IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/drugsa/v41y2018i8d10.1007_s40264-018-0658-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Benefit–Risk Monitoring of Vaccines Using an Interactive Dashboard: A Methodological Proposal from the ADVANCE Project

Author

Listed:
  • Kaatje Bollaerts

    (P95 Pharmacovigilance and Epidemiology Services)

  • Tom Smedt

    (P95 Pharmacovigilance and Epidemiology Services)

  • Katherine Donegan

    (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency)

  • Lina Titievsky

    (Pfizer Inc)

  • Vincent Bauchau

    (GlaxoSmithKline Vaccines)

Abstract

Introduction New vaccines are launched based on their benefit–risk (B/R) profile anticipated from clinical development. Proactive post-marketing surveillance is necessary to assess whether the vaccination uptake and the B/R profile are as expected and, ultimately, whether further public health or regulatory actions are needed. There are several, typically not integrated, facets of post-marketing vaccine surveillance: the surveillance of vaccination coverage, vaccine safety, effectiveness and impact. Objective With this work, we aim to assess the feasibility and added value of using an interactive dashboard as a potential methodology for near real-time monitoring of vaccine coverage and pre-specified health benefits and risks of vaccines. Methods We developed a web application with an interactive dashboard for B/R monitoring. The dashboard is demonstrated using simulated electronic healthcare record data mimicking the introduction of rotavirus vaccination in the UK. The interactive dashboard allows end users to select certain parameters, including expected vaccine effectiveness, age groups, and time periods and allows calculation of the incremental net health benefit (INHB) as well as the incremental benefit–risk ratio (IBRR) for different sets of preference weights. We assessed the potential added value of the dashboard by user testing amongst a range of stakeholders experienced in the post-marketing monitoring of vaccines. Results The dashboard was successfully implemented and demonstrated. The feedback from the potential end users was generally positive, although reluctance to using composite B/R measures was expressed. Conclusion The use of interactive dashboards for B/R monitoring is promising and received support from various stakeholders. In future research, the use of such an interactive dashboard will be further tested with real-life data as opposed to simulated data.

Suggested Citation

  • Kaatje Bollaerts & Tom Smedt & Katherine Donegan & Lina Titievsky & Vincent Bauchau, 2018. "Benefit–Risk Monitoring of Vaccines Using an Interactive Dashboard: A Methodological Proposal from the ADVANCE Project," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 41(8), pages 775-786, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:41:y:2018:i:8:d:10.1007_s40264-018-0658-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s40264-018-0658-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40264-018-0658-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40264-018-0658-y?utm_source=ideas
    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

    as
    1. Edouard Ledent & Alfons Lieftucht & Hubert Buyse & Keiji Sugiyama & Michael Mckenna & Katsiaryna Holl, 2016. "Post-Marketing Benefit–Risk Assessment of Rotavirus Vaccination in Japan: A Simulation and Modelling Analysis," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 219-230, March.
    2. Aaron A. Stinnett & John Mullahy, 1998. "Net Health Benefits: A New Framework for the Analysis of Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," NBER Technical Working Papers 0227, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Basu, Anirban & Jena, Anupam B. & Philipson, Tomas J., 2011. "The impact of comparative effectiveness research on health and health care spending," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 695-706, July.
    2. Simon Eckermann & Tim Coelli, 2008. "Including quality attributes in a model of health care efficiency: A net benefit approach," CEPA Working Papers Series WP032008, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    3. Clarke, Philip M. & Hayes, Alison J., 2009. "Measuring achievement: Changes in risk factors for cardiovascular disease in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 552-561, February.
    4. Niklas Zethraeus & Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Jönsson & Mickael Löthgren & Magnus Tambour, 2003. "Advantages of Using the Net-Benefit Approach for Analysing Uncertainty in Economic Evaluation Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 39-48, January.
    5. Jordan Amdahl & Jose Diaz & Arati Sharma & Jinhee Park & David Chandiwana & Thomas E Delea, 2017. "Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the United Kingdom," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-18, June.
    6. Emma McIntosh, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 855-868, September.
    7. Martin Henriksson & Fredrik Lundgren & Per Carlsson, 2006. "Informing the efficient use of health care and health care research resources ‐ the case of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in Sweden," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(12), pages 1311-1322, December.
    8. Rachael L. Fleurence, 2007. "Setting priorities for research: a practical application of 'payback' and expected value of information," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1345-1357.
    9. David Brain & Ruth Tulleners & Xing Lee & Qinglu Cheng & Nicholas Graves & Rosana Pacella, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of an innovative model of care for chronic wounds patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-13, March.
    10. Claire McKenna & Karl Claxton, 2011. "Addressing Adoption and Research Design Decisions Simultaneously," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 853-865, November.
    11. Stefano Conti & Karl Claxton, 2008. "Dimensions of design space: a decision-theoretic approach to optimal research design," Working Papers 038cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    12. Andrew H. Briggs & Bernie J. O'Brien, 2001. "The death of cost‐minimization analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(2), pages 179-184, March.
    13. Richard M. Nixon & David Wonderling & Richard D. Grieve, 2010. "Non‐parametric methods for cost‐effectiveness analysis: the central limit theorem and the bootstrap compared," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(3), pages 316-333, March.
    14. Karl Claxton & Elisabeth Fenwick & Mark J. Sculpher, 2012. "Decision-making with Uncertainty: The Value of Information," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 51, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. John Mullahy, 2017. "Individual Results May Vary: Elementary Analytics of Inequality-Probability Bounds, with Applications to Health-Outcome Treatment Effects," NBER Working Papers 23603, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Todd H. Wagner & Jean Yoon & Josephine C. Jacobs & Angela So & Amy M. Kilbourne & Wei Yu & David E. Goodrich, 2020. "Estimating Costs of an Implementation Intervention," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(8), pages 959-967, November.
    17. Andrew Briggs, 2012. "Statistical Methods for Cost-effectiveness Analysis Alongside Clinical Trials," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 50, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Christopher McCabe & Giovanni Tramonti & Andrew Sutton & Peter Hall & Mike Paulden, 2021. "Probabilistic One-Way Sensitivity Analysis with Multiple Comparators: The Conditional Net Benefit Frontier," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 19-24, January.
    19. Mike Paulden, 2020. "Why it’s Time to Abandon the ICER," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(8), pages 781-784, August.
    20. Fleurence, Rachael L. & Torgerson, David J., 2004. "Setting priorities for research," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-10, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    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:drugsa:v:41:y:2018:i:8:d:10.1007_s40264-018-0658-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40264 .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.