IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic evaluation of meningococcal vaccines: considerations for the future


  • Hannah Christensen

    (University of Bristol)

  • Hareth Al-Janabi

    (University of Birmingham)

  • Pierre Levy

    (Université Paris-Dauphine, PSL Research University, LEDa [LEGOS])

  • Maarten J. Postma

    (University Medical Center/University of Groningen
    University Medical Center/University of Groningen
    University Medical Center/University of Groningen)

  • David E. Bloom

    (Harvard University)

  • Paolo Landa

    (University of Exeter)

  • Oliver Damm

    (Bielefeld University)

  • David M. Salisbury

    (Centre on Global Health Security, Royal Institute of International Affairs)

  • Javier Diez-Domingo

    (FISABIO-Public Health)

  • Adrian K. Towse

    (Office of Health Economics)

  • Paula K. Lorgelly

    (Office of Health Economics)

  • Koonal K. Shah

    (Office of Health Economics)

  • Karla Hernandez-Villafuerte

    (Office of Health Economics
    German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ))

  • Vinny Smith

    (Meningitis Research Foundation)

  • Linda Glennie

    (Meningitis Research Foundation)

  • Claire Wright

    (Meningitis Research Foundation)

  • Laura York

    (Vaccine Medical Development, Scientific and Clinical Affairs, Pfizer Inc)

  • Raymond Farkouh

    (Pfizer Inc)


In 2018, a panel of health economics and meningococcal disease experts convened to review methodologies, frameworks, and decision-making processes for economic evaluations of vaccines, with a focus on evaluation of vaccines targeting invasive meningococcal disease (IMD). The panel discussed vaccine evaluation methods across countries; IMD prevention benefits that are well quantified using current methods, not well quantified, or missing in current cost-effectiveness methodologies; and development of recommendations for future evaluation methods. Consensus was reached on a number of points and further consideration was deemed necessary for some topics. Experts agreed that the unpredictability of IMD complicates an accurate evaluation of meningococcal vaccine benefits and that vaccine cost-effectiveness evaluations should encompass indirect benefits, both for meningococcal vaccines and vaccines in general. In addition, the panel agreed that transparency in the vaccine decision-making process is beneficial and should be implemented when possible. Further discussion is required to ascertain: how enhancing consistency of frameworks for evaluating outcomes of vaccine introduction can be improved; reviews of existing tools used to capture quality of life; how indirect costs are considered within models; and whether and how the weighting of quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), application of QALY adjustment factors, or use of altered cost-effectiveness thresholds should be used in the economic evaluation of vaccines.

Suggested Citation

  • Hannah Christensen & Hareth Al-Janabi & Pierre Levy & Maarten J. Postma & David E. Bloom & Paolo Landa & Oliver Damm & David M. Salisbury & Javier Diez-Domingo & Adrian K. Towse & Paula K. Lorgelly & , 2020. "Economic evaluation of meningococcal vaccines: considerations for the future," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(2), pages 297-309, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:21:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s10198-019-01129-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-019-01129-z

