Estimating Vaccines' Value and Impact

A special issue of Vaccines (ISSN 2076-393X). This special issue belongs to the section "Human Vaccines and Public Health".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 15 August 2024 | Viewed by 5050

Special Issue Editor


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals (IVB), World Health Organization, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland
Interests: vaccine impact modeling and evaluation; value of vaccine estimation; full value of vaccine assessment; country decision support

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Estimating the value and public health impact of vaccines is critical to ensure evidence-based policy decision making in nearly all stages, from vaccine development to the introduction/implementation of vaccines in low-resource settings. To foster public health equity, as well as estimate value to local and national economies, concerted efforts are needed to increase the understanding of the full value of vaccination. Such value goes beyond direct disease prevention and can, for example, include impacts on the life course of vaccinated recipients, on the wider community, and on entire health systems. 

We are pleased to invite you to contribute with your research work to provide readers (e.g., member states, global policymakers, funding entities, and/or the vaccine R&D community) with insights on how the “full” value of vaccines can be assessed or was assessed by you. This can be carried out through concrete assessments that you undertook or by offering methodological advice that can help the growing community of researchers and implementers to inform as well as optimize responses to vaccine-preventable diseases. 

In this Special Issue, original research articles and reviews are welcome. Research areas may include (but not limited to) the following:

  • Reviews
    • Full value of vaccine assessment concept and approaches;
    • Current estimation of value in the vaccine space and areas for improvement as well as expansion (e.g., equity, broader perspectives, etc.);
    • Standardization of methods to support robust assessments of the impact as well as value of vaccines.
  • Original research articles on
    • Full value of vaccine assessments;
    • Impact assessment of vaccination in low-resource settings;
    • Efforts to support policy decision making on vaccine introduction/prioritzation.

Dr. Philipp Lambach
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Vaccines is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2700 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • full value of vaccine assessment
  • impact
  • value
  • economic

Published Papers (3 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

9 pages, 1521 KiB  
Communication
National Immunization Program Decision Making Using the CAPACITI Decision-Support Tool: User Feedback from Indonesia and Ethiopia
by Maarten Jansen, Dijana Spasenoska, Mardiati Nadjib, Desalegn Ararso, Raymond Hutubessy, Anna-Lea Kahn and Philipp Lambach
Vaccines 2024, 12(3), 337; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines12030337 - 20 Mar 2024
Viewed by 853
Abstract
To ensure that limited domestic resources are invested in the most effective interventions, immunization programs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) must prioritize a growing number of new vaccines while considering opportunities to optimize the vaccine portfolio, as well as other components of [...] Read more.
To ensure that limited domestic resources are invested in the most effective interventions, immunization programs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) must prioritize a growing number of new vaccines while considering opportunities to optimize the vaccine portfolio, as well as other components of the health system. There is a strong impetus for immunization decision-making to engage and coordinate various stakeholders across the health system in prioritization. To address this, national immunization program decision-makers in LMICs collaborated with WHO to structure deliberation among stakeholders and document an evidence-based, context-specific, and transparent process for prioritization or selection among multiple vaccination products, services, or strategies. The output of this effort is the Country-led Assessment for Prioritization on Immunization (CAPACITI) decision-support tool, which supports using multiple criteria and stakeholder perspectives to evaluate trade-offs affecting health interventions, taking into account variable data quality. Here, we describe the user feedback from Indonesia and Ethiopia, two initial countries that piloted the CAPACITI decision-support tool, highlighting enabling and constraining factors. Potential immunization program benefits and lessons learned are also summarized for consideration in other settings. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Estimating Vaccines' Value and Impact)
21 pages, 2352 KiB  
Article
Potential Cost-Effectiveness of Maternal Influenza Immunisation in Low-Income Countries: An Explorative Modelling Study and Value of Information Analysis to Guide Future Clinical Research
by Yingying Wang, Michelle L. Giles and Natalie Carvalho
Vaccines 2024, 12(3), 232; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines12030232 - 23 Feb 2024
Viewed by 963
Abstract
Maternal influenza immunisation (MII) is recommended for protecting pregnant women and infants under six months of age from severe disease related to influenza. However, few low-income countries have introduced this vaccine. Existing cost-effectiveness studies do not consider potential vaccine non-specific effects (NSE) observed [...] Read more.
Maternal influenza immunisation (MII) is recommended for protecting pregnant women and infants under six months of age from severe disease related to influenza. However, few low-income countries have introduced this vaccine. Existing cost-effectiveness studies do not consider potential vaccine non-specific effects (NSE) observed in some settings, such as reductions in preterm birth. A decision tree model was built to examine the potential cost-effectiveness of MII in a hypothetical low-income country compared to no vaccination, considering possible values for NSE on preterm birth in addition to vaccine-specific effects on influenza. We synthesized epidemiological and cost data from low-income countries. All costs were adjusted to 2021 United States dollars (USD). We considered cost-effectiveness thresholds that reflect opportunity costs (USD 188 per disability-adjusted life year averted; range: USD 28–538). Results suggest that even a small (5%) NSE on preterm birth may make MII a cost-effective strategy in these settings. A value of information analysis indicated that acquiring more information on the presence and possible size of NSE of MII could greatly reduce the uncertainty in decision-making on MII. Further clinical research investigating NSE in low-income countries may be of high value to optimise immunisation policy. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Estimating Vaccines' Value and Impact)
Show Figures

Figure 1

13 pages, 1515 KiB  
Article
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of COVID-19 Inactivated Vaccines in Reducing the Economic Burden of Ischaemic Stroke after SARS-CoV-2 Infection
by Min Du, Chenyuan Qin, Min Liu and Jue Liu
Vaccines 2023, 11(5), 957; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11050957 - 07 May 2023
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 2044
Abstract
Due to significant economic burden and disability from ischaemic stroke and the relationship between ischaemic stroke and SARS-CoV-2 infection, we aimed to explore the cost-effectiveness of the two-dose inactivated COVID-19 vaccination program in reducing the economic burden of ischaemic stroke after SARS-CoV-2 infection. [...] Read more.
Due to significant economic burden and disability from ischaemic stroke and the relationship between ischaemic stroke and SARS-CoV-2 infection, we aimed to explore the cost-effectiveness of the two-dose inactivated COVID-19 vaccination program in reducing the economic burden of ischaemic stroke after SARS-CoV-2 infection. We constructed a decision-analytic Markov model to compare the two-dose inactivated COVID-19 vaccination strategy to the no vaccination strategy using cohort simulation. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and used number of the ischaemic stroke cases after SARS-CoV-2 infection and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) to assess effects. Both one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to assess the robustness of the results. We found that the two-dose inactivated vaccination strategy reduced ischaemic stroke cases after SARS-CoV-2 infection by 80.89% (127/157) with a USD 1.09 million as vaccination program cost, saved USD 3675.69 million as direct health care costs and gained 26.56 million QALYs compared with no vaccination strategy among 100,000 COVID-19 patients (ICER < 0 per QALY gained). ICERs remained robust in sensitivity analysis. The proportion of older patients and the proportion of two-dose inactivated vaccination among older people were the critical factors that affected ICER. This study suggests the importance of COVID-19 vaccination is not only in preventing the spread of infectious diseases, but also in considering its long-term value in reducing the economic burden of non-communicable diseases such as ischaemic stroke after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Estimating Vaccines' Value and Impact)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop