Cost-effectiveness of pneumococcal conjugate vaccination in Croatia.

OBJECTIVE: Pneumococcus is a known cause of meningitis, pneumonia, sepsis, and acute otitis media in children and adults globally. Two new vaccines for children have the potential to prevent illness, disability, and death, but these vaccines are expensive. The Croatian Ministry of Health has considered introducing the vaccine in the past, but requires economic evidence to ensure that the limited funds available for health care will be used in the most effective way. METHODOLOGY: Croatia appointed a multidisciplinary team of experts to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of introducing pneumococcal conjugate vaccination (PCV) into the national routine child immunization program. Both 10-valent and 13-valent PCV (PCV10 and PCV13) were compared to a scenario assuming no vaccination. The TRIVAC decision-support model was used to estimate cost-effectiveness over the period 2014-2033. We used national evidence on demographics, pneumococcal disease incidence and mortality, the age distribution of disease in children, health service utilization, vaccine coverage, vaccine timeliness, and serotype coverage. Vaccine effectiveness was based on evidence from the scientific literature. Detailed health care costs were not available from the Croatian Institute for Health Insurance at the time of the analysis so assumptions and World Health Organization (WHO) estimates for Croatia were used. We assumed a three-dose primary vaccination schedule, and an initial price of US$30 per dose for PCV10 and US$ 35 per dose for PCV13. We ran univariate sensitivity analyses and multivariate scenario analyses. RESULTS: Either vaccine is estimated to prevent approximately 100 hospital admissions and one death each year in children younger than five in Croatia. Compared to no vaccine, the discounted cost-effectiveness of either vaccine is estimated to be around US$69,000-77,000 per disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted over the period 2014-2033 (from the government or societal perspective). Only two alternative scenarios were borderline cost-effective (US$ per DALY averted less than 3×GDP per capita of approximately US$40,000). The first was a scenario based primarily on the WHO 2008 pneumococcal disease burden estimates for Croatia. The second was a scenario that assumed a fairly dramatic drop in the price of the vaccine over the period. Both vaccines would need to be priced at approximately US$ 20 per dose or less to be considered cost-effective under base-case assumptions. PCV10 would be more cost-effective than PCV13 with base-case assumptions, but this is sensitive to the price of each vaccine. CONCLUSION: Based on estimated health and economic benefits in children alone, PCV is unlikely to be cost-effective in Croatia. Both vaccines would need to be priced at less than US$ 20 per dose to be considered cost-effective for children. Further analyses should be conducted to estimate the health and economic burden of pneumococcal disease in older age groups, and to assess the influence on cost-effectiveness results when short-term and long-term indirect effects are included for older individuals. While there are important uncertainties around the price and effectiveness of both vaccines, our analysis suggests there is insufficient evidence to warrant a significant difference in the price of the two vaccines

Low 2018/19 vaccine effectiveness against influenza A(H3N2) among 15–64-year-olds in Europe: exploration by birth cohortexploration.

Introduction Influenza A(H3N2) clades 3C.2a and 3C.3a co-circulated in Europe in 2018/19. Immunological imprinting by first childhood influenza infection may induce future birth cohort differences in vaccine effectiveness (VE). Aim The I-MOVE multicentre primary care test-negative study assessed 2018/19 influenza A(H3N2) VE by age and genetic subgroups to explore VE by birth cohort. Methods We measured VE against influenza A(H3N2) and (sub)clades. We stratified VE by usual age groups (0–14, 15–64, ≥ 65-years). To assess the imprint-regulated effect of vaccine (I-REV) hypothesis, we further stratified the middle-aged group, notably including 32–54-year-olds (1964–86) sharing potential childhood imprinting to serine at haemagglutinin position 159. Results Influenza A(H3N2) VE among all ages was −1% (95% confidence interval (CI): −24 to 18) and 46% (95% CI: 8–68), −26% (95% CI: −66 to 4) and 20% (95% CI: −20 to 46) among 0–14, 15–64 and ≥ 65-year-olds, respectively. Among 15–64-year-olds, VE against clades 3C.2a1b and 3C.3a was 15% (95% CI: −34 to 50) and −74% (95% CI: −259 to 16), respectively. VE was −18% (95% CI: −140 to 41), −53% (95% CI: −131 to −2) and −12% (95% CI: −74 to 28) among 15–31-year-olds (1987–2003), 32–54-yearolds (1964–86) and 55–64-year-olds (1954–63), respectively. Discussion The lowest 2018/19 influenza A(H3N2) VE was against clade 3C.3a and among those born 1964–86, corresponding to the I-REV hypothesis. The low influenza A(H3N2) VE in 15–64-year-olds and the public health impact of the I-REV hypothesis warrant further study

Repeated seasonal influenza vaccination among elderly in Europe: Effects on laboratory confirmed hospitalised influenza

In Europe, annual influenza vaccination is recommended to elderly. From 2011 to 2014 and in 2015-16, we conducted a multicentre test negative case control study in hospitals of 11 European countries to measure influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) against laboratory confirmed hospitalised influenza among people aged ≥65years. We pooled four seasons data to measure IVE by past exposures to influenza vaccination. We swabbed patients admitted for clinical conditions related to influenza with onset of severe acute respiratory infection ≤7days before admission. Cases were patients RT-PCR positive for influenza virus and controls those negative for any influenza virus. We documented seasonal vaccination status for the current season and the two previous seasons. We recruited 5295 patients over the four seasons, including 465A(H1N1)pdm09, 642A(H3N2), 278 B case-patients and 3910 controls. Among patients unvaccinated in both previous two seasons, current seasonal IVE (pooled across seasons) was 30% (95%CI: -35 to 64), 8% (95%CI: -94 to 56) and 33% (95%CI: -43 to 68) against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2) and B respectively. Among patients vaccinated in both previous seasons, current seasonal IVE (pooled across seasons) was -1% (95%CI: -80 to 43), 37% (95%CI: 7-57) and 43% (95%CI: 1-68) against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2) and B respectively. Our results suggest that, regardless of patients' recent vaccination history, current seasonal vaccine conferred some protection to vaccinated patients against hospitalisation with influenza A(H3N2) and B. Vaccination of patients already vaccinated in both the past two seasons did not seem to be effective against A(H1N1)pdm09. To better understand the effect of repeated vaccination, engaging in large cohort studies documenting exposures to vaccine and natural infection is needed