tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Pharmacoeconomics. 2016 Sep 19. [Epub ahead of print]
[h=1]Cost-Utility of Quadrivalent Versus Trivalent Influenza Vaccine in Germany, Using an Individual-Based Dynamic Transmission Model.[/h] Dolk C[SUP]1[/SUP], Eichner M[SUP]2,[/SUP][SUP]3[/SUP], Welte R[SUP]4[/SUP], Anastassopoulou A[SUP]4[/SUP], Van Bellinghen LA[SUP]5[/SUP], Poulsen Nautrup B[SUP]6[/SUP], Van Vlaenderen I[SUP]5[/SUP], Schmidt-Ott R[SUP]4,[/SUP][SUP]7[/SUP], Schwehm M[SUP]8[/SUP], Postma M[SUP]9,[/SUP][SUP]10,[/SUP][SUP]11[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]
[h=3]Abstract[/h] [h=4]BACKGROUND:[/h] Seasonal influenza infection is primarily caused by circulation of two influenza A strain subtypes and strains from two B lineages that vary each year. Trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) contains only one of the two B-lineage strains, resulting in mismatches between vaccine strains and the predominant circulating B lineage. Quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV) includes both B-lineage strains. The objective was to estimate the cost-utility of introducing QIV to replace TIV in Germany.
[h=4]METHODS:[/h] An individual-based dynamic transmission model (4Flu) using German data was used to provide realistic estimates of the impact of TIV and QIV on age-specific influenza infections. Cases were linked to health and economic outcomes to calculate the cost-utility of QIV versus TIV, from both a societal and payer perspective. Costs and effects were discounted at 3.0 and 1.5 % respectively, with 2014 as the base year. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h] Using QIV instead of TIV resulted in additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost savings from the societal perspective (i.e. it represents the dominant strategy) and an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of ?14,461 per QALY from a healthcare payer perspective. In all univariate analyses, QIV remained cost-effective (ICUR <?50,000). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, QIV was cost-effective in >98 and >99 % of the simulations from the societal and payer perspective, respectively.
[h=4]CONCLUSION:[/h] This analysis suggests that QIV in Germany would provide additional health gains while being cost-saving to society or costing ?14,461 per QALY gained from the healthcare payer perspective, compared with TIV.
PMID: 27647004 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-016-0443-7
[PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
[h=1]Cost-Utility of Quadrivalent Versus Trivalent Influenza Vaccine in Germany, Using an Individual-Based Dynamic Transmission Model.[/h] Dolk C[SUP]1[/SUP], Eichner M[SUP]2,[/SUP][SUP]3[/SUP], Welte R[SUP]4[/SUP], Anastassopoulou A[SUP]4[/SUP], Van Bellinghen LA[SUP]5[/SUP], Poulsen Nautrup B[SUP]6[/SUP], Van Vlaenderen I[SUP]5[/SUP], Schmidt-Ott R[SUP]4,[/SUP][SUP]7[/SUP], Schwehm M[SUP]8[/SUP], Postma M[SUP]9,[/SUP][SUP]10,[/SUP][SUP]11[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]
[h=3]Abstract[/h] [h=4]BACKGROUND:[/h] Seasonal influenza infection is primarily caused by circulation of two influenza A strain subtypes and strains from two B lineages that vary each year. Trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) contains only one of the two B-lineage strains, resulting in mismatches between vaccine strains and the predominant circulating B lineage. Quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV) includes both B-lineage strains. The objective was to estimate the cost-utility of introducing QIV to replace TIV in Germany.
[h=4]METHODS:[/h] An individual-based dynamic transmission model (4Flu) using German data was used to provide realistic estimates of the impact of TIV and QIV on age-specific influenza infections. Cases were linked to health and economic outcomes to calculate the cost-utility of QIV versus TIV, from both a societal and payer perspective. Costs and effects were discounted at 3.0 and 1.5 % respectively, with 2014 as the base year. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h] Using QIV instead of TIV resulted in additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost savings from the societal perspective (i.e. it represents the dominant strategy) and an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of ?14,461 per QALY from a healthcare payer perspective. In all univariate analyses, QIV remained cost-effective (ICUR <?50,000). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, QIV was cost-effective in >98 and >99 % of the simulations from the societal and payer perspective, respectively.
[h=4]CONCLUSION:[/h] This analysis suggests that QIV in Germany would provide additional health gains while being cost-saving to society or costing ?14,461 per QALY gained from the healthcare payer perspective, compared with TIV.
PMID: 27647004 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-016-0443-7
[PubMed - as supplied by publisher]