Economic assessment of rotavirus vaccination in Saudi Arabia

Accounting for Adverse Events Following Immunization in Economic Evaluation: Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Pediatric Vaccines Against Pneumococcus, Rotavirus, Human Papillomavirus, Meningococcus and Measles-Mumps-Rubella-Varicella

OBJECTIVES

Economic evaluations of vaccines should accurately represent all relevant economic and health consequences of vaccination, including losses due to adverse events following immunization (AEFI). We investigated to what extent economic evaluations of pediatric vaccines account for AEFI, which methods are used to do so and whether inclusion of AEFI is associated with study characteristics and the vaccine's safety profile.

METHODS

A systematic literature search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Systematic Reviews and Trials, Database of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination of the University of York, EconPapers, Paediatric Economic Database Evaluation, Tufts New England Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, Tufts New England Global Health CEA, International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment Database) was performed for economic evaluations published between 2014 and 29 April 2021 (date of search) pertaining to the five groups of pediatric vaccines licensed in Europe and the United States since 1998: the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, the meningococcal vaccines (MCV), the measles-mumps-rubella-varicella (MMRV) combination vaccines, the pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV) and the rotavirus vaccines (RV). Rates of accounting for AEFI were calculated, stratified by study characteristics (e.g., region, publication year, journal impact factor, level of industry involvement) and triangulated with the vaccine's safety profile (Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP] recommendations and information on safety-related product label changes). The studies accounting for AEFI were analyzed in terms of the methods used to account for both cost and effect implications of AEFI.

RESULTS

We identified 112 economic evaluations, of which 28 (25%) accounted for AEFI. This proportion was significantly higher for MMRV (80%, four out of five evaluations), MCV (61%, 11 out of 18 evaluations) and RV (60%, nine out of 15 evaluations) compared to HPV (6%, three out of 53 evaluations) and PCV (5%, one out of 21 evaluations). No other study characteristics were associated with a study's likelihood of accounting for AEFI. Vaccines for which AEFI were more frequently accounted for also had a higher frequency of label changes and a higher level of attention to AEFI in ACIP recommendations. Nine studies accounted for both the cost and health implications of AEFI, 18 studies considered only costs and one only health outcomes. While the cost impact was usually estimated based on routine billing data, the adverse health impact of AEFI was usually estimated based on assumptions.

DISCUSSION

Although (mild) AEFI were demonstrated for all five studied vaccines, only a quarter of reviewed studies accounted for these, mostly in an incomplete and inaccurate manner. We provide guidance on which methods to use to better quantify the impact of AEFI on both costs and health outcomes. Policymakers should be aware that the impact of AEFI on cost-effectiveness is likely to be underestimated in the majority of economic evaluations.

Methodological Approaches to Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Saudi Arabia: What Can We Learn? A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

The recent establishment of the health technology assessment (HTA) entity in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) has resulted in increased interest in economic evaluation. The aim of this study is to evaluate the technical approaches used in published economic evaluations and the limitations reported by the authors of the respective studies that could affect the ability to perform economic evaluations in the KSA.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review of published economic evaluations performed for the KSA over the past 10 years. An electronic literature search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was performed. A CHEERS checklist was used to assess the quality of reporting. Reported limitations were classified into domains including the definition of perspectives, identification of comparators, estimation of costs and resources, and use of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio threshold.

RESULTS

Twelve evaluations were identified; most involved cost-effectiveness analysis (92%). Missing and unclear data were found within the CHEERS criteria. Regardless of the perspective used, most described the perspective as an "institutional" perspective (70%) and almost half were reclassified by the current reviewer (42%). Most did not clearly state the comparator (83%), and published model comparators were commonly used (50%). Resource estimation was mostly performed by the authors of the respective studies (67%), and costs were mostly obtained from hospital institutional data (75%). The lack of an established threshold for the country-specific willingness to pay was observed in 50% of the analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Economic evaluations from the KSA are limited. Capacity building and country-specific HTA guidelines could improve the quality of evaluations to better inform decision making.

