DOCSLIB.ORG

University of Groningen Health Economics of Tick-Borne Diseases

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
University of Groningen Health Economics of Tick-Borne Diseases University of Groningen Health economics of tick-borne diseases Smit, Renata IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2016 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Smit, R. (2016). Health economics of tick-borne diseases [Groningen]: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 11-02-2018 Health Economics of Tick-Borne Diseases Renata Šmit 1 This work was performed within the Research Institute SHARE (Science in Healthy Ageing and healthcaRE) of the University Medical Center Groningen, Faculty of Medical Science, University of Groningen. The printing of this thesis was financially supported by the University of Groningen, the Research Institute SHARE of the Faculty of Medical Sciences and the Groningen Graduate School of Science. Author: Renata Šmit Cover: Image of tick by CanStockPhoto Printed by GrafiMedia ISBN: 978-90-367-9019-2 (printed version) ISBN: 978-90-367-9018-5 (electronic version) © Renata Šmit, 2016. All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without written permission of the author. The copyright of previously published chapters of this thesis remains with the publisher or journal. 2 Health Economics of Tick -Borne Diseases Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen op gezag van de rector magnificus prof. dr. E. Sterken en volgens besluit van het College voor Promoties. De openbare verdediging zal plaatsvinden op vrijdag 18 november 2016 om 12.45 uur door Renata Šmit geboren op 11 juli 1971 te Ljubljana, Slovenië 3 Promotores Prof. M.J. Postma Prof. K. Poelstra Beoordelingscommissie Prof. H.W. Frijlink Prof. A.W. Friedrich Prof. E. McIntosh 4 To my Mom and Dad – for your continuous support and love 5 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction 9 Chapter 2 Vaccines for tick -borne diseases and cost -effectiveness of 25 vaccination: a public health challenge to reduce the diseases’ burden Chapter 3 Review of tick -borne encephalitis and vaccines: clinical 33 and economical aspects Chapter 4 Lyme borreliosis: reviewing potential vaccines, clinical 61 aspects and health economics Chapter 5 The burden of tick -borne encephalitis in disability - 93 adjusted life years (DALYs) for Slovenia Chapter 6 Cost -effectiveness of tick -borne encephalitis vaccination 121 in Slovenian adults Annex 6.1 Some details on Cost -effectiveness of tick -borne 141 encephalitis vaccination in Slovenian adults Annex 6.2 Further details on Cost -effectiveness of tick -borne 145 encephalitis vaccination in Slovenian adults Chapter 7 Discussion and Conclusions 153 Summary 165 Samenvatting 167 Bibliography 169 Acknowledgements 170 Research Institute for Health Research (SHARE ) 172 Curriculum Vitae 175 7 8 CHAPTER 1 Introduction 9 10 Introduction Introduction Vaccination is one of the most health and cost effective public interventions with long-term benefits. Vaccination can protect individuals of all age groups against potentially serious infectious diseases and it can save many human lives [1]. Vaccination can be beneficial for children and adolescents in terms of growing into healthy, productive adults that can fully contribute to the economic progress of a society. Vaccination of older adults can be beneficial in terms of having a healthier and independent life. Healthy older adults can be an active family member and they can contribute to the society. Therefore, promoting vaccination for all ages and healthy ageing throughout whole life can contribute to the health of the population as a whole [2,3]. Decision-making when considering inclusion, substitution or exclusion of specific vaccine in the national vaccination programme is a demanding, time consuming and complex process [4,5]. Decision makers need information on disease epidemiology and disease burden, vaccine safety and quality and efficacy/effectiveness, duration of immunity, herd immunity, ethical and humanitarian viewpoint of vaccine, logistics and availability, vaccine licensure status, equity and preference and acceptability, and comparison with other intervention and experience of other countries when deciding on vaccination policy [6,7]. Next, health economics and financial evaluations are playing a growing role in the final decision on vaccination policy and allocation of public health resources. A basis for a decision- making can be served by making a comparison of two or more vaccines/vaccination programmes in terms of costs and health benefits. The main types of this kind of economic evaluation are cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-benefit analysis (CBA) [6,7,8]. CEA is the most often used in decision-making process on vaccination, and its importance is only increasing. In CEA, the costs