Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Impact of including productivity costs in economic analyses of vaccines for C. difficile infections and infant respiratory syncytial virus, in a UK setting

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation volume 22, Article number: 34 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Objectives

It has been estimated that vaccines can accrue a relatively large part of their value from patient and carer productivity. Yet, productivity value is not commonly or consistently considered in health economic evaluations of vaccines in several high-income countries. To contribute to a better understanding of the potential impact of including productivity value on the expected cost-effectiveness of vaccination, we illustrate the extent to which the incremental costs would change with and without productivity value incorporated.

Methods

For two vaccines currently under development, one against Cloistridioides difficile (C. difficile) infection and one against respiratory syncytial disease (RSV), we estimated their incremental costs with and without productivity value included and compared the results.

Results

In this analysis, reflecting a UK context, a C. difficile vaccination programme would prevent £12.3 in productivity costs for every person vaccinated. An RSV vaccination programme would prevent £49 in productivity costs for every vaccinated person.

Conclusions

Considering productivity costs in future cost-effectiveness analyses of vaccines for C. difficile and RSV will contribute to better-informed reimbursement decisions from a societal perspective.

Introduction

Productivity costs occur when illness, disability, or premature death cause a production loss. Such losses can occur in both paid and unpaid work, among individuals affected by disease and their informal caregivers. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown the tremendous impact that uncontrolled spread of infectious diseases can have on productivity costs, as well as the potential for vaccines to reduce this impact [1].

While a similar magnitude of impact may not be expected from every vaccine, productivity value is by no means a unique value element of vaccines against SARS-Cov-2 viruses. In fact, productivity value has long been reported as a significant component of the value of vaccines [2,3,4,5,6]. Yet, the value generated by vaccines in preventing productivity costs is not commonly or consistently considered in economic evaluations of vaccines in several high-income countries [7] especially those that take a healthcare systems perspective to inform coverage and reimbursement decisions, e.g. the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation in England which largely follows the methods set out by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence [8]. Other reasons for not considering productivity costs include equity concerns, controversies around the appropriate calculation method, and data limitations, which we have previously described elsewhere [9]. Excluding productivity costs, however, risks undervaluation of immunisation programmes, which in the long-term may have negative consequences on research and development incentives for vaccines and detrimental effects on population health and a country’s economic performance (10–11).

This study, therefore, aims to illustrate to what extent the inclusion of productivity costs might impact the value assessment of vaccines against Cloistridioides difficile infections (C. difficile) and infant respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections, which are currently in development or have recently been launched [12, 13]. C. difficile is a bacterium that can infect the bowel and cause diarrhoea. In England, around 12,500 C. difficile cases occurred in the financial year 2020/2021 [14]. RSV is a seasonal disease that affects approximately 33.8 million children under the age of five worldwide per year [15].

While health economic evaluations of preventive interventions and potential vaccine candidates for C. difficile and RSV have mostly considered their healthcare costs, there may be substantial productivity costs involved in each though the types of productivity losses incurred were expected to differ substantially between the two diseases. C. difficile can cause losses in productivity among patients in working age, their informal caregivers, and losses from unpaid voluntary work [16]. Productivity losses for RSV are mainly incurred by carers of children, e.g. when taking time off to accompany their child to GP appointments, or when the child is too sick to attend day care. Moreover, RSV-mortality incurs productivity losses in the form of lifetime lost income for the child.

This paper approximates the incremental costs of no vaccination over vaccination, with and without consideration of productivity costs in a UK setting. As such, the sole focus of this research lies on the potential impact of including versus excluding productivity costs, and a de-novo analysis of the full societal cost-effectiveness of C. difficile and RSV vaccination programmes was beyond the scope of this study.

Methods

We developed disease-specific models to estimate the expected direct healthcare costs and productivity costs under the standard of care (i.e. no vaccination programme) and in the presence of a vaccination programme. The main outcome of interest was the difference in incremental costs with and without productivity costs.

To estimate direct healthcare costs and productivity costs, we used published cost-effectiveness studies of C. difficile and RSV preventative interventions relevant to UK setting [17, 18]. We included productivity costs due to losses in paid work incurred by patients and caregivers in working age, and due to informal care provided by caregivers in non-working age. We excluded the cost of the vaccine from the analyses to strictly compare the difference in all other cost components, net of any recoup of value by a vaccine manufacturer. The model structure and elements of productivity cost for each disease are detailed in the Sect. 2.1 and 2.2.

