Productivity loss/gain in cost-effectiveness analyses for vaccines: a systematic review

Abstract

Introduction: The kinds of costs included in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) for vaccines, such as direct medical costs and indirect costs, may affect their outcomes. While some guidelines recommend inclusion of costs associated with productivity losses/gains, very little guidance is provided about the productivity elements to include and their calculation approach.Areas covered: We conducted a systematic review of CEAs for vaccines and vaccine programs published between 1 January 2010 and 19 November 2019 that included productivity costs using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The kind of productivity elements included their calculation approach, and the impact of their inclusion on cost-effectiveness are summarized. Among 88 studies identified, productivity elements included were reported for 71 studies (81%) with absenteeism being the most commonly included element. Only 24 studies (27%) reported the approach used to calculate productivity costs (human capital vs. friction approach). Most studies (81%) reported a more favorable cost-effectiveness with the inclusion of productivity losses/gains.Expert opinion: Inclusion of productivity losses/gains for CEAs for vaccines has resulted in more favorable cost-effectiveness based on the studies reviewed. However, clearer guidance on the productivity elements to include by disease area and more transparency on the calculation method used may be needed.

Keywords: Vaccines; cost-effectiveness; indirect costs; productivity loss; systematic review.