Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

PAPERBACK
price:\$43.50

## New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries (1986) Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice (BPH)

### Citation Manager

. "2. Priority Setting for Health-Related Investments: A Review of Methods." New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1986.

 Page 24

The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.

New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities, Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries

Decision analysis avoids this problem by distinguishing between probabilities and consequences of project alternatives. These are then combined in logical fashion to obtain, for each candidate project, an expected effectiveness or expected utility score. For the examples presented in Table 2.1, for instance, one may estimate the expected number of lives saved per year with the following equation:

 Expected number of lives saved = potential number of lives saved × vaccine efficacy × vaccine coverage × probability of vaccine development.

For vaccine A (Table 2.1), for example, the efficacy score is 75. Vaccine coverage combines information on ease of implementation and cost, which for vaccine A are “excellent” and “moderate,” respectively. Expert judgment might translate this into a score of 0.80 for vaccine coverage. The 0.70 estimate for the probability of successful development makes more explicit the entry “good” in Table 2.1. Thus,

 Expected number of lives saved = (10,000) × (0.75) × (0.80) × (0.70) = 4,200 per year.

A similar calculation of expected values could be made for other valued consequences, such as days of morbidity averted, medical costs saved, and costs of development. These expected values for each consequence could be combined into a composite score using the methods illustrated in Table 2.2, with expected values of valued consequences as the weighted items rather than a mixture of consequences and probabilities.

More rigorous application of decision analysis would entail combining the valued consequences into a utility score for each possible scenario, prior to averaging out by the probabilities, rather than averaging out each valued consequence separately and then combining the averaged-out values. The two ways of performing these steps will give the same result as long as the rule for combining consequence scores (utilities) is linear and additive. If the combination rule were multiplicative, for example, the answers generally would differ.

### COST-EFFECTIVENESS AND COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS

Cost-effectiveness analysis is a formal method for selecting projects under a resource constraint. It requires that the constrained resource be identified (e.g., NIAID budget for new vaccine development or national expenditures on vaccinations) and that the resource burden of each candidate project be estimated. It also requires that a

 Page 24
 Front Matter (R1-R16) 1. Summary (1-18) 2. Priority Setting for Health-Related Investments: A Review of Methods (19-29) 3. Overview of the Analytic Approach (30-43) 4. Comparison of Disease Burdens (44-62) 5. Predictions of Vaccine Development (63-75) 6. Assessing the Likely Utilization of New Vaccines (76-81) 7. Calculation and Comparison of the Health Benefits and Differential Costs Associated with Candidate Vaccines (82-105) 8. Additional Issues in the Selection of Priorities for Accelerated Vaccine Development (106-120) 9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations (121-142) Appendix A: Selection of Vaccine Candidates for Accelerated Development (143-148) Appendix B: The Burden of Disease Resulting from Acute Respiratory Illness (149-158) Appendix C: The Burden of Disease Resulting from Diarrhea (159-169) Appendix D-1: The Prospects for Immunizing Against Dengue Virus (170-177) Appendix D-2: The Prospects for Immunizing Against Escherichia coli (178-185) Appendix D-3: The Prospects for Immunizing Against Hemophilus influenzae Type b (186-196) Appendix D-4: The Prospects for Immunizing Against Hepatitis A Virus (197-207) Appendix D-5: The Prospects for Immunizing Against Hepatitis B Virus (208-222) Appendix D-6: The Prospects for Immunizing Against Japanese Encephalitis Virus (223-240) Appendix D-7: The Prospects for Immunizing Against Mycobacterium leprae (241-250) Appendix D-8: The Prospects for Immunizing Against Neisseria meningitidis (251-266) Appendix D-9: The Prospects for Immunizing Against Parainfluenza Viruses (267-274) Appendix D-10: The Prospects for Immunizing Against Plasmodium spp. (275-286) Appendix D-11: The Prospects for Immunizing Against Rabies Virus (287-298) Appendix D-12: The Prospects for Immunizing Against Respiratory Syncytial Virus (299-307) Appendix D-13: The Prospects for Immunizing Against Rotavirus (308-318) Appendix D-14: The Prospects for Immunizing Against Salmonella typhi (319-328) Appendix D-15: The Prospects for Immunizing Against Shigella spp. (329-337) Appendix D-16: The Prospects for Immunizing Against Streptococcus Group A (338-356) Appendix D-17: The Prospects for Immunizing Against Streptococcus pneumoniae (357-375) Appendix D-18: The Prospects for Immunizing Against Vibrio cholerae (376-389) Appendix D-19: The Prospects for Immunizing Against Yellow Fever (390-402) Appendix E: Questionnaire for Assessing Morbidity-Mortality Trade-Offs (403-411) Appendix F: Technical Notes (412-412) Appendix G: Biographical Notes on Committee Members (413-417) Appendix H: Additional Sources of Advice to the Committee (418-419) Appendix I: Contents of Supplement to Volume II (420-420) Appendix J: Preface to Volume I (421-422) Appendix K: Contents to Volume I (423-423) Index (424-432)