Background. New health technologies are more likely adopted when they have lower incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and/or when their ICER is presented with more certainty. Industry-funded (IF) health economic evaluations use often more favorable base-case values, leading to more favorable conclusions. Purpose. To study whether IF health economic evaluations of varicella-zoster virus vaccination in the elderly use more favorable base-case values and account for less uncertainty than non–industry-funded (NIF) evaluations. Methods. Data source: PubMed. Data extracted: funding source; incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained; vaccine price; study quality score; base-case values, uncertainty ranges, and data sources for influential parameters: duration of vaccine protection, utility loss due to herpes zoster (HZ) disease, percentage of HZ patients developing postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), and duration of PHN. Data synthesis: qualitative comparisons; Fisher exact test for differences in study quality score and 1-sided Mann-Whitney U tests for differences in base-case values and uncertainty ranges. Results. Despite using the same data sources, IF studies (n = 10) assume a longer duration of vaccine protection (U = 56, P = 0.03), have a higher percentage of HZ patients developing PHN (U = 22/33, P = 0.02/0.03 for ages 60–64/65–69), and tend to use higher HZ utility loss than NIF studies (n = 11) for their baseline. IF studies show lower ICERs given similar or even higher vaccine prices than NIF studies, consider less uncertainty around the duration of vaccine protection (U = 8, P < 0.001), and tend to use less uncertainty around the duration of PHN. Yet their quality has been rated equally well, using current standard quality rating tools. Conclusion. Researchers and decision makers should be aware of potential sponsorship bias in health economic evaluations, especially in the way source data are used to specify base-case values and uncertainty ranges.
HusereauDDrummondMPetrouSet al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)—explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16:231–50.
2.
SaltelliARattoMAndresTet al. Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer. Chichester, UK: John Wiley; 2008.
3.
DakinHDevlinNFengYet al. The influence of cost-effectiveness and other factors on nice decisions. Health Econ. 2014 Sep 23 [Epub ahead of print].
4.
AndronisLBartonPBryanS.Sensitivity analysis in economic evaluation: an audit of NICE current practice and a review of its use and value in decision-making. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13:iii, ix–xi, 1–61.
5.
DevlinNParkinD.Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ. 2004;13:437–52.
6.
BeutelsP.Potential conflicts of interest in vaccine economics research: a commentary with a case study of pneumococcal conjugate vaccination. Vaccine. 2004;22:3312–22.
7.
BellCMUrbachDRRayJGet al. Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review. BMJ. 2006;332:699–703.
8.
John-BaptisteABellC.Industry sponsored bias in cost effectiveness analyses. BMJ. 2010;341:c5350.
9.
Catala-LopezFSanfelix-GimenoGRidaoMet al. When are statins cost-effective in cardiovascular prevention? A systematic review of sponsorship bias and conclusions in economic evaluations of statins. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e69462.
10.
MinersAHGarauMFidanDet al. Comparing estimates of cost effectiveness submitted to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) by different organisations: retrospective study. BMJ. 2005;330:65.
11.
BakerCBJohnsrudMTCrismonMLet al. Quantitative analysis of sponsorship bias in economic studies of antidepressants. Br J Psychiatry. 2003;183:498–506.
12.
PeuraPKMartikainenJAPurmonenTTet al. Sponsorship-related outcome selection bias in published economic studies of triptans: systematic review. Med Decis Making. 2012;32:237–45.
13.
NeumannPJSandbergEABellCMet al. Are pharmaceuticals cost-effective? A review of the evidence. Health Affairs. 2000;19:92–109.
14.
PolyzosNPValachisAMauriDet al. Industry involvement and baseline assumptions of cost-effectiveness analyses: diagnostic accuracy of the Papanicolaou test. CMAJ. 2011;183:E337–43.
15.
WelsingPMSeverensJLLaanRF.Optimistic assumptions in modelling studies have a substantial influence on the cost-effectiveness result. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2003;42:1574–5; author reply 73–4.
16.
