Author
Listed:
- John C Lang
- Robert B Nachbar
- Ilaria Xausa
- André Bento-Abreu
- Barbara Merckx
- Manjiri Pawaskar
Abstract
Although universal varicella vaccination (UVV) significantly reduces morbidity and mortality, it has not been implemented in Belgium. We evaluated the clinical and economic outcomes of two-dose UVV in Belgium. A previously published dynamic transmission model with dynamic population age structure was adapted to Belgium. The base case UVV strategy (Strategy 0) consisted of routine two-dose varicella vaccination at ages 1 year (vaccine coverage rate [VCR] = 95%) and 8 years (VCR = 90%), catch-up one-dose varicella vaccination at 8 years (VCR = 70%, 1-year duration), and routine two-dose herpes zoster (HZ) vaccination at 60 years (VCR = 50%). Alternative vaccination strategies were evaluated and reported. The reference strategy consisted of routine two-dose HZ vaccination only. Outcomes were estimated for a 50-year time-horizon. Annual discounting of 3% and 1.5% were applied to costs (in 2023 Euros) and quality-adjusted life-year outcomes, respectively. Under Strategy 0, cumulative varicella incidence, hospitalizations, and deaths decreased by approximately 91%, 89%, and 61% respectively. A transient increase in HZ incidence (that peaked in 2032 at +3% versus the reference strategy) was observed, however, cumulative HZ cases decreased by 3% over 50 years. Under the payer perspective, Strategy 0 had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €11,260. Under the societal perspective, Strategy 0 resulted in cost savings, with total costs decreasing by €17,524,487. UVV can significantly reduce the burden of varicella with marginal impact on HZ cases and be cost-effective in Belgium versus routine HZ vaccination only.
Suggested Citation
John C Lang & Robert B Nachbar & Ilaria Xausa & André Bento-Abreu & Barbara Merckx & Manjiri Pawaskar, 2026.
"Modeling the clinical and economic impact of universal varicella vaccination in Belgium with dynamic population,"
PLOS Global Public Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(1), pages 1-18, January.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pgph00:0005636
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0005636
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0005636. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: globalpubhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.