Dataset Information

Cost effectiveness of vaccination against pandemic influenza in European countries: mathematical modelling analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To investigate whether a single optimal vaccination strategy exists across countries to deal with a future influenza pandemic by comparing the cost effectiveness of different strategies in various pandemic scenarios for three European countries.

Design

Economic and epidemic modelling study.

Settings

General populations in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.

Data sources

Country specific patterns of social contact and demographic data.

Model

An age structured susceptible-exposed-infected-recovered transmission model that describes how an influenza A virus will spread in the populations of Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.

Interventions

Comparison of four vaccination strategies: no vaccination, blanket vaccination, vaccination of elderly people (≥ 65 years), and vaccination of high transmitters (5-19 years). The four strategies were evaluated for scenarios in which a vaccine became available early or at the peak of the pandemic, and in which either everyone was initially susceptible or older age groups had pre-existing immunity.

Main outcome measure

Cost per quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained.

Results

All vaccination strategies were cost effective (incremental cost per QALY gained, comparing intervention with non-intervention). In scenarios where the vaccine became available at the peak of the pandemic and there was pre-existing immunity among elderly people the incremental cost effectiveness ratios for vaccinating high transmitters were €7325 (£5815; $10,470) per QALY gained for Germany, €10,216 per QALY gained for the Netherlands, and €7280 per QALY gained for the United Kingdom. The most cost effective strategy not only differed across the pandemic scenarios but also between countries. Specifically, when the vaccine was available early in the pandemic and there was no pre-existing immunity, in Germany it would be most cost effective to vaccinate elderly people ( €940 per QALY gained), whereas it would be most cost effective to vaccinate high transmitters in both the Netherlands (€525 per QALY gained) and the United Kingdom (€163 per QALY gained). This difference in optimal strategies was due to differences in the demographic characteristics of the countries: Germany has a significantly higher proportion of elderly people compared with the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

Conclusions

No single vaccination strategy was most cost effective across countries. With aging populations, pre-existing immunity in particular could be of crucial importance for the cost effectiveness of options to mitigate a future influenza pandemic.

SUBMITTER: Lugner AK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3395306 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA vaccine matched to a newly emerged pandemic influenza virus would require a production time of at least 6 months with current proven techniques, and so could only be used reactively after the peak of the pandemic. A pre-pandemic vaccine, although probably having lower efficacy, could be produced and used pre-emptively. While several previous studies have investigated the cost effectiveness of pre-emptive vaccination strategies, they have not been directly compared to realistic reactive vaccination strategies.MethodsAn individual-based simulation model of ~30,000 people was used to examine a pre-emptive vaccination strategy, assuming vaccination conducted prior to a pandemic using a low-efficacy vaccine. A reactive vaccination strategy, assuming a 6-month delay between pandemic emergence and availability of a high-efficacy vaccine, was also modelled. Social distancing and antiviral interventions were examined in combination with these alternative vaccination strategies. Moderate and severe pandemics were examined, based on estimates of transmissibility and clinical severity of the 1957 and 1918 pandemics respectively, and the cost effectiveness of each strategy was evaluated.ResultsProvided that a pre-pandemic vaccine achieved at least 30% efficacy, pre-emptive vaccination strategies were found to be more cost effective when compared to reactive vaccination strategies. Reactive vaccination coupled with sustained social distancing and antiviral interventions was found to be as effective at saving lives as pre-emptive vaccination coupled with limited duration social distancing and antiviral use, with both strategies saving approximately 420 life-years per 10,000 population for a moderate pandemic with a basic reproduction number of 1.9 and case fatality rate of 0.25%. Reactive vaccination was however more costly due to larger productivity losses incurred by sustained social distancing, costing $8 million per 10,000 population ($19,074/LYS) versus $6.8 million per 10,000 population ($15,897/LYS) for a pre-emptive vaccination strategy. Similar trends were observed for severe pandemics.ConclusionsCompared to reactive vaccination, pre-emptive strategies would be more effective and more cost effective, conditional on the pre-pandemic vaccine being able to achieve a certain level of coverage and efficacy. Reactive vaccination strategies exist which are as effective at mortality reduction as pre-emptive strategies, though they are less cost effective.

Project description:BackgroundSchistosomiasis is a neglected tropical disease, targeted by the World Health Organization for reduction in morbidity by 2020. It is caused by parasitic flukes that spread through contamination of local water sources. Traditional control focuses on mass drug administration, which kills the majority of adult worms, targeted at school-aged children. However, these drugs do not confer long-term protection and there are concerns over the emergence of drug resistance. The development of a vaccine against schistosomiasis opens the potential for control methods that could generate long-lasting population-level immunity if they are cost-effective.MethodsUsing an individual-based transmission model, matched to epidemiological data, we compared the cost-effectiveness of a range of vaccination programmes against mass drug administration, across three transmission settings. Health benefit was measured by calculating the heavy-intensity infection years averted by each intervention, while vaccine costs were assessed against robust estimates for the costs of mass drug administration obtained from data. We also calculated a critical vaccination cost, a cost beyond which vaccination might not be economically favorable, by benchmarking the cost-effectiveness of potential vaccines against the cost-effectiveness of mass drug administration, and examined the effect of different vaccine protection durations.ResultsWe found that sufficiently low-priced vaccines can be more cost-effective than traditional drugs in high prevalence settings, and can lead to a greater reduction in morbidity over shorter time-scales. MDA or vaccination programmes that target the whole community generate the most health benefits, but are generally less cost-effective than those targeting children, due to lower prevalence of schistosomiasis in adults.ConclusionsThe ultimate cost-effectiveness of vaccination will be highly dependent on multiple vaccine characteristics, such as the efficacy, cost, safety and duration of protection, as well as the subset of population targeted for vaccination. However, our results indicate that if a vaccine could be developed with reasonable characteristics and for a sufficiently low cost, then vaccination programmes can be a highly cost-effective method of controlling schistosomiasis in high-transmission areas. The population-level immunity generated by vaccination will also inevitably improve the chances of interrupting transmission of the disease, which is the long-term epidemiological goal.

Project description:BackgroundPandemic influenza A(H1N1) (pH1N1) was first identified in North America in April 2009. Vaccination against pH1N1 commenced in the U.S. in October 2009 and continued through January 2010. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pH1N1 vaccination.MethodologyA computer simulation model was developed to predict costs and health outcomes for a pH1N1 vaccination program using inactivated vaccine compared to no vaccination. Probabilities, costs and quality-of-life weights were derived from emerging primary data on pH1N1 infections in the US, published and unpublished data for seasonal and pH1N1 illnesses, supplemented by expert opinion. The modeled target population included hypothetical cohorts of persons aged 6 months and older stratified by age and risk. The analysis used a one-year time horizon for most endpoints but also includes longer-term costs and consequences of long-term sequelae deaths. A societal perspective was used. Indirect effects (i.e., herd effects) were not included in the primary analysis. The main endpoint was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in dollars per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.ResultsFor vaccination initiated prior to the outbreak, pH1N1 vaccination was cost-saving for persons 6 months to 64 years under many assumptions. For those without high risk conditions, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from $8,000-$52,000/QALY depending on age and risk status. Results were sensitive to the number of vaccine doses needed, costs of vaccination, illness rates, and timing of vaccine delivery.ConclusionsVaccination for pH1N1 for children and working-age adults is cost-effective compared to other preventive health interventions under a wide range of scenarios. The economic evidence was consistent with target recommendations that were in place for pH1N1 vaccination. We also found that the delays in vaccine availability had a substantial impact on the cost-effectiveness of vaccination.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies have found rotavirus vaccination to be highly cost-effective in low-income countries. However, updated evidence is now available for several inputs (ie, rotavirus disease mortality rates, rotavirus age distributions, vaccine timeliness, and vaccine efficacy by duration of follow-up), new rotavirus vaccines have entered the market, vaccine prices have decreased, and cost-effectiveness thresholds have been re-examined. We aimed to provide updated cost-effectiveness estimates to inform national decisions about the new introduction and current use of rotavirus vaccines in Gavi countries.MethodsWe calculated the potential costs and effects of rotavirus vaccination for ten successive birth cohorts in 73 countries previously and currently eligible for Gavi support, compared with no vaccination. We used a deterministic cohort model to calculate numbers of rotavirus gastroenteritis cases, outpatient visits, hospitalisations, and deaths between birth and 5 years, with and without rotavirus vaccination. We calculated treatment costs from the government and societal perspectives. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (discounted US$ per disability-adjusted life-year averted). Country-specific model input parameters were based on the scientific literature, published meta-analyses, and international databases. We ran deterministic and probabilistic uncertainty analyses.FindingsOver the period 2018-27, rotavirus vaccination has the potential to prevent nearly 600 000 deaths in Gavi countries. Averted outpatient visits and hospitalisations could lead to treatment savings of approximately $484·1 million from the government perspective and $878·0 million from the societal perspective. The discounted dollars per disability-adjusted life-year averted has a very high probability (>90%) of being less than 0·5 times the gross domestic product per capita in 54 countries, and less than 1·0 times gross domestic product per capita in 63 countries.InterpretationRotavirus vaccination continues to represent good value for money across most Gavi countries despite lower rotavirus mortality estimates and more stringent willingness-to-pay thresholds.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the impact of targeted vaccination strategies on morbidity and mortality due to COVID-19, as well as on the incidence of SARS-CoV-2, in India.DesignMathematical modelling.SettingsIndian epidemic of COVID-19 and vulnerable population.Data sourcesCountry-specific and age-segregated pattern of social contact, case fatality rate and demographic data obtained from peer-reviewed literature and public domain.ModelAn age-structured dynamical model describing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in India incorporating uncertainty in natural history parameters was constructed.InterventionsComparison of different vaccine strategies by targeting priority groups such as keyworkers including healthcare professionals, individuals with comorbidities (24-60 years old) and all above 60.Main outcome measuresIncidence reduction and averted deaths in different scenarios, assuming that the current restrictions are fully lifted as vaccination is implemented.ResultsThe priority groups together account for about 18% of India's population. An infection-preventing vaccine with 60% efficacy covering all these groups would reduce peak symptomatic incidence by 20.6% (95% uncertainty intervals (UI) 16.7-25.4) and cumulative mortality by 29.7% (95% CrI 25.8-33.8). A similar vaccine with ability to prevent symptoms (but not infection) will reduce peak incidence of symptomatic cases by 10.4% (95% CrI 8.4-13.0) and cumulative mortality by 32.9% (95% CrI 28.6-37.3). In the event of insufficient vaccine supply to cover all priority groups, model projections suggest that after keyworkers, vaccine strategy should prioritise all who are >60 and subsequently individuals with comorbidities. In settings with weakest transmission, such as sparsely populated rural areas, those with comorbidities should be prioritised after keyworkers.ConclusionsAn appropriately targeted vaccination strategy would witness substantial mitigation of impact of COVID-19 in a country like India with wide heterogeneity. 'Smart vaccination', based on public health considerations, rather than mass vaccination, appears prudent.