Production losses in paid work were valued according to the human capital approach [19]. Productivity costs associated to informal care were estimated using the opportunity cost approach, which values the benefits forgone in informal caregiving time at the market´s gross wage rate [20]. The model input data are described in Sect. 2.3.

C. Difficile model characteristics

The C. difficile model is an adapted version of a cost-effectiveness study by Lenoir-Wijnkoop et al. [17] of a probiotic for the prevention of C. difficile-associated diarrhoea in the UK. It uses a static decision-tree to describe the possible infection outcomes and associated costs among a hypothetical cohort of hospitalised adults ≥ 50 years receiving antibiotics (Fig. 1, Supplementary Material).

The model considers productivity costs due to (i) C. difficile episodes without hospitalisation, (ii) C. difficile episodes with hospitalisation, (iii) post-C. difficile hospitalisations recovery period, (iv) C. difficile-attributable mortality, causing loss in paid work for patients aged 50–64 and in unpaid voluntary work for patients aged 65+; (v) informal caregiving by family members to support a C. difficile patient. The time horizon of the analysis is one year.

RSV model characteristics

The RSV model is an adapted version of a cost-effectiveness analysis by Cromer et al. [18] of different immunisation strategies for RSV in children in England. It uses a static decision-tree comparing RSV outcomes and associated costs among a hypothetical cohort of children < 5 years of age (Fig. 2, Supplementary Material).

For RSV we included productivity costs due to losses in paid work by a family member (e.g. parent, guardian) to care for a child during (i) RSV-associated outpatient consultations, (ii) RSV infections without hospitalisation, (iii) RSV hospitalisations; (iv) post-RSV hospitalisation recovery period; and (v) patients’ productivity costs due to RSV-attributable mortality. The time horizon of the analysis is the patient’s lifetime.

Model input data

Model inputs were based on a systematic review of economic evaluations of C. difficile and RSV interventions published between January 2000 and September 2021 (for search terms see Table 1, Supplementary Material), relevant statistics databases (e.g., Office for National Statistics, OECD Data) and official public health reports (e.g., Public Health England).

Where assumptions were needed in lieu of published data, these were verified for plausibility by three experts using a written questionnaire. Table 1 reports all input data used; additional details are provided in Supplementary Material 3.

Table 1 Population and disease epidemiology input data used in the models
Full size table

Sensitivity analyses

We conducted deterministic sensitivity analyses to test the impact of lower and higher bound estimates of the input parameters on the incremental productivity cost estimates. Lower and higher bound values of the input parameters were derived from the literature, gathered from the experts’ responses to the questionnaire, or assumed to be +/-20% if no other sources were unavailable.

Results

C. Difficile

Estimates of the per person healthcare costs under the standard of care and the C. difficile vaccine strategy are £185.0 and £65.2, respectively. Productivity costs were estimated to amount to an additional £17.6 under the standard of care compared to £5.3 under the vaccination strategy (Fig. 3 Supplementary Material).

These results imply that, compared to the standard of care and net of the vaccine cost, the vaccine strategy reduces costs (i.e. generates savings) by £119.8 per person vaccinated when productivity costs are excluded, and by £132.1 when productivity costs are included (Fig. 1). The C. difficile vaccination strategy would therefore prevent an additional £12.3 in productivity costs per person vaccinated. The main driver of this value are the prevented productivity costs due to C. difficile mortality (£3.9 per person vaccinated).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Difference in costs between standard of care and C. difficile vaccination strategy*, without and with productivity costs. * All results are net of the vaccine cost

Full size image

RSV

Estimates of the healthcare costs under the standard of care and the RSV vaccine strategy are £98.8 and £29.6 per person vaccinated, respectively. Productivity costs are estimated to amount to an additional £70.1 under the standard of care and £21.0 under the vaccination strategy (Fig. 4, Supplementary Material).

