疫苗成本-效果分析中排除不良事件的原因:一项作者调查

IF 4.5 3区 医学 Q2 IMMUNOLOGY
Jeroen Luyten , Albert Jan van Hoek
{"title":"疫苗成本-效果分析中排除不良事件的原因:一项作者调查","authors":"Jeroen Luyten ,&nbsp;Albert Jan van Hoek","doi":"10.1016/j.vaccine.2025.127341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Although vaccines must adhere to the strictest safety standards in medicine, adverse events (AE) do occur occasionally. Even when clinically negligeable, these AE can still have health-economic implications, affecting the cost-effectiveness of vaccines. A review revealed that only 25 % of recent health-economic studies on childhood vaccines incorporated AE. In this study, we reached out to all corresponding authors of the reviewed articles who excluded AE to understand their rationale for exclusion (response rate 40 % (27/67)). The predominant reasons for not including AE were (1) that these were deemed too rare and insufficiently relevant (17/27, 65 %), (2) analysts adhered to previous methodologies that excluded AE (10/27, 35 %) and (3) there was a lack of sufficient data (9/27, 33 %). We argue that AE deserve more attention from analysts and that more efforts are needed to develop conceptual methods and collect data that enable meaningful incorporation in CEAs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23491,"journal":{"name":"Vaccine","volume":"61 ","pages":"Article 127341"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reasons for excluding adverse events in cost-effectiveness analyses of vaccines: A survey amongst authors\",\"authors\":\"Jeroen Luyten ,&nbsp;Albert Jan van Hoek\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.vaccine.2025.127341\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Although vaccines must adhere to the strictest safety standards in medicine, adverse events (AE) do occur occasionally. Even when clinically negligeable, these AE can still have health-economic implications, affecting the cost-effectiveness of vaccines. A review revealed that only 25 % of recent health-economic studies on childhood vaccines incorporated AE. In this study, we reached out to all corresponding authors of the reviewed articles who excluded AE to understand their rationale for exclusion (response rate 40 % (27/67)). The predominant reasons for not including AE were (1) that these were deemed too rare and insufficiently relevant (17/27, 65 %), (2) analysts adhered to previous methodologies that excluded AE (10/27, 35 %) and (3) there was a lack of sufficient data (9/27, 33 %). We argue that AE deserve more attention from analysts and that more efforts are needed to develop conceptual methods and collect data that enable meaningful incorporation in CEAs.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23491,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vaccine\",\"volume\":\"61 \",\"pages\":\"Article 127341\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vaccine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X25006383\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"IMMUNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vaccine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X25006383","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然疫苗必须遵守医学上最严格的安全标准,但偶尔也会发生不良事件。即使在临床上可以忽略不计的情况下,这些AE仍然会对健康经济产生影响,影响疫苗的成本效益。一项综述显示,在最近关于儿童疫苗的卫生经济学研究中,只有25%纳入了AE。在这项研究中,我们联系了所有排除AE的文章的通讯作者,以了解他们排除AE的理由(回复率为40%(27/67))。不包括AE的主要原因是(1)这些被认为太罕见和不充分相关(17/ 27,65 %),(2)分析师坚持以前的方法排除AE(10/ 27,35 %)和(3)缺乏足够的数据(9/ 27,33 %)。我们认为AE值得分析师更多的关注,并且需要更多的努力来开发概念性方法和收集能够在cea中进行有意义的合并的数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reasons for excluding adverse events in cost-effectiveness analyses of vaccines: A survey amongst authors
Although vaccines must adhere to the strictest safety standards in medicine, adverse events (AE) do occur occasionally. Even when clinically negligeable, these AE can still have health-economic implications, affecting the cost-effectiveness of vaccines. A review revealed that only 25 % of recent health-economic studies on childhood vaccines incorporated AE. In this study, we reached out to all corresponding authors of the reviewed articles who excluded AE to understand their rationale for exclusion (response rate 40 % (27/67)). The predominant reasons for not including AE were (1) that these were deemed too rare and insufficiently relevant (17/27, 65 %), (2) analysts adhered to previous methodologies that excluded AE (10/27, 35 %) and (3) there was a lack of sufficient data (9/27, 33 %). We argue that AE deserve more attention from analysts and that more efforts are needed to develop conceptual methods and collect data that enable meaningful incorporation in CEAs.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Vaccine
Vaccine 医学-免疫学
CiteScore
8.70
自引率
5.50%
发文量
992
审稿时长
131 days
期刊介绍: Vaccine is unique in publishing the highest quality science across all disciplines relevant to the field of vaccinology - all original article submissions across basic and clinical research, vaccine manufacturing, history, public policy, behavioral science and ethics, social sciences, safety, and many other related areas are welcomed. The submission categories as given in the Guide for Authors indicate where we receive the most papers. Papers outside these major areas are also welcome and authors are encouraged to contact us with specific questions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信