Vaccination for Lyme disease: cost-effectiveness versus cost and value

A systematic review and meta-analysis for the adverse effects, immunogenicity and efficacy of Lyme disease vaccines: Guiding novel vaccine development

BACKGROUND

Lyme borreliosis (LB) is the most prevalent arthropod-borne infectious disease in North America. Currently, no vaccine is available to prevent LB in humans, although monovalent and multivalent vaccines have been developed in the past.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the current study is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate and compare the findings from these two classes of vaccines for their reactogenicity, immunogenicity and efficacy, in the hope this may assist in the development of future vaccines.

METHODS

A search strategy was developed for online databases (PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Embase). Search terms used were "vaccine/vaccination", "Lyme disease/Borreliosis", "clinical trial(s)" and "efficacy". Only seven clinical trials were included to compare the results of the monovalent vaccines to those of the multivalent one. Meta-analyses were conducted to evaluate the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of the two vaccine classes. Odds ratio (OR) for LB (and 95% confidence intervals; 95% CI) were calculated for the efficacy of the monovalent vaccine from three different clinical trials at different dose schedules.

RESULTS

Incidence of redness (local adverse effect) and fever (systemic side effect) were, respectively, 6.8- and 2.9-fold significantly lower (p < 0.05) in individuals who received multivalent vaccines compared to those receiving the monovalent one. Incidences of all other local and systemic adverse effects were non-significantly lower in the multivalent vaccine compared to the monovalent vaccines. Seroprotection was comparable among individuals who received the two vaccine classes at the 30 μg dose level. Efficacy in the prevention of LB was only evaluated for the monovalent vaccines. OR of LB ranged from 0.49 (95% CI: 0.14-0.70; p < 0.005, vs. placebo) to 0.31 (95% CI: 0.26-0.63; p < 0.005) for the initial and final doses respectively, with an overall OR of 0.4 (95% CI: 0.26-0.63, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The current study further validates that the monovalent and multivalent LB vaccines result in mild local side effects and self-limiting systemic adverse effects, with the multivalent vaccine slightly more tolerable than the monovalent one. Both vaccine classes were similarly highly immunogenic. A new vaccine with high safety standards, better efficacy, low cost, and public acceptance is yet to be developed. Meanwhile, personal protection limiting exposure to ticks is recommended.

Pricing of new vaccines

New vaccine pricing is a complicated process that could have substantial long-standing scientific, medical, and public health ramifications. Pricing can have a considerable impact on new vaccine adoption and, thereby, either culminate or thwart years of research and development and public health efforts. Typically, pricing strategy consists of the following ten components: 1. Conduct a target population analysis; 2. Map potential competitors and alternatives; 3. Construct a vaccine target product profile (TPP) and compare it to projected or actual TPPs of competing vaccines; 4. Quantify the incremental value of the new vaccine's characteristics; 5. Determine vaccine positioning in the marketplace; 6. Estimate the vaccine price-demand curve; 7. Calculate vaccine costs (including those of manufacturing, distribution, and research and development); 8. Account for various legal, regulatory, third party payer, and competitor factors; 9. Consider the overall product portfolio; 10. Set pricing objectives; 11. Select pricing and pricing structure. While the biomedical literature contains some studies that have addressed these components, there is still considerable room for more extensive evaluation of this important area.

Strategies for primary and secondary prevention of Lyme disease

Lyme disease (borreliosis) incidence continues to increase despite a growing knowledge of primary and secondary prevention strategies. Primary prevention aims to reduce the risk of tick exposure and thereby decrease the incidence of new Lyme disease cases. Secondary prevention targets the development of disease or reduces disease severity among people who have been bitten by infected ticks. Numerous prevention strategies are available, and although they vary in cost, acceptability and effectiveness, uptake has been universally poor. Research in areas where Lyme disease is endemic has demonstrated that despite adequate knowledge about its symptoms and transmission, many people do not perform behaviors to reduce their risk of infection. New prevention strategies should aim to increase people's confidence in their ability to carry out preventive behaviors, raise awareness of desirable outcomes, and aid in the realization that the necessary skills and resources are available for preventive measures to be taken. In this article we evaluate the prevention and treatment strategies for Lyme disease, and discuss how these strategies can be implemented effectively. As many patients with Lyme disease develop arthritis and are referred to rheumatologists it is important that these health-care providers can educate patients about disease-prevention strategies.