ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2013
Economics of vaccines revisited.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of health economic evaluations of vaccines in Brazil.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2017Pooled it
- Towards a more comprehensive approach for a total economic assessment of vaccines?: 1. The building blocks for a health economic assessment of vaccination.Journal of market access & health policy · 2017Review
- 2. How is the economic assessment of vaccines performed today?Journal of market access & health policy · 2017Review
- Comparing cost-effectiveness results for a vaccine across different countries worldwide: what can we learn?Advances in therapy · 2014Article
- Do current cost-effectiveness analyses reflect the full value of childhood vaccination in Europe? A rotavirus case study.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2014Review
- Is the gap between micro- and macroeconomic assessments in health care well understood? The case of vaccination and potential remedies.Journal of market access & health policy · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Performing a total health economic analysis of a vaccine newly introduced into the market today is a challenge when using the conventional cost-effectiveness analysis we normally apply on pharmaceutical products. There are many reasons for that, such as: the uncertainty in the total benefit (direct and indirect) to be measured in a population when using a cohort model; (1) appropriate rules about discounting the long-term impact of vaccines are absent jeopardizing therefore their value at the initial investment; (2) the presence of opposite contexts when introducing the vaccine in developed vs. the developing world with high benefits, low initial health care investment for the latter vs. marginal benefit and high cost for the former; with a corresponding paradox for the vaccine becoming very cost-effective in low income countries but rather medium in middle low to high middle income countries; (3) and the type of trial assessment for the newer vaccines is now often performed with immunogenicity reaction instead of clinical endpoints which still leaves questions on their real impact and their head-to-head comparison. (4.)
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.