Advertisement

 

 

Cost-utility of quadrivalent versus trivalent influenza vaccine in Brazil – comparison of outcomes from different static model types.

Cost-utility of quadrivalent versus trivalent influenza vaccine in Brazil – comparison of outcomes from different static model types.
Author Information (click to view)

Bellinghen LV, Marijam A, Araujo GT, Gomez J, Vlaenderen IV,


Bellinghen LV, Marijam A, Araujo GT, Gomez J, Vlaenderen IV, (click to view)

Bellinghen LV, Marijam A, Araujo GT, Gomez J, Vlaenderen IV,

Advertisement

The Brazilian journal of infectious diseases : an official publication of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases 2018 01 17() pii S1413-8670(17)30654-2
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Influenza burden in Brazil is considerable with 4.2-6.4 million cases in 2008 and influenza-like-illness responsible for 16.9% of hospitalizations. Cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination may be assessed by different types of models, with limitations due to data availability, assumptions, and modelling approach.

OBJECTIVE
To understand the impact of model complexity, the cost-utility of quadrivalent versus trivalent influenza vaccines (QIV versus TIV) in Brazil was estimated using three distinct models: a 1-year decision tree population model with three age groups (FLOU); a more detailed 1-year population model with five age groups (FLORA); and a more complex lifetime multi-cohort Markov model with nine age groups (FLORENCE).

METHODS
Analysis 1 (impact of model structure) compared each model using the same data inputs (i.e., best available data for FLOU). Analysis 2 (impact of increasing granularity) compared each model populated with the best available data for that model.

RESULTS
Using the best data for each model, the discounted cost-utility ratio of QIV versus TIV was R$20,428 with FLOU, R$22,768 with FLORA (versus R$20,428 in Analysis 1), and, R$19,257 with FLORENCE (versus R$22,490 in Analysis 1) using a lifetime horizon. Conceptual differences between FLORA and FLORENCE meant the same assumption regarding increased all-cause mortality in at-risk individuals had an opposite effect on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in Analysis 2 versus 1, and a proportionally higher number of vaccinated elderly in FLORENCE reduced the ICER in Analysis 2.

DISCUSSION
FLOU provided adequate cost-effectiveness estimates with data in broad age groups. FLORA increased insights (e.g., in healthy versus at-risk, paediatric, respiratory/non-respiratory complications). FLORENCE provided greater insights and precision (e.g., in elderly, costs and complications, lifetime cost-effectiveness).

CONCLUSION
All three models predicted a cost per QALY gained for QIV versus TIV in the range of R$19,257 (FLORENCE) to R$22,768 (FLORA) with the best available data in Brazil.

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

eighteen − thirteen =

[ HIDE/SHOW ]