Cargando…

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

BACKGROUND: To 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 c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: de Boer, Pieter T., Kelso, Joel K., Halder, Nilimesh, Nguyen, Thi-Phuong-Lan, Moyes, Jocelyn, Cohen, Cheryl, Barr, Ian G., Postma, Maarten J., Milne, George J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier Science 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5805858/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29373192
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.12.073
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: To 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. METHODS: Individual 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. RESULTS: When 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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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.