Cost-utility of quadrivalent versus trivalent influenza vaccine in Brazil – comparison of outcomes from different static model types
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Publication Date: | 2018 |
Other Authors: | , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | eng |
Source: | Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases |
Download full: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-86702018000100001 |
Summary: | 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 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 quadrivalent versus trivalent influenza vaccine 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 in Analysis 2 versus 1, and a proportionally higher number of vaccinated elderly in FLORENCE reduced this ratio 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 quality-adjusted life year gained for quadrivalent versus trivalent influenza vaccine in the range of R$19,257 (FLORENCE) to R$22,768 (FLORA) with the best available data in Brazil (Appendix A). |
id |
BSID-1_8e78fdf3ae2728d40425f60e68f01905 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S1413-86702018000100001 |
network_acronym_str |
BSID-1 |
network_name_str |
Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Cost-utility of quadrivalent versus trivalent influenza vaccine in Brazil – comparison of outcomes from different static model typesInfluenzaBrazilCost-effectivenessVaccinationQIVTIVABSTRACT 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 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 quadrivalent versus trivalent influenza vaccine 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 in Analysis 2 versus 1, and a proportionally higher number of vaccinated elderly in FLORENCE reduced this ratio 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 quality-adjusted life year gained for quadrivalent versus trivalent influenza vaccine in the range of R$19,257 (FLORENCE) to R$22,768 (FLORA) with the best available data in Brazil (Appendix A).Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases2018-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-86702018000100001Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases v.22 n.1 2018reponame:Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseasesinstname:Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (BSID)instacron:BSID10.1016/j.bjid.2017.11.004info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessVan Bellinghen,Laure-AnneMarijam,Alende Araujo,Gabriela Tannus BrancoGomez,JorgeVan Vlaenderen,Ilseeng2018-05-29T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1413-86702018000100001Revistahttps://www.bjid.org.br/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpbjid@bjid.org.br||lgoldani@ufrgs.br1678-43911413-8670opendoar:2018-05-29T00:00Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases - Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (BSID)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Cost-utility of quadrivalent versus trivalent influenza vaccine in Brazil – comparison of outcomes from different static model types |
title |
Cost-utility of quadrivalent versus trivalent influenza vaccine in Brazil – comparison of outcomes from different static model types |
spellingShingle |
Cost-utility of quadrivalent versus trivalent influenza vaccine in Brazil – comparison of outcomes from different static model types Van Bellinghen,Laure-Anne Influenza Brazil Cost-effectiveness Vaccination QIV TIV |
title_short |
Cost-utility of quadrivalent versus trivalent influenza vaccine in Brazil – comparison of outcomes from different static model types |
title_full |
Cost-utility of quadrivalent versus trivalent influenza vaccine in Brazil – comparison of outcomes from different static model types |
title_fullStr |
Cost-utility of quadrivalent versus trivalent influenza vaccine in Brazil – comparison of outcomes from different static model types |
title_full_unstemmed |
Cost-utility of quadrivalent versus trivalent influenza vaccine in Brazil – comparison of outcomes from different static model types |
title_sort |
Cost-utility of quadrivalent versus trivalent influenza vaccine in Brazil – comparison of outcomes from different static model types |
author |
Van Bellinghen,Laure-Anne |
author_facet |
Van Bellinghen,Laure-Anne Marijam,Alen de Araujo,Gabriela Tannus Branco Gomez,Jorge Van Vlaenderen,Ilse |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Marijam,Alen de Araujo,Gabriela Tannus Branco Gomez,Jorge Van Vlaenderen,Ilse |
author2_role |
author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Van Bellinghen,Laure-Anne Marijam,Alen de Araujo,Gabriela Tannus Branco Gomez,Jorge Van Vlaenderen,Ilse |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Influenza Brazil Cost-effectiveness Vaccination QIV TIV |
topic |
Influenza Brazil Cost-effectiveness Vaccination QIV TIV |
description |
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 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 quadrivalent versus trivalent influenza vaccine 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 in Analysis 2 versus 1, and a proportionally higher number of vaccinated elderly in FLORENCE reduced this ratio 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 quality-adjusted life year gained for quadrivalent versus trivalent influenza vaccine in the range of R$19,257 (FLORENCE) to R$22,768 (FLORA) with the best available data in Brazil (Appendix A). |
publishDate |
2018 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2018-01-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-86702018000100001 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-86702018000100001 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1016/j.bjid.2017.11.004 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases v.22 n.1 2018 reponame:Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases instname:Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (BSID) instacron:BSID |
instname_str |
Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (BSID) |
instacron_str |
BSID |
institution |
BSID |
reponame_str |
Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases |
collection |
Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases - Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (BSID) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
bjid@bjid.org.br||lgoldani@ufrgs.br |
_version_ |
1754209244228354048 |