national income (GNI), and (3) purchasing power parity-adjusted gross domestic product (GDP-PPP) losses. In the first two models, assumptions included that all individuals worked until 65 years of age, and that half of all visual impairment cases in the >50-year age group would be in those aged between 50 and 65 years. Loss of productivity was estimated to be 100% for blind individuals and 30% for those with MSVI. None of these models included direct medical costs related to visual impairment. RESULTS: The estimated number of blind people in the EU population aged >50 years is ~1.28 million, with a further 9.99 million living with MSVI. Based on the three models, the estimated cost of blindness is €7.81 billion, €6.29 billion and €17.29 billion and that of MSVI €18.02 billion, €24.80 billion and €39.23 billion, with their combined costs €25.83 billion, €31.09 billion and €56.52 billion, respectively. The estimates from the MW and adjusted GDP-PPP models were generally comparable, whereas the GNI model estimates were higher, probably reflecting the lack of adjustment for unemployment. CONCLUSION: The cost of blindness and MSVI in the EU is substantial. Wider use of available cost-effective treatment and prevention strategies may reduce the burden significantly.