National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 8. Additional Issues in the Selection of Priorities for Accelerated Vaccine Development
Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×

9
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations

This chapter presents the results obtained from the priority assessment system described in the preceding chapters. Potential health benefits and potential vaccine expenditures have been calculated for each of the 29 vaccine projects.* The committee suggests that the potential global health benefit of a vaccine takes precedence in determining its initial ranking for accelerated development priority. The “affordability” of benefits, represented by the potential expenditures on vaccines, can be entered into the decision process, if desired, and the techniques for doing so are illustrated with the central analysis. The first rankings presented reflect assumptions made in the central analysis, presented in Chapters 1 through 7 and reiterated below. To illustrate the use of other assumptions (all considered plausible by the committee), several sets of sensitivity analyses have been performed. These examine the effects on the rankings of various discount rates and of alternative assumptions about the probability of successful development. The effect on the rankings of adopting alternative assumptions on the disease burden derivations is also examined for selected vaccines. The effect of adopting perspectives on the undesirability of morbidity and death different from the median set of values used in the central analysis is discussed. In addition, approaches for incorporating differential utilization into the rankings are explained.

The rankings discussed below should be used as a guide to the selection of development priorities after consideration of the assumptions and issues outlined in Chapters 3 and 8. The committee believes that one of the major strengths of this analysis is that it encourages examination of all judgments and assumptions involved in the decision process. New data should be incorporated as they become available.

*  

The analysis covers 29 vaccine projects directed against 19 diseases. In some cases, there may be more than one promising approach; also, various vaccine candidates for a particular disease may not have the same anticipated target population.

Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×

This model was developed to assist the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) in their decision making. The priorities identified by this model are not appropriate for all circumstances, but it is hoped that the model or some modification of it may be useful to other groups, both in the United States and elsewhere, that are faced with similar resource allocation problems.

The Central Analysis

The central analysis described below incorporates the following:

vaccine and development characteristics described in Chapter 5, including predictions on the target population, efficacy, and vaccine cost

  • estimates of the burden of each disease, derived as described in Appendixes B, C, and D-1 through D-19

  • the assumption that utilization rates would not differ among vaccine candidates (because delivery of vaccines would probably be through the World Health Organization Expanded Program on Immunization [WHO-EPI])

  • estimates of the number of new entrants to the respective target populations, as described in Appendixes D-1 through D-19 and summarized in Chapter 7, Table 7.1

  • times to licensure and adoption, delay of vaccination benefits presented in Chapter 7, Table 7.2

    calculations of each vaccine candidate’s potential health benefits and associated expenditures as described in Chapters 4 and 7

  • a 5 percent discount rate for future health benefits and costs

  • a perspective, for illustrative purposes only, on the undesirability of various morbidity conditions and mortality, derived from the median values of responses from a range of health professionals in developing countries

  • independent consideration of each disease and the development of each vaccine candidate (for each target population)

  • expression of health benefits in units considered equivalent in undesirability to the death of an infant (i.e., infant mortality equivalents, see Chapter 4)

FINDINGS

The results of the central analysis (Chapter 7) are shown in Tables 9.1 and 9.2.

The range of potential benefits from the various vaccine candidates, viewed as present-day investment options, is considerable,

Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×

spanning over two orders of magnitude, as does the range of potential expenditures.*

The expenditures listed in Tables 9.1 and 9.2 do not represent the net costs of using a vaccine (which may be a cost saving if averted treatment costs outweigh development and vaccination program costs). Hence, they cannot be used in formal cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analyses. However, they can be used to illustrate how priority rankings may differ if financial resources (mostly needed in the countries of use) become a concern.

The ranking based on health benefits in Table 9.2 would be the initial priority assignment if resource constraints were not a concern. As financial constraints become a concern, the potential health benefit values can be adjusted to reflect the expenditures that might be considered feasible to gain a unit of benefit—in this analysis an infant mortality equivalence unit (IME). At each level of “willingness to pay,” this adjustment represents the health benefit (IME units prevented) that could be obtained by spending an amount of money equivalent to the expenditures on a particular vaccine in a different manner, for example, on another vaccine. This is termed the net opportunity cost of resources. Specifically,

Table 9.3 shows, for the various vaccine candidates, the annualized present values of potential health benefits adjusted for opportunity costs at various levels of willingness to pay per IME averted. Positive values reflect the relative size of benefits for vaccines that are “affordable” at that level of willingness to pay. Negative values apply to vaccines that are not affordable at that level of willingness to pay, that is, the cost of obtaining a unit of health benefit with that particular vaccine exceeds the resources or willingness to pay. It must be emphasized that the values in Table 9.3 reflect the use of expenditures as a measure of affordability rather than net costs, as discussed above. Expenditures on some vaccines may return net cost savings.

Rankings developed from these adjusted values reflect, for each level of willingness to pay, both the size of the potential benefit and its affordability. Table 9.4 shows the rankings of vaccine candidates at various levels of willingness to pay.

If desired, expenditures on vaccine development and use may be incorporated into the ranking process as a decision criterion

*  

Expenditures represent vaccine development cost and vaccine cost (but not delivery, which is assumed uniform) for the vaccination program (see Chapter 4).

Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×

TABLE 9.1 Health Benefits and Expenditures Associated with Various Vaccine Candidates: Central Analysis

Pathogen (Target Population)

Vaccine Envisaged

Annualized Present Value of Potential Health Benefits (IME Units)

Annualized Present Value of Expenditures on Vaccines Necessary to Achieve Potential Health Benefits ($ millions)

Dengue virus

(Infants and children in endemic areas; travelers to endemic areas)

Attenuated live vector virus containing gene for broadly cross-reacting protective antigen

9,558

242

Escherichia coli

(enterotoxigenic)

(Infants < 6 months)

A combination of purified colonization factor antigens and possibly other antigens

126,454

722

Genetically engineered attenuated strains

145,260

69

Hemophilus influenzae type b

(Infants)

Conjugated polysaccharide

210,943

527

Hepatitis A virus

(Susceptibles of all ages; routine for preschool children)

Attenuated live virus

15,112

1,058

Polypeptide recombinant vaccine produced in yeast

14,392

4,029

Hepatitis B virus

(Areas with high perinatal infection: all infants at birth (if possible). Other areas: all infants, simultaneous with other vaccinations)

Polypeptide produced by recombinant DNA technology

213,192

8,859

Japanese encephalitis virus

(Children in epidemic and and endemic areas; foreign visitors to epidemic regions)

Inactivated virus produced in cell culture

3,232

614

Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×

Mycobacterium leprae

(Immuno-prophylactic: all children in endemic areas. Immuno-therapeutic: all recently infected individuals)

Armadillo-derived M. leprae

88,481

271

Neisseria meningitidis

(Infants, 3–6 months)

Conjugated capsular polysaccharides, groups A,C,Y, and W135

13,754

708

Parainfluenza viruses

(Infants)

Trivalent, subunit vaccine (which must contain fusion proteins)

43,692

1,697

Plasmodium spp.

(All infants at risk, military personnel, travelers)

Plasmodium falciparum, synthetic or recombinant sporozoite antigen preparation

475,205

967

Multivalent synthetic or recombinant sporozoite antigen preparation (P. falciparum, P. vivax, P. ovale, P. malariae)

426,640

857

Rabies virus

(Individuals at high risk, plus post-exposure prophylaxis) (As above)

Vero cell

41,910

147

Glycoprotein produced by rDNA technology in mammalian cells

37,983

139

(Birth cohort in areas of high risk)

Attenuated live vector virus containing gene for protective glycoprotein antigen

8,260

16

Respiratory syncytial virus

(Infants)

Polypeptides produced by recombinant DNA technology

52,412

1,964

Attenuated live virus

59,559

983

Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×

Pathogen (Target Population)

Vaccine Envisaged

Annualized Present Value of Potential Health Benefits (IME Units)

Annualized Present Value of Expenditures on Vaccines Necessary to Achieve Potential Health Benefits ($ millions)

Rotavirue

(Infants, 0–6 months)

Attenuated high passage bovine rotavirus

521,852

853

Attenuated low passage bovine rotavirus

450,795

655

Rhesus monkey rotavirus

450,795

656

Salmonella typhi

(Children; young adults at risk; travelers from developed countries to endemic areas)

Attenuated ga1E mutant S. typhi strain TY21a

431,471

358

Aromatic amino acid dependent strains of S. typhi

194,745

152

Shigella spp.

(Infants at birth; elderly for epidemic strains)

Probably plasmid mediated outer membrane protein invasion determinant (there are a small number of promising options needing investigation to determine best approach)

222,096

92

Streptococcus A

(Children, < 3–4 years)

Synthetic M protein segment (excluding portions cross-reacting with human tissue)

180,513

554

Streptococcus pneumoniae

(Infants)

Conjugated polysaccharides, polyvalent

1,363,943

1,310

Vibrio cholera

(Children, especially < 2 years)

Genetically defined live mutant V. cholerae (A−B+ or A−B−) with respect to toxin subunit synthesis

94,986

24

Inactivated antigens

65,548

44

Yellow fever virus

(Young children)

Attenuated live virus produced in cell culture

11,127

93

Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×

TABLE 9.2 Benefits and Affordability of Various Vaccine Candidates

Vaccine

Annualized Present Value of Potential Health Benefits (IME units)

Vaccine

Annualized Present Value of Potential Expenditures ($ millions)

S. pneumoniae

1,363,943

Rabies (live vector virus)

15.5

Rotavirus (HPBRV)

521,852

V. cholera (attenuated live)

23.8

Malaria (monovalent)

475,205

V. cholera (inactivated)

43.6

Rotavirus (LPBRV)

450,795

E. coli (attenuated live)

69.2

Rotavirus (RMRV)

450,795

Shigella

91.6

S. typhi (Ty21a)

431,471

Yellow fever

93.0

Malaria (multivalent)

426,640

Rabies (glycoprotein)

138.7

Shigella

222,096

Rabies (Vero cell derived)

146.8

Hepatitis B

213,192

S. typhi (aa-strain)

152.2

H. influenzae b

210,943

Dengue

241.8

S. typhi (aa-strain)

194,745

M. leprae

270.6

Streptococcus group A

180,513

S. typhi (Ty21a)

358.0

E. coli (attenuated live)

145,260

H. influenzae b

526.6

E. coli (purified antigens)

126,454

Streptococcus group A

554.2

V. cholera (attenuated live)

94,986

Japanese encephalitis

614.0

M. leprae

88,481

Rotavirus (LPBVR)

655.4

V. cholera (inactivated)

65,548

Rotavirus (RMRV)

655.9

RSV (attenuated live virus)

59,559

N. meningitidis

708.1

RSV (glycoprotein)

52,412

E. coli (purified antigens)

722.3

Parainfluenza viruses

43,692

Rotavirus (HPBRV)

852.7

Rabies (Vero cell derived)

41,910

Malaria (multivalent)

856.8

Rabies (glycoprotein)

37,983

Malaria (monovalent)

967.3

Hepatitis A (attenuated live virus)

15,112

RSV (attenuated live)

982.8

Hepatitis A (polypeptide)

14,392

Hepatitis A (attenuated live)

1,058.0

N. meningitidis

13,754

Streptococcus pneumoniae

1,310.3

Yellow fever virus

11,127

Parainfluenza

1,697.1

Dengue virus

9,558

RSV (glycoprotein)

1,964.4

Rabies (live vector virus)

8,260

Hepatitis A (polypeptide)

4,029.0

Japanese encephalitis virus

3,232

Hepatitis B

8,859.3

Health benefits are expressed in units equivalent in undesirability to the death of an infant (IMEs) and are calculated using the median of IME perspectives from responding health professionals in developing countries.

Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×

TABLE 9.3 Some Relationships Between Expenditures and Health Benefitsa

Pathogen (Target Population)

Vaccine Envisaged

Annualized Present Value of Potential Health Benefits (IME Units)

Annualized Present Value of Expenditures on Vaccines Necessary to Achieve Potential Health Benefits (dollars)

Dengue virus

(Infants and children in endemic areas; travelers to endemic areas)

Attenuated live vector virus containing gene for broadly cross-reacting protective antigen

9,558

241,803,765

Escherichia coli

(enterotoxigenic)

(Infants < 6 months)

A combination of purified colonization factor antigens and possibly other antigens

126,454

722,284,852

Genetically engineered attenuated strains

145,260

69,171,586

Hemophilus influenzae type b

(Infants)

Conjugated polysaccharide

210,943

526,603,421

Hepatitis A virus

(Susceptibles of all ages; children)

Attenuated live virus

15,112

1,058,021,429

Polypeptide recombinant vaccine produced in yeast

14,392

4,028,950,683

Hepatitis B virus

(Areas with high perinatal infection: all infants at birth (if possible). Other areas: all infants, simultaneous with other vaccinations)

Polypeptide produced by recombinant DNA technology

213,192

8,859,258,746

Japanese encephalitis virus

(Children in epidemic and and endemic areas; foreign visitors to epidemic regions)

Inactivated virus produced in cell culture

3,232

613,959,820

Mycobacterium leprae

(Immuno-prophylactic: all children in endemic areas. Immuno-therapeutic: all recently infected individuals)

Armadillo-derived M. leprae

88,481

270,619,575

Neisseria meningitidis

(Infants, 3–6 months)

Conjugated capsular polysaccharides, groups A,C,Y, and W135

13,754

708,114,155

Parainfluenza viruses

(Infants)

Trivalent, subunit vaccine (which must contain fusion proteins)

43,692

1,697,123,972

Plasmodium spp.

(All infants at risk, military personnel, travelers)

Plasmodium falciparum, synthetic or recombinant sporozoite antigen preparation

475,205

967,271,590

Multivalent synthetic or recombinant sporozoite antigen preparation (P. falciparum, P. vivax, P. ovale, P. malariae)

426,640

856,843,460

Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×

Expenditure per IME Prevented

Annualized Present Value of Potential Health Benefits Adjusted for Opportunity Cost at $100,000/IME

Annualized Present Value of Potential Health Benefits Adjusted for Opportunity Cost at $10,000/IME

Annualized Present Value of Potential Health Benefits Adjusted for Opportunity Cost at $1,000/IME

Annualized Present Value of Potential Health Benefits Adjusted for Opportunity Cost at $500/IME

Annualized Present Value of Potential Health Benefits Adjusted for Opportunity Cost at $100/IME

25,298

7,140

–14,622

–232,246

–474,049

–2,408,479

5,712

119,231

54,226

–595,831

–1,318,116

–7,096,394

476

144,568

138,343

76,088

6,917

–546,456

2,496

205,677

158,283

–315,660

–842,264

–5,055,091

70,014

4,531

–90,691

–1,042,910

–2,100,931

–10,565,103

279,946

–25,898

–388,503

–4,014,559

–8,043,509

–40,275,115

41,555

124,600

–672,734

–8,646,066

–17,505,325

–88,379,395

189,944

–2,907

–58,164

–610,727

–1,224,687

–6,136,366

3,058

85,775

61,419

–182,138

–452,758

–2,617,714

51,483

6,673

–57,057

–694,360

–1,402,474

–7,067,387

38,843

26,721

–126,020

–1,653,432

–3,350,556

–16,927,548

2,035

465,532

378,478

–492,066

–1,459,338

–9,197,511

2,008

418,072

340,956

–430,203

–1,287,047

–8,141,795

Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×

Pathogen (Target Population)

Vaccine Envisaged

Annualized Present Value of Potential Health Benefits (IME Units)

Annualized Present Value of Expenditures on Vaccines Necessary to Achieve Potential Health Benefits (dollars)

Rabies virus

(Individuals at high risk, plus post-exposure prophylaxis) (As above)

Vero cell

41,910

146,811,503

Glycoprotein produced by rDNA technology in mammalian cells

37,983

138,655,304

(Birth cohort in areas of high risk)

Attenuated live vector virus containing gene for protective glycoprotein antigen

8,260

15,506,192

Respiratory syncytial virus

(Infants)

Polypeptides produced by recombinant DNA technology

52,412

1,964,436,106

Attenuated live virus

59,559

982,843,053

Rotavirus

(Infants, 0–6 months)

Attenuated high passage bovine rotavirus

521,852

852,737,494

Attenuated low passage bovine rotavirus

450,795

655,395,369

Rhesus monkey rotavirus

450,795

655,895,369

Salmonella typhi

(Children; young adults at risk; travelers from developed countries to endemic areas)

Attenuated ga1E mutant S. typhi strain TY21a

431,471

358,039,747

Aromatic amino acid dependent strains of S. typbi

194,745

152,153,450

Shigella spp.

