ObjectiveTo estimate the potential cost-effectiveness of quadrivalent influenza vaccine compared with trivalent influenza vaccine in the UK.MethodsA lifetime, multi-cohort, static Markov model was constructed, with nine age groups each divided into healthy and at-risk categories. Influenza A and B were accounted for separately. The model was run in one-year cycles for a lifetime (maximum age: 100 years). The analysis was from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5%. 2010 UK vaccination policy (vaccination of people at risk and those aged ≥65 years) was applied. Herd effect was not included. Inputs were derived from national databases and published sources where possible. The quadrivalent influenza vaccine price was not available when the study was conducted. It was estimated at £6.72,15% above the trivalent vaccine price of £5.85. Sensitivity analyses used an incremental price of up to 50%.ResultsCompared with trivalent influenza vaccine, the quadrivalent influenza vaccine would be expected to reduce the numbers of influenza cases by 1,393,720, medical visits by 439,852 complications by 167,357, hospitalisations for complications by 26,424 and influenza deaths by 16,471. The estimated base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £5,299/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Sensitivity analyses indicated that the ICER was sensitive to changes in circulation of influenza virus subtypes and vaccine mismatch; all other parameters had little effect. In 96% of simulations the ICER was <£20,000/QALY. Since this analysis was completed, quadrivalent influenza vaccine has become available in the UK at a list price of £9.94. Using this price in the model, the estimated ICER for quadrivalent compared with trivalent vaccination was £27,378/QALY, still within the NICE cost-effectiveness threshold (£20,000-£30,000).ConclusionsQuadrivalent influenza vaccine could reduce influenza disease burden and would be cost-effective compared with trivalent influenza vaccine in elderly people and clinical risk groups in the UK.

BackgroundSeasonal 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.MethodsAn 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.ResultsUsing 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.ConclusionThis 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.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40273-016-0443-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background. Malaria is a major public health burden in sub-Saharan Africa. This study estimated the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of adding four-dose malaria vaccination in infants or children to existing interventions in 41 endemic countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Methods. A static Markov cohort model followed a simulated 2017 birth cohort (36.5 million children) for 15 years in 5-day cycles, comparing three strategies: child vaccination (doses at ages 6, 7.5, 9, and 27 months); infant vaccination (doses at ages 6, 10, and 14 weeks and 21 months); no malaria vaccination. The base-case analysis was conducted from the health system perspective with vaccine price assumed at USD5/dose and annual discounting of 3% for costs and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). Efficacy was based on the Phase III RTS,S clinical trial. Results. The model projected that 24.6 million children, or 26.2 million infants, would be vaccinated. Compared with no vaccination, child (infant) vaccination was projected to avert 16.8 million (16 million) cases of malaria and 113,000 (107,000) malaria deaths in the birth cohort over the 15-year period. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was USD200/DALY averted (USD225/DALY averted) for child (infant) vaccination, which represents 14% (17%) of the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita threshold. The estimated budget impact was overall larger for infant vaccination but mixed situations occurred across countries. Vaccine price, discount rate, and parasite prevalence had the largest effect on cost-effectiveness. Conclusions. Child vaccination with RTS,S would be more cost-effective than infant vaccination across countries. Adding RTS,S malaria vaccination to existing interventions would be cost-effective assuming one GDP per capita threshold for both child and infant vaccination in all examined countries except for 6 countries with lower transmission.

BackgroundAdding malaria vaccination to existing interventions could help to reduce the health burden due to malaria. This study modelled the potential public health impact of the RTS,S candidate malaria vaccine in 42 malaria-endemic countries in sub-Saharan Africa.MethodsAn individual-based Markov cohort model was constructed with three categories of malaria transmission intensity and six successive malaria immunity levels. The cycle time was 5 days. Vaccination was assumed to reduce the risk of infection, with no other effects. Vaccine efficacy was assumed to wane exponentially over time. Malaria incidence and vaccine efficacy data were taken from a Phase III trial of the RTS,S vaccine with 18 months of follow-up (NCT00866619). The model was calibrated to reproduce the malaria incidence in the control arm of the trial in each transmission category and published age distribution data. Individual-level heterogeneity in malaria exposure and vaccine protection was accounted for. Parameter uncertainty and variability were captured by using stochastic model transitions. The model followed a cohort from birth to 10 years of age without malaria vaccination, or with RTS,S malaria vaccination administered at age 6, 10 and 14 weeks or at age 6, 7-and-a-half and 9 months. Median and 95 % confidence intervals were calculated for the number of clinical malaria cases, severe cases, malaria hospitalizations and malaria deaths expected to be averted by each vaccination strategy. Univariate sensitivity analysis was conducted by varying the values of key input parameters.ResultsVaccination assuming the coverage of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP3) at age 6, 10 and 14 weeks is estimated to avert over five million clinical malaria cases, 119,000 severe malaria cases, 98,600 malaria hospitalizations and 31,000 malaria deaths in the 42 countries over the 10-year period. Vaccination at age 6, 7-and-a-half and 9 months with 75 % of DTP3 coverage is estimated to avert almost 12.5 million clinical malaria cases, 250,000 severe malaria cases, 208,000 malaria hospitalizations and 65,400 malaria deaths in the 42 countries. Univariate sensitivity analysis indicated that for both vaccination strategies, the parameters with the largest impact on the malaria mortality estimates were waning of vaccine efficacy and malaria case-fatality rate.ConclusionsAddition of RTS,S malaria vaccination to existing malaria interventions is estimated to reduce substantially the incidence of clinical malaria, severe malaria, malaria hospitalizations and malaria deaths across 42 countries in sub-Saharan Africa.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12936-015-1046-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

All three models predicted a cost per quality-adjusted life year gained for quadrivalent versus trivalent influenza vaccine in the range of R$19,257 (FLORENCE) to R$22,768 (FLORA) with the best available data in Brazil (Appendix A).