Cost-Utility of Quadrivalent Versus Trivalent Influenza Vaccine in Germany, Using an Individual-Based Dynamic Transmission Model

Christiaan Dolk (), Martin Eichner, Robert Welte, Anastassia Anastassopoulou, Laure-Anne Van Bellinghen, Barbara Poulsen Nautrup, Ilse Van Vlaenderen, Ruprecht Schmidt-Ott, Markus Schwehm and Maarten Postma
Additional contact information
Christiaan Dolk: University of Groningen
Martin Eichner: Epimos GmbH
Robert Welte: GSK Germany
Anastassia Anastassopoulou: GSK Germany
Laure-Anne Van Bellinghen: CHESS
Barbara Poulsen Nautrup: EAH-Consulting
Ilse Van Vlaenderen: CHESS
Ruprecht Schmidt-Ott: GSK Germany
Markus Schwehm: ExploSYS GmbH
Maarten Postma: University of Groningen

PharmacoEconomics, 2016, vol. 34, issue 12, No 9, 1299-1308

Abstract: Abstract Background Seasonal influenza infection is primarily caused by circulation of two influenza A strain subtypes and strains from two B lineages that vary each year. Trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) contains only one of the two B-lineage strains, resulting in mismatches between vaccine strains and the predominant circulating B lineage. Quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV) includes both B-lineage strains. The objective was to estimate the cost-utility of introducing QIV to replace TIV in Germany. Methods An individual-based dynamic transmission model (4Flu) using German data was used to provide realistic estimates of the impact of TIV and QIV on age-specific influenza infections. Cases were linked to health and economic outcomes to calculate the cost-utility of QIV versus TIV, from both a societal and payer perspective. Costs and effects were discounted at 3.0 and 1.5 % respectively, with 2014 as the base year. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results Using QIV instead of TIV resulted in additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost savings from the societal perspective (i.e. it represents the dominant strategy) and an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of €14,461 per QALY from a healthcare payer perspective. In all univariate analyses, QIV remained cost-effective (ICUR 98 and >99 % of the simulations from the societal and payer perspective, respectively. Conclusion This analysis suggests that QIV in Germany would provide additional health gains while being cost-saving to society or costing €14,461 per QALY gained from the healthcare payer perspective, compared with TIV.

Date: 2016
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-016-0443-7 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharme:v:34:y:2016:i:12:d:10.1007_s40273-016-0443-7

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40273

DOI: 10.1007/s40273-016-0443-7

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().