Difference between revisions of "Comparison criteria"

From Testiwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with ":'''This page will be translated shortly == Kysymys == Mitä pneumokokkikonjugaattirokotteiden vertailuperusteita pitäisi käyttää syksyllä 2014 tehtävässä hankintaki...")
 
(curator added)
 
(22 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
:'''This page will be translated shortly
+
{{variable}}
 +
{{progression class|progression=Checked|curator=THL|date=2016-03-21}}
 +
[[op_fi:Vertailuperusteet]]
  
−
== Kysymys ==
+
== Question ==
  
−
Mitä pneumokokkikonjugaattirokotteiden vertailuperusteita pitäisi käyttää syksyllä 2014 tehtävässä hankintakilpailutuksessa, jossa hankitaan kansallisen rokotusohjelman mukainen lasten pneumokokkirokote?
+
Which comparison criteria should be used in the tendering process for the selection of a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine within the national vaccination programme for children in Finland? The tendering process will be initiated during the autumn of 2014.
−
* Mahdollisia vertailuperusteita ovat hinta, hyöty, turvallisuus ja tekniset ominaisuudet.
 
−
** Hinta tarkoittaa rokotteen tarjoushintaa.
 
−
** Hyöty tarkoittaa rokotteen laajamittaisesta käytöstä seuraavaa tautitaakan vähenemistä. Tämän seurauksena terveyteen liittyvä elämänlaatu paranee ja terveydenhuollon kustannukset pienenevät.
 
−
** Turvallisuus
 
−
** Tekniset ominaisuudet
 
−
* Pneumokokkikonjugaattirokotteiden hyötyä voidaan arvioida pneumokokki- ja Haemophilus influenzae -bakteerien aiheuttamien tautien vähentämisessä.
 
−
* Hyötyä arvioidaan koko Suomen väestössä.
 
  
−
== Vastaus ==
+
* Possible comparison criteria include price, effectiveness, safety and technical properties.
 +
** Price refers to the bargaining price of the vaccine.
 +
** Effectiveness refers to the decrease in disease burden caused in the total Finnish population by large scale use of the vaccine in the infant programme. As a result health care costs decrease and the quality of life attributed to improved health increases.
 +
** Safety
 +
** Technical properties
  
−
Alustava pohjaehdotus on, että pneumokokkirokotteiden vertailu perustuu hintaan ja arvioituun hyötyyn. Hyötyä arvioidaan invasiivisen pneumokokkitaudin perustella.
+
== Answer ==
  
−
Tämä pohjaehdotus on kesällä 2014 alkavan keskustelun perustana.  
+
The proposal is that the comparison of vaccine products will be based on price only (see [[Economic_evaluation|Economic_evaluation]].
 +
This is based on the expected small difference in the effectiveness and costs incurred between the two licensed vaccines, when effectiveness was based on prevention of invasive pneumococcal disease. The importance of including other endpoints than invasive disease
 +
is acknowledged, however, due to lack sufficient data on vaccine-preventable (serotype-specific) incidences, such analyses were not conducted so far.  
  
−
== Perustelu ==  
+
== Rationale ==  
  
−
Hankintalaki sallii vertailuperusteiksi ainoastaan selkeästi osoitetut ja hyötyyn suhteutettavissa olevat valmisteiden erot. Käytännössä rokotehankinnoissa ei usein voida ottaa huomioon varsinkaan ns. teknisiä eroja. Lisensioitujen pneumokokkikonjugaattirokotteiden turvallisuudessa ei ole osoitettu olevan eroa.
+
According to the public procurement law, comparison criteria related to differences in the products can be applied  if (1) the differences are clearly demonstrated and (2) the differences can be quantified in terms of increased or decreased benefits. In particular, technical differences typically fall outside of this realm. So far no credible differences in safety among the currently licensed pneumococcal conjugate vaccines have been demonstrated.
  
 +
To assess the health benefits of vaccination, the following items needs to be known or assessed:
 +
* pneumococcal serotypes included in the vaccine
 +
* decrease in the pneumococcal disease incidences due to vaccination
 +
* the potential protection of the vaccine against disease caused by the bacterium ''Haemophilus influenzae''
 +
 +
The tentative assumption is that the use of either the 10-valent (PCV10) or 13-valent (PCV13) pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) in the childhood immunization programme significantly reduces the disease incidence attributable to the serotypes included in the vaccine and that this protection extends to the population at large. This assumption may be modified so that the vaccine also reduces disease incidence caused by certain serotypes not included in the vaccine (due to cross-protection). The predicted reduction in invasive pneumococcal disease due to vaccination is calculated using an epidemiological model.
 +
 +
The vaccine-preventable pneumococcal disease incidence used in the model is assumed to correspond to
 +
proven (blood culture-positive) invasive pneumococcal disease.
 +
In view of recent knowledge <ref>Palmu AA, Jokinen J, Nieminen H, Syrjänen R, Ruokokoski E, Puumalainen T, Moreira M, Schuerman L, Borys D, Kilpi TM. Vaccine effectiveness of the pneumococcal Haemophilus influenzae protein D conjugate vaccine (PHiD-CV10) against clinically suspected invasive pneumococcal disease: a cluster-randomised trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2014 (9):717-27.</ref> and
 +
if deemed feasible,  also estimates
 +
of non-laboratory-confirmed IPD among children under 5 years of age can be included.
 +
For other pneumococcal disease endpoints, reliable estimates of the vaccine-preventable disease incidences are not available.
 +
Therefore, criteria or endpoints that should be considered are a) price, b) invasive pneumococcal disease, and c) technical criteria. However, if there were enough reliable data, also pneumonia and other respiratory endpoints should be included. Otitis media should be included at least as a sensitivity analysis.{{reslink|Health endpoints to consider}}
  