KawaiKPréaudEBaron-PapillonFet al. Cost-effectiveness of vaccination against herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia: a critical review. Vaccine. 2014;32:1645–53.
Hope-SimpsonRE.Postherpetic neuralgia. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1975;25:571–5.
19.
OxmanMNLevinMJJohnsonGRet al. A vaccine to prevent herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia in older adults. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:2271–84.
20.
DammOUltschBHornJet al. Systematic review of models assessing the economic value of routine varicella and herpes zoster vaccination in high-income countries. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:533.
21.
de BoerPTWilschutJCPostmaMJ.Cost-effectiveness of vaccination against herpes zoster. Hum Vaccine Immunother. 2014;10:2048–61.
22.
SzucsTDPfeilAM.A systematic review of the cost effectiveness of herpes zoster vaccination. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31:125–36.
23.
BriggsAHWeinsteinMCFenwickEAet al. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force Working Group-6. Med Decis Making. 2012;32:722–32.
24.
DrummondMFJeffersonTO.Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. BMJ. 1996;313:275–83.
25.
OfmanJJSullivanSDNeumannPJet al. Examining the value and quality of health economic analyses: implications of utilizing the QHES. J Managed Care Pharm. 2003;9:53–61.
26.
AgrestiA.An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. New York: John Wiley; 2002.
27.
R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2010.
28.
SzucsTDKressigRWPapageorgiouMet al. Economic evaluation of a vaccine for the prevention of herpes zoster and post-herpetic neuralgia in older adults in Switzerland. Hum Vaccines. 2011;7:749–56.
29.
AnnemansLBresseXGobboCet al. Health economic evaluation of a vaccine for the prevention of herpes zoster (shingles) and post-herpetic neuralgia in adults in Belgium. J Med Econ. 2010;13:537–51.
30.
BresseXAnnemansLPréaudEet al. Vaccination against herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia in France: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2013;13:393–406.
31.
BrissonMPellissierJMCamdenSet al. The potential cost-effectiveness of vaccination against herpes zoster and post-herpetic neuralgia. Hum Vaccines. 2008;4:238–45.
32.
MooreLRemyVMartinMet al. A health economic model for evaluating a vaccine for the prevention of herpes zoster and post-herpetic neuralgia in the UK. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2010;8:7.
33.
PellissierJMBrissonMLevinMJ.Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness in the United States of a vaccine to prevent herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia in older adults. Vaccine. 2007;25:8326–37.
34.
PréaudEUhartMBohmKet al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a vaccination program for the prevention of herpes zoster and post-herpetic neuralgia in adults aged 50 and over in Germany. Hum Vaccine Immunother. 2015;11:884–96.
35.
Lopez-BelmonteJLCisternaRGildeMiguelAet al. The use of Zostavax in Spain: the economic case for vaccination of individuals aged 50 years and older. J Med Econ. 2016;19:576–86.
36.
CorettiSCodellaPRomanoFet al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of herpes zoster vaccination in Italian elderly persons. Int J Technol Assess. 2016;32:233–40.
37.
BlankPRAdemiZLuXYet al. Herpes zoster vaccine: a health economic evaluation for Switzerland. Hum Vaccine Immunother. 2017;13:1495–504.
38.
EdmundsWJBrissonMRoseJD.The epidemiology of herpes zoster and potential cost-effectiveness of vaccination in England and Wales. Vaccine. 2001;19:3076–90.
39.
HornbergerJRobertusK.Cost-effectiveness of a vaccine to prevent herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia in older adults. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145:317–25.
40.
NajafzadehMMarraCAGalanisEet al. Cost effectiveness of herpes zoster vaccine in Canada. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27:991–1004.
41.
RothbergMBVirapongseASmithKJ.Cost-effectiveness of a vaccine to prevent herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia in older adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44:1280–8.
42.
UltschBWeidemannFReinholdTet al. Health economic evaluation of vaccination strategies for the prevention of herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia in Germany. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:359.
43.
van HoekAJGayNMelegaroAet al. Estimating the cost-effectiveness of vaccination against herpes zoster in England and Wales. Vaccine. 2009;27:1454–67.
