Source:Vaccine, Volume 36, Issue 7
Author(s): Pieter T. de Boer, Joel K. Kelso, Nilimesh Halder, Thi-Phuong-Lan Nguyen, Jocelyn Moyes, Cheryl Cohen, Ian G. Barr, Maarten J. Postma, George J. Milne
BackgroundTo inform national healthcare authorities whether quadrivalent influenza vaccines (QIVs) provide better value for money than trivalent influenza vaccines (TIVs), we assessed the cost-effectiveness of TIV and QIV in low-and-middle income communities based in South Africa and Vietnam and contrasted these findings with those from a high-income community in Australia.MethodsIndividual based dynamic simulation models were interfaced with a health economic analysis model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of vaccinating 15% of the population with QIV or TIV in each community over the period 2003–2013. Vaccination was prioritized for HIV-infected individuals, before elderly aged 65+ years and young children. Country or region-specific data on influenza-strain circulation, clinical outcomes and costs were obtained from published sources. The societal perspective was used and outcomes were expressed in International$ (I$) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.ResultsWhen compared with TIV, we found that QIV would provide a greater reduction in influenza-related morbidity in communities in South Africa and Vietnam as compared with Australia. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of QIV versus TIV was estimated at I$4183/QALY in South Africa, I$1505/QALY in Vietnam and I$80,966/QALY in Australia.ConclusionsThe cost-effectiveness of QIV varied between communities due to differences in influenza epidemiology, comorbidities, and unit costs. Whether TIV or QIV is the most cost-effective alternative heavily depends on influenza B burden among subpopulations targeted forvaccination in addition to country-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds and budgetary impact.
http://ift.tt/2BOzO24
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου