tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Vaccine
. 2024 Jul 5:S0264-410X(24)00748-5.
doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.07.008. Online ahead of print. Cost-effectiveness of recombinant influenza vaccine compared with standard dose influenza vaccine in adults 18-64 years of age
Mary Patricia Nowalk[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Kenneth J Smith[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Jonathan M Raviotta[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Angela Wateska[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Richard K Zimmerman[SUP] 1 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Background: The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) uses the Evidence to Recommendations Framework that includes cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) for determining vaccine recommendations. ACIP's preference for protecting adults ≥ 65 years is enhanced vaccines, including recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), adjuvanted or high dose influenza vaccine. Less is known about the CEA of enhanced vaccines for younger adults.
Methods: We used decision analysis modeling from a societal perspective to determine the cost-effectiveness, measured in quality adjusted life years (QALYs), of RIV4 compared with standard dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine (SD-IIV4) in adults 18-64 years old. Model inputs included 2018-2020 vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates based on medical record data from a large local health system, 2019-2020 national vaccination and influenza epidemic parameters, with costs and population distributions fitted to the season.
Results: Among adults ages 18-64 years, RIV4 cost $94,186/QALY gained, compared to SD-IIV4. Among those 50-64 years old, RIV4 was relatively more cost-effective ($61,329/QALY gained). Cost-effectiveness estimates for 18-64-year-olds were sensitive to the absolute difference in VE between SD-IIV4 and RIV4, among other parameters. Use of RIV4 in 18-64-year-olds would result in fewer cases (669,984), outpatient visits (261,293), hospitalizations (20,046) and deaths (1,018) annually. The majority (59 %; 597 of 1018) of the decreases in deaths occurred in the 50-64-year-olds.
Conclusions: While RIV4 was effective and cost-effective relative to SD-IIV4 for both 50-64-year-old and 18-64-year-old adults, cost-effectiveness was sensitive to small changes in parameters among 18-64-year-olds. Because substantial public health benefits occur with enhanced vaccines, health systems and policy makers may opt for preferential product use in select age/risk groups (e.g., 50-64 year olds) to maximize their cost-benefit ratios.
Keywords: Cost-effectiveness; Hospitalization; Influenza; Recombinant influenza vaccine; Standard dose influenza vaccine.
. 2024 Jul 5:S0264-410X(24)00748-5.
doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.07.008. Online ahead of print. Cost-effectiveness of recombinant influenza vaccine compared with standard dose influenza vaccine in adults 18-64 years of age
Mary Patricia Nowalk[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Kenneth J Smith[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Jonathan M Raviotta[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Angela Wateska[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Richard K Zimmerman[SUP] 1 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 38971665
- DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.07.008
Background: The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) uses the Evidence to Recommendations Framework that includes cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) for determining vaccine recommendations. ACIP's preference for protecting adults ≥ 65 years is enhanced vaccines, including recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), adjuvanted or high dose influenza vaccine. Less is known about the CEA of enhanced vaccines for younger adults.
Methods: We used decision analysis modeling from a societal perspective to determine the cost-effectiveness, measured in quality adjusted life years (QALYs), of RIV4 compared with standard dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine (SD-IIV4) in adults 18-64 years old. Model inputs included 2018-2020 vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates based on medical record data from a large local health system, 2019-2020 national vaccination and influenza epidemic parameters, with costs and population distributions fitted to the season.
Results: Among adults ages 18-64 years, RIV4 cost $94,186/QALY gained, compared to SD-IIV4. Among those 50-64 years old, RIV4 was relatively more cost-effective ($61,329/QALY gained). Cost-effectiveness estimates for 18-64-year-olds were sensitive to the absolute difference in VE between SD-IIV4 and RIV4, among other parameters. Use of RIV4 in 18-64-year-olds would result in fewer cases (669,984), outpatient visits (261,293), hospitalizations (20,046) and deaths (1,018) annually. The majority (59 %; 597 of 1018) of the decreases in deaths occurred in the 50-64-year-olds.
Conclusions: While RIV4 was effective and cost-effective relative to SD-IIV4 for both 50-64-year-old and 18-64-year-old adults, cost-effectiveness was sensitive to small changes in parameters among 18-64-year-olds. Because substantial public health benefits occur with enhanced vaccines, health systems and policy makers may opt for preferential product use in select age/risk groups (e.g., 50-64 year olds) to maximize their cost-benefit ratios.
Keywords: Cost-effectiveness; Hospitalization; Influenza; Recombinant influenza vaccine; Standard dose influenza vaccine.