Systematic review of health economic evaluation studies of dengue vaccines

• Published in: Vaccine 2019-04, Vol.37 (17), p.2298-2310
• Main Authors: de Soárez, Patrícia Coelho, Silva, Aline Blumer, Randi, Bruno Azevedo, Azevedo, Laura Marques, Novaes, Hillegonda Maria Dutilh, Sartori, Ana Marli Christovam
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Check lists; Citation management software; Clinical decision making; Clinical trials; Cost analysis; Cost-benefit analysis; Cost-effectiveness analysis; Cost-utility analysis; Decision making; Dengue fever; Dengue vaccines; Disease; Economics; Epidemiology; GDP; Gross Domestic Product; Hospitalization; Immunization; Infections; Literature reviews; Medical research; Per capita; Population studies; Quality assessment; Reviews; Systematic review; Vaccine efficacy; Vaccines; Vector-borne diseases
• ISSN: 0264-410X; 1873-2518
• DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.03.026

To review the literature on economic evaluation of dengue vaccination to produce evidence to support a local cost-effectiveness study and to subsidize the decision to introduce a dengue vaccine in the Brazilian National Immunization Program. Methods: We systematically searched multiple databases (MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, SCOPUS, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), HTA Database (via Centre for Reviews and Dissemination – CRD) and LILACS), selecting full HEEs of dengue vaccine. Two independent reviewers screened articles for relevance and extracted the data. The methodology for the quality reporting was assessed using CHEERS checklist. We performed a qualitative narrative synthesis. Results: Thirteen studies conducted in Asian and Latin America countries were reviewed. All studies were favorable to the incorporation of the vaccine. However, the assumptions and values assumed for vaccine efficacy, safety and duration of protection, as well as the choice of the study population and the type of model used in the analyses, associated to an insufficient reporting of the methodological steps, affect the validity of the studies’ results. The quality reporting appraisal showed that the majority (8/13) of the studies reported less than 55% of the CHEERS checklists’ items. Conclusions: This systematic review shows that the economic evaluation of dengue vaccination did not adhere to key recommended general methods for economic evaluation. The presented cost-effectiveness results should not be transferred to other countries. It is recommended to conduct studies with local epidemiological and cost data, as well as assumptions about vaccination that reflect the results observed in clinical trials.