Estimating the full public health value of vaccination

Bradford D. Gessner, David Kaslow, Jacques Louis, Kathleen Neuzil, Katherine L O'Brien, Valentina Picot, Tikki Pang, Umesh D. Parashar, Mitra Saadatian-Elahi, Christopher B. Nelson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

There is an enhanced focus on considering the full public health value (FPHV) of vaccination when setting priorities, making regulatory decisions and establishing implementation policy for public health activities. Historically, a therapeutic paradigm has been applied to the evaluation of prophylactic vaccines and focuses on an individual benefit-risk assessment in prospective and individually-randomized phase III trials to assess safety and efficacy against etiologically-confirmed clinical outcomes. By contrast, a public health paradigm considers the population impact and encompasses measures of community benefits against a range of outcomes. For example, measurement of the FPHV of vaccination may incorporate health inequity, social and political disruption, disruption of household integrity, school absenteeism and work loss, health care utilization, long-term/on-going disability, the development of antibiotic resistance, and a range of non-etiologically and etiologically defined clinical outcomes.Following an initial conference at the Fondation Mérieux in mid-2015, a second conference (December 2016) was held to further describe the efficacy of using the FPHV of vaccination on a variety of prophylactic vaccines. The wider scope of vaccine benefits, improvement in risk assessment, and the need for partnership and coalition building across interventions has also been discussed during the 2014 and 2016 Global Vaccine and Immunization Research Forums and the 2016 Geneva Health Forum, as well as in numerous publications including a special issue of Health Affairs in February 2016.The December 2016 expert panel concluded that while progress has been made, additional efforts will be necessary to have a more fully formulated assessment of the FPHV of vaccines included into the evidence-base for the value proposition and analysis of unmet medical need to prioritize vaccine development, vaccine licensure, implementation policies and financing decisions. The desired outcomes of these efforts to establish an alternative framework for vaccine evaluation are a more robust vaccine pipeline, improved appreciation of vaccine value and hence of its relative affordability, and greater public access and acceptance of vaccines.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalVaccine
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2017

Fingerprint

public health
Vaccination
Vaccines
Public Health
vaccination
vaccines
Health
risk-benefit analysis
affordability
Patient Acceptance of Health Care
Absenteeism
vaccine development
funding
Licensure
antibiotic resistance
Microbial Drug Resistance
health services
risk assessment
households
immunization

Keywords

  • Full public health value
  • Global health
  • Health policy
  • Immunization programs
  • Public health
  • Vaccination

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Molecular Medicine
  • Immunology and Microbiology(all)
  • veterinary(all)
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Infectious Diseases

Cite this

Gessner, B. D., Kaslow, D., Louis, J., Neuzil, K., O'Brien, K. L., Picot, V., ... Nelson, C. B. (Accepted/In press). Estimating the full public health value of vaccination. Vaccine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.09.048

Estimating the full public health value of vaccination. / Gessner, Bradford D.; Kaslow, David; Louis, Jacques; Neuzil, Kathleen; O'Brien, Katherine L; Picot, Valentina; Pang, Tikki; Parashar, Umesh D.; Saadatian-Elahi, Mitra; Nelson, Christopher B.

In: Vaccine, 2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gessner, BD, Kaslow, D, Louis, J, Neuzil, K, O'Brien, KL, Picot, V, Pang, T, Parashar, UD, Saadatian-Elahi, M & Nelson, CB 2017, 'Estimating the full public health value of vaccination', Vaccine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.09.048
Gessner, Bradford D. ; Kaslow, David ; Louis, Jacques ; Neuzil, Kathleen ; O'Brien, Katherine L ; Picot, Valentina ; Pang, Tikki ; Parashar, Umesh D. ; Saadatian-Elahi, Mitra ; Nelson, Christopher B. / Estimating the full public health value of vaccination. In: Vaccine. 2017.
@article{5c580fa1f3874ee0a24b3270d0fbb221,
title = "Estimating the full public health value of vaccination",
abstract = "There is an enhanced focus on considering the full public health value (FPHV) of vaccination when setting priorities, making regulatory decisions and establishing implementation policy for public health activities. Historically, a therapeutic paradigm has been applied to the evaluation of prophylactic vaccines and focuses on an individual benefit-risk assessment in prospective and individually-randomized phase III trials to assess safety and efficacy against etiologically-confirmed clinical outcomes. By contrast, a public health paradigm considers the population impact and encompasses measures of community benefits against a range of outcomes. For example, measurement of the FPHV of vaccination may incorporate health inequity, social and political disruption, disruption of household integrity, school absenteeism and work loss, health care utilization, long-term/on-going disability, the development of antibiotic resistance, and a range of non-etiologically and etiologically defined clinical outcomes.Following an initial conference at the Fondation M{\'e}rieux in mid-2015, a second conference (December 2016) was held to further describe the efficacy of using the FPHV of vaccination on a variety of prophylactic vaccines. The wider scope of vaccine benefits, improvement in risk assessment, and the need for partnership and coalition building across interventions has also been discussed during the 2014 and 2016 Global Vaccine and Immunization Research Forums and the 2016 Geneva Health Forum, as well as in numerous publications including a special issue of Health Affairs in February 2016.The December 2016 expert panel concluded that while progress has been made, additional efforts will be necessary to have a more fully formulated assessment of the FPHV of vaccines included into the evidence-base for the value proposition and analysis of unmet medical need to prioritize vaccine development, vaccine licensure, implementation policies and financing decisions. The desired outcomes of these efforts to establish an alternative framework for vaccine evaluation are a more robust vaccine pipeline, improved appreciation of vaccine value and hence of its relative affordability, and greater public access and acceptance of vaccines.",
keywords = "Full public health value, Global health, Health policy, Immunization programs, Public health, Vaccination",
author = "Gessner, {Bradford D.} and David Kaslow and Jacques Louis and Kathleen Neuzil and O'Brien, {Katherine L} and Valentina Picot and Tikki Pang and Parashar, {Umesh D.} and Mitra Saadatian-Elahi and Nelson, {Christopher B.}",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.09.048",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Vaccine",
issn = "0264-410X",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Estimating the full public health value of vaccination

