Cost-effectiveness analysis of routine pneumococcal vaccination in the UK: a comparison of the PHiD-CV vaccine and the PCV-13 vaccine using a Markov model. Issue 11 (30th November 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Delgleize, Emmanuelle; Leeuwenkamp, Oscar; Theodorou, Eleni; Van de Velde, Nicolas
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 6:Issue 11(2016)
• Publication Date: 2016-11-30
• Subjects: HEALTH ECONOMICS -- IMMUNOLOGY; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010776
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: In 2010, the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV-13) replaced the 7-valent vaccine (introduced in 2006) for vaccination against invasive pneumococcal diseases (IPDs), pneumonia and acute otitis media (AOM) in the UK. Using recent evidence on the impact of PCVs and epidemiological changes in the UK, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to compare the pneumococcal non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae protein D conjugate vaccine (PHiD-CV) with PCV-13 in the ongoing national vaccination programme. Design: CEA was based on a published Markov model. The base-case scenario accounted only for direct medical costs. Work days lost were considered in alternative scenarios. Setting: Calculations were based on serotype and disease-specific vaccine efficacies, serotype distributions and UK incidence rates and medical costs. Population: Health benefits and costs related to IPD, pneumonia and AOM were accumulated over the lifetime of a UK birth cohort. Interventions: Vaccination of infants at 2, 4 and 12 months with PHiD-CV or PCV-13, assuming complete coverage and adherence. Outcome measures: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was computed by dividing the difference in costs between the programmes by the difference in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Results: Under our model assumptions, both vaccines had a similar impact on IPD and pneumonia, but PHiD-CV generated a greater reduction in AOM cases (161 918), AOM-related general practitioner consultations (31 070) and tympanostomy tube placements (2399). At price parity, PHiD-CV vaccination was dominant over PCV-13, saving 734 QALYs as well as £3.68 million to the National Health Service (NHS). At the lower list price of PHiD-CV, the cost-savings would increase to £45.77 million. Conclusions: This model projected that PHiD-CV would provide both incremental health benefits and cost-savings compared with PCV-13 at price parity. Using PHiD-CV could result in substantial budget savings to the NHS. These savings could be used to implement other life-saving interventions.