Going Forward: Potential Impact of Protein-Based COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage on Population Outcomes and Costs in the United States.

Policymakers in the United States (US) recommend coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination with a monovalent 2023-2024 vaccine formulation based on the Omicron XBB.1.5 variant. We estimated the potential US population-level health and economic impacts of increased COVID-19 vaccine coverage that might be expected with the availability of a protein-based vaccine with simpler storage requirements in addition to messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines. A Markov model was developed to estimate 1-year COVID-19-related costs, cases, hospitalizations, and deaths with and without the availability of a protein-based vaccine option. The model population was stratified by age and risk status. Model inputs were sourced from published literature or derived from publicly available data. Our model estimated that a five-percentage-point increase in coverage due to the availability of a protein-based vaccine option would prevent over 500,000 cases, 66,000 hospitalizations, and 3000 COVID-19-related deaths. These clinical outcomes translated to 42,000 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD 16,141/QALY from a third-party payer perspective. In sensitivity analyses, outcomes were most sensitive to COVID-19 incidence and severity across age groups. The availability of a protein-based vaccine option in the US could reduce hospitalizations and deaths and is predicted to be cost-effective.

Systematic Literature Review of Risk Factors for Poor Outcomes Among Adults With Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection in High-Income Countries.

Identification of risk factors for severe respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease in adults could facilitate their appropriate vaccine recommendations. We conducted a systematic literature review (last 10 years in PubMed/Embase) to identify quantitative estimates of risk factors for severe RSV infection outcomes in high-income countries. Severe outcomes from RSV infection included hospitalization, excess mortality, lower respiratory tract infection, or a composite measure: severe RSV, which included these outcomes and others, such as mechanical ventilation and extended hospital stay. Among 1494 articles screened, 26 met eligibility criteria. We found strong evidence that the following increased the risk of severe outcomes: age, preexisting comorbid conditions (eg, cardiac, pulmonary, and immunocompromising diseases, as well as diabetes and kidney disease), and living conditions (socioeconomic status and nursing home residence). The frequency of severe outcomes among younger adults with comorbidities was generally similar to that experienced by older adults, suggesting that immunosenescence and chronic conditions are both contributing factors for elevated risk. Trial registration: PROSPERO (CRD42022315239).

A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Alzheimer's Disease and Strategies for Future Advancements.

INTRODUCTION: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a disease continuum from pathophysiologic, biomarker and clinical perspectives. With the advent of advanced technologies, diagnosing and managing patients is evolving. METHODS: A systematic literature review (SLR) of practice guidelines for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and AD dementia was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). This systematic literature review (SLR) aimed to summarize current clinical practice guidelines for screening, testing, diagnosis, treatment and monitoring in the AD continuum. The results of this SLR were used to propose a way forward for practice guidelines given the possible introduction of biomarker-guided technology using blood- or plasma-based assays and disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) targeted for early disease. RESULTS: 53 clinical practice guidelines were identified, 15 of which were published since 2018. Screening for asymptomatic populations was not recommended. Biomarker testing was not included in routine diagnostic practice. There was no consensus on which neurocognitive tests to use to diagnose and monitor MCI or AD dementia. Pharmacologic therapies were not recommended for MCI, while cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine were recommended for AD treatment. DISCUSSION: The pre-2018 and post-2018 practice guidelines share similar recommendations for screening, diagnosis and treatment. However, once DMTs are approved, clinicians will require guidance on the appropriate use of DMTs in a clinical setting. This guidance should include strategies for identifying eligible patients and evaluating the DMT benefit-to-risk profile to facilitate shared decision-making among physicians, patients and care partners. CONCLUSION: Regular evidence-based updates of existing guidelines for the AD continuum are required over the coming decades to integrate rapidly evolving technologic and medical scientific advances and bring emerging approaches for management of early disease into clinical practice. This will pave the way toward biomarker-guided identification and targeted treatment and the realization of precision medicine for AD.

The Impact of Social Determinants of Health on Meningococcal Vaccination Awareness, Delivery, and Coverage in Adolescents and Young Adults in the United States: A Systematic Review.

Vaccines remain a fundamental intervention for preventing illness and death. In the United States, suboptimal vaccine uptake in adolescents and young adults has been observed for meningococcal conjugate (MenACWY) and serogroup B meningococcal (MenB) vaccines, particularly among marginalized communities, despite current recommendations by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. A systematic literature search was conducted in the MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, Cochrane, PsychInfo, and CINAHL databases to identify both drivers of, and barriers to, MenACWY and MenB vaccine uptake in adolescents and young adults. A total of 34 of 46 eligible studies that presented outcomes stratified by race/ethnicity, geography, and socioeconomic status were selected for review. Results showed MenACWY and MenB vaccination coverage in adolescents and young adults is impacted by racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic disparities. Gaps also exist in insurance for, or access to, these vaccines in adolescents and young adults. Moreover, there was variability in the understanding and implementation of the shared decision-making recommendations for the MenB vaccine. Disease awareness campaigns, increased clarity in accessing all meningococcal vaccines, and further research on the relationships between measures of marginalization and its impact on vaccine coverage in adolescents and young adults are needed to reduce the incidence of severe infections.