(Infants at birth; elderly for epidemic strains)

Probably plasmid mediated outer membrane protein invasion determinant (a small number of promising options need to be investigated to determine best approach)

222,096

91,603,782

Streptococcus A

(Children, < 3–4 years)

Synthetic M protein segment (excluding portions cross-reacting with human tissue)

180,513

554,167,844

Streptococcus pneumoniae

(Infants)

Conjugated polysaccharides, polyvalent

1,363,943

1,310,290,738

Vibrio cholera

(Children, especially <2 years)

Genetically defined live mutant V. cholerae (A−B+ or A−B−) with respect to toxin subunit synthesis

94,986

23,788,751

Inactivated antigens

65,548

43,571,553

Yellow fever virus

(Young children)

Attenuated live virus produced in cell culture

11,127

93,049,382

aUnadjusted annualized present values of potential health benefits represent a situation where resource constraints are not a concern: no vaccine candidate is affordable if the willingness to pay per IME averted is $100 or less.

Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×

Expenditure per IME Prevented

Annualized Present Value of Potential Health Benefits Adjusted for Opportunity Cost at $100,000/IME

Annualized Present Value of Potential Health Benefits Adjusted for Opportunity Cost at $10,000/IME

Annualized Present Value of Potential Health Benefits Adjusted for Opportunity Cost at $1,000/IME

Annualized Present Value of Potential Health Benefits Adjusted for Opportunity Cost at $500/IME

Annualized Present Value of Potential Health Benefits Adjusted for Opportunity Cost at $100/IME

3,503

40,442

27,229

−104,901

–251,713

–1,426,205

3,650

36,596

24,117

–100,673

–239,328

–1,348,570

1,877

8,105

6,709

–7,246

–22,752

–146,802

37,480

32,768

–144,031

–1,912,024

–3,876,460

–19,591,949

16,502

49,731

–38,725

–923,284

–1,906,127

–9,768,871

1,634

513,325

436,578

–330,885

–1,183,623

–8,005,523

1,454

444,242

385,256

–204,600

–859,995

–6,103,158

1,455

444,237

385,206

–205,100

–860,995

–6,108,158

830

427,891

395,667

73,431

–284,608

–3,148,926

781

193,224

179,530

42,592

–109,562

–1,326,789

412

221,180

212,936

130,492

38,889

–693,942

3,070

174,971

125,096

–373,655

–927,823

–5,361,165

961

1,350,840

1,232,914

53,652

–1,256,638

–11,738,964

250

94,748

92,607

71,197

47,408

–142,902

665

65,112

61,191

21,976

–21,595

–370,168

8,362

10,197

1,822

–81,922

–174,971

–919,366

Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×

TABLE 9.4 The Effect of Resource Constraints on the Ranking of Various Vaccine Candidates

 

Rank Based on Annualized Present Value of Potential Health Benefits Adjusted for Opportunity Costsa

 

Willingness to Pay (dollars) per IME Averted

Vaccine

Unrestricted

100,000

10,000

1,000

500

S. pneumoniae

1

1

1

5

b

Rotavirus (HPBRV)

2

2

2

Malaria (monovalent)

3

3

6

Rotavirus (LPBRV)

4

4

4

Rotavirus (RMRV)

5

5

5

S. typhi (Ty21a)

6

6

3

3

Malaria (multivalent)

7

7

7

Shigella

8

8

8

1

2

Hepatitis B

9

13

H. influenzae b

10

9

10

S. typhi (aa-strain)

11

10

9

6

Streptococcus group A

12

11

12

E. coli (attenuated live)

13

12

11

2

3

E. coli (purified antigens)

14

14

16

V. cholera (attenuated live)

15

15

13

4

1

M. leprae

16

16

14

V. cholera (inactivated)

17

17

15

7

RSV (attenuated live virus)

18

18

RSV (glycoprotein)

19

21

Parainfluenza viruses

20

22

Rabies (Vero cell derived)

21

19

17

Rabies (glycoprotein)

22

20

18

Hepatitis A (attenuated live virus)

23

27

Hepatitis A (polypeptide)

24

N. meningitidis

25

26

Yellow fever virus

26

23

20

Dengue virus

27

25

Rabies (live vector virus)

28

24

19

Japanese encephalitis virus

29

aRankings are based on values shown in Table 9.3.

b– denotes not affordable at indicated willingness to pay.

equivalent to potential health benefits. In this case the principle of dominance applies: vaccines yielding greater potential benefits and lower expenditures are preferred. Procedures are discussed in Chapter 3. However, because the expenditures do not reflect overall net costs, the committee believes that initial rankings of candidates should be based on their potential health benefits.

Disease Burden Assumptions

A major factor in determining the ultimate ranking of a vaccine candidate is the total disease burden value (TDBV) used as the starting point in the calculations of potential benefit. The central analysis rankings reflect the committee’s best efforts, within its resources and the reliability and quantity of available data, to generate disease

Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×

burden estimates. Some of the estimates rest on uncertain assumptions or extrapolations from limited data. Some specific examples may help demonstrate how the overall method differentiates between vaccine candidates even when the starting points are somewhat uncertain.

