Cargando…

Avoiding rash decisions about zoster vaccination: insights from cost-effectiveness evidence

de Boer and colleagues present a cost-effectiveness analysis based in the Netherlands of two vaccines available for the prevention of herpes zoster. Zostavax® was the first vaccine available for the prevention of herpes zoster in older adults. A live-attenuated vaccine, Zostavax is not free of limit...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Good, Chester B., Parekh, Natasha, Hernandez, Inmaculada
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6298010/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30558674
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1231-3
_version_ 1783381246996381696
author Good, Chester B.
Parekh, Natasha
Hernandez, Inmaculada
author_facet Good, Chester B.
Parekh, Natasha
Hernandez, Inmaculada
author_sort Good, Chester B.
collection PubMed
description de Boer and colleagues present a cost-effectiveness analysis based in the Netherlands of two vaccines available for the prevention of herpes zoster. Zostavax® was the first vaccine available for the prevention of herpes zoster in older adults. A live-attenuated vaccine, Zostavax is not free of limitations, which include a relatively low efficacy that wanes over time and its contraindication among immunocompromised individuals. The recently available adjuvanted herpes zoster subunit vaccine Shingrix® overcomes some of these limitations. The herpes zoster subunit vaccine is more efficacious than Zostavax, and it can be administered to immunosuppressed individuals. However, the herpes zoster subunit vaccine is considerably costlier and requires a booster injection. In order to clarify the value of each vaccine, de Boer and colleagues compare the cost-effectiveness of no vaccination, and of vaccination with Zostavax or the herpes zoster subunit vaccine in four cohorts of older adults from the perspective of the Netherlands. Whereas neither vaccine was cost-effective under the willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 per quality-adjusted life year, the authors find the herpes zoster subunit vaccine to be cost-effective in some scenarios under a €50,000 per quality-adjusted life year threshold. Please see related article: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-018-1213-5
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6298010
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62980102018-12-19 Avoiding rash decisions about zoster vaccination: insights from cost-effectiveness evidence Good, Chester B. Parekh, Natasha Hernandez, Inmaculada BMC Med Commentary de Boer and colleagues present a cost-effectiveness analysis based in the Netherlands of two vaccines available for the prevention of herpes zoster. Zostavax® was the first vaccine available for the prevention of herpes zoster in older adults. A live-attenuated vaccine, Zostavax is not free of limitations, which include a relatively low efficacy that wanes over time and its contraindication among immunocompromised individuals. The recently available adjuvanted herpes zoster subunit vaccine Shingrix® overcomes some of these limitations. The herpes zoster subunit vaccine is more efficacious than Zostavax, and it can be administered to immunosuppressed individuals. However, the herpes zoster subunit vaccine is considerably costlier and requires a booster injection. In order to clarify the value of each vaccine, de Boer and colleagues compare the cost-effectiveness of no vaccination, and of vaccination with Zostavax or the herpes zoster subunit vaccine in four cohorts of older adults from the perspective of the Netherlands. Whereas neither vaccine was cost-effective under the willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 per quality-adjusted life year, the authors find the herpes zoster subunit vaccine to be cost-effective in some scenarios under a €50,000 per quality-adjusted life year threshold. Please see related article: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-018-1213-5 BioMed Central 2018-12-18 /pmc/articles/PMC6298010/ /pubmed/30558674 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1231-3 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Commentary
Good, Chester B.
Parekh, Natasha
Hernandez, Inmaculada
Avoiding rash decisions about zoster vaccination: insights from cost-effectiveness evidence
title Avoiding rash decisions about zoster vaccination: insights from cost-effectiveness evidence
title_full Avoiding rash decisions about zoster vaccination: insights from cost-effectiveness evidence
title_fullStr Avoiding rash decisions about zoster vaccination: insights from cost-effectiveness evidence
title_full_unstemmed Avoiding rash decisions about zoster vaccination: insights from cost-effectiveness evidence
title_short Avoiding rash decisions about zoster vaccination: insights from cost-effectiveness evidence
title_sort avoiding rash decisions about zoster vaccination: insights from cost-effectiveness evidence
topic Commentary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6298010/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30558674
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1231-3
work_keys_str_mv AT goodchesterb avoidingrashdecisionsaboutzostervaccinationinsightsfromcosteffectivenessevidence
AT parekhnatasha avoidingrashdecisionsaboutzostervaccinationinsightsfromcosteffectivenessevidence
AT hernandezinmaculada avoidingrashdecisionsaboutzostervaccinationinsightsfromcosteffectivenessevidence