Cost-effectiveness analysis of influenza vaccination during pregnancy in Japan

BackgroundPregnant women and infants are known as high risk groups for influenza. WHO recommend pregnant women be vaccinated with inactivated influenza vaccine. In Japan, some municipalities started to give subsidy to encourage pregnant women to receive a shot on their own accord, which has made the introduction of seasonal antepartum maternal vaccination program (AMVP) into the routine vaccination list a current topic in health policy and has raised the need to evaluate the value for money of such possibility.MethodsWe conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate the efficiency of conducting AMVP in Japan. A decision tree model was adopted taking into consideration the duration of single-year vaccine effectiveness for infants and for mothers. The program targeted pregnant women aged 20–49 years old at or over 12 weeks gestation during October 1 through March 30. Estimated probabilities of treatments received due to influenza for pregnant/postpartum women or their infants varied by calendar time, vaccination status, and/or gestational age. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) compared with current no-AMVP from societal perspective was calculated. Transition probabilities, utility weights to estimate quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and disease treatment costs were either calculated or extracted from literature. Costs per vaccination was assumed at ¥3,529/US$32.1.ResultsAMVP reduces disease treatment costs, while the reduction cannot offset the vaccination cost. Incremental QALYs were at 0.00009, among them 84.2% were from infants. ICER was ¥7,779,356/US$70,721 per QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that vaccine effectiveness for infant and costs per shot were the two main key variables affecting the ICER.ConclusionWe found that vaccinating pregnant women with influenza vaccine to prevent unvaccinated infants and pregnant/postpartum women from influenza-associated disease in Japan can be cost-effective from societal perspective, under the WHO-suggested “cost-effective” criteria (1–3 times of GDP).     

A cost-effectiveness analysis of antenatal influenza vaccination among HIV-infected and HIV-uninfected pregnant women in South Africa

BackgroundPregnant women and infants are at increased risk of severe disease from influenza. Antenatal influenza vaccination is safe and can reduce the risk of illness for women and their infants. We evaluated for South Africa the health effects of antenatal influenza vaccination among pregnant women and their infants aged <6 months old and assessed its cost-effectiveness.MethodsWe constructed a decision tree model to simulate the population of pregnant women and infants aged <6 months in South Africa using TreeAge Pro Suite 2015. The model evaluated the change in societal costs and outcomes associated with a vaccination campaign that prioritized HIV-infected over HIV-uninfected pregnant women compared with no vaccination. We also examined the impacts of a campaign without prioritization. Upper and lower 90% uncertainty intervals (90% UI) were generated using probabilistic sensitivity analysis on 10000 Monte Carlo simulations. The cost-effectiveness threshold was set to the 2015 per capita gross domestic product of South Africa, US$5724.ResultsAntenatal vaccination with prioritization averted 9070 (90% UI: 7407–11217) total cases of influenza among pregnant women and infants, including 411 (90% UI: 305–546) hospitalizations and 30 (90% UI: 22–40) deaths. This corresponds to an averted fraction of 13.5% (90% UI: 9.0–20.5%). Vaccinating without prioritization averted 7801 (90% UI: 6465–9527) cases of influenza, including 335 (90% UI: 254–440) hospitalizations and 24 (90% UI: 18–31) deaths. This corresponds to an averted fraction of 11.6% (90% UI: 7.8–17.4%). Vaccinating the cohort of pregnant women with prioritization had societal cost of $4689 (90% UI: $3128–$7294) per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gained while vaccinating without prioritization had a cost of $5924 (90% UI: $3992–$9056) per QALY.ConclusionsAntenatal influenza vaccination campaigns in South Africa would reduce the impact of influenza and could be cost-effective.     

Cost-effectiveness of seasonal inactivated influenza vaccination among pregnant women

ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of seasonal inactivated influenza vaccination among pregnant women using data from three recent influenza seasons in the United States.Design, setting, and participantsWe developed a decision-analytic model following a cohort of 5.2 million pregnant women and their infants aged <6 months to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of vaccinating women against seasonal influenza during pregnancy from a societal perspective. The main outcome measures were quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and cost-effectiveness ratios. Data sources included surveillance data, epidemiological studies, and published vaccine cost data. Sensitivity analyses were also performed. All costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually.Main outcome measuresTotal costs (direct and indirect), effects (QALY gains, averted case numbers), and incremental cost-effectiveness of seasonal inactivated influenza vaccination among pregnant women (cost per QALY gained).ResultsUsing a recent benchmark of 52.2% vaccination coverage among pregnant women, we studied a hypothetical cohort of 2,753,015 vaccinated pregnant women. With an estimated vaccine effectiveness of 73% among pregnant women and 63% among infants <6 months, QALY gains for each season were 305 (2010–2011), 123 (2011–2012), and 610 (2012–2013). Compared with no vaccination, seasonal influenza vaccination during pregnancy was cost-saving when using data from the 2010–2011 and 2012–2013 influenza seasons. The cost-effectiveness ratio was greater than $100,000/QALY with the 2011–2012 influenza season data, when CDC reported a low attack rate compared to other recent seasons.ConclusionsInfluenza vaccination for pregnant women can reduce morbidity from influenza in both pregnant women and their infants aged <6 months. Seasonal influenza vaccination during pregnancy is cost-saving during moderate to severe influenza seasons.     

Cost-effectiveness of routine annual influenza vaccination by age and risk status

BackgroundThe epidemiology of circulating seasonal influenza strains changed following the 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1). A universal influenza vaccination recommendation has been implemented and new vaccine types have become available post-2009. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of routine annual influenza vaccination in the context of this new evidence.MethodsA state transition simulation model was constructed to estimate the health and economic outcomes of influenza vaccination compared to no vaccination for hypothetical US cohorts stratified by age and risk status. Model input parameters were derived from multiple sources, including post-2009 vaccine effectiveness data from the US Flu Vaccine Effectiveness Network. The analysis used societal and healthcare sector perspectives and a one-year time horizon, except permanent outcomes were also included. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in dollars per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained.ResultsCompared to no vaccination, vaccination yielded ICERs lower than $95,000/QALY for all age and risk groups, except for non-high-risk adults 18–49 years ($194,000/QALY). Vaccination was cost-saving for adults ≥50 years at higher risk for influenza-related complications. Results were most sensitive to changes in the probability of influenza illness. Performing the analysis from the healthcare sector perspective, excluding vaccination time costs, delivering vaccinations in lower-cost settings, and including productivity losses improved the cost-effectiveness of vaccination. Sensitivity analysis revealed that vaccination remains below $100,000/QALY for older persons ≥65 years at vaccine effectiveness estimates as low as 4 %.ConclusionsCost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination varied by age and risk status and was less than $95,000/QALY for all subgroups, except for non-high-risk working-age adults. Results were sensitive to the probability of influenza illness and vaccination was more favorable under certain scenarios. Vaccination for higher risk subgroups resulted in ICERs below $100,000/QALY even at low levels of vaccine effectiveness or circulating virus.     

Health benefits, risks, and cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination of children

We estimated cost-effectiveness of annually vaccinating children not at high risk with inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) to range from US $12,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) saved for children ages 6-23 months to $119,000 per QALY saved for children ages 12-17 years. For children at high risk (preexisting medical conditions) ages 6-35 months, vaccination with IIV was cost saving. For children at high risk ages 3-17 years, vaccination cost $1,000-$10,000 per QALY. Among children notat high risk ages 5-17 years, live, attenuated influenza vaccine had a similar cost-effectiveness as IIV. Risk status was more important than age in determining the economic effects of annual vaccination, and vaccination was less cost-effective as the child's age increased. Thus, routine vaccination of all children is likely less cost-effective than vaccination of all children ages 6-23 months plus all other children at high risk.     

The cost-effectiveness of a universal influenza vaccination program for adults aged 50-64 years in Australia

Currently the Australian government funds universal influenza vaccine for all those aged > or =65 years under the National Immunisation Program (NIP). Annual vaccination rates in those aged 50-64 years are significantly lower than vaccination rates in those aged > or =65 years, and currently less than half those at high-risk of influenza-related complications aged 50-64 years are immunised. This study used a decision tree model to examine the cost-effectiveness of lowering the age threshold for the influenza NIP in Australia to include those aged 50-64 years. From a healthcare payer perspective, a new influenza vaccination policy would cost $8908/QALY gained. From a societal perspective, a new influenza vaccination policy would cost $8338/QALY gained. From a governmental perspective, a new influenza vaccination policy would cost $22,408/QALY gained. The most influential parameters in deterministic sensitivity analysis included: probability of death due to influenza, vaccine efficacy against mortality, vaccine uptake, vaccine cost, and vaccine administration cost. Influenza vaccination for people aged 50-64 years appears highly cost-effective, and should be a strong candidate for funding under the NIP.     