For the top-ranked vaccine candidate, S. pneumoniae, the total disease burden in the central analysis represents a set of assumptions, including some use of antibiotics (see Appendix D-17). A “preantibiotic” TDBV twice that used in the central analysis could have been used in calculations, but would have merely served to further separate S. pneumoniae vaccine from the runners-up. Using a different starting point for the derivation of the disease burden estimates (see Appendixes B and D-17)* yields a somewhat lower estimate of pneumococcal pneumonia, the major contributor to the S. pneumoniae disease burden. Ignoring bacteremia and otitis media, the approach in Appendix B yields estimates for the under 15 years age group that results in a disease burden value of 1,921,300 (versus 6,612,261 in the central analysis which derives from the estimates developed in Appendix D-17). Because the lower value represents the partial disease burden for the under 15 years age group, it is assumed that all of the disease is potentially preventable (i.e., VPI=1.0; see Appendix D-17). Using the lower DBV of 1,921,300 as the starting point in the analysis results in a value for the annualized present value of potential health benefits (APVPHB) of 713,367. This value still results in the candidate S. pneumoniae vaccine having highest priority. The effect of adopting alternative assumptions on the probability of success for this candidate is discussed below.

For certain diarrheal pathogens it can be argued that by the time the new vaccines are available, the disease burden will have been significantly reduced by the adoption of oral rehydration therapy (ORT), which averts dehydration deaths. For those pathogens where this scenario was plausible (E. coli and rotavirus), TDBVs were calculated from disease burden estimates which assumed that by the time of vaccine availability, ORT had reduced deaths by 50 percent. The effect of adopting these TDBVs in the analysis was examined. Even with the assumption that the disease amenable to reduction by these vaccines is reduced substantially (by about 50 percent), the degree of spacing between the other candidates resulted in these vaccines shifting only slightly in the rankings. The three rotavirus candidates dropped in the central analysis from positions 2, 4, and 5 to positions 5, 6, and 7 (total candidates = 29). The two E. coli candidates dropped from positions 13 and 14 to positions 15 and 16.

*  

The approach in Appendix B starts from reports on overall acute respiratory infections in developing countries; these reports probably underestimate the actual incidence of disease. The approach in Appendix D-17 starts from the assumption that pneumococcal pneumonia incidence in developing countries is likely to be similar to that in developed countries in the 1920s; such rates are reasonably well documented.

Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×

Individuals wishing to evaluate the effect on the ultimate rankings of adopting different assumptions on the magnitude of the disease burden can do so in crude fashion by adjusting the final APVPHB in accordance with their beliefs. For example, if they believe that the overall disease incidence is twice that used in the central analysis (but that rates for complications, sequelae, case-fatality rates, etc., are reasonable) the central analysis APVPHB value should be doubled. The rank of the new APVPHB value can then be determined. More complex disagreements with disease burden determination (e.g., favoring a different frequency of complications) requires recalculation of the disease burden estimates and the TDBV.

Target Population and Assumptions on Vaccine Preventable Illness

The bases for the various disease burden proportions that are judged to be vaccine preventable are described in Appendixes D-1 through D-19. The effect of alternative assumptions can easily be examined by substituting a new value in the calculation process shown in Table 7.4. Assumptions different from those in the central analysis may alter the ranking of vaccines. For example, 50 percent of the disease burden for hepatitis B vaccine is estimated to be preventable by delivering the vaccine at the usual WHO-EPI scheduled times. If vaccines were delivered universally at birth, some higher proportion would be preventable and the potential benefits would be raised proportionally.

The targeted population may markedly affect the potential expenditures. For example, delivery of the N. meningitidis vaccine to the entire birth cohort in the developing world (115.1 million births) would cost about $708 million. Focusing vaccine delivery on births in the African meningitis belt (13.1 million births) would reduce the cost by about 90 percent to $82 million. (Because this strategy would not protect against endemic or rare epidemic disease in other parts of the world, potential health benefits would also be less; see Appendix D-8).

Similarly, immunotherapeutic use of a vaccine for M. leprae—to curtail progressive disease in all recognized new cases—would cost $10.3 million as contrasted to immunoprophylactic use in the birth cohort at risk, which would cost $270 million. These strategies are, however, significantly different, and this commentary does not suggest that immunotherapy would be more “cost-effective.” To be useful, such a strategy would require substantially increased efforts at early case detection.

Discount Rate

The committee believes that incorporating a discounting procedure for future health benefits and expenditures is justified because it reflects the preference for benefits achieved sooner rather than later (a basic concept in the establishment of a program of accelerated vaccine development). The effect of placing more or less weight on

Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×

achieving early benefits was examined by selecting discount rates higher (0.10) and lower (0.02) than in the central analysis. Results from analyses using these discount rates are compared to results from the central analysis in Tables 9.5 and 9.6.

In general, using discount rates of 10 percent or 2 percent would not substantially affect the structure of the ranking, although some vaccines are shifted slightly in position. Notable among these is hepatitis B, which drops from position 9 on health benefits to position 15 if a 10 percent discount rate is adopted. Although the development of this second generation vaccine is relatively advanced, it drops in position when a high discount rate is adopted (i.e., one that favors shorter term realization of benefits) because the delay of vaccination benefits for hepatitis B immunization is long.

Alternative Development Scenario: Probability of Success

The central analysis uses the probability of successful development indicated for each vaccine in Chapter 5. The effect of adopting a more optimistic but not unreasonable view was examined by assuming a 100 percent chance of successful development within a time period for likely time to licensure. Tables 9.7 and 9.8 show the results. Such an assumption would not substantially affect the overall rankings, but some vaccines shift slightly in position. Some vaccines with lower probabilities of success (e.g., malaria at 0.5) rise in the rankings relative to those whose probability of success was already closer to 1.0. The spacing of benefit values is such that, for certain vaccines (e.g., M. leprae) with a lower probability of success, the more optimistic assumption (p=1.0) raises the potential benefit value but does not change the ranking.

