Cost-effectiveness of bivalent versus monovalent vaccines against hand, foot and mouth disease.

D Liu; K Leung; M Jit ORCID logo; H Yu; J Yang; Q Liao; F Liu; Y Zheng; JT Wu; (2019) Cost-effectiveness of bivalent versus monovalent vaccines against hand, foot and mouth disease. Clinical microbiology and infection, 26 (3). pp. 373-380. ISSN 1198-743X DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2019.06.029
Copy

OBJECTIVES: Enterovirus 71 (EV71) and coxsackievirus A16 (CA16) were responsible for 43.3% (235 123/543 243) and 24.8% (134 607/543 243) of all laboratory-confirmed hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD) cases during 2010-2015 in China. Three monovalent EV71 vaccines have been licensed in China while bivalent EV71/CA16 vaccines are under development. A comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of bivalent EV71/CA16 versus monovalent EV71 vaccination would be useful for informing the additional value of bivalent HFMD vaccines in China. METHODS: We used a static model parameterized with the national HFMD surveillance data during 2010-2013, virological HFMD surveillance records from all 31 provinces in mainland China during 2010-2013 and caregiver survey data of costs and health quality of life during 2012-2013. We estimated the threshold vaccine cost (TVC), defined as the maximum additional cost that could be paid for a cost-effective bivalent EV71/CA16 vaccine over a monovalent EV71 vaccine, as the outcome. The base case analysis was performed from a societal perspective. Several sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying assumptions governing HFMD risk, costs, discounting and vaccine efficacy. RESULTS: In the base case, choosing the bivalent EV71/CA16 over monovalent EV71 vaccination would be cost-effective only if the additional cost of the bivalent EV71/CA16 compared with the monovalent EV71 vaccine is less than €4.7 (95% CI 4.2-5.2). Compared with the TVC in the base case, TVC increased by up to €8.9 if all the test-negative cases were CA16-HFMD; decreased by €1.1 with an annual discount rate of 6% and exclusion of the productivity loss; and increased by €0.14 and €0.3 with every 1% increase in bivalent vaccine efficacy against CA16-HFMD and differential vaccine efficacy against EV71-HFMD, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Bivalent EV71/CA16 vaccines can be cost-effective compared with monovalent EV71 vaccines, if suitably priced. Our study provides further evidence for determining the optimal use of HFMD vaccines in routine paediatric vaccination programme in China.


picture_as_pdf
1-s2.0-S1198743X19303805-main.pdf
subject
Published Version
Available under Creative Commons: NC-ND 3.0

View Download

Atom BibTeX OpenURL ContextObject in Span Multiline CSV OpenURL ContextObject Dublin Core Dublin Core MPEG-21 DIDL EndNote HTML Citation JSON MARC (ASCII) MARC (ISO 2709) METS MODS RDF+N3 RDF+N-Triples RDF+XML RIOXX2 XML Reference Manager Refer Simple Metadata ASCII Citation EP3 XML
Export

Downloads