are compared to the health outcomes of at least two vaccines. Health outcomes are expressed in natural units such as cases avoided or number of life years saved. CEA results are presented as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The ICER is calculated as follows: *./ *! $)/ -1 )/$*) ͯ *./ *! $)/ -1 )/$*) ̓̽̿͌ = (1) # '/# *0/*( *! $)/ -1 )/$*) ͯ # '/# *0/*( *! $)/ -1 )/$*) 11 Chapter 1 $)- ( )/' *./. ̓̽̿͌ = (2) $)- ( )/' # '/# *0/*( . Where: • Intervention A = vaccination. • Intervention B = comparator. When intervention A is a new vaccine, then its comparator is usually “no vaccination.” • Costs are expressed in a monetary unit. • Health outcomes are expressed in natural units (number of cases prevented or number of life years or number of deaths prevented). The ICER is shown as cost per health outcome, expressed in natural units. CEA is used to find the most cost-effective vaccination strategy between different vaccines. It is also used for resource allocation and reimbursement decision making of vaccination [4,6,7,8]. A special type of CEA is cost-utility analysis (CUA) in which health outcomes are measured in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) or disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). The ICER (cost-utility ratio) is calculated as follows: $)- ( )/' *./. ) / *./. ̓̽̿͌ = = (3) $)- ( )/' # '/# *0/*( . . *- . In CUA, the ICER is shown as cost per QALYs gained or cost per DALYs averted. QALYs are defined as a measure of the value of patients’ health states. QALYs are one measure that combine both the quantity and the quality of patients’ life. One QALY means one year living in perfect health. QALYs are calculated as follows: ̻͓͋͆ͧ = ͩͨͨͭ͝͠͝ ̻ ͬ ͙͕ͭͦͧ ͙ͧͤͨ͢ ͢͝ ℎ͕ͨ͠ℎ ͕͙ͧͨͨ ̻ + ͩͨͨͭ͝͠͝ ͬ ͙͕ͭͦͧ ͙ͧͤͨ͢ ͢͝ ℎ͕ͨ͠ℎ ͕͙ͧͨͨ ̼ (4) Where: • Utility or weights = relative value between 0 (death) and 1 (perfect health), expressed as preference from the patient’s perspective for a specific health state. 12 Introduction QALYs can be used to estimate the disease burden. QALYs are one of criteria that can be used for making a decision and for allocation of finite public health resources [4,6,7,8,9]. DALYs are one measure that combines both premature death (YLLs) and disability due to morbidity (YLDs). DALYs are calculated as follows: DALYs = YLLs + YLDs (5) Where: • YLLs = the number of life years lost due to premature death. • YLDs = the number of life years lost due to disability, weighted with a factor between 0 (perfect health) and 1 (death) that reflects the severity of disability. The DALYs methodology, which was first introduced by Murray and co-workers in the Global Burden of Disease project, is usually used to estimate the burden of disease. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines DALYs as the lost years of healthy life. The WHO recommends calculation the burden of the disease expressed in DALYs [6,10]. DALYs can be used to compare relative burdens among different diseases and among different populations [11] and they can be used to prioritize of limited public health resources [12]. Therefore, DALYs can be a useful tool in the decision-making process. In cost-benefit analysis (CBA), both costs and health benefits are measured in monetary units. In CBA, net benefit is calculated by deducting value of costs from value of health benefits. If net benefit is positive then the vaccination programme is recognized as an optimal investment. Benefit-cost ratio is calculated by dividing health benefits by costs. If benefit-cost ratio is higher than 1 then a vaccination programme is recognized an optimal investment. Health benefits are difficult to express in monetary units, therefore CBA is not often used for the economic evaluation of vaccines/vaccination programme [6,7,8] In contrast with CEA, CUA and CBA, the cost analysis (CA) compares only the costs of a vaccines/vaccination programme with the costs of its comparator(s). The cost minimization analysis
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Health Economics of Vaccines Boersma, Cornelis; Postma, Maarten J
    University of Groningen Health Economics of Vaccines Boersma, Cornelis; Postma, Maarten J. Published in: Value in Health DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.11.006 IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2021 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Boersma, C., & Postma, M. J. (2021). Health Economics of Vaccines: From Current Practice to Future Perspectives. Value in Health, 24(1), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2020.11.006 Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 25-09-2021 - Contents lists available at sciencedirect.com Journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jval VALUE HEALTH. 2021; 24(1):1-2 Editorial Health Economics of Vaccines: From Current Practice to Future Perspectives Cornelis Boersma, PhD, Maarten J.
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of the Ebola Vaccine
    Give it a shot: Seven lessons learned from the Ebola virus disease for public-private vaccine development collaboration in response to future neglected disease outbreaks Kai-Moritz Keller MALD Capstone Project, The Fletcher School Supervised by Prof. Christopher Tunnard July 2016 1 Introduction Public-Private Collaboration in Global Health – a perspective The 2014/2015 Ebola outbreak – The power of the exponential curve Vaccines: The Health intervention of choice The Ebola vaccine effort: Chance meets a shaky system Resources and needs: The network of actors Seven lessons learned: The framework The seven lessons learned: 1. Rigorous ongoing risk assessment 2. Translation of assessment in expanded public-private research efforts 3. Transfer of public-private IP to appropriate manufacturers 4. Testing and implementation coordination by WHO 5. Discussion and articulation of ethics guidelines in emergency response 6. Harmonization of regulatory approval and indemnity architecture 7. Development of a sound emergency funding structure under GAVI Conclusion Appendix Bibliography 2 Introduction In one intervention to address the 2014/2015 Ebola crisis in West Africa a variety of private and public actors came together to successfully execute a vaccine development program on an extremely tight timeline. Processes that normally take about a decade were concluded in a matter of months, as a result of unprecedented cooperation between industry, national and supra- national government bodies, the scientific community, and private-public funding mechanisms. The Ebola pandemic was eventually overcome through non-immunization means – but the vaccine program still warrants careful examination in order to distill takeaways and best practices for vaccine development in future neglected disease outbreaks.
    [Show full text]
  • The Publicly Funded Vaccines Market in the UK
    The Publicly Funded Vaccines Market in the UK Office of Health Economics OHE Consulting Report 10/01 25 October 2010 Jon Sussex, OHE1 Koonal K. Shah, OHE Corresponding author: 112 Whitehall, London, SW1A 2DY, Tel: +44 (0)20 7747 1412, E-mail: [email protected] This OHE Consulting Report presents a report that was prepared as a case study for the Federal German Ministry of Health (Bundesgesundheitsministerium), who funded the project. The full report of the wider study of vaccines markets, to which the OHE’s case study of the UK contributes, is entitled “Gutachten zur Verbesserung der Wirtschaftlichkeit von Impfstoffen in Deutschland ” (“Review for the improved efficiency of vaccines provision in Germany”), June 2010, and is available at: http://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/cln_160/nn_1168248/SharedDocs/Publikationen/DE /Forschungsberichte/gutachten-impfstoffe,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/gutachten- impfstoffe.pdf 1 Contents 1. Background and Institutional Overview...................................................................................... 3 1.1. Features of the UK health care system ............................................................................... 3 1.2. The national immunisation programme and how vaccines reach patients .......................... 4 1.3. Organisations involved in vaccines policy, evaluation and procurement ............................. 6 2. Methods of Cost Benefit Analysis of Vaccines ............................................................................ 9 3. How the Outcomes
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Markets for Vaccines
    U.S. Markets for Vaccines U.S. Markets for Vaccines Characteristics, Case Studies, and Controversies Ernst R. Berndt, Rena N. Denoncourt, and Anjli C. Warner The AEI Press Publisher for the American Enterprise Institute WASHINGTON, D.C. Distributed to the Trade by National Book Network, 15200 NBN Way, Blue Ridge Summit, PA 17214. To order call toll free 1-800-462-6420 or 1-717-794-3800. For all other inquiries please contact the AEI Press, 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 or call 1-800-862-5801. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Berndt, Ernst R. U.S. markets for vaccines : characteristics, case studies, and controversies / Ernst R. Berndt, Rena N. Denoncourt, and Anjli C. Warner. p. ; cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-0-8447-4280-9 ISBN-10: 0-8447-4280-5 1. Vaccines industry—United States. 2. Market surveys—United States. I. Denoncourt, Rena N. II. Warner, Anjli C. III. Title. [DNLM: 1. Vaccines—economics—United States. 2. Drug Discovery—economics—United States. 3. Drug Industry—economics—United States. QW 805 B524u 2009] HD9675.V333.U6 2009 381'.456153720973—dc22 2009006713 13 12 11 10 09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 © 2009 by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Wash- ington, D.C. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be used or repro- duced in any manner whatsoever without permission in writing from the American Enterprise Institute except in the case of brief quotations embodied in news articles, critical articles, or reviews. The views expressed in the publications of the American Enterprise Institute are those of the authors and do not neces- sarily reflect the views of the staff, advisory panels, officers, or trustees of AEI.
    [Show full text]
  • Vaccine Supply
    Implementation Vaccine Supply: A Cross- National Perspective How do the economics of vaccines differ in the United States from other countries, both industrialized and developing? by Patricia M. Danzon, Nuno Sousa Pereira, and Sapna S. Tejwani ABSTRACT: In U.S. vaccine markets, competing producers with high fixed, sunk costs face relatively concentrated demand. This tends to lead to exit of all but one or very few produc- ers per vaccine. Detailed evidence of exits and shortages in the flu vaccine market demon- strates the importance of high fixed costs, demand uncertainty, and dynamic quality com- petition. A comparison of vaccine suppliers in four industrialized countries compared with the United States shows that smaller foreign markets often have more and different vac- cine suppliers. High, country-specific, fixed costs, combined with price and volume uncer- tainty, plausibly deters these potential suppliers from attempting to enter the U.S. market. accines provide an extremely cost-effective technology for dealing with killer diseases, saving lives, and averting millions of dollars of Vpotential health spending. But the U.S. supply of key pediatric vaccines is precarious, with a declining number of producers and products, leading to peri- odic supply interruptions and shortages. In 1967 there were twenty-six licensed manufacturers of such vaccines; in 2002 there were only twelve. Five firms pro- duce almost all routine childhood vaccines, and five of the eight currently recom- mended pediatric vaccines have a single supplier.1 Supply shortages can lead to children’s not being immunized, while flu vaccine shortages pose risks to vulnera- ble populations because of the narrow window for effective administration.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons Learned in Shaping Vaccine Markets in Low-Income Countries: a Review of the Vaccine Market Segment Supported by the GAVI Alliance
    Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Health Policy and Planning 2013;28:838–846 ß The Author 2012; all rights reserved. Advance Access publication 22 November 2012 doi:10.1093/heapol/czs123 REVIEW Lessons learned in shaping vaccine markets in low-income countries: a review of the vaccine market segment supported by the GAVI Alliance Shawn A.N. Gilchrist1* and Angeline Nanni2 1President S Gilchrist Consulting Services Inc, 8 Covebank Crescent, Brampton, Ontario, Canada L6P 2X5 and 2Director Market Access, Aeras Foundation, 1405 Research Boulevard, Rockville MD 20850, USA *Corresponding author. President S Gilchrist Consulting Services Inc, 8 Covebank Crescent, Brampton, Ontario, Canada L6P 2X5. Tel: þ1 647 401 5155. E-mail: [email protected] Accepted 24 October 2012 Objectives The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) anticipated that growing demand for new vaccines could sufficiently impact the vaccines market to allow low-income countries (LICs) to self-finance new vaccines. But the time required to lower vaccine prices was underestimated and the amount that prices would decline overestimated. To better understand how prices in the LIC vaccine market can be impacted, the vaccine market was retrospectively examined. Design GAVI archives and the published literature on the vaccine markets in LICs were reviewed for the purpose of identifying GAVI’s early assumptions for the evolution of vaccine prices, and contrasting these retrospectively with actual outcomes. Results The prices in Phases I and II of GAVI-supported vaccines failed to decline to a desirable level within a projected 5-year timeframe.
