• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

_|USA: New decision model seeks to avert flu vaccine mismatch of 2007-2008 season|_

Giuseppe

Emeritus
New decision model seeks to avert flu vaccine mismatch of 2007-2008 season

INFORMS study tackles conflicting pressures of identifying right flu strains and starting early production

To avoid producing vaccines that treat the wrong strains during flu season, the FDA should consider deferring some of its selections as well as other changes to the vaccine composition, according to a study by two decision analysts published in a journal of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS?).

"Repeated Commit-or-Defer Decisions with a Deadline: The Influenza Vaccine Composition" is by Laura J. Kornish of the University of Colorado and Ralph L. Keeney of Duke University. It appears in the current issue of Operations Research.

The researchers seek to help reduce the chances of problems like those seen in the 2007-2008 flu season, when two of the three vaccines prepared early in the year for millions of Americans failed to treat the flu strains that actually emerged at the height of flu season.

"There are two key takeaways from this research," says Prof. Kornish.

"First, that the FDA should be willing to consider deferring a decision about which strains to include if early, conclusive evidence isn't available. This would mean accepting the proposition that identifying the right strain is worth waiting for, even if the supply produced won't be sufficient. It may be better to have some of the right vaccine than a lot of the wrong vaccine.

"Second, the FDA should reexamine its commitment to the rigid structure of the vaccine, with exactly one strain from each of three categories. For example, if there's agreement on choosing two of the strains and disagreement about which strain to pick for the third, why not include four?"

A key problem addressed by the researchers is how to deal with uncertainty in the process of choosing the flu strains for the vaccine.

In February of every year, the FDA examines early evidence about flu strains circulating and selects three strains so that manufacture can begin and sufficient flu vaccine is available in the fall.

By the time that production normally begins, though, it may not yet be clear which flu strain will be most menacing in October.

This bind leaves officials to trade off between picking early, which may mean that there are sufficient supplies of vaccines whose effectiveness is limited; and picking late, leading to vaccine supplies that are insufficient to treat the needed population.

The decision to defer production on one or more of the strains makes sense, says Prof. Kornish, when there's current uncertainty but confidence that more time will lead to more useful information.

For public officials, the authors acknowledge, deferring a decision brings pressure that may increase if additional information doesn't arrive and they stick with an early proposal after sacrificing time that might have gone to vaccine production.

The authors developed their mathematical model to describe the repeated nature of the decision over time.

It allows decision makers to make what-if analyses of vaccine production rates, severity of the flu, and effectiveness of the vaccines.

Numerous sensitivity analyses of assumptions and parameters in the model provide insights for improved communication among those responsible for selecting the vaccines.

The problem resembles one faced by companies that market perishable products and products with limited seasons: when new products are developed specifically for an upcoming retail season, producers balance time spent deliberating about the best product with time spent producing the inventory.

###
About INFORMS
The Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS?) is an international scientific society with 10,000 members, including Nobel Prize laureates, dedicated to applying scientific methods to help improve decision-making, management, and operations. Members of INFORMS work in business, government, and academia. They are represented in fields as diverse as airlines, health care, law enforcement, the military, financial engineering, and telecommunications. The INFORMS website is www.informs.org. More information about operations research is at www.scienceofbetter.org.

-
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-08/ifor-ndm080508.php
-------
 
Re: _|USA: New decision model seeks to avert flu vaccine mismatch of 2007-2008 season|_

#1:
""Second, the FDA should reexamine its commitment to the rigid structure of the vaccine, with exactly one strain from each of three categories. For example, if there's agreement on choosing two of the strains and disagreement about which strain to pick for the third, why not include four?"

A key problem addressed by the researchers is how to deal with uncertainty in the process of choosing the flu strains for the vaccine.

In February of every year, the FDA examines early evidence about flu strains circulating and selects three strains so that manufacture can begin and sufficient flu vaccine is available in the fall.

By the time that production normally begins, though, it may not yet be clear which flu strain will be most menacing in October.

This bind leaves officials to trade off between picking early, which may mean that there are sufficient supplies of vaccines whose effectiveness is limited; and picking late, leading to vaccine supplies that are insufficient to treat the needed population.

The decision to defer production on one or more of the strains makes sense, says Prof. Kornish, when there's current uncertainty but confidence that more time will lead to more useful information."

___

A) It seems as a step forward the right direction if looking the statement:
"why not include four".

B) But if "include four" would not be decided, remains the statement:
"picking late, leading to vaccine supplies that are insufficient to treat the needed population".
That is not obviously good for the masses of older/chronic/... population.

If A) would not be picked, to evade the bad outcome of the option B), why not produce 2 types of seasonal vaccines in equal (or other X:Y) quantities of 50% of the total needed quantity (or more):
- 50% of type A) vaccine (3 strain, or 4), produced early
- 50% of type B) vaccine (the yet unknown strain) produced later.

That way it would be stocked vaccines early in time for a needed part of the population, and an additional "last minute" stock for the "at most risk" population.
The most at risk can than receive (few weeks after the first shot, or when it would be distributed), this second (more precisely matched) additional vaccine shot.
 
Back
Top