These results imply that, compared to the standard of care and net of the vaccine cost, the vaccine strategy reduces costs (i.e. generates savings) by £69.2 per person vaccinated when productivity costs are excluded, and by £118.2 when productivity costs are included (Fig. 2). The RSV vaccination strategy would therefore prevent an additional £49.0 in productivity costs per person vaccinated. The main driver of this value are the prevented productivity costs due to RSV infection episodes without hospitalisation (£22.9 per person vaccinated).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Difference in costs between standard of care and RSV vaccination strategy*, without and with productivity costs. * All results are net of the vaccine cost, which cancels out in the comparison

Full size image

.

Sensitivity analysis

The worst- and best-case value estimates of the incremental productivity costs of a C. difficile vaccination programme, compared to no vaccination, range between -£0.92 and -£190.7, respectively. In the case of an RSV vaccination programme, incremental productivity costs range between -£9.7 and -£281.3. Additional sensitivity analyses on individual productivity cost components are provided in the Supplementary Material 5.

Discussion

This paper illustrates that productivity costs can have a substantial impact on the value assessment of vaccines against C. difficile and RSV infections. It also provides a granular insight into the main drivers of productivity value that would potentially be generated by each vaccination strategy compared to the standard of care in a UK setting. This understanding is critical to guide comprehensive evidence development of vaccination strategies which ultimately inform reimbursement decisions.

For a C. difficile vaccine strategy among hospitalised adults aged 50 and over, consideration of the incremental productivity costs per person vaccinated (-£12.3) increases the total expected cost savings by about 10% over and above the estimated incremental direct healthcare costs (-£119.3). For an RSV vaccine strategy targeting children below the age of 5, incremental productivity costs per person vaccinated (-£49) are expected to increase total cost savings by 76% compared to only considering incremental direct healthcare costs (-£69.2). Note that these results do not include vaccine costs in order to show the impact of incremental productivity costs over and above incremental health care costs before any potential value absorption in a vaccine price.

A particular strength of this work is that it considers a comprehensive set of short-term productivity costs during the acute infection phase as well as long-term productivity costs due to mortality. Furthermore, our analysis of productivity costs associated with a C. difficile vaccination strategy captures losses in unpaid work among patients in non-working age in addition to productivity losses in paid work. It shows losses in unpaid work represent 20% of the overall productivity costs saved by a C. difficile vaccination strategy (-£2.5 per person vaccinated).

Our analysis has some limitations. First, we did not pursue a de-novo health economic analysis because we intended to illustrate the potential relative impact of considering productivity costs in addition to healthcare costs. Therefore, we leveraged existing economic analyses and readily available data. Second, we did not include the vaccine cost for the reason mentioned above nor incremental health gains. These inputs would cancel out in our comparison (productivity costs versus no productivity costs), but as a consequence the results of this analysis should not be taken to reflect the cost-effectiveness of a particular vaccine. Third, for C. difficile, healthcare costs for age 50 + were not available so we used previously published costs for age 65+ [17]. This is likely to overestimate healthcare costs and underestimates productivity losses. Fourth, we chose to use the human capital approach and not a friction cost approach because (i) the duration of morbidity and recovery episodes for both diseases fall well within typical friction cost periods (95 ± 11 days for the UK [48]), (ii) mortality associated with each disease is limited yet for RSV pertains to children, making the human capital approach more relevant. Had we used the friction costs method then the productivity loss associated with C. difficile mortality would have been valued at £1.0 vs. £3.9 with the human capital approach. The sensitivity analyses also show that the incremental productivity costs of the vaccination programme can range quite substantially and further research to obtain more precise estimates will improve the ability to accurately reflect their inclusion in economic models. Finally, adult RSV vaccines were approved in the UK in 2023, but they were not at the time of conducting this analysis. Hence, this research is limited to infant RSV.

This paper contributes to the literature on the broader value of vaccination by showing that excluding productivity costs from a value assessment, such as a cost-effectiveness analysis, will fail to capture the full broader societal value of a vaccine. This is consistent with increasing academic consensus and international HTA guidelines on vaccines [49,50,51,52,53,54] that have argued for inclusion of broader value elements into vaccines’ evaluation. Of note, this same literature has also argued that consideration of societal benefits, where they are relevant, should be applied to all interventions funded by the same budget, to assure consistent decision making.

Finally, considering a growing pipeline of vaccines for older populations as well as the age of retirement going up in many high-income countries, including productivity losses from formal employment in adults including those aged 65 years or older is recommended to fully capture the life course value of vaccination.