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL:
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Bernhard Ultsch & Oliver Damm & Philippe Beutels & Joke Bilcke & Bernd Brüggenjürgen & Andreas Gerber-Grote & Wolfgang Greiner & Germaine Hanquet & Raymond Hutubessy & Mark Jit & Mirjam Knol & Rüdiger, 2016. "Methods for Health Economic Evaluation of Vaccines and Immunization Decision Frameworks: A Consensus Framework from a European Vaccine Economics Community," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 227-244, March.
    2. Nancy J. Devlin & Richard Brooks, 2017. "EQ-5D and the EuroQol Group: Past, Present and Future," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 127-137, April.
    3. LUYTEN, Jeroen & KESSELS, Roselinde & GOOS, Peter & BEUTELS, Philippe, 2013. "Public preferences for prioritizing preventive and curative health care interventions: A discrete choice experiment," Working Papers 2013032, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    4. Christopher James Sampson & Tim Wrightson, 2017. "Model Registration: A Call to Action," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 73-77, June.
    5. Alan Williams, 1997. "Intergenerational Equity: An Exploration of the ‘Fair Innings’ Argument," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(2), pages 117-132, March.
    6. Hernandez-Villafuerte, K. & Shah, K. & Herdman, M. & Lorgelly, P., 2020. "Meningococcal Vaccines: An International Comparison of Decision-Making Processes, Frameworks and Methodologies. Are Values Missing?," Consulting Reports 002249, Office of Health Economics.
    7. Paul Dolan & Rebecca Shaw & Aki Tsuchiya & Alan Williams, 2005. "QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 197-208, February.
    8. Gemma Lasseter & Hareth Al-Janabi & Caroline L Trotter & Fran E Carroll & Hannah Christensen, 2018. "The views of the general public on prioritising vaccination programmes against childhood diseases: A qualitative study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-18, June.
    9. Hareth Al‐Janabi & Job Van Exel & Werner Brouwer & Caroline Trotter & Linda Glennie & Laurie Hannigan & Joanna Coast, 2016. "Measuring Health Spillovers for Economic Evaluation: A Case Study in Meningitis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(12), pages 1529-1544, December.
    10. James O’Mahony & Anthony Newall & Joost Rosmalen, 2015. "Dealing with Time in Health Economic Evaluation: Methodological Issues and Recommendations for Practice," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(12), pages 1255-1268, December.
    11. Gary M. Ginsberg & Colin Block & Chen Stein-Zamir, 2016. "Cost-utility analysis of a nationwide vaccination programme against serogroup B meningococcal disease in Israel," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 61(6), pages 683-692, July.
    12. Gu, Yuanyuan & Lancsar, Emily & Ghijben, Peter & Butler, James RG & Donaldson, Cam, 2015. "Attributes and weights in health care priority setting: A systematic review of what counts and to what extent," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 41-52.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hansen, Lise Desireé & Kjær, Trine, 2019. "Disentangling public preferences for health gains at end-of-life: Further evidence of no support of an end-of-life premium," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Liz Morrell & Sarah Wordsworth & Sian Rees & Richard Barker, 2017. "Does the Public Prefer Health Gain for Cancer Patients? A Systematic Review of Public Views on Cancer and its Characteristics," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(8), pages 793-804, August.
    3. Jeff Round & Mike Paulden, 2018. "Incorporating equity in economic evaluations: a multi-attribute equity state approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(4), pages 489-498, May.
    4. Richardson, Jeff & Sinha, Kompal & Iezzi, Angelo & Maxwell, Aimee, 2012. "Maximising health versus sharing: Measuring preferences for the allocation of the health budget," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(8), pages 1351-1361.
    5. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    6. Mæstad, Ottar & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2009. "Eliciting people's preferences for the distribution of health: A procedure for a more precise estimation of distributional weights," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 570-577, May.
    7. Shah, Koonal K., 2009. "Severity of illness and priority setting in healthcare: A review of the literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 77-84, December.
    8. Nord, Erik & Johansen, Rune, 2014. "Concerns for severity in priority setting in health care: A review of trade-off data in preference studies and implications for societal willingness to pay for a QALY," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 281-288.
    9. Mæstad, Ottar & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2012. "A universal preference for equality in health? Reasons to reconsider properties of applied social welfare functions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(10), pages 1836-1843.
    10. Coast, Joanna, 2009. "Maximisation in extra-welfarism: A critique of the current position in health economics," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 786-792, September.
    11. Jeff Richardson & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell, 2017. "How important is severity for the evaluation of health services: new evidence using the relative social willingness to pay instrument," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(6), pages 671-683, July.
    12. Whitty, Jennifer A. & Littlejohns, Peter, 2015. "Social values and health priority setting in Australia: An analysis applied to the context of health technology assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 127-136.
    13. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier & Pinto, Jose Luis, 2015. "Estimating sign-dependent societal preferences for quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 229-243.
    14. Micaela Pinho & Anabela Botelho, 2018. "Inference Procedures to Quantify the Efficiency–Equality Trade-Off in Health from Stated Preferences: A Case Study in Portugal," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 503-513, August.
    15. Peter Martinsson & Emil Persson, 2019. "Physician behavior and conditional altruism: the effects of payment system and uncertain health benefit," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(3), pages 365-387, October.
    16. Towse, A. & Garau, M., 2018. "Appraising Ultra-Orphan Drugs: Is Cost-Per-QALY Appropriate? A Review of the Evidence," Consulting Reports 001978, Office of Health Economics.
    17. van Exel, Job & Baker, Rachel & Mason, Helen & Donaldson, Cam & Brouwer, Werner, 2015. "Public views on principles for health care priority setting: Findings of a European cross-country study using Q methodology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 128-137.
    18. Pickles, Kristen & Lancsar, Emily & Seymour, Janelle & Parkin, David & Donaldson, Cam & Carter, Stacy M., 2019. "Accounts from developers of generic health state utility instruments explain why they produce different QALYs: A qualitative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    19. Ottersen, Trygve & Mbilinyi, Deogratius & Maestad, Ottar & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2008. "Distribution matters: Equity considerations among health planners in Tanzania," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 218-227, February.
    20. Robberstad, Bjarne & Norheim, Ole F., 2011. "Incorporating concerns for equal lifetime health in evaluations of public health programs," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(10), pages 1711-1716, May.

    More about this item


    Meningitis; Meningococcal; Vaccine; Cost-effectiveness; QALY;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I - Health, Education, and Welfare
    • I - Health, Education, and Welfare


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:21:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s10198-019-01129-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.