Cost effectiveness evaluation of a rotavirus vaccination program in Argentina.

BACKGROUND: Rotavirus diarrhea is one of the most important vaccine-preventable causes of severe diarrhea in children worldwide. There are two live-attenuated virus vaccines licensed, Rotarix (RV1) a monovalent vaccine by GlaxoSmithKline and a pentavalent vaccine, RotaTeq(RV5), by Merck & Co., with similar results. This study aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the utilization of RV1 compared with RV5 in Argentina. METHODS: A deterministic Markov model based on the lifetime follow up of a static cohort was used. Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) as a measure of results, the perspective of the health care system and a 5% discount rate for health benefits and costs has been used. A review of the literature to obtain epidemiologic and resources utilization of rotavirus diarrhea was performed. The sources used to estimate epidemiologic parameters were the National Health Surveillance System, the national mortality statistics and national database of hospital discharges records. Costs were obtained from different health subsectors and are expressed in local currency. RESULTS: Both vaccination alternatives were less costly and more effective than the strategy without vaccination (total costs $ 69,700,645 and 2575 total QALYs lost). When comparing RV1 vs. RV5, RV1 was less expensive ($ 60,174,508 vs. $ 67,545,991 total costs) and more effective (1105 vs. 1213 total QALYs lost) than RV5, RV1 being therefore a dominating strategy. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed results to be robust with a 100% probability of being cost-effective at a WTP threshold of 1 GDP per capita when comparing the RV1 vs. no vaccination. CONCLUSION: Both RV1 and RV5 schedules dominate the no vaccination strategy and RV5 was dominated by RV1. This information is a valuable input regarding the incorporation of this kind of vaccines into the national vaccination programs.

Health economic analysis of human papillomavirus vaccines in women of Chile: perspective of the health care payer using a Markov model.

BACKGROUND: In Chile, significant reductions in cervical cancer incidence and mortality have been observed due to implementation of a well-organized screening program. However, it has been suggested that the inclusion of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination for young adolescent women may be the best prospect to further reduce the burden of cervical cancer. This cost-effectiveness study comparing two available HPV vaccines in Chile was performed to support decision making on the implementation of universal HPV vaccination. METHODS: The present analysis used an existing static Markov model to assess the effect of screening and vaccination. This analysis includes the epidemiology of low-risk HPV types allowing for the comparison between the two vaccines (HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine and the HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine), latest cross-protection data on HPV vaccines, treatment costs for cervical cancer, vaccine costs and 6% discounting per the health economic guideline for Chile. RESULTS: Projected incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICERs) for the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine was 116 United States (US) dollars per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained or 147 US dollars per life-years (LY) saved, while the projected ICUR/ICER for the HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine was 541 US dollars per QALY gained or 726 US dollars per LY saved. Introduction of any HPV vaccine to the present cervical cancer prevention program of Chile is estimated to be highly cost-effective (below 1X gross domestic product [GDP] per capita, 14278 US dollars). In Chile, the addition of HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine to the existing screening program dominated the addition of HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis results show that the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine is expected to be dominant and cost-saving in 69.3% and 77.6% of the replicates respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that the addition of any HPV vaccine to the current cervical screening program of Chile will be advantageous. However, this cost-effectiveness model shows that the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine dominated the HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine. Beyond the context of Chile, the data from this modelling exercise may support healthcare policy and decision-making pertaining to introduction of HPV vaccination in similar resource settings in the region.