Resilience learning from the COVID-19 pandemic and its relevance for routine immunization programs.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic represents a threat that has posed a challenge to public health response and threatens immunization programs globally. Despite recommendations to continue routine immunization services, disruptions have been observed to these and mass vaccination campaigns. This may result in setbacks to immunization initiative successes and a rise in cases of vaccine-preventable diseases. AREAS COVERED: We conducted a systematic literature review to identify studies globally that described how indicators of health system resilience, defined using the Resilient Health System Framework, enabled routine immunizations to continue during the COVID-19 pandemic. A systematic search was conducted in Embase, Web of Science, PsychInfo, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and the gray literature between 1 January 2020, and 12 November 2021. Information was extracted from the studies identified describing how the specific elements of resiliency (being aware, diverse, self-regulating, integrated, and adaptive) were applied to their routine immunization programs. EXPERT OPINION: Our study demonstrates the use of tools that contributed to immunization program resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic in all geographic regions and for countries with different income levels. These tools may help inform preparations for other immunization programs to catch up from the COVID-19 pandemic or mitigate the impact of future threats.

Economic Evaluation of Vaccination Programs: A Guide for Selecting Modeling Approaches.

OBJECTIVES: Illustrate 3 economic evaluation methods whose value measures may be useful to decision makers considering vaccination programs. METHODS: Keyword searches identified example publications of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), fiscal health modeling (FHM), and constrained optimization (CO) for economic evaluation of a vaccination program in countries where at least 2 of the methods had been used. We examined the extent to which different value measures may be useful for decision makers considering adoption of a new vaccination program. With these findings, we created a guide for selecting modeling approaches illustrating the decision-maker contexts and policy objectives for which each method may be useful. RESULTS: We identified 8 countries with published evaluations for vaccination programs using >1 method for 4 infections: influenza, human papilloma virus, rotavirus, and malaria. CEA studies targeted health system decision makers using a threshold to determine the efficiency of a new vaccination program. FHM studies targeted public sector spending decision makers estimating lifetime changes in government tax revenue net of transfer payments. CO studies targeted decision makers selecting from a mix of options for preventing an infectious disease within budget and feasibility constraints. Cost and utility inputs, epidemiologic models, comparators, and constraints varied by modeling method. CONCLUSIONS: Although CEAs measures of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are critical for understanding vaccination program efficiency for all decision makers determining access and reimbursement, FHMs provide measures of the program's impact on public spending for government officials, and COs provide measures of the optimal mix of all prevention interventions for public health officials.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

What might have happened: the impact of interrupting entry of innovative drugs on disease outcomes in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: The study estimated the extent to which drug innovations over the past 30 years may have improved outcomes for six diseases. AREAS COVERED: We analyzed six diseases (ischemic heart disease, lung cancer, breast cancer, human immunodeficiency virus [HIV] infection, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and rheumatoid arthritis [RA]) with significant mortality or morbidity for which there have been major drug innovations over the past 30 years. We used U.S. data from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) database and a patient registry to perform counterfactual time-series analyses predicting the improved health outcomes that may have been associated with major drug innovations. For 5 conditions using data from the GBD study, years of life lost per individual with the condition could have been higher by 17.1% (breast cancer) to 660.6% (HIV infection) in 2017 had the major drug innovations not been introduced. For RA, using patient registry data, patients' functional status could have been 11.5% worse had biological therapies not been introduced. EXPERT OPINION: Policies targeting drug prices should be broadened to consider the price and value of all health-care services. The societal importance of the pharmaceutical industry's ability to respond rapidly to emerging diseases should be recognized.

Staging Disease Severity Using the Alzheimer's Disease Composite Score (ADCOMS): A Retrospective Data Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The Alzheimer's disease (AD) composite score (ADCOMS) has been shown to be a more sensitive measure of cognitive change in early AD (i.e., mild cognitive impairment [MCI] and mild AD) than commonly used measures. This study derived ADCOMS value ranges associated with different disease severity stages across the predementia and AD continuum. METHODS: Data from patients enrolled in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative were assessed at baseline and month 24. Data were randomly split into derivation and validation samples. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves of ADCOMS values were generated in the derivation sample to assess the sensitivity and specificity of ADCOMS cutoff values compared with existing disease severity cutoff scores using the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) global, CDR Sum of Boxes, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale, and Mini-Mental State Examination. Optimal ADCOMS cutoff values for each disease stage were compared between the derivation and the validation samples using a χ2 test. The diagnostic accuracy of the derived ADCOMS cutoff values was then assessed. The analyses were repeated for the subset with positive amyloid ß confirmation (Aß +). RESULTS: The following ADCOMS value ranges for the total population and Aß + population were identified: < 0.29 indicative of normal cognition, 0.29 to < 0.45 indicative of MCI, 0.45-0.77 indicative of mild AD, and > 0.77 indicative of at least moderate AD. The reliability of these ADCOMS value ranges was supported by diagnostic accuracy tests and tests indicating no significant difference in the ROC curves between the derivation and validation samples. CONCLUSION: ADCOMS values ranges can be used to assess the severity of cognitive decline. The derived severity threshold score ranges for ADCOMS will enable its use as an endpoint in clinical trials assessing disease progression and clinical outcomes of disease-modifying therapies in persons with MCI or early AD, including patients with Aß + confirmation.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces the previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, and the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as healthcare, public health, education, and social care). This Explanation and Elaboration Report presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist with recommendations and explanation and examples for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals and the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. Nevertheless, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, given that there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, and the increased role of stakeholder involvement, including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as healthcare, public health, education, social care, etc.). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc.). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals, as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc.). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.