Vaccine evaluation: lessons from a meningococcal B vaccine

Use of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses for Decisions About Vaccination Programs for Meningococcal Disease in the United States, United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Canada

INTRODUCTION

Meningococcal vaccines to protect against invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) vary in terms of vaccine technology and serogroup coverage (Polysaccharide MnACWY, conjugated C and ACWY, outer membrane vesicle-based or protein-based B vaccines), and the national recommendations for each of them vary in terms of target population and number of doses. We sought to understand factors associated with the evolution of meningococcal vaccination program recommendations in four countries with formal evaluation processes: the UK, US, the Netherlands, and Canada.

AREAS COVERED

A targeted review of published literature and internet sources for the four countries relating to meningococcal vaccination decision-making was conducted. The review focused on the impact of cost-effectiveness analyses on vaccine policy decisions and the extent to which variation in incidence of IMD and its potential catastrophic consequences influenced policy decisions.The evolution of meningococcal vaccine recommendations in the four countries was mainly driven by changes in vaccine availability and changes in serogroup incidence. Public pressure due to the catastrophic nature of IMD influenced recommendations. The role of cost-effectiveness analyses varied across the 4 countries.

EXPERT OPINION

The value of implementing meningococcal vaccination programs should be assessed using factors beyond those included in traditional cost-effectiveness analyses.

Deciphering the Burden of Meningococcal Disease: Conventional and Under-recognized Elements

Invasive meningococcal disease remains a substantial global public health burden despite being vaccine-preventable worldwide. More than one million cases are reported annually, with average fatality rates ranging from 10% to 40% depending on clinical presentation and geographic location. Survivors may suffer debilitating sequelae that reduce the quality of life for the patient and family members responsible for their care. Major financial burdens are associated with acute treatment and follow-up care, and outbreak management often places extensive financial strains on public health resources. Although the clinical and financial aspects of meningococcal disease burden are straightforward to quantify, other burdens such as lifelong cognitive deficits, psychological stress, adaptive measures for reintegration into society, familial impact, and legal costs are systematically overlooked. These and other facets of disease burden are therefore not systematically considered in cost-effectiveness analyses that public health authorities take into consideration when making decisions regarding vaccination programs. Changing the approach for measuring meningococcal disease burden is necessary to accurately understand the societal consequences of this devastating illness. In this article, the conventional and under-recognized burdens of meningococcal disease are presented and discussed.

Methodological Challenges to Economic Evaluations of Vaccines: Is a Common Approach Still Possible?

Economic evaluation of vaccination is a key tool to inform effective spending on vaccines. However, many evaluations have been criticised for failing to capture features of vaccines which are relevant to decision makers. These include broader societal benefits (such as improved educational achievement, economic growth and political stability), reduced health disparities, medical innovation, reduced hospital beds pressures, greater peace of mind and synergies in economic benefits with non-vaccine interventions. Also, the fiscal implications of vaccination programmes are not always made explicit. Alternative methodological frameworks have been proposed to better capture these benefits. However, any broadening of the methodology for economic evaluation must also involve evaluations of non-vaccine interventions, and hence may not always benefit vaccines given a fixed health-care budget. The scope of an economic evaluation must consider the budget from which vaccines are funded, and the decision-maker's stated aims for that spending to achieve.

[Meningococcal vaccines. Global epidemiological situation and strategies for prevention by vaccination]

N. meningitidis is a major cause of meningitis and septicemia and a major public health problem in many countries. The disease, that can be fulminant, has a high mortality and may cause serious sequelae, even in cases of apparently optimal medical treatment. Chemoprophylaxis may prevent secondary cases among those in close contact with the ill, but, since secondary cases represent only 1%-2% of all meningococcal disease, chemoprophylaxis has a small impact when fighting most of endemic and epidemic forms. Given that al least 5% -15% of children and young adults are carriers, the fight against meningococcal disease based on chemotherapeutic elimination of nasopharyngeal colonization is virtually impossible. Therefore, immunization is the only rational way to combat this disease.