The committee performed another sensitivity analysis, by way of example, to show the effects of lowering the probability of successful development for a single, highly ranked, vaccine—S. pneumoniae (Table9.9). The original estimate, shown in Tables 9.1 and 9.2, was 80 percent. Elimination of this vaccine from the top half of the ranking on potential health benefits (Table 9.2) required assuming a probability of success less than 5 percent. Assuming a probability of success less than about 12 percent is required to eliminate it from the top five positions.

Assessing the Effect of Differential Utilization

Table 9.2 shows annualized present values of potential health benefits (APVPHBs) unadjusted for utilization because the committee assumed this factor would not differ among vaccines. If future applications of this or similar systems (e.g., for specific countries) must account for differential utilization, then the appropriate values for the annualized present values of expected health benefits can be obtained simply by multiplying the APVPHBs by the appropriate value for that proportion of the target population expected to receive the vaccine.

Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×

TABLE 9.5 Sensitivity Analysis: Effect of Discount Rate on Annualized Present Value of Potential Health Benefits for Various Vaccine Candidates

 

Discount Rate

 

Central Analysis, 0.05

0.02

0.10

Vaccine

Rank

Value (IME Units)

Rank

Value (IME Units)

Rank

Value (IME Units)

S. pneumoniae

1

1,363,943

1

1,770,510

1

897,358

Rotavirus (HPBRV)

2

521,852

5

603,244

2

413,552

Malaria (monovalent)

3

475,205

3

663,218

5

278,319

Rotavirus (LPBRV)

4

450,795

6

568,450

3

310,708

Rotavirus (RMRV)

4

450,795

6

568,450

4

310,708

S. typhi (Ty21a)

6

431,471

2

686,085

7

204,973

Malaria (multivalent)

7

426,640

4

640,191

6

222,440

Shigella

8

222,096

10

323,742

9

121,310

Hepatitis B

9

213,192

8

554,897

15

45,926

H. influenzae b

10

210,943

12

281,875

8

132,474

S. typhi (aa-strain)

11

194,745

9

363,189

12

71,630

Streptococcus group A

12

180,513

11

317,684

11

72,869

E. coli (attenuated live)

13

145,260

13

211,741

10

79,342

E. coli (purified antigens)

14

126,454

14

184,238

13

69,070

V. cholera (attenuated live)

15

94,986

16

126,925

14

59,652

M. leprae

16

88,481

17

162,639

19

33,310

V. cholera (inactivated)

17

65,548

17

82,656

16

45,179

RSV (attenuated live virus)

18

59,559

18

75,104

17

41,051

RSV (glycoprotein)

19

52,412

19

66,092

18

36,125

Parainfluenza viruses

20

43,692

20

60,101

22

26,192

Rabies (Vero cell derived)

21

41,910

21

52,088

20

29,566

Rabies (glycoprotein)

22

37,983

22

47,207

21

26,795

Hepatitis A (attenuated live virus)

23

15,112

23

20,787

23

9,059

Hepatitis A (polypeptide)

24

14,392

24

20,379

24

8,235

N. meningitidis

25

13,754

25

20,049

25

7,513

Yellow fever virus

26

11,127

26

19,301

26

4,598

Dengue virus

27

9,558

27

15,646

27

4,334

Rabies (live vector virus)

28

8,260

28

5,630

28

2,969

Japanese encephalitis virus

29

3,232

29

5,215

29

1,500

Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×

TABLE 9.6 Sensitivity Analysis: Effect of Discount Rate on Annualized Present Value of Expenditures to Achieve the Benefits of Various Vaccine Candidates

 

Discount Rate

 

Central Analysis, 0.05

0.02

0.10

Vaccine

Rank

Expenditure ($ million)

Rank

Expenditure ($ million)

Rank

Expenditure ($ million)

Rabies (live vector virus)

1

16

1

21

1

10

V. cholera (attenuated live)

2

24

2

29

2

18

V. cholera (inactivated)

3

44

3

51

3

34

E. coli (attenuated live)

4

69

4

96

4

42

Shigella

5

92

6

128

5

55

Yellow fever

6

93

5

107

6

75

Rabies (glycoprotein)

7

139

7

182

8

112

Rabies (Vero cell derived)

8

147

8

193

9

119

S. typhi (aa-strain)

9

152

9

195

7

103

Dengue

10

242

10

341

11

140

M. leprae

11

271

12

417

10

137

S. typhi (Ty21a)

12

358

11

390

12

312

H. influenzae b

13

527

13

663

14

364

Streptococcus group A

14

554

14

749

13

344

Japanese encephalitis

15

614

17

806

15

398

Rotavirus (LPBVR)

16

655

15

802

18

475

Rotavirus (RMRV)

17

656

16

802

19

476

N. meningitidis

18

708

18

945

17

447

E. coli (purified antigens)

19

722

20

1,021

16

415

Rotavirus (HPBRV)

20

853

19

957

23

709

Malaria (multivalent)

21

857

21

1,177

20

516

Malaria (monovalent)

22

967

23

1,236

21

653

RSV (attenuated live)

23

983

22

1,203

24

711

Hepatitis A (attenuated live)

24

1,058

24

1,373

22

697

Streptococcus pneumoniae

25

1,310

25

1,604

25

948

Parainfluenza

26

1,697

26

2,267

26

1,068

RSV (glycoprotein)

27

1,964

27

2,405

27

1,420

Hepatitis A (polypeptide)

28

4,029

28

5,383

28

2,542

Hepatitis B

29

8,859

29

9,664

29

7,700

Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×

TABLE 9.7 Sensitivity Analysis: Effect of an Alternative Development Scenario on Potential Health Benefits

