RESUMO
The high disease burden of influenza in elderly and chronically ill adults may be due to the suboptimal effectiveness and mismatch of the conventional trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV). This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of quadrivalent (QIV), adjuvanted trivalent (ATIV), and high-dose quadrivalent (HD-QIV) vaccines versus TIV used under the current Korean National Immunization Program (NIP) in older adults aged ≥65 years. We also evaluated the cost-effectiveness of programs for at-risk adults aged 19-64 and adults aged 50-64. A one-year static population model was used to compare the costs and outcomes of alternative vaccination programs in each targeted group. Influenza-related parameters were derived from the National Health Insurance System claims database; other inputs were extracted from the published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were assessed from a societal perspective. In the base case analysis (older adults aged ≥65 years), HD-QIV was superior, with the lowest cost and highest utility. Compared with TIV, ATIV was cost-effective (ICER $34,314/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]), and QIV was not cost-effective (ICER $46,486/QALY). The cost-effectiveness of HD-QIV was robust for all parameters except for vaccine cost. The introduction of the influenza NIP was cost-effective or even cost-saving for the remaining targeted gr3oups, regardless of TIV or QIV.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Despite a high vaccine uptake rate of over 80% in South Korea, the disease burden of influenza is still high among the elderly, which may be due to low effectiveness of vaccines. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness of use among the elderly was analyzed in order to compare the current trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) with a quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV) or MF59-adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine (ATIV). METHODS: A static lifetime Markov model was used. It was assumed that the model would be repeated until individuals reached the age of 100. Cost-effectiveness was analyzed across three age groups (65-74 years, 75-84 years, and ≥85 years), and the at-risk group was studied. RESULTS: Compared to the TIV, the QIV was expected to reduce the number of influenza infections by 342,873, complications by 17,011, hospitalizations by 8,568, and deaths by 2,031. The QIV was highly cost-effective when compared to the TIV, with a base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) estimated at USD 17,699/QALY (1USD = 1,151KRW), and the ICER decreased with age and was USD 3,431/QALY in the group aged 85 and above. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the ICER was sensitive to the QIV price, the proportion of influenza B, and vaccine mismatching. On the other hand, the ATIV was expected to reduce the number of influenza cases and complications by 1,812,395 and 89,747, respectively, annually, yielding cost-saving among all ages. ATIV price and vaccine efficacy were the most influential parameters for the ICER of ATIV. CONCLUSIONS: The QIV and ATIV strategies were considered more cost-effective in comparison to the TIV for vaccination strategies implemented for the elderly. However, owing to a lack of data on the effectiveness of ATIV among the elderly, a large-scale effectiveness study is required.