Conclusion

In a UK context, a C. difficile and an infant RSV vaccination programme, respectively, would prevent £12 and £49 in productivity costs for every person vaccinated. Given the potential magnitude of impact, it is recommended to further investigate and consider productivity costs in future cost-effectiveness analyses to assess this dimension of broader societal value and provide better-informed reimbursement decisions.

Data availability

All data used for the analysis are available from this paper and its supplemental material.

References

  1. Debrabant K. Productivity losses impact cost effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine. PharmacoEconomics Outcomes News. 2021;890:21–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bärnighausen T, Bloom DE, Cafiero ET, O’Brien JC. Economic evaluation of vaccination: capturing the full benefits, with an application to human papillomavirus. Clin Microbiol Infection: Official Publication Eur Soc Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2012;18(Suppl 5):70–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bärnighausen T, Bloom DE, Canning D, Friedman A, Levine OS, O’Brien J, et al. Rethinking the benefits and costs of childhood vaccination: the example of the Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine. Vaccine. 2011;29(13):2371–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jit M, Hutubessy R, Png ME, Sundaram N, Audimulam J, Salim S, et al. The broader economic impact of vaccination: reviewing and appraising the strength of evidence. BMC Med. 2015;13:209.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Sevilla JP, Stawasz A, Burnes D, Agarwal A, Hacibedel B, Helvacioglu K, et al. Indirect costs of adult pneumococcal disease and the productivity-based rate of return to the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine for adults in Turkey. Hum Vaccines Immunotherapeutics. 2020;16(8):1923–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Sevilla JP, Stawasz A, Burnes D, Poulsen PB, Sato R, Bloom DE. Indirect costs of adult pneumococcal disease and productivity-based rate of return to PCV13 vaccination for older adults and elderly diabetics in Denmark. J Econ Ageing. 2019;14:100203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bell E, Neri M, Steuten L. Towards a Broader Assessment of Value in Vaccines: The BRAVE Way Forward. Applied health economics and health policy. 2021:1–13.

  8. NICE process and methods [PMG36] Published. 31 January 2022 Last updated: 31 October 2023.

  9. OHE. https://www.ohe.org/news/assessing-productivity-value-vaccines-health-technology-assessment-worth-shot/.

  10. Bloom DE, Fan VY, Sevilla JP. 2018. The broad socioeconomic benefits of vaccination. Sci Transl Med, [online] 10(441).

  11. Masia NA, Smerling J, Kapfidze T, Manning R, Showalter M. Vaccination and GDP Growth Rates: exploring the links in a conditional convergence Framework. Volume 103. World Development; 2018. pp. 88–99.

  12. Riley TV, Lyras D, Douce GR. Status of vaccine research and development for Clostridium difficile. Vaccine. 2019;37(50):7300–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mejias A, Rodríguez-Fernández R, Oliva S, Peeples ME, Ramilo O. The journey to a respiratory syncytial virus vaccine. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2020;125(1):36–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. PHE. Annual epidemiological commentary: Gram-negative bacteraemia, MRSA bacteraemia, MSSA bacteraemia and C. difficile infections, up to and including financial year April 2020 to March 2021. London: Public Health England; 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Stein RT, Bont LJ, Zar H, Polack FP, Park C, Claxton A, et al. Respiratory syncytial virus hospitalization and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2017;52(4):556–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. McGlone SM, Bailey RR, Zimmer SM, Popovich MJ, Tian Y, Ufberg P et al. The economic burden of Clostridium difficile. Clinical microbiology and infection: the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious diseases. 2012;18(3):282–9.