AU - Gessner, Bradford D.

AU - Kaslow, David

AU - Louis, Jacques

AU - Neuzil, Kathleen

AU - O'Brien, Katherine L

AU - Picot, Valentina

AU - Pang, Tikki

AU - Parashar, Umesh D.

AU - Saadatian-Elahi, Mitra

AU - Nelson, Christopher B.

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - There is an enhanced focus on considering the full public health value (FPHV) of vaccination when setting priorities, making regulatory decisions and establishing implementation policy for public health activities. Historically, a therapeutic paradigm has been applied to the evaluation of prophylactic vaccines and focuses on an individual benefit-risk assessment in prospective and individually-randomized phase III trials to assess safety and efficacy against etiologically-confirmed clinical outcomes. By contrast, a public health paradigm considers the population impact and encompasses measures of community benefits against a range of outcomes. For example, measurement of the FPHV of vaccination may incorporate health inequity, social and political disruption, disruption of household integrity, school absenteeism and work loss, health care utilization, long-term/on-going disability, the development of antibiotic resistance, and a range of non-etiologically and etiologically defined clinical outcomes.Following an initial conference at the Fondation Mérieux in mid-2015, a second conference (December 2016) was held to further describe the efficacy of using the FPHV of vaccination on a variety of prophylactic vaccines. The wider scope of vaccine benefits, improvement in risk assessment, and the need for partnership and coalition building across interventions has also been discussed during the 2014 and 2016 Global Vaccine and Immunization Research Forums and the 2016 Geneva Health Forum, as well as in numerous publications including a special issue of Health Affairs in February 2016.The December 2016 expert panel concluded that while progress has been made, additional efforts will be necessary to have a more fully formulated assessment of the FPHV of vaccines included into the evidence-base for the value proposition and analysis of unmet medical need to prioritize vaccine development, vaccine licensure, implementation policies and financing decisions. The desired outcomes of these efforts to establish an alternative framework for vaccine evaluation are a more robust vaccine pipeline, improved appreciation of vaccine value and hence of its relative affordability, and greater public access and acceptance of vaccines.

AB - There is an enhanced focus on considering the full public health value (FPHV) of vaccination when setting priorities, making regulatory decisions and establishing implementation policy for public health activities. Historically, a therapeutic paradigm has been applied to the evaluation of prophylactic vaccines and focuses on an individual benefit-risk assessment in prospective and individually-randomized phase III trials to assess safety and efficacy against etiologically-confirmed clinical outcomes. By contrast, a public health paradigm considers the population impact and encompasses measures of community benefits against a range of outcomes. For example, measurement of the FPHV of vaccination may incorporate health inequity, social and political disruption, disruption of household integrity, school absenteeism and work loss, health care utilization, long-term/on-going disability, the development of antibiotic resistance, and a range of non-etiologically and etiologically defined clinical outcomes.Following an initial conference at the Fondation Mérieux in mid-2015, a second conference (December 2016) was held to further describe the efficacy of using the FPHV of vaccination on a variety of prophylactic vaccines. The wider scope of vaccine benefits, improvement in risk assessment, and the need for partnership and coalition building across interventions has also been discussed during the 2014 and 2016 Global Vaccine and Immunization Research Forums and the 2016 Geneva Health Forum, as well as in numerous publications including a special issue of Health Affairs in February 2016.The December 2016 expert panel concluded that while progress has been made, additional efforts will be necessary to have a more fully formulated assessment of the FPHV of vaccines included into the evidence-base for the value proposition and analysis of unmet medical need to prioritize vaccine development, vaccine licensure, implementation policies and financing decisions. The desired outcomes of these efforts to establish an alternative framework for vaccine evaluation are a more robust vaccine pipeline, improved appreciation of vaccine value and hence of its relative affordability, and greater public access and acceptance of vaccines.

KW - Full public health value

KW - Global health

KW - Health policy

KW - Immunization programs

KW - Public health

KW - Vaccination

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85030461109&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85030461109&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.09.048

DO - 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.09.048

M3 - Article

C2 - 28986035

AN - SCOPUS:85030461109

JO - Vaccine

JF - Vaccine

SN - 0264-410X

ER -