RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the leading cause of acute lower respiratory infections (ALRI) in children under one year of age. In high-income countries, RSV infections cause a significant overload of care every winter, imposing a significant burden to the healthcare system, which has made the development of prevention strategies a major global health priority. In this context, a new bivalent RSV prefusion F protein-based vaccine (RSVpreF) has recently been approved. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of vaccinating pregnant women with the RSVpreF vaccine to prevent RSV in infants from the Spanish National Healthcare System (NHS) perspective. METHODS: A hypothetical cohort framework and a Markov-type process were used to estimate clinical outcomes, costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and cost-per-QALY gained (willingness-to-pay threshold: 25,000/QALY) for newborn infants born to RSV-vaccinated versus unvaccinated mothers over an RSV season. The base case analysis was performed from the NHS perspective including direct costs (2023) and applying a discount of 3% to future costs and outcomes. To evaluate the robustness of the model, several scenarios, and deterministic and probabilistic analyses were carried out. All the parameters and assumptions were validated by a panel of experts. RESULTS: The results of the study showed that year-round maternal vaccination program with 70% coverage is a dominant option compared to no intervention, resulting in direct cost savings of 1.8 million each year, with an increase of 551 QALYs. Maternal vaccination could prevent 38% of hospital admissions, 23% of emergency room visits, 19% of primary care visits, and 34% of deaths due to RSV. All scenario analyses showed consistent results, and according to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), the probability of maternal vaccination being cost-effective versus no intervention was 99%. CONCLUSIONS: From the Spanish NHS perspective, maternal vaccination with bivalent RSVpreF is a dominant alternative compared with a non-prevention strategy.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, inflammatory skin disease characterized by itchy, painful, and dry skin. Despite the great number of available therapies, economic evaluations are still needed to provide evidence on their cost efficiency. This research aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor abrocitinib (200 mg) compared with dupilumab (300 mg), tralokinumab (300 mg), baricitinib (2 and 4 mg), and upadacitinib (15 and 30 mg) for the treatment of patients with severe AD from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective. METHODS: A hybrid model consisting of a decision tree linked to a Markov model was developed to estimate costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total years in response and incremental cost-per-QALY gained (willingness-to-pay [WTP] threshold: 25,000/QALY). Adults with severe AD entered the decision tree and response (75% reduction in baseline Eczema Area and Severity Index score, EASI-75) was considered at 16 and 52 weeks. After this time, patients entered the Markov model (remainder of the 10-year time horizon), which consisted of three health states: maintenance with active therapy, subsequent treatment, or death. All costs were presented in 2022 euros (). Additionally, cost per number-needed-to-treat (NNT) was calculated for abrocitinib and dupilumab based on a head-to-head post-hoc analysis. RESULTS: Abrocitinib 200 mg was dominant (i.e., lower incremental costs and higher incremental benefit) compared with all studied alternatives (dupilumab 300 mg, tralokinumab 300 mg, baricitinib 2 and 4 mg, upadacitinib 15 and 30 mg) with a QALYs gain of 0.49, 0.60, 0.64, 0.43, 0.45, and 0.08, respectively, and per-person costs savings of 22,097, 24,140, 14,825, 7,116, 12,805, and 45,189, respectively. Considering the WTP threshold, abrocitinib was dominant or cost effective compared with all alternatives for most simulations. Additionally, abrocitinib was dominant compared with all alternatives when evaluating the cost effectiveness over a 5-year time horizon. NNT showed that abrocitinib was dominant versus dupilumab. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study show that abrocitinib is a cost-effective therapy compared with other JAK inhibitors and biological therapies from the Spanish NHS perspective.