 
== See also ==
 
== See also ==
  
 
{{pneumococcal vaccine}}
 
{{pneumococcal vaccine}}
 +
 +
== References ==
 +
 +
<references/>
 +
 +
== Related files ==
 +
 +
* {{#l:GSK 02  Comparison criteria_final_for Opasnet.docx}}
 +
 +
== Comment the content ==
 +
 +
{{commenting tool}}

Latest revision as of 11:18, 23 March 2016

Progression class
In Opasnet many pages being worked on and are in different classes of progression. Thus the information on those pages should be regarded with consideration. The progression class of this page has been assessed:
This page is checked
The content has been checked and the references are in place. An equivalent to a manuscript to be sent to a scientific journal.
 The content and quality of this page is being curated by THL.
Error creating thumbnail: Unable to save thumbnail to destination

The quality was last checked: 2016-03-21.

Question

Which comparison criteria should be used in the tendering process for the selection of a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine within the national vaccination programme for children in Finland? The tendering process will be initiated during the autumn of 2014.

  • Possible comparison criteria include price, effectiveness, safety and technical properties.
    • Price refers to the bargaining price of the vaccine.
    • Effectiveness refers to the decrease in disease burden caused in the total Finnish population by large scale use of the vaccine in the infant programme. As a result health care costs decrease and the quality of life attributed to improved health increases.
    • Safety
    • Technical properties

Answer

The proposal is that the comparison of vaccine products will be based on price only (see Economic_evaluation. This is based on the expected small difference in the effectiveness and costs incurred between the two licensed vaccines, when effectiveness was based on prevention of invasive pneumococcal disease. The importance of including other endpoints than invasive disease is acknowledged, however, due to lack sufficient data on vaccine-preventable (serotype-specific) incidences, such analyses were not conducted so far.

Rationale

According to the public procurement law, comparison criteria related to differences in the products can be applied if (1) the differences are clearly demonstrated and (2) the differences can be quantified in terms of increased or decreased benefits. In particular, technical differences typically fall outside of this realm. So far no credible differences in safety among the currently licensed pneumococcal conjugate vaccines have been demonstrated.

To assess the health benefits of vaccination, the following items needs to be known or assessed:

  • pneumococcal serotypes included in the vaccine
  • decrease in the pneumococcal disease incidences due to vaccination
  • the potential protection of the vaccine against disease caused by the bacterium Haemophilus influenzae

The tentative assumption is that the use of either the 10-valent (PCV10) or 13-valent (PCV13) pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) in the childhood immunization programme significantly reduces the disease incidence attributable to the serotypes included in the vaccine and that this protection extends to the population at large. This assumption may be modified so that the vaccine also reduces disease incidence caused by certain serotypes not included in the vaccine (due to cross-protection). The predicted reduction in invasive pneumococcal disease due to vaccination is calculated using an epidemiological model.

The vaccine-preventable pneumococcal disease incidence used in the model is assumed to correspond to proven (blood culture-positive) invasive pneumococcal disease. In view of recent knowledge [1] and if deemed feasible, also estimates of non-laboratory-confirmed IPD among children under 5 years of age can be included. For other pneumococcal disease endpoints, reliable estimates of the vaccine-preventable disease incidences are not available. Therefore, criteria or endpoints that should be considered are a) price, b) invasive pneumococcal disease, and c) technical criteria. However, if there were enough reliable data, also pneumonia and other respiratory endpoints should be included. Otitis media should be included at least as a sensitivity analysis.R↻

See also

Tendering process for pneumococcal conjugate vaccine
Parts of the assessment

Comparison criteria for vaccine   · Epidemiological modelling   · Economic evaluation

Background information

Sensitivity analysis · Replacement   · Pneumococcal vaccine products   · Finnish vaccination schedule   · Selected recent publications

Help for discussion and wiki editing

Pages in Finnish

Pneumokokkirokotteen hankinta  · Rokotteen vertailuperusteet · Epidemiologinen malli · Taloudellinen arviointi · Pneumokokkirokotteen turvallisuus

Work scheduling · Monitoring the effectiveness of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine · Glossary of vaccine terminology


References

  1. ↑ Palmu AA, Jokinen J, Nieminen H, Syrjänen R, Ruokokoski E, Puumalainen T, Moreira M, Schuerman L, Borys D, Kilpi TM. Vaccine effectiveness of the pneumococcal Haemophilus influenzae protein D conjugate vaccine (PHiD-CV10) against clinically suspected invasive pneumococcal disease: a cluster-randomised trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2014 (9):717-27.

Related files

Comment the content

Current comments that have not yet been included in the main page or talk page.


You can give comments about the content without login simply by writing your comments into the text box below. The page moderator will include your comments in the actual content of the page and then moves the comment to the archive:


Your comment about the page content or discussion:

To what part of the page does you comment refer?:

Comments to be removed (after they have been moved to the page text)

ID of the comment to be removed:

Reason to remove:

Retrieved from "http://www.opasnet.org/testiwiki/index.php?title=Comparison_criteria&oldid=38942"