Integrating Alternative Social Value Judgments Into Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Vaccines: An Application to Varicella-Zoster Virus Vaccination

Understanding the Normativity of Health Technology Assessment: Ontological, Moral, and Epistemological Commitments

The inherent normativity of HTA can be conceptualized as a result of normative commitments, a concept that we further specify to encompass moral, epistemological and ontological commitments at play in the practice of HTA. Based on examples from literature, and an analysis of the example of assessing Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT), we will show that inevitable normative decisions in conducting an assessment commits the HTA practitioner to moral (regarding what makes a health technology desirable), ontological (regarding which effects of health technology are conceivable), and epistemological (regarding how to obtain reliable information about health technology) norms. This highlights and supports the need for integrating normative analysis and stakeholder participation, providing guidance to HTA practitioners when making normative choices. This will foster a shared understanding between those who conduct, use, or are impacted by assessments regarding what are conceivable and desirable outcomes of using health technology, and how to collect reliable information to assess whether these outcomes are (going to be) realized. It also provides more insight into the implications of different normative choices.

Prospective study of loss of health-related quality adjusted life years in children and their families due to uncomplicated and hospitalised varicella

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

Although usually benign, varicella can lead to serious complications and sometimes long-term sequelae. Vaccines are safe and effective but not yet included in immunisation programmes in many countries. We aimed to quantify the impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALY) in children with varicella and their families, key to assessing cost-utility in countries with low mortality due to this infection.

METHODS

Children with varicella in the community and admitted to hospitals in Portugal were included over 18 months from January 2019. Children's and carers' HRQoL losses were assessed prospectively using standard multi-attribute utility instruments for measuring HRQoL (EQ-5D and CHU9D), from presentation to recovery, allowing the calculation of QALYs.

RESULTS

Among 109 families with children with varicella recruited from attendees at a pediatric emergency service (community arm), the mean HRQoL loss/child was 2.0 days (95 % CI 1.9-2.2, n = 101) (mean 5.4 QALYs/1000 children (95 % CI 5.3-6.1) and 1.3 days/primary carer (95 % CI 1.2-1.6, n = 103) (mean 3.6 QALYs /1000 carers (95 % CI 3.4-4.4). Among 114 families with children admitted to hospital because of severe varicella or a complication (hospital arm), the mean HRQoL loss/child was 9.8 days (95 % CI 9.4-10.6, n = 114) (mean 26.8 QALYs /1000 children (95 % CI 25.8-29.0) and 8.5 days/primary carer (95 % CI 7.4-9.6, n = 114) (mean 23.4 QALYs/1000 carers (95 % CI 20.3-26.2). Mean QALY losses/1000 patients were particularly high for bone and joint infections [67.5 (95 % CI 43.9-97.6)]. Estimates for children's QALYs lost using the CHU9D tool were well correlated with those obtained using EQ-5D, but substantially lower.

CONCLUSIONS

The impact of varicella on HRQoL is substantial. We report the first measurements of QALYs lost in hospitalised children and in the families of children both in the community and admitted to hospital, providing important information to guide vaccination policy recommendations.

Incorporating Equity Concerns in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: A Systematic Literature Review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to review analytical methods that enable the incorporation of equity concerns within economic evaluation.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and EconLit was undertaken from database inception to February 2021. The search was designed to identify methodological approaches currently employed to evaluate health-related equity impacts in economic evaluation studies of healthcare interventions. Studies were eligible if they described or elaborated on a formal quantitative method used to integrate equity concerns within economic evaluation studies. Cost-utility, cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, cost-minimisation, and cost-consequence analyses, as well as health technology appraisals, budget impact analyses, and any relevant literature reviews were included. For each of the identified methods, we provided summaries of the scope of equity considerations covered, the methods employed and their key attributes, data requirements, outcomes, and strengths and weaknesses. A traffic light assessment of the practical suitability of each method was undertaken, alongside a worked example applying the different methods to evaluate the same decision problem. Finally, the review summarises the typical trade-offs arising in cost-effectiveness analyses and discusses the extent to which the evaluation methods are able to capture these.

RESULTS

In total, 68 studies were included in the review. Methods could broadly be grouped into equity-based weighting (EBW) methods, extended cost-effectiveness analysis (ECEA), distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA), multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), and mathematical programming (MP). EBW and MP methods enable equity consideration through adjustment to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, whereas equity considerations are represented through financial risk protection (FRP) outcomes in ECEA, social welfare functions (SWFs) in DCEA, and scoring/ranking systems in MCDA. The review identified potential concerns for EBW methods and MCDA with respect to data availability and for EBW methods and MP with respect to explicitly measuring changes in inequality. The only potential concern for ECEA related to the use of FRP metrics, which may not be relevant for all healthcare systems. In contrast, DCEA presented no significant concerns but relies on the use of SWFs, which may be unfamiliar to some audiences and requires societal preference elicitation. Consideration of typical cost-effectiveness and equity-related trade-offs highlighted the flexibility of most methods with respect to their ability to capture such trade-offs. Notable exceptions were trade-offs between quality of life and length of life, for which we found DCEA and ECEA unsuitable, and the assessment of lost opportunity costs, for which we found only DCEA and MP to be suitable. The worked example demonstrated that each method is designed with fundamentally different analytical objectives in mind.

CONCLUSIONS

The review emphasises that some approaches are better suited to particular decision problems than others, that methods are subject to different practical requirements, and that significantly different conclusions can be observed depending on the choice of method and the assumptions made. Further, to fully operationalise these frameworks, there remains a need to develop consensus over the motivation for equity assessment, which should necessarily be informed with stakeholder involvement. Future research of this topic should be a priority, particularly within the context of equity evaluation in healthcare policy decisions.