Priority setting of vaccine introduction in Bangladesh: a multicriteria decision analysis study

Evaluation of antibody-based preventive alternatives for respiratory syncytial virus: a novel multi-criteria decision analysis framework and assessment of nirsevimab in Spain

BACKGROUND

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a highly infectious disease that poses a significant clinical and medical burden, as well as social disruption and economic costs, recognized by the World Health Organization as a public health issue. After several failed attempts to find preventive candidates (compounds, products, including vaccines), new alternatives might be available, one being nirsevimab, the first and only option approved for RSV prevention in neonates and infants during their first RSV season. The objective of this study was to develop a novel multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework for RSV antibody-based preventive alternatives and to use it to assess the value of nirsevimab vs. placebo as a systematic immunization approach to prevent RSV in neonates and infants during their first RSV season in Spain.

METHODS

Based on a pre-established model called Vaccinex, an ad-hoc MCDA framework was created to reflect relevant attributes for the assessment of current and future antibody-based preventive measures for RSV. The estimated value of nirsevimab was obtained by means of an additive linear model combining weights and scores assigned by a multidisciplinary committee of 9 experts. A retest and three sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Nirsevimab was evaluated through a novel framework with 26 criteria by the committee as a measure that adds value (positive final estimated value: 0.56 ± 0.11) to the current RSV scenario in Spain, by providing a high efficacy for prevention of neonates and infants. In addition, its implementation might generate cost savings in hospitalizations and to the healthcare system and increase the level of public health awareness among the general population, while reducing health inequities.

CONCLUSIONS

Under a methodology with increasing use in the health field, nirsevimab has been evaluated as a measure which adds value for RSV prevention in neonates and infants during their first RSV season in Spain.

Construction of an indicator framework for vaccine inclusion in public health programs: A Delphi-entropy method study

Governments must decide which vaccine priority to include in their public health programs. Using the modified Delphi and entropy method, we developed an indicator framework for vaccine inclusion at the national, provincial, municipal, and district/county levels, each containing three dimensions. In total, 4 primary indicators, 17 secondary indicators, and 45 tertiary indicators were selected, covering vaccine-preventable diseases, candidate vaccines, and social drivers of the supply and demand sides. From a subjective perspective, there was no significant weighting difference in the primary and secondary indicators at all administrative levels. "Vaccine-preventable diseases" as a primary indicator had the greatest weight in the peer group, of which "Health burden" had the highest weight among the secondary indicators. From the objective perspective, the social drivers on the supply and demand sides of the primary indicators accounted for 65% and higher. Among the secondary indicators, "the characteristics of the candidate vaccine" and "vaccine-related policies on the supply side" held 8% of weights or more at both national and provincial levels. "Demographic characteristics" held the highest weight at the municipal (13.50) and district/county (15.45) level. This study indicates that China needs different considerations when using WHO-recommended vaccines at the national, provincial, municipal, and district/county levels. In addition, this study highlights that behavioral and social drivers are important indicators that need to be considered for decision-making. This framework provides a tool for policymakers to determine the inclusion priority of candidate vaccines.

Does health economics research align with the disease burden in the Middle East and North Africa region? A systematic review of economic evaluation studies on public health interventions

Introduction

Economic evaluation studies demonstrate the value of money in health interventions and enhance the efficiency of the healthcare system. Therefore, this study reviews published economic evaluation studies of public health interventions from 26 Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries and examines whether they addressed the region's major health problems.

Methods

PubMed and Scopus were utilized to search for relevant articles published up to June 26, 2021. The reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of studies using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

Results

The search identified 61 studies. Approximately half (28 studies; 46%) were conducted in Israel and Iran. The main areas of interest for economic evaluation studies were infectious diseases (21 studies; 34%), cancers (13 studies; 21%), and genetic disorders (nine studies; 15%). Five (8%), 39 (64%), 16 (26%), and one (2%) studies were classified as excellent, high, average, and poor quality, respectively. The mean of CHEERS checklist items reported was 80.8% (SD 14%). Reporting the structure and justification of the selected model was missed in 21 studies (37%), while price and conversion rates and the analytical methods were missed in 21 studies (34%).

Conclusions

The quantity of economic evaluation studies on public health interventions in the MENA region remains low; however, the overall quality is high to excellent. There were obvious geographic gaps across countries regarding the number and quality of studies and gaps within countries concerning disease prioritization. The observed research output, however, did not reflect current and upcoming disease burden and risk factors trends in the MENA region.