A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluation Methodologies Between Resource-Limited and Resource-Rich Countries: A Case of Rotavirus Vaccines.

BACKGROUND: For more than three decades, the number and influence of economic evaluations of healthcare interventions have been increasing and gaining attention from a policy level. However, concerns about the credibility of these studies exist, particularly in studies from low- and middle- income countries (LMICs). This analysis was performed to explore economic evaluations conducted in LMICs in terms of methodological variations, quality of reporting and evidence used for the analyses. These results were compared with those studies conducted in high-income countries (HICs). METHODS: Rotavirus vaccine was selected as a case study, as it is one of the interventions that many studies in both settings have explored. The search to identify individual studies on rotavirus vaccines was performed in March 2014 using MEDLINE and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database. Only full economic evaluations, comparing cost and outcomes of at least two alternatives, were included for review. Selected criteria were applied to assess methodological variation, quality of reporting and quality of evidence used. RESULTS: Eighty-five studies were included, consisting of 45 studies in HICs and 40 studies in LMICs. Seventy-five percent of the studies in LMICs were published by researchers from HICs. Compared with studies in HICs, the LMIC studies showed less methodological variety. In terms of the quality of reporting, LMICs had a high adherence to technical criteria, but HICs ultimately proved to be better. The same trend applied for the quality of evidence used. CONCLUSION: Although the quality of economic evaluations in LMICs was not as high as those from HICs, it is of an acceptable level given several limitations that exist in these settings. However, the results of this study may not reflect the fact that LMICs have developed a better research capacity in the domain of health economics, given that most of the studies were in theory led by researchers from HICs. Putting more effort into fostering the development of both research infrastructure and capacity building as well as encouraging local engagement in LMICs is thus necessary.

Vaccination program in a resource-limited setting: A case study in the Philippines.

OBJECTIVE: Implementing national-level vaccination programs involves long-term investment, which can be a significant financial burden, particularly in resource-limited settings. Although many studies have assessed the economic impacts of providing vaccinations, evidence on the positive and negative implications of human resources for health (HRH) is still lacking. Therefore, this study aims to estimate the HRH impact of introducing pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) using a model-based economic evaluation. METHODS: This study adapted a Markov model from a prior study that was conducted in the Philippines for assessing the cost-effectiveness of 10-valent and 13-valent PCV compared to no vaccination. The Markov model was used for estimating the number of cases of pneumococcal-related diseases, categorized by policy options. HRH-related parameters were obtained from document reviews and interviews using the quantity, task, and productivity model (QTP model). RESULTS: The number of full-time equivalent (FTE) of general practitioners, nurses, and midwives increases significantly if the universal vaccine coverage policy is implemented. A universal coverage of PCV13 - which is considered to be the best value for money compared to other vaccination strategies - requires an additional 380 FTEs for general practitioners, 602 FTEs for nurses, and 205 FTEs for midwives; it can reduce the number of FTEs for medical social workers, paediatricians, infectious disease specialists, neurologists, anaesthesiologists, radiologists, ultrasonologists, medical technologists, radiologic technologists, and pharmacists by 7, 17.9, 9.7, 0.4, 0.1, 0.7, 0.1, 12.3, 2, and 9.7, respectively, when compared to the no vaccination policy. CONCLUSION: This is the first attempt to estimate the impact of HRH alongside a model-based economic evaluation study, which can be eventually applied to other vaccine studies, especially those which inform resource allocation in developing settings where not only financial resources but also HRH are constrained.

A cost-utility analysis of cervical cancer screening and human papillomavirus vaccination in the Philippines.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the second leading cause of cancer cases and deaths among Filipino women because of inadequate access to screening and treatment services. This study aims to evaluate the health and economic benefits of HPV vaccination and its combination with different screening strategies to find the most optimal preventive strategy in the Philippines. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was conducted using an existing semi-Markov model to evaluate different screening (i.e., Pap smear, visual inspection with acetic acid) and vaccination strategies against HPV infection implemented alone or as part of a combination strategy at different coverage scenarios. The model was run using country-specific epidemiologic, cost and clinical parameters from a health system perspective. Sensitivity analysis was performed for vaccine efficacy, duration of protection and costs of vaccination, screening and treatment. RESULTS: Across all coverage scenarios, VIA has been shown to be a dominant and cost-saving screening strategy with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) ranging from dominant to Php 61,059 (1443 USD) per QALY gained. VIA can reduce cervical cancer cases and deaths by 25%. Pap smear screening was found to be not cost-effective due to its high cost in the Philippines. Adding HPV vaccination at a cost of 54 USD per vaccinated girl on top of VIA screening was found to be potentially cost-effective using a threshold of 1 GDP per capita (i.e., Php 120,000 or 2835 USD/ QALY) with the most favorable assumption of providing lifelong immunity against high-risk oncogenic HPV types 16/18. The highest incremental QALY gain was achieved with 80% coverage of the combined strategy of VIA at 35 to 45 years old done every five years following vaccination at 11 years of age with an ICER of Php 33,126 (783 USD). This strategy may result in a two-thirds reduction in cervical cancer burden. HPV vaccination is not cost-effective when vaccine protection lasts for less than 20 years. CONCLUSION: High VIA coverage targeting women aged 35-45 years old at five-year intervals is the most efficient and cost-saving strategy in reducing cervical cancer burden in the Philippines. Adding a vaccination program at high coverage among 11-year-old girls is potentially cost-effective in the Philippines assuming a life-long duration of vaccine efficacy.

Methodological variation in economic evaluations conducted in low- and middle-income countries: information for reference case development.

Information generated from economic evaluation is increasingly being used to inform health resource allocation decisions globally, including in low- and middle- income countries. However, a crucial consideration for users of the information at a policy level, e.g. funding agencies, is whether the studies are comparable, provide sufficient detail to inform policy decision making, and incorporate inputs from data sources that are reliable and relevant to the context. This review was conducted to inform a methodological standardisation workstream at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and assesses BMGF-funded cost-per-DALY economic evaluations in four programme areas (malaria, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and vaccines) in terms of variation in methodology, use of evidence, and quality of reporting. The findings suggest that there is room for improvement in the three areas of assessment, and support the case for the introduction of a standardised methodology or reference case by the BMGF. The findings are also instructive for all institutions that fund economic evaluations in LMICs and who have a desire to improve the ability of economic evaluations to inform resource allocation decisions.