Introduction Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is crucial when evaluating the health and economic value of vaccines compared to the current standard of care (SoC) and provides essential information to assist decision-makers in maximizing health gains when allocating resources. The design of the CEA should address the specific policy questions, disease area, vaccine characteristics, and consider all relevant vaccination effects on the population.

Areas covered We presented a case study on the CEA of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) in infants in Germany using a closed single cohort-based approach versus a population-based approach. Except for the design of the modelled population/cohort, all other inputs and characteristics were kept identical in the cost-effectiveness model. We contrasted model results, inferences, and conclusions between both design approaches.

Expert Opinion CEA must carefully consider the included population in the analysis based on their specific policy questions and the characteristics of the vaccine being evaluated. The choice between population-based and closed single-cohort models fundamentally depends on whether the vaccine affects disease transmission dynamics. Population models are essential for vaccines that disrupt transmission patterns across population groups, such as PCVs in infants, while closed single-cohort models are suitable for vaccines impacting only vaccinated individuals without affecting disease transmission.

Article highlights

Identifying the appropriate model design is crucial for conducting cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of vaccines, particularly when addressing vaccine technical committee (VTC) policy questions, which aim to optimize individual and population health benefits.

Closed single cohort-based designs track a group of individuals, while population-based designs evaluate an entire cross-sectional population, making the choice between the two designs vital when vaccines have secondary, indirect effects.

We presented a case study comparing PCV20 with PCV13 and PCV15 in infants in Germany using a closed single cohort-based approach and a population-based approach.

Modelled results highlighted that the closed single cohort-based approach substantially underestimated public health benefits and economic advantages associated with PCV20, whereas the population-based approach demonstrated PCV20 as cost-saving strategy while offering superior health outcomes, indicating it as a dominant vaccination option when accounting for Germany’s entire population.

Selecting an inappropriate model design for CEAs of vaccines could result in unintended consequences, such as adversely affecting national recommendations, policies, and programs, leading to suboptimal decision-making for population health.

Researchers and policymakers must carefully select appropriate population frameworks and adhere to methodological guidelines to ensure accurate inferences in vaccine economic evaluations.

Johnna Perdrizet, Dominik Schröder, Felicitas Kühne, Julia Schiffner-Rohe, Maren Laurenz, Christian Theilacker, Aleksandar Ilic, Christof von Eiff are employees of Pfizer. An Ta is an employee of Cytel Inc., which received consulting fees from Pfizer Inc. for developing the cost-effectiveness model that was reanalyzed in this manuscript. An Ta contributed to this manuscript outside of her employment at Cytel, Inc. and received no funding.

Sponsorship for this study and accelerated publication fee were funded by Pfizer Inc.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes