Economic impact of switching from partially combined vaccine "Pentaxim® and hepatitis B" to fully combined vaccine "Hexaxim®" in the Malaysian National Immunization Program.
Economic impact
Hexaxim
Malaysia national immunization program
Pentaxim
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 Jan 2022
05 Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
07
06
2021
accepted:
16
12
2021
entrez:
6
1
2022
pubmed:
7
1
2022
medline:
8
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The decision to implement new vaccines should be supported by public health and economic evaluations. Therefore, this study was primarily designed to evaluate the economic impact of switching from partially combined vaccine (Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B) to fully combined vaccine (Hexaxim®) in the Malaysian National Immunization Program (NIP) and to investigate healthcare professionals (HCPs)' and parents'/caregivers' perceptions. In this economic evaluation study, 22 primary healthcare centers were randomly selected in Malaysia between December 2019 and July 2020. The baseline immunization schedule includes switching from Pentaxim® (four doses) and hepatitis B (three doses) to Hexaxim® (four doses), whereas the alternative scheme includes switching from Pentaxim® (four doses) and hepatitis B (three doses) to Hexaxim® (four doses) and hepatitis B (one dose) administered at birth. Direct medical costs were extracted using a costing questionnaire and an observational time and motion chart. Direct non-medical (cost for transportation) and indirect costs (loss of productivity) were derived from parents'/caregivers' questionnaire. Also, HCPs' and parent's/caregivers' perceptions were investigated using structured questionnaires. The cost per dose of Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B vs. Hexaxim® for the baseline scheme was Malaysian ringgit (RM) 31.90 (7.7 United States dollar [USD]) vs. 17.10 (4.1 USD) for direct medical cost, RM 54.40 (13.1 USD) vs. RM 27.20 (6.6 USD) for direct non-medical cost, RM 221.33 (53.3 USD) vs. RM 110.66 (26.7 USD) for indirect cost, and RM 307.63 (74.2 USD) vs. RM 155.00 (37.4 USD) for societal (total) cost. A similar trend was observed for the alternative scheme. Compared with Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B, total cost savings per dose of Hexaxim® were RM 137.20 (33.1 USD) and RM 104.70 (25.2 USD) in the baseline and alternative scheme, respectively. Eighty-four percent of physicians and 95% of nurses supported the use of Hexaxim® in the NIP. The majority of parents/caregivers had a positive perception regarding Hexaxim® vaccine in various aspects. Incorporation of Hexaxim® within Malaysian NIP is highly recommended because the use of Hexaxim® has demonstrated substantial direct and indirect cost savings for healthcare providers and parents/caregivers with a high percentage of positive perceptions, compared with Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B. Not applicable.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The decision to implement new vaccines should be supported by public health and economic evaluations. Therefore, this study was primarily designed to evaluate the economic impact of switching from partially combined vaccine (Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B) to fully combined vaccine (Hexaxim®) in the Malaysian National Immunization Program (NIP) and to investigate healthcare professionals (HCPs)' and parents'/caregivers' perceptions.
METHODS
METHODS
In this economic evaluation study, 22 primary healthcare centers were randomly selected in Malaysia between December 2019 and July 2020. The baseline immunization schedule includes switching from Pentaxim® (four doses) and hepatitis B (three doses) to Hexaxim® (four doses), whereas the alternative scheme includes switching from Pentaxim® (four doses) and hepatitis B (three doses) to Hexaxim® (four doses) and hepatitis B (one dose) administered at birth. Direct medical costs were extracted using a costing questionnaire and an observational time and motion chart. Direct non-medical (cost for transportation) and indirect costs (loss of productivity) were derived from parents'/caregivers' questionnaire. Also, HCPs' and parent's/caregivers' perceptions were investigated using structured questionnaires.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The cost per dose of Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B vs. Hexaxim® for the baseline scheme was Malaysian ringgit (RM) 31.90 (7.7 United States dollar [USD]) vs. 17.10 (4.1 USD) for direct medical cost, RM 54.40 (13.1 USD) vs. RM 27.20 (6.6 USD) for direct non-medical cost, RM 221.33 (53.3 USD) vs. RM 110.66 (26.7 USD) for indirect cost, and RM 307.63 (74.2 USD) vs. RM 155.00 (37.4 USD) for societal (total) cost. A similar trend was observed for the alternative scheme. Compared with Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B, total cost savings per dose of Hexaxim® were RM 137.20 (33.1 USD) and RM 104.70 (25.2 USD) in the baseline and alternative scheme, respectively. Eighty-four percent of physicians and 95% of nurses supported the use of Hexaxim® in the NIP. The majority of parents/caregivers had a positive perception regarding Hexaxim® vaccine in various aspects.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Incorporation of Hexaxim® within Malaysian NIP is highly recommended because the use of Hexaxim® has demonstrated substantial direct and indirect cost savings for healthcare providers and parents/caregivers with a high percentage of positive perceptions, compared with Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
Not applicable.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34986870
doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-07428-7
pii: 10.1186/s12913-021-07428-7
pmc: PMC8734051
doi:
Substances chimiques
DTaP-IPV-HB-PRP-T vaccine
0
Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Vaccine
0
Haemophilus Vaccines
0
Hepatitis B Vaccines
0
Pentavac
0
Poliovirus Vaccine, Inactivated
0
Vaccines, Combined
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
34Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Pediatrics. 2004 Jul;114(1):e16-22
pubmed: 15231968
Expert Rev Vaccines. 2011 Jul;10(7):981-1005
pubmed: 21749196
Vaccine. 1999 Dec 10;18(9-10):947-54
pubmed: 10580209
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2011 Apr;30(4):e68-74
pubmed: 21289531
Vaccine. 2011 Feb 24;29(10):1913-20
pubmed: 21219984
Vaccine. 2006 May 15;24(20):4403-8
pubmed: 16569467
J Prev Med Hyg. 2018 Jun 01;59(2):E107-E119
pubmed: 30083617
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1998 Nov;17(11):1026-33
pubmed: 9849987
Cureus. 2020 Apr 13;12(4):e7657
pubmed: 32411558
Eur J Pediatr. 2013 Apr;172(4):485-92
pubmed: 23271490
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2006 Aug;75(2 Suppl):119-30
pubmed: 16931823
Vaccine. 2017 Jul 13;35(32):4022-4028
pubmed: 28629923
Indian Pediatr. 2009 Nov;46(11):975-82
pubmed: 19955579
Vaccine. 2015 Jul 31;33(32):3976-82
pubmed: 26092310
Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2013 Apr;13(4):575-93
pubmed: 23441818
S Afr Med J. 2011 Feb;101(2):126-31
pubmed: 21678741
J Pediatr Health Care. 2008 Sep-Oct;22(5):300-9
pubmed: 18761231
Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2010 Mar;41(2):450-62
pubmed: 20578530
Am J Manag Care. 2000 Sep;6(9):1038-44
pubmed: 11184065
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2000 Dec;19(12):1119-27
pubmed: 11144370
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1998 Apr;17(4):294-304
pubmed: 9576383
Bull World Health Organ. 2008 Jun;86(6):443-51
pubmed: 18568273
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Jun;25(6):507-12
pubmed: 16732148