Project description:BackgroundChlamydia is the most common sexually transmitted bacterial infection in Scotland, and is associated with potentially serious reproductive outcomes, including pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) and tubal factor infertility (TFI) in women. Chlamydia testing in Scotland is currently targeted towards symptomatic individuals, individuals at high risk of existing undetected infection, and young people. The cost-effectiveness of testing and treatment to prevent PID and TFI in Scotland is uncertain.MethodsA compartmental deterministic dynamic model of chlamydia infection in 15-24 year olds in Scotland was developed. The model was used to estimate the impact of a change in testing strategy from baseline (16.8% overall testing coverage; 0.4 partners notified and tested/treated per treated positive index) on PID and TFI cases. Cost-effectiveness calculations informed by best-available estimates of the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) lost due to PID and TFI were also performed.ResultsIncreasing overall testing coverage by 50% from baseline to 25.2% is estimated to result in 21% fewer cases in young women each year (PID: 703 fewer; TFI: 88 fewer). A 50% decrease to 8.4% would result in 20% more PID (669 additional) and TFI (84 additional) cases occurring annually. The cost per QALY gained of current testing activities compared to no testing is £40,034, which is above the £20,000-£30,000 cost-effectiveness threshold. However, calculations are hampered by lack of reliable data. Any increase in partner notification from baseline would be cost-effective (incremental cost per QALY gained for a partner notification efficacy of 1 compared to baseline: £5,119), and would increase the cost-effectiveness of current testing strategy compared to no testing, with threshold cost-effectiveness reached at a partner notification efficacy of 1.5. However, there is uncertainty in the extent to which partner notification is currently done, and hence the amount by which it could potentially be increased.ConclusionsCurrent chlamydia testing strategy in Scotland is not cost-effective under the conservative model assumptions applied. However, with better data enabling some of these assumptions to be relaxed, current coverage could be cost-effective. Meanwhile, increasing partner notification efficacy on its own would be a cost-effective way of preventing PID and TFI from current strategy.