The cost effectiveness of influenza vaccination for adults aged 50 to 64 years: a model-based analysis for Spain

An economic evaluation of reducing the age threshold for routine influenza vaccination in Spain from 65 to 50 years was performed. A probabilistic model was used to compare a policy based on a recommendation to vaccinate all adults aged 50-64 with the existing vaccination policy for that age group, during interpandemic periods. Two perspectives were considered: third-party payer (TPP) and societal. Model inputs were obtained primarily from the published literature and validated through expert opinion. From TPP perspective, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated at euro14,919 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and euro9731 per life-year gained. From societal perspective, the corresponding results were euro4149 per QALY and euro2706 per life-year gained. Extending routine influenza vaccination to people over 50 years of age is likely to be cost-effective.     

Cost-effectiveness of pediatric norovirus vaccination in daycare settings

ObjectiveNoroviruses are the leading cause of acute gastroenteritis in the United States and outbreaks frequently occur in daycare settings. Results of norovirus vaccine trials have been promising, however there are open questions as to whether vaccination of daycare children would be cost-effective. We investigated the incremental cost-effectiveness of a hypothetical norovirus vaccination for children in daycare settings compared to no vaccination.MethodsWe conducted a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis using a disease transmission model of children attending daycare. Vaccination with a 90% coverage rate in addition to the observed standard of care (exclusion of symptomatic children from daycare) was compared to the observed standard of care. The main outcomes measures were infections and deaths averted, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Cost-effectiveness was analyzed from a societal perspective, including medical costs to children as well as productivity losses of parents, over a two-year time horizon. Data sources included outbreak surveillance data and published literature.ResultsA 50% efficacious norovirus vaccine averts 571.83 norovirus cases and 0.003 norovirus-related deaths per 10,000 children compared to the observed standard of care. A $200 norovirus vaccine that is 50% efficacious has a net cost increase of $178.10 per child and 0.025 more QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $7,028/QALY. Based on the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, we estimated that a $200 vaccination with 50% efficacy was 94.0% likely to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000/QALY threshold and 95.3% likely at a $150,000/QALY threshold.ConclusionDue to the large disease burden associated with norovirus, it is likely that vaccinating children in daycares could be cost-effective, even with modest vaccine efficacy and a high per-child cost of vaccination. Norovirus vaccination of children in daycare has a cost-effectiveness ratio similar to other commonly recommended childhood vaccines.     

Cost-effectiveness of introducing an MF59-adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine for older adults in Argentina

IntroductionInfluenza surveillance in Argentina reported influenza-like illness at a rate of 3500/100,000, a hospitalization rate of 15.5/100,000, and a death rate of 0.32/100,000 annually in adults aged over 65 years. The high burden of disease may be due to a combination of immunosenescence and the suboptimal clinical effectiveness of conventional, non-adjuvanted influenza vaccines in this age group. There is a clinical need for more effective influenza vaccines in this population. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of an MF59®-adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine (aTIV) in adults aged over 65 years in Argentina compared with the non-adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) used under the current national vaccination policy.MethodsA decision tree cost-effectiveness model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of switching from TIV to aTIV in Argentinian older adults. The model compared cost and health benefits of vaccination in one influenza season from the payer perspective. The main predictions included survival, quality-adjusted survival, and costs. Model inputs were sourced from Argentina or internationally where local data was considered inaccurate. Vaccine efficacy assumptions were extracted from recently published, peer-reviewed scientific literature.ResultsSwitching from TIV to aTIV would result in 170 deaths averted and 1310 incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY was US $2660.59 from the payer perspective. In all sensitivity analyses, aTIV remained highly cost-effective. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed a 95% CI per QALY of US $113.74–7721.67.ConclusionIntroducing an adjuvanted influenza vaccine in Argentina is potentially beneficial and cost-effective relative to the currently-used TIV through the reduction of disease burden and utilization of healthcare resources.     

The cost-effectiveness of trivalent and quadrivalent influenza vaccination in communities in South Africa,Vietnam and Australia

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 for vaccination in addition to country-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds and budgetary impact.     

