The Economic Impact of Blindness in Europe

Purpose: To estimate the annual loss of productivity from blindness and moderate to severe visual impairment (MSVI) in the population aged >50 years in the European Union (EU). Methods: We estimated the cost of lost productivity using three simple models reported in the literature based on (1) minimum wage (MW), (2) gross national income (GNI), and (3) purchasing power parity-adjusted gross domestic product (GDP-PPP) losses. In the first two models, assumptions included that all individuals worked until 65 years of age, and that half of all visual impairment cases in the >50-year age group would be in those aged between 50 and 65 years. Loss of productivity was estimated to be 100% for blind individuals and 30% for those with MSVI. None of these models included direct medical costs related to visual impairment. Results: The estimated number of blind people in the EU population aged >50 years is ~1.28 million, with a further 9.99 million living with MSVI. Based on the three models, the estimated cost of blindness is €7.81 billion, €6.29 billion and €17.29 billion and that of MSVI €18.02 billion, €24.80 billion and €39.23 billion, with their combined costs €25.83 billion, €31.09 billion and €56.52 billion, respectively. The estimates from the MW and adjusted GDP-PPP models were generally comparable, whereas the GNI model estimates were higher, probably reflecting the lack of adjustment for unemployment. Conclusion: The cost of blindness and MSVI in the EU is substantial. Wider use of available cost-effective treatment and prevention strategies may reduce the burden significantly

Capturing the value of vaccination within health technology assessment and health economics:Country analysis and priority value concepts

Background: A value of vaccination framework for economic evaluation (EE) identified unique value concepts for the broad benefits vaccination provides to individuals, society, healthcare systems and national economies. The objectives of this paper were to work with experts in developed countries to objectively identify three priority concepts to extend current EE. Methods: The previously developed classification of value concepts in vaccination distinguished 18 concepts, categorised as conventional payer and societal perspective concepts and novel broader societal concepts. Their inclusion in current EE guidelines was assessed. Experts identified eight criteria relevant to decision-making and measurement feasibility, which were weighted and used to score each concept. The relative ranking of concepts by importance and the gaps in guidelines were used to identify three priority concepts on which to focus immediate efforts to extend EE. Results: The EE guidelines review highlighted differences across countries and between guidelines and practice. Conventional payer perspective concepts (e.g., individual and societal health gains and medical costs) were generally included, while gaps were evident for conventional societal perspective concepts (e.g., family/caregiver health and economic gains). Few novel broader societal benefits were considered, and only in ad hoc cases. The top-three concepts for near-term consideration: macroeconomic gains (e.g., benefiting the economy, tourism), social equity and ethics (e.g., equal distribution of health outcomes, reduced health/financial equity gaps) and health systems strengthening, resilience and security (e.g., efficiency gains, reduced disruption, increased capacity). Conclusions: Gaps, inconsistencies and limited assessment of vaccination value in EE can lead to differences in policy and vaccination access. The three priority concepts identified provide a feasible approach for capturing VoV more broadly in the near-term. Robust methods for measuring and valuing these concepts in future assessments will help strengthen the evidence used to inform decisions, improving access to vaccines that are demonstrably good value for money from society's point of view. (C) 2022 GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals S.A. Published by Elsevier Ltd

Capturing the value of vaccination within health technology assessment and health economics:Literature review and novel conceptual framework

