tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Vaccine
. 2025 Jul 16:60 Suppl 2:127470.
doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2025.127470. Online ahead of print. Priority setting for improved influenza vaccines: a multi-criteria decision analysis
Carlo Federici[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Sara Sá Silva[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Mitsuki Koh[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Stefano Malvolti[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Carsten Mantel[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Supamit Chunsuttiwat[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Aree Moungsookjarean[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Rose Jalang'o[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Kibet Sergon[SUP] 7 [/SUP], Adam Soble[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Philipp Lambach[SUP] 3 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Background/objective: Seasonal influenza vaccines reduce global morbidity and mortality but remain underused in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study was part of the World Health Organization's Full Value of Improved Influenza Vaccines Assessment (FVIVA) and explored LMIC decision-makers' priorities and preferences for improved influenza vaccines (IIVs) to enhance their adoption.
Methods: A multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to evaluate IIVs was conducted in Kenya and Thailand. Criteria were defined through a literature review and expert opinion, then refined in an online workshop (WS1) with national stakeholders. Criteria weights and scores were elicited in a second workshop (WS2) using a swing weighting approach and a bisection approach, respectively. Results were validated against one current influenza vaccine and three hypothetical IIVs for which a performance matrix had been developed. WS1 was also conducted in 11 other countries to gain a more generalizable understanding of product preferences regarding IIVs.
Results: In Kenya and Thailand, 7 criteria were included in the MCDA, 6 of which were shared: vaccine efficacy, duration of protection, breadth of protection, serious adverse events, temperature requirements, and shelf life. Scores and weights were also similar across criteria in both countries.
Conclusions: Results from 13 countries identified a core set of decision-making criteria for IIVs. MCDA was a well-accepted and feasible approach to for evidence-based prioritization and optimisation of vaccine portfolios in national immunisation programmes. Future development efforts should focus on improving IIVs based on country-identified criteria.
Keywords: Immunisation; Improved influenza vaccines; Influenza; MCDA; Next generation influenza vaccines; Vaccine prioritization.
. 2025 Jul 16:60 Suppl 2:127470.
doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2025.127470. Online ahead of print. Priority setting for improved influenza vaccines: a multi-criteria decision analysis
Carlo Federici[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Sara Sá Silva[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Mitsuki Koh[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Stefano Malvolti[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Carsten Mantel[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Supamit Chunsuttiwat[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Aree Moungsookjarean[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Rose Jalang'o[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Kibet Sergon[SUP] 7 [/SUP], Adam Soble[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Philipp Lambach[SUP] 3 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 40674810
- DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2025.127470
Background/objective: Seasonal influenza vaccines reduce global morbidity and mortality but remain underused in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study was part of the World Health Organization's Full Value of Improved Influenza Vaccines Assessment (FVIVA) and explored LMIC decision-makers' priorities and preferences for improved influenza vaccines (IIVs) to enhance their adoption.
Methods: A multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to evaluate IIVs was conducted in Kenya and Thailand. Criteria were defined through a literature review and expert opinion, then refined in an online workshop (WS1) with national stakeholders. Criteria weights and scores were elicited in a second workshop (WS2) using a swing weighting approach and a bisection approach, respectively. Results were validated against one current influenza vaccine and three hypothetical IIVs for which a performance matrix had been developed. WS1 was also conducted in 11 other countries to gain a more generalizable understanding of product preferences regarding IIVs.
Results: In Kenya and Thailand, 7 criteria were included in the MCDA, 6 of which were shared: vaccine efficacy, duration of protection, breadth of protection, serious adverse events, temperature requirements, and shelf life. Scores and weights were also similar across criteria in both countries.
Conclusions: Results from 13 countries identified a core set of decision-making criteria for IIVs. MCDA was a well-accepted and feasible approach to for evidence-based prioritization and optimisation of vaccine portfolios in national immunisation programmes. Future development efforts should focus on improving IIVs based on country-identified criteria.
Keywords: Immunisation; Improved influenza vaccines; Influenza; MCDA; Next generation influenza vaccines; Vaccine prioritization.