We are delighted to announce that the JCVI published a statement on 21/03/2014, recommending the introduction of MenB vaccination for infants (https://www.gov.uk/government/policy-advisory-groups/joint-committee-on-vaccination-and-immunisation#publications-and-statements). The recommendation is for an infant immunisation programme at 2, 4 and 12 months of age, with limited catch-up for 3 and 4 month old babies when the programme starts. This is a reduced 2+1 schedule with respect to the licensed indication for a 3+1 infant schedule. The committee found sufficient evidence in support of this from the trial data, and there is precedent for this in other vaccine introductions, for example PCV7. They have also recommended a further carriage study in adolescents as they felt there was too much uncertainty to recommend an adolescent programme. The programme will be closely monitored to consider impact on meningococcal B infection. The Department of Health will now have to negotiate a cost-effective price with the manufacturer, which they say will happen as soon as possible. The decision is based on consideration of the additional evidence and arguments provided by stakeholders, including Meningitis Research Foundation and the Paediatric Intensive Care Society, who responded to the JCVI’s July interim statement. As you can see from their minutes and statement, the JCVI adjusted the inputs to the cost effectiveness model in line with several of the points made in the letter to the Health Secretary which you signed: The health burden associated with MenB disease was increased in the revised analysis The proportion of survivors with after effects was increased Quality of life impact on carers was included The committee agreed that the method used to measure quality of life impact was insensitive and adjusted it upward by a factor of 3 The costs of clinical negligence claims relating to MenB were included. Costs associated with sequelae were increased. Although discounting at 3.5% was retained in the base case scenario, it also considered discounting at 1.5% in its deliberations and asked the new working group to look into this further This was a scientific decision, rather than an about-face forced by political campaigning, but there is little doubt that the endorsement of this letter by so many eminent health professionals and scientists, and the ground-swell of opinion represented by the 330 signatures we obtained, gave the committee the freedom to make a recommendation that is not without risk, given the uncertainties that still exist.
We are delighted to announce that the JCVI published a statement on 21/03/2014, recommending the introduction of MenB vaccination for infants (https://www.gov.uk/government/policy-advisory-groups/joint-committee-on-vaccination-and-immunisation#publications-and-statements). The recommendation is for an infant immunisation programme at 2, 4 and 12 months of age, with limited catch-up for 3 and 4 month old babies when the programme starts. This is a reduced 2+1 schedule with respect to the licensed indication for a 3+1 infant schedule. The committee found sufficient evidence in support of this from the trial data, and there is precedent for this in other vaccine introductions, for example PCV7. They have also recommended a further carriage study in adolescents as they felt there was too much uncertainty to recommend an adolescent programme. The programme will be closely monitored to consider impact on meningococcal B infection. The Department of Health will now have to negotiate a cost-effective price with the manufacturer, which they say will happen as soon as possible.
The decision is based on consideration of the additional evidence and arguments provided by stakeholders, including Meningitis Research Foundation and the Paediatric Intensive Care Society, who responded to the JCVI’s July interim statement. As you can see from their minutes and statement, the JCVI adjusted the inputs to the cost effectiveness model in line with several of the points made in the letter to the Health Secretary which you signed:
This was a scientific decision, rather than an about-face forced by political campaigning, but there is little doubt that the endorsement of this letter by so many eminent health professionals and scientists, and the ground-swell of opinion represented by the 330 signatures we obtained, gave the committee the freedom to make a recommendation that is not without risk, given the uncertainties that still exist.