Impact of transmission dynamics on the cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination

The objective of this study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of mass vaccination of US infants with the recently available rotavirus vaccine, RotaTeq. We developed a dynamic transmission model of rotavirus to incorporate herd immunity into cost-effectiveness analysis. Our study indicates that a rotavirus vaccination program would prevent about 90% of rotavirus incidence, mortality, hospitalization and emergency department visits annually. We conclude that a universal rotavirus vaccine program in the US would cost $77.30 per case averted from the health care and give a net saving of $80.75 per case averted from the societal perspectives, respectively. The cost per QALY gained was found to be $104,610 when we considered child with one caregiver, making the rotavirus vaccination program a cost-effective intervention.     

Economic evaluation of infant and adolescent hepatitis B vaccination in the UK

A Markov model of hepatitis B virus (HBV) disease progression in the UK estimated that 81% of predicted HBV-associated morbidity and mortality could be prevented by universal infant vaccination at a cost of approximately £260,000 per QALY gained.Universal adolescent vaccination would be less effective (45% prevented) and less cost-effective (£493,000 per QALY gained). Higher HBV incidence rates in males and intermediate/high risk ethnic populations meant it was approximately 3 times more cost-effective to vaccinate these groups. At current vaccine costs a selective infant vaccination programme, based on vaccinating intermediate/high risk ethnic populations would not be considered cost effective.The threshold cost per vaccinated child at which the programme would be considered cost-effective was investigated. Universal infant vaccination would be cost-effective if the average cost of vaccinating each child against HBV, including vaccine and administration costs of all doses, was less than £4.09. Given the low cost of vaccination required to make a universal programme cost-effective the most feasible policy in the UK would be to use a suitably priced combined vaccine that included the other antigens in the current infant vaccination schedule.     

Evaluating the benefits of increasing measles immunization rates

OBJECTIVE: To calculate the cost-effectiveness, expressed in dollars per quality-adjusted life years (QALY), of increasing measles immunization rates. DATA SOURCES/STUDY DESIGN: Published data were supplemented by expert opinion. We determined the cost savings and value of the health benefits from averting a single case of measles. Next we examined the U. S. data regarding the relationship between pre-school measles immunization and incidence rates. Finally, we calculated the cost-effectiveness of a program that would increase a locality's immunization rate to the point of disease elimination. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Averting a single case of measles, using "base case" assumptions, yields societal cost savings of $2,089 and an increase of 0.086 QALYs. Using a very low discount rate increases the total benefits to $2,251 in societal cost savings and 0.150 QALYs in health benefits. In general, programs to raise measles immunization rates are not cost-effective, except possibly during an outbreak of the disease or in areas with very low immunization rates. The extremely low measles incidence rates in the mid-1990s result in such programs having extremely high costs per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Programs that are narrowly designed to increase immunization rates alone are not likely to be cost-effective. Yet these programs do have the potential to be cost-effective if the program design and evaluation also recognize the benefits associated with the primary and preventive care that can accompany immunizations. Such programs may also be cost-effective if they are components of a global eradication of measles.     

The cost-effectiveness of vaccinating pregnant women against seasonal influenza in England and Wales

We assessed the cost-effectiveness of vaccinating pregnant women against seasonal influenza in England and Wales, taking into account the timing of vaccination relative to both the influenza season and trimester of pregnancy. Women were assumed to be vaccinated in their second or third trimester. Vaccination between September and December was found to have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £23,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) (95% CI £10,000-£140,000) if it is assumed that infants are partially protected through their mothers, and of £28,000 per QALY gained (95% CI £13,000-£200,000) if infants are not protected. If some vaccine protection lasts for a second season, then the ratio is only £15,000 per QALY gained (95% CI £6,000-£93,000). Most of the benefit of vaccination is in preventing symptomatic episodes, regardless of health care resource use. Extending vaccination beyond December is unlikely to be cost-effective unless there is good protection into a second influenza season. Key sources of uncertainty are the cost of vaccine delivery and the quality of life detriment due to a clinically apparent episode of confirmed influenza. The cost of vaccine purchase itself is relatively low.     