 

Predicted Probability of Successful Development (Central Analysis)

100% Probability of Successful Development

Vaccine

Rank

Value (IME Units)

Rank

Value (IME Units)

S. pneumoniae

1

1,363,943

1

1,704,929

Rotavirus (HPBRV)

2

521,852

4

579,836

Malaria (monovalent)

3

475,205

2

950,410

Rotavirus (LPBRV)

4

450,795

5

563,494

Rotavirus (RMRV)

4

450,795

5

563,494

S. typhi (Ty21a)

6

431,471

7

479,412

Malaria (multivalent)

7

426,640

3

853,280

Shigella

8

222,096

9

317,280

Hepatitis B

9

213,192

13

215,346

H. influenzae b

10

210,943

11

234,381

S. typhi (aa-strain)

11

194,745

8

317,491

Streptococcus group A

12

180,513

12

225,641

E. coli (attenuated live)

13

145,260

14

207,514

E. coli (purified antigens)

14

126,454

10

252,908

V. cholera (attenuated live)

15

94,986

16

126,647

M. leprae

16

88,481

15

176,963

V. cholera (inactivated)

17

65,548

17

100,843

RSV (attenuated live virus)

18

59,559

18

74,449

RSV (glycoprotein)

19

52,412

19

65,515

Parainfluenza viruses

20

43,692

20

54,615

Rabies (Vero cell derived)

21

41,910

21

46,567

Rabies (glycoprotein)

22

37,983

22

44,686

Hepatitis A (attenuated live virus)

23

15,112

25

15,907

Hepatitis A (polypeptide)

24

14,392

26

15,149

N. meningitidis

25

13,754

23

27,509

Yellow fever virus

26

11,127

28

11,713

Dengue virus

27

9,558

27

12,744

Rabies (live vector virus)

28

8,260

24

16,520

Japanese encephalitis virus

29

3,232

29

6,465

CONCLUSIONS

Final decisions on the number of vaccines and the particular vaccines selected for accelerated development must incorporate various nonquantifiable factors, as well as information provided by the rankings that were derived with the proposed system for calculating benefits and expenditures. The additional factors include:

  • goals of the responsible agency and its schedule for achieving them

  • ethical questions on the distribution of benefits among socioeconomic or age groups, countries, or regions

  • most appropriate points in the development process at which the agency can exert influence and the opportunity and need for such influence

  • extent of private sector activities

Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×

TABLE 9.8 Sensitivity Analysis: Effect of an Alternative Development Scenario on Potential Expenditures

 

Predicted Probability of Successful Development (Central Analysis)

100% Probability of Successful Development

Vaccine

Rank

Expenditures ($ millions)

Rank

Expenditures ($ millions)

Rabies (live vector virus)

1

15.5

1

30.3

V. cholera (attenuated live)

2

23.8

2

31.3

V. cholera (inactivated)

3

43.6

3

66.8

E. coli (attenuated live)

4

69.2

5

98.0

Shigella

5

91.6

6

130.1

Yellow fever

6

93.0

4

97.9

Rabies (glycoprotein)

7

138.7

7

177.4

Rabies (Vero cell derived)

8

146.8

8

177.5

S. typhi (aa-strain)

9

152.2

9

304.2

Dengue

10

241.8

10

322.0

M. leprae

11

270.6

12

549.0

S. typhi (Ty21a)

12

358.0

11

397.8

H. influenzae b

13

526.6

13

585.0

Streptococcus group A

14

554.2

14

692.1

Japanese encephalitis

15

614.0

19

1,225.4

Rotavirus (LPBRV)

16

655.4

15

819.0

Rotavirus (RMRV)

17

655.9

16

819.5

N. meningitidis

18

708.1

21

1,414.7

E. coli (purified antigens)

19

722.3

22

1,443.3

Rotavirus (HPBRV)

20

852.7

17

947.4

Malaria (multivalent)

21

856.8

24

1,711.9

Malaria (monovalent)

22

967.3

25

1,933.3

RSV (attenuated live)

23

982.8

20

1,228.2

Hepatitis A (attenuated live)

24

1,058.0

18

1,113.7

Streptococcus pneumoniae

25

1,310.3

23

1,637.5

Parainfluenza

26

1,697.1

26

2,121.1

RSV (glycoprotein)

27

1,964.4

27

2,455.2

Hepatitis A (polypeptide)

28

4,029.0

28

4,240.9

Hepatitis B

29

8,859.3

29

8,948.7

  • opportunities to accelerate vaccine development through collaboration with other countries or international organizations

  • the desired balance of the development portfolio (e.g., pediatric versus adult vaccines, global versus regional diseases)

  • arguments for treating certain vaccine development projects as unique because of their potential for facilitating immunization programs in general (e.g., by eliminating constraints on delivery, such as poor stability) or by improving public confidence (e.g., by reducing adverse reactions)

  • the prospect that a particular project may serve as a useful model for a number of other desired vaccines

  • disease related factors, such as epidemiologic and clinical characteristics likely to overwhelm medical services, and the availability of alternative control strategies or safe and effective therapy

  • possible synergistic interaction with other diseases

Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×

TABLE 9.9 Effect of Varying Probability of Success on the Health Benefits of S.pneumoniae Vaccine: Central Analysis

Probability of Success

Annualized Present Value of Potential Health Benefits (IME units)

1.0

1,704,929

0.9

1,534,236

0.8a

1,363,943

0.7

1,193,450

0.6

1,022,957

0.5

852,464

0.4

681,972

0.3

511,479

0.2

340,986

0.1

170,493

0.0

0

aProbability of success used in central analysis.

