Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vaccines were crucial in controlling the Covid-19 pandemic. As more vaccines receive regulatory approval, stakeholders will be faced with several options and must make an appropriate choice for themselves. We proposed a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework to guide decision-makers in comparing vaccines for the Indian context. METHODS: We adhered to the ISPOR guidance for the MCDA process. Seven vaccine options were compared under ten criteria. Through three virtual workshops, we obtained opinions and weights from citizens, private-sector hospitals, and public health organisations. Available evidence was rescaled and incorporated into the performance matrix. The final score for each vaccine was calculated for the different groups. We performed different sensitivity analyses to assess the consistency of the rank list. RESULTS: The cost, efficacy and operational score of the vaccines had the highest weights among the stakeholders. From the six scenario groups, Janssen had the highest score in four. This was driven by the advantage of having a single dose of vaccination. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis for the overall group, Covaxin, Janssen, and Sputnik were the first three options. The participants expressed that availability, WHO approvals and safety, among others, would be crucial when considering vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: The MCDA process has not been capitalised on in healthcare decision-making in India and LMICs. Considering the available data and stakeholder preference at the time of the study, Covaxin, Janssen, and Sputnik were preferred options. The choice framework with the dynamic performance matrix is a valuable tool that could be adapted to different population groups and extended based on increasing vaccine options and emerging evidence. *ISPOR - The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research.