Cost-effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccination in pregnant women,health care workers and persons with underlying illnesses in Belgium

Risk groups with increased vulnerability for influenza complications such as pregnant women, persons with underlying illnesses as well as persons who come into contact with them, such as health care workers, are currently given priority (along with other classic target groups) to receive seasonal influenza vaccination in Belgium. We aimed to evaluate this policy from a health care payer perspective by cost-effectiveness analysis in the three specific target groups above, while accounting for effects beyond the target group. Increasing the coverage of influenza vaccination is likely to be cost-effective for pregnant women (median €6589 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained [€4073–€10,249]) and health care workers (median €24,096/QALY gained [€16,442–€36,342]), if this can be achieved without incurring additional administration costs. Assuming an additional physician's consult is charged to administer each additional vaccine dose, the cost-effectiveness of vaccinating pregnant women depends strongly on the extent of its impact on the neonate's health. For health care workers, the assumed number of preventable secondary infections has a strong influence on the cost-effectiveness. Vaccinating people with underlying illnesses is likely highly cost-effective above 50 years of age and borderline cost-effective for younger persons, depending on relative life expectancy and vaccine efficacy in this risk group compared to the general population. The case-fatality ratios of the target group, of the secondary affected groups and vaccine efficacy are key sources of uncertainty.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pertussis vaccination during pregnancy in Japan

BackgroundBoth re-emergence of pertussis outbreak among adolescents/adults and recent approval of the extended use of DTaP vaccine for boosting adolescents/adults against pertussis in Japan, have raised the possibility of using aP-containing vaccine in pregnant women to protect neonates and unvaccinated infants. There is a need, therefore, to evaluate the value for money of such possibility.MethodsWe evaluated the cost-effectiveness of conducting antepartum maternal vaccination (AMV) strategy in Japan. Considering the duration of vaccine effectiveness for infant (single year) and for mother (multiple years), the decision tree model and Markov model was adapted for infant and mother, respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) compared with current no AMV strategy from societal perspective were calculated. The transition probabilities, utility weights to estimate quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and disease treatment costs were either calculated or extracted from literature. Costs per vaccination was assumed at ¥6000/US$54.5. Markov model for mothers with one-year cycle runs up to year four after vaccination, based on the waning of vaccine effectiveness. Infant who survived from pertussis was assumed to live until to his/her life expectancy.ResultsAMV strategy reduces disease treatment costs, while the reduction cannot offset the vaccination cost. Incremental QALYs were at 0.0002802, among them 79.5% were from infants, and others from mothers. ICER was ¥9,149,317/US$83,176 per QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analyses identified that the incidence rate and costs per shot were the two main key variables to impact the ICER.ConclusionWe found that vaccinating pregnant women with aP-containing vaccine to prevent neonatal and unvaccinated infants from pertussis-associated disease in Japan can be cost-effective from societal perspective, under the WHO-suggested “cost-effective” criteria (1 to 3 times of GDP). Pertussis is expected be designated as a notifiable disease in 2018, re-analysis should be conducted when straightforward incidence data is available.     

Estimating the cost-effectiveness of a national program to eliminate disparities in influenza vaccination rates among elderly minority groups

Influenza is a major cause of preventable morbidity and mortality in the United States, particularly among the elderly. Yet, there remain large disparities in influenza vaccination rates across elderly Caucasian (70%), African-American (50%) and Hispanic (55%) populations, with substantial mortality consequences. In this study, we built a decision-analysis model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a hypothetical national vaccination program designed to eliminate these disparities in influenza vaccination rates. Taking a societal perspective, we developed a Markov model with a one-year cycle length and lifetime time horizon. In the base case, we conservatively assumed that the cost of promoting the vaccination program was $10 per targeted elder per year and that by year 10, the vaccination rate of the elderly African-American and Hispanic populations would equal the vaccination rate of the elderly Caucasian population (70%). The cost-effectiveness of the vaccination program compared to no vaccination program was $48,617 per QALY saved. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY saved, the likelihood of the vaccination program being cost-effective was 38% and 92%, respectively. In an analysis using conservative assumptions, we found that a hypothetical program to ameliorate disparities in influenza vaccination rates has a moderate to high likelihood of being cost-effective.     

Cost-effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccination in pregnant women,healthcare workers and adults >= 60 years of age in Lao People’s Democratic Republic

