Community-Based Values for 2009 Pandemic Influenza A H1N1 Illnesses and Vaccination-Related Adverse Events

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate community-based values for avoiding pandemic influenza (A) H1N1 (pH1N1) illness and vaccination-related adverse events in adults and children. METHODS: Adult community members were randomly selected from a nationally representative research panel to complete an internet survey (response rate = 65%; n = 718). Respondents answered a series of time trade-off questions to value four hypothetical health state scenarios for varying ages (1, 8, 35, or 70 years): uncomplicated pH1N1 illness, pH1N1 illness-related hospitalization, severe allergic reaction to the pH1N1 vaccine, and Guillain-Barré syndrome. We calculated descriptive statistics for time trade-off amounts and derived quality adjusted life year losses for these events. Multivariate regression analyses evaluated the effect of scenario age, as well as respondent socio-demographic and health characteristics on time trade-off amounts. RESULTS: Respondents were willing to trade more time to avoid the more severe outcomes, hospitalization and Guillain-Barré syndrome. In our adjusted and unadjusted analyses, age of the patient in the scenario was significantly associated with time trade-off amounts (p-value<0.05), with respondents willing to trade more time to prevent outcomes in children versus adults. Persons who had received the pH1N1 vaccination were willing to trade significantly more time to avoid hospitalization, severe allergic reaction, and Guillain-Barré syndrome, controlling for other variables in adjusted analyses.(p-value<0.05) CONCLUSIONS: Community members placed the highest value on preventing outcomes in children, compared with adults, and the time trade-off values reported were consistent with the severity of the outcomes presented. Considering these public values along with other decision-making factors may help policy makers improve the allocation of pandemic vaccine resources

Cost-Effectiveness of 2009 Pandemic Influenza A(H1N1) Vaccination in the United States

Pandemic influenza A(H1N1) (pH1N1) was first identified in North America in April 2009. Vaccination against pH1N1 commenced in the U.S. in October 2009 and continued through January 2010. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pH1N1 vaccination.A computer simulation model was developed to predict costs and health outcomes for a pH1N1 vaccination program using inactivated vaccine compared to no vaccination. Probabilities, costs and quality-of-life weights were derived from emerging primary data on pH1N1 infections in the US, published and unpublished data for seasonal and pH1N1 illnesses, supplemented by expert opinion. The modeled target population included hypothetical cohorts of persons aged 6 months and older stratified by age and risk. The analysis used a one-year time horizon for most endpoints but also includes longer-term costs and consequences of long-term sequelae deaths. A societal perspective was used. Indirect effects (i.e., herd effects) were not included in the primary analysis. The main endpoint was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in dollars per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.For vaccination initiated prior to the outbreak, pH1N1 vaccination was cost-saving for persons 6 months to 64 years under many assumptions. For those without high risk conditions, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from $8,000-$52,000/QALY depending on age and risk status. Results were sensitive to the number of vaccine doses needed, costs of vaccination, illness rates, and timing of vaccine delivery.Vaccination for pH1N1 for children and working-age adults is cost-effective compared to other preventive health interventions under a wide range of scenarios. The economic evidence was consistent with target recommendations that were in place for pH1N1 vaccination. We also found that the delays in vaccine availability had a substantial impact on the cost-effectiveness of vaccination

Paving the path for implementation of clinical genomic sequencing globally:Are we ready?

Despite the emerging evidence in recent years, successful implementation of clinical genomic sequencing (CGS) remains limited and is challenged by a range of barriers. These include a lack of standardized practices, limited economic assessments for specific indications, limited meaningful patient engagement in health policy decision-making, and the associated costs and resource demand for implementation. Although CGS is gradually becoming more available and accessible worldwide, large variations and disparities remain, and reflections on the lessons learned for successful implementation are sparse. In this commentary, members of the Global Economics and Evaluation of Clinical Genomics Sequencing Working Group (GEECS) describe the global landscape of CGS in the context of health economics and policy and propose evidence-based solutions to address existing and future barriers to CGS implementation. The topics discussed are reflected as two overarching themes: (1) system readiness for CGS and (2) evidence, assessments, and approval processes. These themes highlight the need for health economics, public health, and infrastructure and operational considerations; a robust patient- and family-centered evidence base on CGS outcomes; and a comprehensive, collaborative, interdisciplinary approach.</p

Use of a choice survey to identify adult, adolescent and parent preferences for vaccination in the United States

