A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of an Adjuvanted Subunit Vaccine for the Prevention of Herpes Zoster and Post-herpetic Neuralgia.
cost-effectiveness
herpes zoster
prevention
vaccine
Journal
Open forum infectious diseases
ISSN: 2328-8957
Titre abrégé: Open Forum Infect Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101637045
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2019
Jul 2019
Historique:
received:
29
01
2019
accepted:
07
05
2019
entrez:
11
7
2019
pubmed:
11
7
2019
medline:
11
7
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Herpes zoster (HZ) develops in up to 50% of unvaccinated individuals, accounting for >1 million cases annually in the United States. A live attenuated HZ vaccine (LAV) is Food and Drug Administration approved for those age 50 years or older, though Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations are only for those age 60 years or older. LAV efficacy is ~70% for persons 50-59 years of age, with lower efficacy in older adults. A new 2-dose adjuvanted subunit vaccine (SUV) has >95% efficacy in persons 50-69 years of age and remains ~90% efficacious in persons vaccinated at age 70 years. To estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of SUV, LAV, and no vaccination (NoV) strategies, a Markov model was developed based on published data on vaccine efficacy, durability of protection, quality of life, resource utilization, costs, and disease epidemiology. The perspective was US societal, and the cycle length was 1 year with a lifelong time horizon. SUV efficacy was estimated to wane at the same rate as LAV. Outcomes evaluated included lifetime costs, discounted life expectancy, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). For individuals vaccinated at age 50 years, the ICER for LAV vs NoV was $118 535 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY); at age 60 years, the ICER dropped to $42 712/QALY. SUV was more expensive but had better ICERs than LAV. At age 50, the ICER was $91 156/QALY, and it dropped to $19 300/QALY at age 60. Vaccination with SUV was more cost-effective than LAV in all age groups studied. Vaccination with SUV at age 50 years appears cost-effective, with an ICER <$100 000/QALY.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Herpes zoster (HZ) develops in up to 50% of unvaccinated individuals, accounting for >1 million cases annually in the United States. A live attenuated HZ vaccine (LAV) is Food and Drug Administration approved for those age 50 years or older, though Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations are only for those age 60 years or older. LAV efficacy is ~70% for persons 50-59 years of age, with lower efficacy in older adults. A new 2-dose adjuvanted subunit vaccine (SUV) has >95% efficacy in persons 50-69 years of age and remains ~90% efficacious in persons vaccinated at age 70 years.
METHODS
METHODS
To estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of SUV, LAV, and no vaccination (NoV) strategies, a Markov model was developed based on published data on vaccine efficacy, durability of protection, quality of life, resource utilization, costs, and disease epidemiology. The perspective was US societal, and the cycle length was 1 year with a lifelong time horizon. SUV efficacy was estimated to wane at the same rate as LAV. Outcomes evaluated included lifetime costs, discounted life expectancy, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
RESULTS
RESULTS
For individuals vaccinated at age 50 years, the ICER for LAV vs NoV was $118 535 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY); at age 60 years, the ICER dropped to $42 712/QALY. SUV was more expensive but had better ICERs than LAV. At age 50, the ICER was $91 156/QALY, and it dropped to $19 300/QALY at age 60.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Vaccination with SUV was more cost-effective than LAV in all age groups studied. Vaccination with SUV at age 50 years appears cost-effective, with an ICER <$100 000/QALY.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31289726
doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofz219
pii: ofz219
pmc: PMC6602903
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
ofz219Références
N Engl J Med. 2005 Jun 2;352(22):2271-84
pubmed: 15930418
Med Decis Making. 2006 Jul-Aug;26(4):391-400
pubmed: 16855127
Ann Intern Med. 2006 Sep 5;145(5):317-25
pubmed: 16954357
Clin Infect Dis. 2007 May 15;44(10):1280-8
pubmed: 17443464
Vaccine. 2007 Nov 28;25(49):8326-37
pubmed: 17980938
Clin Infect Dis. 2007 Dec 1;45(11):1527-9
pubmed: 17990240
Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(3):235-49
pubmed: 18282017
MMWR Recomm Rep. 2008 Jun 6;57(RR-5):1-30; quiz CE2-4
pubmed: 18528318
Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(9):781-92
pubmed: 19757871
Vaccine. 2012 Mar 9;30(12):2047-50
pubmed: 22285632
Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Apr;54(7):922-8
pubmed: 22291101
Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Nov 15;55(10):1320-8
pubmed: 22828595
Pharmacoeconomics. 2013 Feb;31(2):125-36
pubmed: 23335045
N Engl J Med. 2013 Jul 18;369(3):255-63
pubmed: 23863052
Am J Med. 2014 Jan;127(1 Suppl):S45-50
pubmed: 24384137
Vaccine. 2014 Mar 26;32(15):1645-53
pubmed: 24534737
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014 Aug 22;63(33):729-31
pubmed: 25144544
Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2014;10(7):2048-61
pubmed: 25424815
N Engl J Med. 2015 May 28;372(22):2087-96
pubmed: 25916341
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Oct 6;163(7):489-97
pubmed: 26344036
BMC Infect Dis. 2015 Nov 06;15:502
pubmed: 26546419
N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 15;375(11):1019-32
pubmed: 27626517
JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Feb 1;178(2):248-258
pubmed: 29297049
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018 Jan 26;67(3):103-108
pubmed: 29370152
Vaccine. 2018 Aug 9;36(33):5037-5045
pubmed: 30017145