Background: Vaccination provides significant health gains to individuals and society and can potentially improve health equity, healthcare systems and national economies. Policy decisions, however, are rarely informed by comprehensive economic evaluations (EE) including vaccination's wide-ranging value. The objective of this analysis was to focus on health technology assessment systems to identify relevant value concepts in order to improve current EE of non-pandemic vaccines. Methods: Following a literature review, a novel Value of Vaccination (VoV) framework was developed with experts in vaccine EE from developed countries with established health technology assessment systems. Results: Forty-four studies presenting value frameworks or concepts applicable to vaccination were included. Eighteen unique value concepts relevant to EE were identified and defined. These were categorised within the VoV framework using three dimensions, moving from a narrow payer perspective to a more expansive and societal perspective. The dimensions were: (I) conventional payer perspective concepts (e.g., health gains in vaccinees, direct medical costs); (II) conventional societal perspective concepts (e.g., indirect health/economic gains to caregivers/households, productivity in vaccinees); and (III) novel societal concepts (e.g., financial risk protection, peace of mind, societal health gains, healthcare systems security, political stability, social equity and macroeconomic gains). While good quality evidence and methods are available to support concepts in Dimensions I and II, further work is needed to generate the required evidence for vaccination impact on Dimension III concepts. Conclusions: The devastating effect on nations of the COVID-19 pandemic has helped to highlight the potential far-reaching benefits that many vaccination programmes can offer. This VoV framework is particularly relevant to policy decisions considering EE, and the potential future expansion of non-pandemic vaccination value considerations. The framework helps to understand and compare current value considerations across countries and payer versus societal perspectives. It provides decision-makers with a transparent and logical path to broaden consideration of VoV in EE. (C) 2022 GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals S.A. Published by Elsevier Ltd

A report on the status of vaccination in Europe

Vaccine policy, decision processes and outcomes vary widely across Europe. The objective was to map these factors across 16 European countries by assessing (A) national vaccination strategy and implementation, (B) attributes of healthcare vaccination systems, and (C) outcomes of universal mass vaccination (UMV) as a measure of how successful the vaccination policy is.These findings reflect an individual approach to vaccination by country. High VCRs can be achieved, particularly for paediatric vaccinations, despite different approaches, targets and reporting systems; these are not replicated in vaccines for other age groups in the same country. Additional measures to improve VCRs across all age groups are needed and could benefit from greater harmonisation in target setting, vaccination data collection and sharing across EU countries

Clinic Time Required for Remote and In-Person Management of Patients With Cardiac Devices: Time and Motion Workflow Evaluation

BackgroundThe number of patients with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) is increasing, creating a substantial workload for device clinics. ObjectiveThis study aims to characterize the workflow and quantify clinic staff time requirements for managing patients with CIEDs. MethodsA time and motion workflow evaluation was performed in 11 US and European CIEDs clinics. Workflow tasks were repeatedly timed during 1 business week of observation at each clinic; these observations included all device models and manufacturers. The mean cumulative staff time required to review a remote device transmission and an in-person clinic visit were calculated, including all necessary clinical and administrative tasks. The annual staff time to manage a patient with a CIED was modeled using CIED transmission volumes, clinical guidelines, and the published literature. ResultsA total of 276 in-person clinic visits and 2173 remote monitoring activities were observed. Mean staff time required per remote transmission ranged from 9.4 to 13.5 minutes for therapeutic devices (pacemaker, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, and cardiac resynchronization therapy) and from 11.3 to 12.9 minutes for diagnostic devices such as insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs). Mean staff time per in-person visit ranged from 37.8 to 51.0 and from 39.9 to 45.8 minutes for therapeutic devices and ICMs, respectively. Including all remote and in-person follow-ups, the estimated annual time to manage a patient with a CIED ranged from 1.6 to 2.4 hours for therapeutic devices and from 7.7 to 9.3 hours for ICMs. ConclusionsThe CIED patient management workflow is complex and requires significant staff time. Understanding process steps and time requirements informs the implementation of efficiency improvements, including remote solutions. Future research should examine heterogeneity in patient management processes to identify the most efficient workflow

Corrigendum to 'A report on the status of vaccination in Europe' [Vaccine 36 (2018) 4979-4992]

Sheikh S, Biundo E, Courcier S, et al. Corrigendum to 'A report on the status of vaccination in Europe' [Vaccine 36 (2018) 4979-4992]. Vaccine. 2019;37(10):1374-1376.Corrigendu