HIGHLIGHTS

Economic analysis of health technology should follow standard guidelines. Unfortunately, these guides are often underutilized, and our findings identify considerable missing, not clearly stated, or incomplete data within the analyses, which can weaken the impact of the recommendations.The limitations reported by the authors of the respective studies emphasize the suboptimal quality of the reporting. A lack of data was frequently identified and resulted in using "institutional" practice as a major source of data input for the analyses.In light of the call for the establishment of an HTA entity in the KSA, framing a standard analytic approach when conducting economic evaluations will support HTA in informing resource allocation decisions. We hope that our findings highlight the need for country-specific guidance to improve practice and enhance future research.

A systematic review of economic evaluations of vaccines in Middle East and North Africa countries: is existing evidence good enough to support policy decision-making?

INTRODUCTION

A vaccine introduction process should be systematic and transparent and take into account many factors, including cost-effectiveness evidence. This study aimed to assess quantity, characteristic, and quality of economic evaluation (EE) studies on vaccines performed in Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries.

AREAS COVERED

PubMed and Scopus electronic databases were searched since inception to December 2019 to identify published EE studies of vaccines, which were conducted in the 26 MENA countries. Methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

EXPERT OPINION

Of the 616 studies identified, 46 were included in the review. Most studies (65%) were conducted in Iran, Israel, and Turkey. The most commonly evaluated vaccines were rotavirus vaccine (n = 15; 33%), human Papillomavirus vaccine (n = 8; 17%), and pneumococcal vaccine (n = 7; 15%). We classified 5 (11%), 27 (59%), 12 (26%), and 2 (4%) studies as excellent, good, moderate, and poor quality, respectively. There were limited cost-effectiveness evidences in the region. It is imperative to have local guidelines on good practice and reporting, availability of local data, and funding sources to improve quantity and quality of EE studies of vaccines in the region, thereby, facilitating transparent and consistent decision-making processes.

Reporting Quality of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Conducted in Saudi Arabia: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Pharmacoeconomics and health economics in general is a new field that is still developing and emerging, not only in Saudi Arabia but all over the world. The objective of this study is to collect all published cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) studies conducted based on Saudi settings and to evaluate their reporting quality.

METHODS

We used PRISMA guidelines to search for all English-language CEAs conducted in Saudi Arabia in 3 databases: Medline, Embase, and Scopus. Keywords used in the search were: cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, cost-utility, economic evaluation, Saudi Arabia. The data extracted were analyzed to assess reporting quality based on Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Guidelines (CHEERS) and the second panel recommendations.

RESULTS

The 3 databases yielded 859 articles after removing duplicates. Only 7 articles included as final results following PRISMA guidelines. These 7 studies were published between 2015 and 2020. The CEA studies varied in their reporting quality; however, there were common missing required items among all of them, such as justifying choosing of a specific model and time horizon and reporting the ethical implications of the studied interventions.

CONCLUSION

Seven published CEA studies were conducted based on Saudi settings as revealed by this review. The included studies reported the more important aspects of CEA studies. However, there were missed reporting items based on the checklists we used to assess CEAs in this review. Although perfect and complete adherence to CHEERS or the second panel guidelines is a high standard, future CEAs should adhere to such standards. Transparency and good reporting are cornerstones in CEAs, and future CEAs should report their methods, findings, and results in a more transparent and efficient way.

A Systematic Review of Sources of Outcomes and Cost Data Utilized in Economic Evaluation Research Conducted in the Gulf Cooperation Council

Background

Transparency and clarity in reporting of methods used to identify, measure, and value outcomes and resources in published economic evaluations is crucial.

Objective

The aims of this review were to identify and assess the quality of published economic evaluation studies in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region, with a specific focus on methods used to identify, measure, and value cost and outcomes data.