Abstract Background Adult and adolescent vaccination rates are far below coverage targets in the United States. Our objective was to identify the most influential factors related to vaccine uptake among adults, adolescents, and parents of adolescents (parents) in the United States. Methods We used a fractional factorial design to create a binary choice survey to evaluate preferences for vaccination. The national survey was fielded to a sample of adults, adolescents ages 13–17 years, and parents, using a national probability-based online research panel in November 2015. Respondents were presented with 5 profiles of a hypothetical vaccine and asked in a series of questions whether they would accept each vaccine. We analyzed the binary choice data using logistic regression in STATA v13 (College Station, TX) to calculate the odds that a participant would choose to accept the vaccine. Results We received completed responses from 334 (51%) of 652 adults, 316 (21%) of 1516 adolescents, and 339 (33%) of 1030 parents. Respondents were generally representative of the U.S. population. Vaccine effectiveness was the most influential factor in the choice to vaccinate for all groups. Other most influential factors were primary care provider (PCP) recommendation and the out-of-pocket cost of the vaccine. Other factors such as risk of illness, risk of vaccine side effects, vaccination location, and time for vaccination were not important in the decision to get vaccinated. Conclusions Adults, adolescents, and parents are most sensitive to vaccine effectiveness, PCP recommendation, and out-of-pocket cost for vaccination in their decision to get vaccinated. Strong PCP recommendations that focus on vaccine effectiveness and health care policies that minimize out-of-pocket costs for vaccinations may increase vaccine uptake by adults and adolescents.https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152264/1/41687_2019_Article_135.pd

The cost-effectiveness of treatments for attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder in children and adolescents: a systematic review

Economic evaluations can help decision makers identify what services for children with neurodevelopmental disorders provide best value-for-money. The aim of this paper is to review the best available economic evidence to support decision making for attention defcit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in children and adolescents. We conducted a systematic review of economic evaluations of ADHD and ASD interventions including studies published 2010–2020, identifed through Econlit, Medline, PsychINFO, and ERIC databases. Only full economic evaluations comparing two or more options, considering both costs and consequences were included. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Drummond checklist. We identifed ten studies of moderate-to-good quality on the cost-efectiveness of treatments for ADHD and two studies of good quality of interventions for ASD. The majority of ADHD studies evaluated pharmacotherapy (n=8), and two investigated the economic value of psychosocial/behavioral interventions. Both economic evaluations for ASD investigated early and communication interventions. Included studies support the cost-efectiveness of behavioral parenting interventions for younger children with ADHD. Among pharmacotherapies for ADHD, diferent combinations of stimulant/non-stimulant medications for children were cost-efective at willingness-to-pay thresholds reported in the original papers. Early intervention for children with suspected ASD was cost-efective, but communication-focused therapy for preschool children with ASD was not. Prioritizing more studies in this area would allow decision makers to promote cost-efective and clinically efective interventions for this target group

The cost-effectiveness of treatments for attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder in children and adolescents : a systematic review

Economic evaluations can help decision makers identify what services for children with neurodevelopmental disorders provide best value-for-money. The aim of this paper is to review the best available economic evidence to support decision making for attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in children and adolescents. We conducted a systematic review of economic evaluations of ADHD and ASD interventions including studies published 2010–2020, identified through Econlit, Medline, PsychINFO, and ERIC databases. Only full economic evaluations comparing two or more options, considering both costs and consequences were included. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Drummond checklist. We identified ten studies of moderate-to-good quality on the cost-effectiveness of treatments for ADHD and two studies of good quality of interventions for ASD. The majority of ADHD studies evaluated pharmacotherapy (n = 8), and two investigated the economic value of psychosocial/behavioral interventions. Both economic evaluations for ASD investigated early and communication interventions. Included studies support the cost-effectiveness of behavioral parenting interventions for younger children with ADHD. Among pharmacotherapies for ADHD, different combinations of stimulant/non-stimulant medications for children were cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds reported in the original papers. Early intervention for children with suspected ASD was cost-effective, but communication-focused therapy for preschool children with ASD was not. Prioritizing more studies in this area would allow decision makers to promote cost-effective and clinically effective interventions for this target group

Trends in Author-Reported Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds in the United States from 1995 to 2018: Implications for Discount Rates

Background: Decisions based on cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) using equal discount rates for health and cost outcomes are consistent with using a constant cost-effectiveness threshold over time. We sought to analyze trends in author-reported cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) thresholds from CEAs published for the US setting over 24 y to retrospectively assess whether the recommended equal discount rates for costs and health were consistent with trends in the CEA literature. Methods: We used the Tufts CEA Registry to assess whether author-reported cost-effectiveness thresholds changed in CEAs published for the US setting between 1995 and 2018 and back-calculated the implied discount rate for health based on these trends for inflation-adjusted cost-effectiveness thresholds and an annual discount rate for costs of 3%