IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v34y2016i12d10.1007_s40273-016-0443-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Christiaan Dolk

    (University of Groningen)

  • Martin Eichner

    (Epimos GmbH
    Tübingen University)

  • 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
    GSK Vaccines)

  • Markus Schwehm

    (ExploSYS GmbH)

  • Maarten Postma

    (University of Groningen
    University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG)
    University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG))

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Christiaan Dolk & Martin Eichner & Robert Welte & Anastassia Anastassopoulou & Laure-Anne Van Bellinghen & Barbara Poulsen Nautrup & Ilse Van Vlaenderen & Ruprecht Schmidt-Ott & Markus Schwehm & Maart, 2016. "Cost-Utility of Quadrivalent Versus Trivalent Influenza Vaccine in Germany, Using an Individual-Based Dynamic Transmission Model," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(12), pages 1299-1308, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:34:y:2016:i:12:d:10.1007_s40273-016-0443-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-016-0443-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-016-0443-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-016-0443-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:pharme:v:34:y:2016:i:12:d:10.1007_s40273-016-0443-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.