44.
van LierAvan HoekAJOpsteltenWet al. Assessing the potential effects and cost-effectiveness of programmatic herpes zoster vaccination of elderly in the Netherlands. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:237.
45.
de BoerPTPouwelsKBCoxJMet al. Cost-effectiveness of vaccination of the elderly against herpes zoster in The Netherlands. Vaccine. 2013;31:1276–83.
46.
LePHRothbergMB.Determining the optimal vaccination schedule for herpes zoster: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31:S179–S80.
47.
BelchiorELevy-BruhlDLe StratYet al. Cost-effectiveness of a herpes zoster vaccination program among the French elderly people. Hum Vaccine Immunother. 2016;12:2378–82.
48.
BilckeJMaraisCOgunjimiBet al. Cost-effectiveness of vaccination against herpes zoster in adults aged over 60 years in Belgium. Vaccine. 2012;30:675–84.
49.
LePRothbergMB.Cost-effectiveness of herpes zoster vaccine for persons aged 50 years. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:489–97.
50.
CoplanPMSchmaderKNikasAet al. Development of a measure of the burden of pain due to herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia for prevention trials: adaptation of the brief pain inventory. J Pain. 2004;5:344–56.
51.
LiXMZhangJHBettsRFet al. Modeling the durability of ZOSTAVAX (R) vaccine efficacy in people ≥ 60 years of age. Vaccine. 2015;33:1499–505.
52.
GauthierABreuerJCarringtonDet al. Epidemiology and cost of herpes zoster and post-herpetic neuralgia in the United Kingdom. Epidemiol Infect. 2009;137:38–47.
53.
BouhassiraDChassanyOGaillatJet al. Patient perspective on herpes zoster and its complications: an observational prospective study in patients aged over 50 years in general practice. Pain. 2012;153:342–49.
54.
OsterGHardingGDukesEet al. Pain, medication use, and health-related quality of life in older persons with postherpetic neuralgia: results from a population-based survey. J Pain. 2005;6:356–63.
55.
KindPDolanPGudexCet al. Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ. 1998;316:736–41.
56.
BalaMVWoodLLZarkinGAet al. Valuing outcomes in health care: a comparison of willingness to pay and quality-adjusted life-years. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:667–76.
57.
ScottFTJohnsonRWLeedham-GreenMet al. The burden of herpes zoster: a prospective population based study. Vaccine. 2006;24:1308–14.
58.
van SeventerRSadoskyALuceroMet al. A cross-sectional survey of health state impairment and treatment patterns in patients with postherpetic neuralgia. Age Ageing. 2006;35:132–7.
59.
HanmerJLawrenceWFAndersonJPet al. Report of nationally representative values for the noninstitutionalized US adult population for 7 health-related quality-of-life scores. Med Decis Making. 2006;26:391–400.
60.
McDermottAMToelleTRRowbothamDJet al. The burden of neuropathic pain: results from a cross-sectional survey. Eur J Pain. 2006;10:127–35.
61.
TarrideJEGordonAVera-LlonchMet al. Cost-effectiveness of pregabalin for the management of neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy and postherpetic neuralgia: a Canadian perspective. Clin Ther. 2006;28:1922–34.
62.
BilckeJBeutelsP.Reviewing the cost effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination: the importance of uncertainty in the choice of data sources. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27:281–97.
63.
BilckeJBeutelsPBrissonMet al. Accounting for methodological, structural, and parameter uncertainty in decision-analytic models: a practical guide. Med Decis Making. 2011;31:675–92.
64.
BertramMYLauerJADe JoncheereKet al. Cost-effectiveness thresholds: pros and cons. Bull World Health Organ. 2016;94:925–30.
65.
FleurenceRLSpackmanDEHollenbeakC.Does the funding source influence the results in economic evaluations? A case study in bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:295–306.
66.
LalHCunninghamALGodeauxOet al. Efficacy of an adjuvanted herpes zoster subunit vaccine in older adults. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2087–96.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