BackgroundPregnant women, healthcare workers (HW), and adults >= 60 years have shown an increased vulnerability to seasonal influenza virus infections and/or complications. In 2012, the Lao People's Democratic Republic (Lao PDR) initiated a national influenza vaccination program for these target groups. A cost-effectiveness evaluation of this program was undertaken to inform program sustainability.MethodsWe designed a decision-analytical model and collected influenza-related medical resource utilization and cost data, including indirect costs. Model inputs were obtained from medical record abstraction, interviews of patients and staff at hospitals in the national influenza sentinel surveillance system and/or from literature reviews. We compared the annual disease and economic impact of influenza illnesses in each of the target groups in Lao PDR under scenarios of no vaccination and vaccination, and then estimated the cost-effectiveness of the vaccination program. We performed sensitivity analyses to identify influential variables.ResultsOverall, the vaccination of pregnant women, HWs, and adults >= 60 years could annually save 11,474 doctor visits, 1,961 days of hospitalizations, 43,027 days of work, and 1,416 life-years due to laboratory-confirmed influenza illness. After comparing the total vaccination program costs of 23.4 billion Kip, to the 18.4 billion Kip saved through vaccination, we estimated the vaccination program to incur a net cost of five billion Kip (599,391 USD) annually. The incremental cost per life-year saved (ICER) was 44 million Kip (5,295 USD) and 6.9 million Kip (825 USD) for pregnant women and adults >= 60 years, respectively. However, vaccinating HWs provided societal cost-savings, returning 2.88 Kip for every single Kip invested. Influenza vaccine effectiveness, attack rate and illness duration were the most influential variables to the model.ConclusionProviding influenza vaccination to HWs in Lao PDR is cost-saving while vaccinating pregnant women and adults >= 60 is cost-effective and highly cost-effective, respectively, per WHO standards.     

A cost-effectiveness analysis of South Africa’s seasonal influenza vaccination programme

BackgroundSeasonal influenza imposes a significant health and economic burden in South Africa, particularly in populations vulnerable to severe consequences of influenza. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of South Africa’s seasonal influenza vaccination strategy, which involves vaccinating vulnerable populations with trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) during routine facility visits. Vulnerable populations included in our analysis are persons aged ≥ 65 years; pregnant women; persons living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA), persons of any age with underlying medical conditions (UMC) and children aged 6–59 months.MethodWe employed the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) Cost Effectiveness Tool for Seasonal Influenza Vaccination (CETSIV), a decision tree model, to evaluate the 2018 seasonal influenza vaccination campaign from a public healthcare provider and societal perspective. CETSIV was populated with existing country-specific demographic, epidemiologic and coverage data to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) by comparing costs and benefits of the influenza vaccination programme to no vaccination.ResultsThe highest number of clinical events (influenza cases, outpatient visits, hospitalisation and deaths) were averted in PLWHA and persons with other UMCs. Using a cost-effectiveness threshold of US$ 3 400 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), our findings suggest that the vaccination programme is cost-effective for all vulnerable populations except for children aged 6–59 months. ICERs ranged from ~US$ 1 750 /QALY in PLWHA to ~US$ 7 500/QALY in children. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the vaccination programme was cost-effective in pregnant women, PLWHA, persons with UMCs and persons aged ≥65 years in >80% of simulations. These findings were robust to changes in many model inputs but were most sensitive to uncertainty in estimates of influenza-associated illness burden.ConclusionSouth Africa's seasonal influenza vaccination strategy of opportunistically targeting vulnerable populations during routine visits is cost-effective. A budget impact analysis will be useful for supporting future expansions of the programme.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Routine Childhood Vaccination Against Seasonal Influenza in Germany

ObjectivesIn Germany, routine influenza vaccination with quadrivalent influenza vaccines (QIV) is recommended and reimbursed for individuals ≥60 years of age and individuals with underlying chronic conditions. The present study examines the cost-effectiveness of a possible extension of the recommendation to include strategies of childhood vaccination against seasonal influenza using QIV.MethodsA dynamic transmission model was used to examine the epidemiological impact of different childhood vaccination strategies. The outputs were used in a health economic decision tree to calculate the costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from a societal and a third-party payer (TPP) perspective. Strain-specific epidemiology, vaccine uptake, and vaccine efficacy data from the 10 non-pandemic seasons from 2003/2004 to 2013/2014 were used, and cost data were drawn mainly from a health insurance claims data analysis and supplemented by estimates from literature. Uncertainty is explored via scenario, deterministic, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.ResultsVaccinating 2- to 9-year-olds with QIV assuming a vaccine uptake of 40% is cost-saving with a benefit–cost ratio of 1.66 from a societal perspective and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €998/QALY from a TPP perspective. Lower and higher vaccine uptakes show marginal effects, while extending the target group to 2- to 17-year-olds further increases the health benefits while still being below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Assuming no vaccine-induced herd protection has a negative effect on the cost-effectiveness ratio, but childhood vaccination remains cost-effective.ConclusionRoutine childhood vaccination against seasonal influenza in Germany is most likely to be cost-saving from a societal perspective and highly cost-effective from a TPP perspective.