  • the immediate U.S. interest in diseases that may be imported into the United States, that threaten travelers or personnel stationed overseas, or that are existing problems in the United States

  • the affordability of the potential health benefit, if not already used formally in the decision process

These factors are discussed in more detail in Chapter 8 and elsewhere in the report.

The analyses presented in this chapter indicate that of the 29 projects considered, vaccines for S. pneumoniae, Plasmodium spp. (malaria; both monovalent and multivalent circumsporozoite protein based versions), rotavirus (all three candidates), S. typhi (Ty21a), and shigella consistently rank in the top 10 positions in priority lists based on potential health benefits, under a wide range of assumptions and resource availability.

Vaccines for hepatitis B and H. influenzae type b rank in the top 10 in the central analysis but are dislodged under certain assumptions. Vaccines for E. coli (either candidate) or the alternative candidate for S. typhi (an aromatic amino acid requiring stain) move into the top

Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×

10 under certain assumptions: as willingness to pay drops to $1,000 or below per IME prevented, the ranking changes more significantly, as shown in Table 9.4, with vaccines for certain diarrheal diseases rising in the rankings.

A fairly consistent middle-tier of vaccines occurs in the ranking under a variety of assumptions. In addition to those candidates that will contend for higher ranking under certain assumptions, this middletier includes vaccines for Streptococcus group A, M. leprae, V. cholerae, respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza viruses, and rabies (Vero cell derived or glycoprotein).

Most of the vaccines that consistently rank low would prevent diseases that are often serious, but mostly restricted to relatively small regions of the developing world. In such areas they may have more benefit than the widespread diseases that rank higher when the developing world is considered as a whole.

Additional sensitivity analyses, discussed below, can be performed to identify elements that may alter decisions.

DISCUSSION

Scientific opinion differs on some of the judgments incorporated into the proposed method, and uncertainty surrounds some of the data. The system has been applied by using the best estimates and most reliable data the committee could obtain, given its resources. The attempt to be explicit about certain estimates should not be interpreted as indicating that precise, unanimous, or certain comparisons are possible with existing methods or data, when the lack of data makes expert judgment necessary. The implications of these information gaps and differences of opinion about estimates are discussed more fully in Chapter 1. In this light, the committee suggests additional analyses and research to provide further information on the key elements that may alter decisions.

Ideally, to fully assess the effect of alternative IME profiles on the rankings, calculations should be conducted using the whole range of individual sets of IME values. However, because of resource and time constraints, this was not possible in the present study. The perspective adopted to illustrate application of the system was the median set of values from responses of health professionals in developing countries. A median set of values derived from U.S. respondents differed somewhat from the perspective used (see Chapter 4, Tables 4.7 and 4.8).

It is also possible to develop hypothetical age-neutral perspectives as was done for the committee’s first report (Institute of Medicine, 1985). The committee, however, does not endorse either set of median values or the age-neutral perspective for policy formulation. The effect of adopting various IME values is discussed in Chapter 4.

Selecting or constructing a small number of profiles that have distinct differences from the committee median or the age-neutral set would be a practicable way to further examine how various opinions on the undesirability of disease conditions might affect vaccine rankings. For example, IME profiles could be developed that show more or less

Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×

aversion to chronic or acute morbidity than the median set and a constructed age-neutral profile (i.e., for each morbidity category, calculate the geometric mean of median IME values across different age groups). The results of the ranking process with these profiles would then identify the extent to which differences of opinion regarding chronic or acute morbidity could alter rankings. (For a range of 14 important diseases in the United States, adopting a hypothetical age-neutral IME perspective, rather than the committee median that disfavored death and morbidity most in the 15–24 years age group, did not significantly alter the ultimate rankings [Institute of Medicine, 1985]).

Other sensitivity studies around the central analysis are also possible. These include the effect on the rankings of various predictions about the number of vaccine doses needed (which would affect expenditures on vaccines) or various predictions about individual vaccines (e.g., the probability of successful development of a vaccine).

The impact on rankings of using alternative assumptions for choosing the target population for some vaccines could also be tested, it would entail, however, more extensive recalculations, including reestimation of the disease proportion that is vaccine preventable.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The committee believes that a major strength of this analysis is that it encourages those using it to examine all judgments and assumptions about the selected vaccine preventable diseases. The committee recommends use of the proposed system by government decision makers. New candidates should be assessed as they become technically feasible and new data should be incorporated as they become available.

Data for disease comparisons are lacking in some areas and are of variable reliability in others. Further, data on the pathogen serotypes prevalent in particular regions may also be lacking.

Better data bases in these areas would facilitate making rational choices on vaccine development priorities and vaccine formulation. Therefore, NIAID and other national and international organizations should consider means to improve available epidemiological data on infectious diseases.

REFERENCE

Institute of Medicine. 1985. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities, Volume I. Diseases of Importance in the United States. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"9. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." Institute of Medicine. 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/920.
×
Page 142
Next: Appendix A: Selection of Vaccine Candidates for Accelerated Development »
New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Volume II, Diseases of Importance in Developing Countries Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $65.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Common diseases cost the developing world an enormous amount in terms of human life, health, and productivity, as well as lost economic potential. New and effective vaccines could not only improve the quality of life for millions of residents in developing countries, they could also contribute substantially to further economic development. Using data from the World Health Organization and other international agencies, this book analyzes disease burdens, pathogen descriptions, geographic distribution of diseases, probable vaccine target populations, alternative control measures and treatments, and future prospects for vaccine development. New Vaccine Development provides valuable insight into immunological and international health policy priorities.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!