Benefit–Risk Assessment of Vaccines. Part I: A Systematic Review to Identify and Describe Studies About Quantitative Benefit–Risk Models Applied to Vaccines

Autor: Vincent Bauchau, Gaëlle Nachbaur, Hugo Arlegui, Kaatje Bollaerts, Nicolas Praet, Bernard Bégaud, Francesco Salvo
Přispěvatelé: Bordeaux population health (BPH), Université de Bordeaux (UB)-Institut de Santé Publique, d'Épidémiologie et de Développement (ISPED)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)
Jazyk: angličtina
Rok vydání: 2020
Předmět:
Zdroj: Drug Safety
Drug Safety, Springer Verlag, 2020, 43 (11), pp.1089-1104. ⟨10.1007/s40264-020-00984-7⟩
ISSN: 1179-1942
0114-5916
DOI: 10.1007/s40264-020-00984-7⟩
Popis: Introduction Understanding the balance between the benefits and risks of vaccination is essential to ensure informed and adequate public health decision making. Quantitative benefit–risk models (qBRm) represent useful tools to help decision makers with supporting benefit–risk assessment throughout the lifecycle of a medical product. However, few initiatives have been launched to harmonise qBRm approaches, specifically for vaccines. Objectives The aim of this paper was to identify publications about qBRm applied to vaccines through a systematic literature review, and to describe their characteristics. Methods Medline, Scopus and Institute for Scientific Information Web of Knowledge databases were searched to identify articles in English, published from database inceptions up to December 2019. The search strategy included the combination of three key concepts: ‘benefit–risk’, ‘modelling’ and ‘vaccines’. Data extracted included the modelling context and the methodological approaches used. Results Of 3172 publications screened, 48 original publications were included. Most of the selected studies were published over the past decade and focused on rotavirus (15), dengue (10) and influenza (6) vaccines. The majority (30) of studies reported analyses related to high-income countries. The methodology of the studies differed, particularly in modelling techniques, benefit–risk measures, and sensitivity analyses. The present work also pointed out a high level of variability in the quality of reporting across studies, with particular regard to input parameters and methodological approaches. Conclusions This review provides an extensive list of qBRm applied to vaccines. Discrepancies across studies were identified during our review. While the number of published qBRm studies is increasing, no reporting guidance for qBRm applied to vaccines is currently available. This may affect decision makers’ confidence in the results and their benefit–risk assessment(s); therefore, the development of such reporting guidance is highly needed. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40264-020-00984-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Databáze: OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz: