23 research outputs found

    Economic evaluation of rotavirus vaccination:an important step of the introduction to the national immunization program in Thailand

    Get PDF
    Introduction World Health Organization recommends rotavirus vaccine for all national immunization programs (NIPs). To provide country-specific evidence, we conducted economic evaluation of a monovalent rotavirus vaccination using specific data of the pilot phase in Thailand. Method A Markov model was adopted to compare the 2020 birth cohort once receiving rotavirus vaccination versus no vaccination from healthcare and societal perspective over five years. Data on disease burden, vaccine effectiveness, costs, and utilities were taken from a cohort study in two provinces of Thailand. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results. Results Rotavirus vaccination would reduce rotavirus diarrhea and costs of illness by 48% and 71%, respectively, over the first five years of life. At USD 13 per dose, vaccine was cost-effective with the ICERs of USD 4,114 and USD 1,571per QALY gained from healthcare and societal perspective, respectively. Results were sensitive to incidence and vaccine cost. The budget for vaccine purchasing was estimated at USD13 million per year. Conclusion Incorporating rotavirus vaccination into the NIP substantially reduced health and cost outcomes and was cost-effective for both perspectives. However, the government needs to negotiate vaccine price prior to program implementation to achieve favorable budget impact

    Human papillomavirus vaccine introduction in low-income and middle-income countries: guidance on the use of cost-effectiveness models

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that the cost effectiveness of introducing human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is considered before such a strategy is implemented. However, developing countries often lack the technical capacity to perform and interpret results of economic appraisals of vaccines. To provide information about the feasibility of using such models in a developing country setting, we evaluated models of HPV vaccination in terms of their capacity, requirements, limitations and comparability. METHODS: A literature review identified six HPV vaccination models suitable for low-income and middle-income country use and representative of the literature in terms of provenance and model structure. Each model was adapted by its developers using standardised data sets representative of two hypothetical developing countries (a low-income country with no screening and a middle-income country with limited screening). Model predictions before and after vaccination of adolescent girls were compared in terms of HPV prevalence and cervical cancer incidence, as was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of vaccination under different scenarios. RESULTS: None of the models perfectly reproduced the standardised data set provided to the model developers. However, they agreed that large decreases in type 16/18 HPV prevalence and cervical cancer incidence are likely to occur following vaccination. Apart from the Thai model (in which vaccine and non-vaccine HPV types were combined), vaccine-type HPV prevalence dropped by 75% to 100%, and vaccine-type cervical cancer incidence dropped by 80% to 100% across the models (averaging over age groups). The most influential factors affecting cost effectiveness were the discount rate, duration of vaccine protection, vaccine price and HPV prevalence. Demographic change, access to treatment and data resolution were found to be key issues to consider for models in developing countries. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated the usefulness of considering results from several models and sets of modelling assumptions in decision making. Modelling groups were prepared to share their models and expertise to work with stakeholders in developing countries. Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/9/55

    Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Preparedness Strategies and Interventions against Influenza Pandemics

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Although public health guidelines have implications for resource allocation, these issues were not explicitly considered in previous WHO pandemic preparedness and response guidance. In order to ensure a thorough and informed revision of this guidance following the H1N1 2009 pandemic, a systematic review of published and unpublished economic evaluations of preparedness strategies and interventions against influenza pandemics was conducted. METHODS: The search was performed in September 2011 using 10 electronic databases, 2 internet search engines, reference list screening, cited reference searching, and direct communication with relevant authors. Full and partial economic evaluations considering both costs and outcomes were included. Conversely, reviews, editorials, and studies on economic impact or complications were excluded. Studies were selected by 2 independent reviewers. RESULTS: 44 studies were included. Although most complied with the cost effectiveness guidelines, the quality of evidence was limited. However, the data sources used were of higher quality in economic evaluations conducted after the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Vaccination and drug regimens were varied. Pharmaceutical plus non-pharmaceutical interventions are relatively cost effective in comparison to vaccines and/or antivirals alone. Pharmaceutical interventions vary from cost saving to high cost effectiveness ratios. According to ceiling thresholds (Gross National Income per capita), the reduction of non-essential contacts and the use of pharmaceutical prophylaxis plus the closure of schools are amongst the cost effective strategies for all countries. However, quarantine for household contacts is not cost effective even for low and middle income countries. CONCLUSION: The available evidence is generally inconclusive regarding the cost effectiveness of preparedness strategies and interventions against influenza pandemics. Studies on their effectiveness and cost effectiveness should be readily implemented in forthcoming events that also involve the developing world. Guidelines for assessing the impact of disease and interventions should be drawn up to facilitate these studies

    Incorporating economies of scale in the cost estimation in economic evaluation of PCV and HPV vaccination programmes in the Philippines: a game changer?

    No full text
    Abstract Background Many economic evaluations ignore economies of scale in their cost estimation, which means that cost parameters are assumed to have a linear relationship with the level of production. Economies of scale is the situation when the average total cost of producing a product decreases with increasing volume caused by reducing the variable costs due to more efficient operation. This study investigates the significance of applying the economies of scale concept: the saving in costs gained by an increased level of production in economic evaluation of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV) and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations. Methods The fixed and variable costs of providing partial (20% coverage) and universal (100% coverage) vaccination programs in the Philippines were estimated using various methods, including costs of conducting questionnaire survey, focus-group discussion, and analysis of secondary data. Costing parameters were utilised as inputs for the two economic evaluation models for PCV and HPV. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and 5-year budget impacts with and without applying economies of scale to the costing parameters for partial and universal coverage were compared in order to determine the effect of these different costing approaches. Results The program costs of the partial coverage for the two immunisation programs were not very different when applying and not applying the economies of scale concept. Nevertheless, the program costs for universal coverage were 0.26 and 0.32 times lower when applying economies of scale compared to not applying economies of scale for the pneumococcal and human papillomavirus vaccinations, respectively. ICERs varied by up to 98% for pneumococcal vaccinations, whereas the change in ICERs in the human papillomavirus vaccination depended on both the costs of cervical cancer screening and the vaccination program. This results in a significant difference in the 5-year budget impact, accounting for 30 and 40% of reduction in the 5-year budget impact for the pneumococcal and human papillomavirus vaccination programs. Conclusions This study demonstrated the feasibility and importance of applying economies of scale in the cost estimation in economic evaluation, which would lead to different conclusions in terms of value for money regarding the interventions, particularly with population-wide interventions such as vaccination programs. The economies of scale approach to costing is recommended for the creation of methodological guidelines for conducting economic evaluations

    Economic evaluation of multiple-pharmacogenes testing for the prevention of adverse drug reactions in people living with HIV

    Get PDF
    Purpose: Pharmacogenetics (PGx) testing is one of the methods for determining whether individuals are at risk of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). It has been reported that multiple-PGx testing, a sequencing technology, has a higher predictive value than single-PGx testing. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the most cost-effective PGx testing strategies for preventing drug-induced serious ADRs in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients. Patients and Methods: Potential strategies, including 1) single-PGx esting (ie, HLA-B*57:01 testing before prescribing abacavir, HLA-B*13:01 testing before prescribing co-trimoxazole and dapsone, and NAT2 testing before prescribing isoniazid) and 2) multiple-PGx testing as a combination of four single-gene PGx tests in one panel, were all compared to no PGx testing (current practice). To evaluate total cost in Thai baht (THB) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each strategy-based approach to a societal perspective, a hybrid decision tree and Markov model was constructed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. Uncertainty, threshold, and scenario analyses were all performed. Results: Before prescribing HIV therapy, providing single or multiple-PGx testing might save roughly 68 serious ADRs per year, and the number needed to screen (NNS) to avoid one serious ADR was 40. Consequently, approximately 35% and 40% of the cost of ADR treatment could be avoided by the implementation of single- and multiple-PGx testing, respectively. Compared with no PGx testing strategy, the ICERs were 146,319 THB/QALY gained for single-PGx testing and 152,014 THB/QALY gained for multiple-PGx testing. Moreover, the probability of multiple-PGx testing being cost-effective was 45% at the Thai willingness to pay threshold of 160,000 THB per QALY. Threshold analyses showed that multiple-PGx testing remained cost-effective under the range of cost, sensitivity at 0.95– 1.00 and specificity at 0.98– 1.00. Conclusion: Single and multiple-PGx testing might be cost-effective options for reducing the incidence of drug-induced serious ADRs in people living with HIV

    Cost-effectiveness plane, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, and cost-effectiveness acceptability frontiers.

    No full text
    <p>(A) Cost-effectiveness plane showing samples from the posterior distributions of DALYs averted and incremental costs for the seven vaccination policies compared with no vaccination under base case assumptions. Points to the right of the solid red line (which corresponds to a threshold of I$10,000 per DALY averted) would be considered highly cost-effective compared with no vaccination in Thailand according to the WHO threshold [<a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001829#pmed.1001829.ref044" target="_blank">44</a>]. (B) CEACs under base case assumptions. (C–K) CEAFs under base case assumptions and for eight sensitivity analyses.</p

    Prior distributions for epidemiology model used in the base case analysis.

    No full text
    <p><sup>a</sup>Assigns equal probabilities to all values between 0.1 and 5, which includes the entire range of values with non-negligible probabilities from previous studies [<a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001829#pmed.1001829.ref002" target="_blank">2</a>].</p><p><sup>b</sup>The serial interval is the sum of the latent period (which has an expected value of 1 d) and the infectious period (which has a gamma-distributed prior with mean 1.5 and standard deviation 0.1).</p><p>CrI, credible interval.</p><p>Prior distributions for epidemiology model used in the base case analysis.</p

    DALYs averted by vaccination policies in total and as a result of direct vaccine effects.

    No full text
    <p>The width of bars corresponds to the probability density, the central black line within each bar represents the interquartile range of the DALYs averted, and the white circle represents the median value. Note that all DALYs averted in those 18 y and over or under 2 y are by definition indirect in policies 1–6.</p
    corecore