Methods

An electronic search of publications from 2009 to October 2019 was performed in three clinical (Medline, Scopus, and EMBASE) and one economic (NHS EED) databases. Full economic evaluations undertaken in GCC countries from any perspective were included. Reference lists of three reviews on the same topic and area were also searched for further eligible articles. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used for methodological quality assessment. Data on type and source of cost and outcomes data were collected.

Results

Out of 1857 studies identified, 14 relevant studies were eligible and included. Eleven studies were based in Saudi Arabia, and the remaining studies were published in the United Arab of Emirates (UAE), Qatar, and Oman. Majority of the evaluations were based on the Markov modelling (n=8). None of the studies fully fulfilled the CHEERS quality criteria. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was the main outcome (n=10). The EQ-5D was valued using the UK value set tariff (n=6). Published literature was the source of outcomes data in seven studies. Hospital-based data were used as a source of healthcare resource use data in four studies, whereas hospital-based costs (n = 7) combined with other sources such as local/national data were the sources of unit cost data in the majority of the studies.

Conclusion

Rigorous economic evaluations are lacking in the region leading to inaccurate information being given to decision-makers.

Evaluating quantity and quality of literature focusing on health economics and pharmacoeconomics in Gulf Cooperation Council countries

BACKGROUND

The importance of pharmacoeconomics and health economics has been augmented. It has the potential to provide evidence to aid in optimal decision-making in the funding of cost-effective medicines and services in Gulf Cooperation Council countries (G.C.C).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the quality and quantity of health economic researches published until the end of 2017 in G.C.C. and to identify the factors that affect the quality of studies.

METHOD

Studies were included according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quantity was recorded, and the quality was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument.

RESULTS

Forty-nine studies were included. The mean (SD) quality score of all studies was 57.83 (25.05), and a high number of reviewed studies (47%) were evaluated as either poor or extremely poor quality. The factors that affect the quality of studies with statistical significance were, the type and method of economic evaluation, the economic outcome was the objective of the research, author`s background, the perspective of the study, health intervention and source of funding.

CONCLUSION

The use of economic evaluation studies in G.C.C was limited. Different factors that affect the quality of articles such as performing a full economic evaluation and choosing societal perspective were identified. Strategies to improve the quality of future studies were recommended.

The Clinical Burden of Rotavirus Gastroenteritis: A Prospective Study

Background In Saudi Arabia, there is a lack of recently published, appropriately conducted epidemiological studies on rotavirus (RV) diarrhea, which emphasizes the need for up-to-date and comprehensive studies. Objective Our objective was to provide more recent data on the clinical and epidemiological characteristics as well as the economic burden of RV diarrhea among young children admitted to a tertiary care hospital in the city of Riyadh in the year prior to the initiation of the RV vaccine. Design We conducted a prospective observational study at a children's specialized hospital at King Fahad Medical City. We included children under five years of age who were hospitalized for gastroenteritis over a 12-month period from January 2012 to December 2012. Stool samples were collected on admission and tested for the presence of RV using an enzyme immunoassay. Results Of the 204 children included over the study period (mean age, 9.8 months ± 10.2; 124 males), 102 (50%) were RV-positive. Two-thirds (69.6%) were under one year old, and 38.2% were under six months of age. RV infections occurred throughout the year, with the highest proportion occurring during the spring and summer. RV-positive diarrhea was more severe than the RV-negative diarrhea as indicated by a significantly lower bicarbonate level (68.6% versus 31.3%, P-value < 0.0001), a higher frequency of severe dehydration (11.7% versus 3%, P-value = 0.015), and longer hospital stay (mean duration, 8.78 versus 6.56 days, P-value = 0.027). In addition, the financial burden of the RV-positive cases was greater than the RV-negative cases (median 1692 USD versus 1287 USD, P-value = 0.001). Conclusion Our study shows a high prevalence of RV infections among young children admitted to the hospital for acute gastroenteritis. Furthermore, RV infections are associated with severe diarrhea and significant financial burden.