  17. Lenoir-Wijnkoop I, Nuijten MJ, Craig J, Butler CC. Nutrition economic evaluation of a probiotic in the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Front Pharmacol. 2014;5:13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Cromer D, van Hoek AJ, Newall AT, Pollard AJ, Jit M. Burden of paediatric respiratory syncytial virus disease and potential effect of different immunisation strategies: a modelling and cost-effectiveness analysis for England. Lancet Public Health. 2017;2(8):e367–74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Drummond M, Sculpher M, GW T, O’Brien B, Stoddart G. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Koopmanschap MA, van Exel JN, van den Berg B, Brouwer WB. An overview of methods and applications to value informal care in economic evaluations of healthcare. PharmacoEconomics. 2008;26(4):269–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. ONS. Dataset(s): A05 SA: employment, unemployment and economic inactivity by age group (seasonally adjusted. UK. London: Office for National Statistics; 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Shen NT, Leff JA, Schneider Y, Crawford CV, Maw A, Bosworth B, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of Probiotic Use to Prevent Clostridium difficile infection in hospitalized adults receiving antibiotics. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2017;4(3):ofx148.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Bartsch SM, Curry SR, Harrison LH, Lee BY. The potential economic value of screening hospital admissions for Clostridium difficile. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Diseases: Official Publication Eur Soc Clin Microbiol. 2012;31(11):3163–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Steuten L, Mewes J, Lepage-Nefkens I, Vrijhoef H. Is procalcitonin biomarker-guided antibiotic therapy a cost-effective Approach to reduce antibiotic resistant and Clostridium difficile infections in hospitalized patients? OMICS. 2018;22(9):616–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Feuerstadt P, Stong L, Dahdal DN, Sacks N, Lang K, Nelson WW. Healthcare resource utilization and direct medical costs associated with index and recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection: a real-world data analysis. J Med Econ. 2020;23(6):603–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Champredon D, Shoukat A, Moghadas SM. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a Clostridium difficile vaccine candidate in a hospital setting. Vaccine. 2020;38(11):2585–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Crobach MJT, Notermans DW, Harmanus C, Sanders I, De Greeff SC, Kuijper EJ. Community-Onset Clostridioides Difficile infection in hospitalized patients in the Netherlands. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019;6(12):ofz501.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Leal J, Ronksley P, Henderson EA, Conly J, Manns B. Predictors of mortality and length of stay in patients with hospital-acquired Clostridioides difficile infection: a population-based study in Alberta, Canada. J Hosp Infect. 2019;103(1):85–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Asmus-Szepesi KJ, Koopmanschap MA, Flinterman LE, Bakker TJ, Mackenbach JP, Steyerberg EW. Formal and informal care costs of hospitalized older people at risk of poor functioning: a prospective cohort study. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2014;59(2):382–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Timonet-Andreu E, Canca-Sanchez JC, Sepulveda-Sanchez J, Ortiz-Tomé C, Rivas-Ruiz F, Toribio-Toribio JC, et al. Overestimation of hours dedicated to family caregiving of persons with heart failure. J Adv Nurs. 2018;74(10):2312–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Costa N, Ferlicoq L, Derumeaux-Burel H, Rapp T, Garnault V, Gillette-Guyonnet S, et al. Comparison of informal care time and costs in different age-related dementias: a review. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:852368.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Jowsey T, McRae I, Gillespie J, Banfield M, Yen L. Time to care? Health of informal older carers and time spent on health related activities: an Australian survey. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:374.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Dunbar SB, Khavjou OA, Bakas T, Hunt G, Kirch RA, Leib AR, et al. Projected costs of Informal Caregiving for Cardiovascular Disease: 2015 to 2035: a Policy Statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2018;137(19):e558–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. ONS. Employment in the UK: January 2020. London: Office for National Statistics;: UK; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Pouwels KB, Bozdemir SE, Yegenoglu S, Celebi S, McIntosh ED, Unal S, et al. Potential cost-effectiveness of RSV Vaccination of Infants and pregnant women in Turkey: an illustration based on Bursa Data. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(9):e0163567.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Meijboom MJ, Rozenbaum MH, Benedictus A, Luytjes W, Kneyber MC, Wilschut JC, et al. Cost-effectiveness of potential infant vaccination against respiratory syncytial virus infection in the Netherlands. Vaccine. 2012;30(31):4691–700.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ginsberg GM, Somekh E, Schlesinger Y. Should we use Palivizumab Immunoprophylaxis for infants against respiratory syncytial virus? - a cost-utility analysis. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2018;7(1):63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Acedo L, Díez-Domingo J, Moraño JA, Villanueva RJ. Mathematical modelling of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV): vaccination strategies and budget applications. Epidemiol Infect. 2010;138(6):853–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Régnier SA. Respiratory syncytial virus immunization program for the United States: impact of performance determinants of a theoretical vaccine. Vaccine. 2013;31(40):4347–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. CDC. Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection (RSV), symptoms and care: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2018 [Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/rsv/about/symptoms.html.