    [Show full text]
  • Innovative Financing Mechanisms to Accelerate the Introduction of HPV
    Vaccine 24S3 (2006) S3/219–S3/225 Chapter 26: Innovative financing mechanisms to accelerate the introduction of HPV vaccines in developing countries Amie Batson a,∗, Filip Meheus b,1, Steve Brooke c a Department of Health, Nutrition and Population, The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA b Institute of Development Policy and Management, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium c Programme for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH), Seattle, WA, USA Received 3 April 2006; accepted 15 May 2006 Abstract The costs of developing and producing new-generation vaccines have increased compared to many of the older, “traditional” vaccines because of new technologies and regulatory requirements. While the public sector often supports basic research costs, private manufacturers are usually responsible for the investments in product development and production scale-up. When considering investments, firms evaluate the probability of a market. Unfortunately, the developing country vaccine market is small (in revenue terms) and often unpredictable, particularly given inaccurate forecasting in the past. Low-income developing countries expect low prices. Demand (actual decisions to pay for and introduce the vaccine) is almost always lower than need (estimates of requirements to achieve optimal public health outcomes), a distinction that may be even more significant for HPV vaccines given the number of new vaccines against priority diseases that will become available over the coming 5 years. One new mechanism under consideration to address some of these challenges is Advanced Market Commitments (AMCs). By providing an assured price subsidy for developing country purchase of a future vaccine meeting predefined standards, an AMC would provide industry with greater assurances of earning a reasonable return on their investment to serve the poorest developing countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Markets for Vaccines a Practical Plan
    Making Markets for Vaccines A practical plan Consultation Draft Report of the Working Group Making Markets for Vaccines – Consultation Draft Working Group Members Alice Albright, The Vaccine Fund (Co-Chair) Jon Andrus, Pan-American Health Organization Abhijit Banerjee, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Amie Batson, The World Bank Ernie Berndt, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lael Brainard, The Brookings Institution David Cutler, Harvard University Shanta Devarajan, The World Bank David Gold, Global Health Strategies Peter Hutt, Covington & Burling Michael Kremer, Harvard University (Co-Chair) Randall Kroszner, University of Chicago Ruth Levine, Center for Global Development (Co-Chair) Donald Light, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey Tom McGuire, Harvard University Medical School Tomas Philipson, U.S. Food and Drug Administration Leighton Read, Alloy Ventures Tom Scholar, International Monetary Fund Raj Shah, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation David Stephens, Emory University Wendy Taylor, BIO Ventures for Global Health Adrian Towse, Office of Health Economics Sean Tunis, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Sharon White, UK Department for International Development Victor Zonana, Global Health Strategies Members of the Working Group were invited to join in a personal capacity. This report does not necessarily represent the views of the organizations to which they are affiliated. 2 Contents Table of contents TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • National Vaccine Plan Public Comments Table—Organizations
    Preface Written comments on the draft strategic National Vaccine Plan are featured below in a table format. Column One lists the page numbers of the Plan to which the comment refers. Column Two lists the Plan item related to the comment. Comments listed in Column Three include the organization commenting, followed by an individual (in parentheses) if one was listed. Organizations are listed by their full title on first reference and by abbreviation in all subsequent comments. Comments received from individuals list their organizational affiliation or country of origin, if available, but views expressed by individuals do not necessarily reflect the perspectives of their employer or organization. It also should be noted that comments only include those submitted by non-federal stakeholders. All comments or questions about the draft strategic National Vaccine Plan should be addressed to [email protected]. Federal Framework for a National Vaccine Plan Public Comments Page Item Comments 1-3 Title page, Table of Contents 4 ASH Preface 5-7 Acronyms and Abbreviations 8-14 Executive Summary John Snow Incorporated (JSI) (Steinglass): “Vaccine coverage surveillance” (in the text on page 9, in Figure 1 and later identical figures, and at the bottom of page 48) is an odd term. The conventional term would be “vaccine coverage monitoring.” “Surveillance” in the context of immunization programs is best reserved for the regular monitoring of disease, AEFI, genotypes, etc. “Surveillance” is so important that we use it to describe a special of monitoring of disease. We usually “monitor” quality, coverage, costs, etc. Gates Foundation (Orenstein): On page 17, last paragraph – I find the wording confusing.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Evaluation of Vaccines in Canada: a Systematic Review
    Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics ISSN: 2164-5515 (Print) 2164-554X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/khvi20 Economic evaluation of vaccines in Canada: A systematic review Ayman Chit, Jason K. H. Lee, Minsup Shim, Van Hai Nguyen, Paul Grootendorst, Jianhong Wu, Robert Van Exan & Joanne M. Langley To cite this article: Ayman Chit, Jason K. H. Lee, Minsup Shim, Van Hai Nguyen, Paul Grootendorst, Jianhong Wu, Robert Van Exan & Joanne M. Langley (2016) Economic evaluation of vaccines in Canada: A systematic review, Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 12:5, 1257-1264, DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2015.1137405 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2015.1137405 © 2016 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis© Ayman Chit, Jason K. H. Lee, Minsup Shim, Van Hai Nguyen, Paul Grootendorst, Jianhong Wu, Robert Van Exan, and Joanne M. Langley View supplementary material Accepted author version posted online: 18 Feb 2016. Published online: 18 Feb 2016. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 187 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=khvi20 Download by: [185.86.89.210] Date: 17 June 2016, At: 02:06 HUMAN VACCINES & IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS 2016, VOL. 12, NO. 5, 1257–1264 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2015.1137405 RESEARCH PAPER Economic evaluation of vaccines in Canada: A systematic review Ayman Chita,b, Jason K. H. Leea,b, Minsup Shimb, Van Hai Nguyenc, Paul
    [Show full text]
  • (President GSK Vaccines): Hello Everyone
    GLAXOSMITHKLINE VACCINES INVESTOR EVENT Thursday, 26 September 2019 Wavre, Belgium Roger Connor (President GSK Vaccines): Hello everyone. You are very welcome to Belgium. It is my privilege to be the Head of the GSK Vaccines business. I have been in this company just over 20 years. I have worked in Manufacturing and Supply for most of my career and I led our Global Manufacturing and Supply organisation for a number of years sitting on the Corporate Executive Team. It was just a year ago that Emma asked me to become the President of our Global Vaccines business and I have to say that I love my job, it is incredible the difference that we get to make to people's lives. We are the world's largest Vaccines company and we estimate that 40% of the world's children receive a GSK vaccine, which is something of which we are incredibly proud and we can't wait today to bring to live for you this business. Cautionary statement regarding forward-looking statements I want to start with the normal cautionary statement that we share before moving on to the agenda. Agenda We have two hours planned - two fun-filled hours I hope! I know you have had a busy morning having a look around this amazing facility. First, we are going to have some presentations. I hope to set the scene on the market, talk a little bit about why GSK is positioned well within that market and then Manu, who is Head of Research, will talk about our pipeline, our technology and our science.
    [Show full text]
  • Vaccinating the World's Poorest
    VOLUME 19, ISSUE 3 IAVIReportThe Publication on AIDS Vaccine Research WWW.IAVIREPORT.ORG | VOLUME 19, ISSUE 3 | 2015 Vaccinating the World’s Poorest Plus: A conversation with IAVI’s new CEO Mark Feinberg EDITOR’S LETTER A few days ago I took my daughter for her flu vaccine. She’s three, and like most three-year-olds she has a lot of questions about everything. I don’t always know the answers. Many of them require a Google search (what sound does a walrus make, is just one that stumped me). But when she asked what a flu vaccine was and why exactly I was going to let someone squirt a spray up her nose, I was only too eager to answer. For her, hearing that a vaccine keeps you from getting sick was enough. In fact she enjoyed the experience so much she asked when she gets to go back for another, providing the perfect opportunity for me to discuss why flu vaccines are needed every year! For many children around the world vaccines are an unaffordable luxury. But thanks in large part to Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, that is changing. Over the last 15 years, Gavi has successfully worked in mul- tiple ways to bring life-saving vaccines to the poorest children in the world. They report immunizing 500 amillion children so far, and will use the hefty donor resources they raised through their replenishment con- ference earlier this year to vaccinate 300 million more, an effort they estimate could save six million lives. In this issue we look at how Gavi works to negotiate lower prices for vaccines in the poorest nations and how vaccine prices have changed given the introduction of newer and more complex shots (see page 9).
    [Show full text]