-
- Laurent Coudeville, Alain Brunot, Carlo Giaquinto, Carlo Lucioni, and Benoit Dervaux.
- Cresge-Labores, Catholic University of Lille, Lille, France.
- Pharmacoeconomics. 2004 Jan 1; 22 (13): 839-55.
AimTo determine the economic impact (cost-benefit analysis) of childhood varicella vaccination, with the Oka/Merck varicella zoster virus vaccine live (Varivax) in Italy.MethodsThis analysis is based on an epidemiological model of varicella zoster virus (VZV) dynamics adapted to the Italian situation. Cost data (Euro, 2002 values) were collected through a literature review. Several vaccination scenarios were analysed: (i) routine vaccination programme for children aged 1-2 years with different levels of vaccination coverage (90%, 70% and 45%) without any catch-up programme; (ii) routine vaccination programme for children aged 1-2 years with different levels of vaccination coverage (90%, 70% and 45%) completed by a catch-up programme for 6-year-old children over the first 5 years of vaccine marketing; and (iii) routine vaccination programme for children aged 1-2 years with different levels of vaccination coverage (90%, 70% and 45%) completed by a catch-up programme during the first year of vaccine marketing for children aged 2-11 years.PerspectivesA societal perspective, including both direct and indirect costs, and a health-system perspective, limited to costs supported by Italian Health Authorities, were considered.ResultsA routine vaccination programme has a clearly positive impact on chickenpox morbidity. Respectively, 68% and 57% of chickenpox-related hospitalisations and deaths could be prevented with a 90% coverage rate. With vaccination costs being more than offset by a reduction in chickenpox treatment costs in the base case, such a programme could also induce savings from both a societal and a health-system perspective (40% and 12% savings, respectively for a 90% coverage rate). A lower coverage rate reduces cost savings, but there is still a 9% decrease in overall societal costs for a 45% coverage rate. Although the reduction in total societal costs was robust to the sensitivity analyses performed, a slight uncertainty remains regarding cost reduction from a health-system perspective. However, in this latter perspective, even in the worst-case scenario of the sensitivity analysis, routine vaccination programmes may be cost effective, the worst-case scenario for cost parameters leading to cost per life-year gained of Euro2853. Catch-up programmes combined with routine vaccination should lead to further cost reductions from a societal perspective: 15% for a massive catch-up during the first year of vaccine marketing compared with toddlers' vaccination alone, and 11% for a catch-up focused on 6-year-old children for a period of 5 years. However, the impact of catch-up programmes on the costs from an Italian health-system perspective remains close to zero (+/-1%).ConclusionThis model suggests, with its underlying assumptions and data, that routine ZVZ vaccination may be cost saving from both a societal and a health system perspective in the base case. In the worst-case scenario of the sensitivity analysis, vaccination remains cost effective.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.