  41. Lee SR, Kwok KL, Ng DKK, Hon KL. Palivizumab for infants < 29 weeks in Hong Kong without a clear-cut season for respiratory syncytial virus Infection-A cost-effectiveness analysis. J Trop Pediatr. 2018;64(5):418–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Leidy NK, Margolis MK, Marcin JP, Flynn JA, Frankel LR, Johnson S, et al. The impact of severe respiratory syncytial virus on the child, caregiver, and family during hospitalization and recovery. Pediatrics. 2005;115(6):1536–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. McLaurin KK, Farr AM, Wade SW, Diakun DR, Stewart DL. Respiratory syncytial virus hospitalization outcomes and costs of full-term and preterm infants. J Perinatology: Official J Calif Perinat Association. 2016;36(11):990–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Shi T, McAllister DA, O’Brien KL, Simoes EAF, Madhi SA, Gessner BD, et al. Global, regional, and national disease burden estimates of acute lower respiratory infections due to respiratory syncytial virus in young children in 2015: a systematic review and modelling study. Lancet (London England). 2017;390(10098):946–58.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. OECD;. Hours worked Paris: OECD. 2020 [Available from: https://data.oecd.org/emp/hours-worked.htm.

  46. ONS. Earnings and working hours London: Office for National Statistics. 2020 [Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/contactus/officelocations.

  47. Franklin H. An economic evaluation of flu vaccination. London: International Longevity Centre; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Hanly P, Ortega-Ortega M, Pearce A, et al. Estimating global friction periods for economic evaluation: a case study of selected OECD Member Countries. PharmacoEconomics. 2023;41:1093–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Initiative for Vaccine Research. WHO guide for standardization of economic evaluations of immunization programmes. Second Edition, World Health Organization; 2019.

  50. Mauskopf J, Standaert B, Connolly MP, Culyer AJ, Garrison LP, Hutubessy R, et al. Economic analysis of vaccination programs: an ISPOR good practices for outcomes research task force report. Value Health. 2018;21(10):1133–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Brassel S, Neri M, O’Neill P, Steuten L. Realising the broader value of vaccines in the UK. Vaccine: X. 2021;8:100096.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Bloom DE, Fan VY, Sevilla J. The broad socioeconomic benefits of vaccination. Sci Transl Med. 2018;10(441):eaaj2345.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Bell E, Neri M, Steuten L. Towards a broader assessment of value in vaccines: the BRAVE way forward. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2022;20(1):105–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Debast SB, Bauer MP, Kuijper EJ. European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious diseases: update of the treatment guidance document for Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Microbiol Infection: Official Publication Eur Soc Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2014;20(Suppl 2):1–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This manuscript was funded by Pfizer Inc.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Kimberly M. Shea and Lotte M.G. Steuten contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Office of Health Economics (OHE), London, UK

    Margherita Neri & Lotte M.G. Steuten

  2. Panaxea b.v, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Janne C. Mewes

  3. Pfizer Inc, New York, USA

    Fernando Albuquerque de Almeida, Sophia Stoychev, Nadia Minarovic, Apostolos Charos & Kimberly M. Shea

Authors
  1. Margherita Neri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Janne C. Mewes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fernando Albuquerque de Almeida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sophia Stoychev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nadia Minarovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Apostolos Charos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kimberly M. Shea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Lotte M.G. Steuten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Each author made substantial contributions to the conception of the work; MN, JM and LS collected the data, conducted the analysis and interpreted the data; MN, JM, LS and KS drafted the work or substantively revised it.Each author approved the submitted version (and any substantially modified version that involves the author’s contribution to the study) and has agreed both to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lotte M.G. Steuten.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

Neri, Steuten report grants from Pfizer to OHE Consulting Ltd, during the conduct of the study, and grants from various pharmaceutical companies to OHE Consulting Ltd outside the submitted work. Albuquerque de Almeida, Stoychev, Minarovic, Charos, Shea are employees of Pfizer and may hold Pfizer stocks or stock options.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Neri, M., Mewes, J.C., de Almeida, F.A. et al. Impact of including productivity costs in economic analyses of vaccines for C. difficile infections and infant respiratory syncytial virus, in a UK setting. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 22, 34 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-024-00533-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-024-00533-4

Keywords

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation

ISSN: 1478-7547

Contact us