The impact and cost-effectiveness of introducing the 10-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine into the paediatric immunisation programme in Iceland-A population-based time series analysis

ISOM 2023 Research Panel 5: Interventions- Vaccines and prevention, medical and surgical treatment, and impact of COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVES

To identify and synthesize key research advances from the literature published between 2019 and 2023 on the advances in preventative measures, and medical and surgical treatment of uncomplicated otitis media (OM) including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on OM management.

DATA SOURCES

Medline (PubMed), Embase, and the Cochrane Library.

REVIEW METHODS

All relevant original articles published in English between June 2019 and February 2023 were identified. Studies related to guideline adherence, impact of treatment on immune response and/or microbiology, tympanoplasty, Eustachian tube balloon dilatation, mastoidectomy procedures, and those focusing on children with Down's syndrome or cleft palate were excluded.

MAIN FINDINGS

Of the 9280 unique records screened, 64 were eligible for inclusion; 23 studies related to medical treatment, 20 to vaccines, 13 to surgical treatment, 6 to prevention (excl. vaccines) and 2 to the impact of COVID-19 on OM management. The level of evidence was judged 2 in 11 studies (17.2 %) and 3 or 4 in the remaining 53 studies (82.8 %) mainly due to the observational design, study limitations or low sample sizes. Some important advances in OM management have been made in recent years. Video discharge instructions detailing the identification and management of pain and fever for parents of children with acute otitis media (AOM) was more effective than paper instructions in reducing symptomatology; compared to placebo, levofloxacin solution was more effective for treating chronic suppurative otitis media, whereas AOM recurrences during two years of follow-up did not differ between children with recurrent AOM who received tympanostomy tube (TT) insertion or medical management. Further, novel pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV) schedules for preventing OM in Aboriginal children appeared ineffective, and a protein-based pneumococcal vaccine had no added value over PCV13 for preventing AOM in native American infants. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a decline in OM and TT case volumes and complications was observed.

IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Whether the observed impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on OM management extends to the post-pandemic era is uncertain. Furthermore, the impact of the pandemic on the conduct of urgently needed prospective methodologically rigorous interventional studies aimed at improving OM prevention and treatment remains to be elucidated since the current report consisted of studies predominantly conducted in the pre-pandemic era.

Vaccination programs for children aged up to 18 years in Europe, 2020

Although all European countries have vaccination policies for children, there are no comprehensive studies of pediatric vaccination programs in Europe. We studied vaccination programs for children in Europe. Vaccinations against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, poliomyelitis, Haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis B, measles, mumps, rubella, and influenza existed in 42 countries, against human papilloma virus in 41 countries, and against pneumococcus in 40 countries. In addition, the following vaccinations existed: against tuberculosis (35 countries), hepatitis A (33), meningococcus A, C, W, Y (30), rotavirus and varicella (28 countries each), meningococcus B (24), tick-born encephalitis (22), and meningococcus C (16). Mandatory vaccinations are implemented in 21 countries, mainly against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, poliomyelitis, H. influenzae type b, hepatitis B, measles, mumps, rubella, tuberculosis, and pneumococcus. There are significant differences among pediatric vaccination programs in Europe regarding number, schedules, indications, and regulatory frame (recommended or mandatory vaccinations). A consensus-based vaccination program for all children is needed.

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.