Value in Health
March 2015 Volume 18, Issue 2, p137-354
http://www.valueinhealthjournal.com/current
Editorials
Clinical Trials Provide Essential Evidence, but Rarely Offer a Vehicle for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Mark Sculpher
p141–142
Preview
All health care systems that are collectively funded through taxation or insurance make funding and coverage decisions considering value for money. Over the past 25 years or so, more systems have started to use formal cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to inform decisions, particularly those relating to the funding of new prescription pharmaceuticals. Inevitably and correctly, decision makers augment CEA with their own judgments about the reliability and relevance of evidence and the consequences of interventions, which may be poorly reflected in CEA outcomes.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Alongside Clinical Trials II—An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force Report
Scott D. Ramsey, Richard J. Willke, Henry Glick, Shelby D. Reed, Federico Augustovski, Bengt Jonsson, Andrew Briggs, Sean D. Sullivan
p161–172
Preview
Clinical trials evaluating medicines, medical devices, and procedures now commonly assess the economic value of these interventions. The growing number of prospective clinical/economic trials reflects both widespread interest in economic information for new technologies and the regulatory and reimbursement requirements of many countries that now consider evidence of economic value along with clinical efficacy. As decision makers increasingly demand evidence of economic value for health care interventions, conducting high-quality economic analyses alongside clinical studies is desirable because they broaden the scope of information available on a particular intervention, and can efficiently provide timely information with high internal and, when designed and analyzed properly, reasonable external validity.

Fairness versus Efficiency of Vaccine Allocation Strategies
Ming Yi, PhD, Achla Marathe, PhD
Published Online: January 14, 2015
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.11.009
Abstract
Objectives
To develop a framework to objectively measure the degree of fairness of any allocation rule aimed at distributing a limited stockpile of vaccines to contain the spread of influenza.
Methods
The trade-off between the efficiency and fairness of allocation strategies was demonstrated through an illustrative simulation study of an influenza epidemic in Southwestern Virginia. A Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered model was used to represent the disease progression within the host.
Results
Our findings showed that among all the criteria considered here, the household size (largest first) combined with age (youngest first)-based strategy leads to the best outcome. At 80% fairness, highest efficiency can be achieved but in order to be 100% fair, disease prevalence will have to rise by approximately 1.5%.
Conclusions
This research provides a framework to objectively determine the degree of fairness of vaccine allocation strategies.