Phuc Le1, Ulla K Griffiths2, Dang Duc Anh3, Luisa Franzini4, Wenyaw Chan4, J Michael Swint4. 1. University of Texas School of Public Health, United States. Electronic address: phuc.h.le@uth.tmc.edu. 2. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom. 3. Vietnam National Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Viet Nam. 4. University of Texas School of Public Health, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With GAVI support, Vietnam introduced Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine in 2010 without evidence on cost-effectiveness. We aimed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of Hib vaccine from societal and governmental perspectives. METHOD: We constructed a decision-tree cohort model to estimate the costs and effectiveness of Hib vaccine versus no Hib vaccine for the 2011 birth cohort. The disease burden was estimated from local epidemiologic data and literature. Vaccine delivery costs were calculated from governmental reports and 2013 vaccine prices. A prospective cost-of-illness study was conducted to estimate treatment costs. The human capital approach was employed to estimate productivity loss. The incremental costs of Hib vaccine were divided by cases, deaths, and disability-adjusted life years (DALY) averted. We used the WHO recommended cost-effectiveness thresholds of an intervention being highly cost-effective if incremental costs per DALY were below GDP per capita. RESULT: From the societal perspective, incremental costs per discounted case, death and DALY averted were US$ 6252, US$ 26,476 and US$ 1231, respectively; the break-even vaccine price was US$ 0.69/dose. From the governmental perspective, the results were US$ 6954, US$ 29,449, and US$ 1373, respectively; the break-even vaccine price was US$ 0.48/dose. Vietnam's GDP per capita was US$ 1911 in 2013. In deterministic sensitivity analysis, morbidity and mortality parameters were among the most influential factors. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, Hib vaccine had an 84% and 78% probability to be highly cost-effective from the societal and governmental perspectives, respectively. CONCLUSION: Hib vaccine was highly cost-effective from both societal and governmental perspectives. However, with GAVI support ending in 2016, the government will face a six-fold increase in its vaccine budget at the 2013 vaccine price. The variability of vaccine market prices adds an element of uncertainty. Increased government commitment and improved resource allocation decision making will be necessary to retain Hib vaccine.
BACKGROUND: With GAVI support, Vietnam introduced Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine in 2010 without evidence on cost-effectiveness. We aimed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of Hib vaccine from societal and governmental perspectives. METHOD: We constructed a decision-tree cohort model to estimate the costs and effectiveness of Hib vaccine versus no Hib vaccine for the 2011 birth cohort. The disease burden was estimated from local epidemiologic data and literature. Vaccine delivery costs were calculated from governmental reports and 2013 vaccine prices. A prospective cost-of-illness study was conducted to estimate treatment costs. The human capital approach was employed to estimate productivity loss. The incremental costs of Hib vaccine were divided by cases, deaths, and disability-adjusted life years (DALY) averted. We used the WHO recommended cost-effectiveness thresholds of an intervention being highly cost-effective if incremental costs per DALY were below GDP per capita. RESULT: From the societal perspective, incremental costs per discounted case, death and DALY averted were US$ 6252, US$ 26,476 and US$ 1231, respectively; the break-even vaccine price was US$ 0.69/dose. From the governmental perspective, the results were US$ 6954, US$ 29,449, and US$ 1373, respectively; the break-even vaccine price was US$ 0.48/dose. Vietnam's GDP per capita was US$ 1911 in 2013. In deterministic sensitivity analysis, morbidity and mortality parameters were among the most influential factors. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, Hib vaccine had an 84% and 78% probability to be highly cost-effective from the societal and governmental perspectives, respectively. CONCLUSION: Hib vaccine was highly cost-effective from both societal and governmental perspectives. However, with GAVI support ending in 2016, the government will face a six-fold increase in its vaccine budget at the 2013 vaccine price. The variability of vaccine market prices adds an element of uncertainty. Increased government commitment and improved resource allocation decision making will be necessary to retain Hib vaccine.
Authors: Fangjun Zhou; Kristine M Bisgard; Hussain R Yusuf; Robert R Deuson; Sue K Bath; Trudy V Murphy Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Phuc Le; Ulla K Griffiths; Dang D Anh; Luisa Franzini; Wenyaw Chan; Ha Pham; John M Swint Journal: Trop Med Int Health Date: 2014-08-18 Impact factor: 2.622
Authors: Abdullah H Baqui; Shams El Arifeen; Samir K Saha; Larsåke Persson; K Zaman; Bradford D Gessner; Lawrence H Moulton; Robert E Black; Mathuram Santosham Journal: Pediatr Infect Dis J Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 2.129
Authors: James P Watt; Lara J Wolfson; Katherine L O'Brien; Emily Henkle; Maria Deloria-Knoll; Natalie McCall; Ellen Lee; Orin S Levine; Rana Hajjeh; Kim Mulholland; Thomas Cherian Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-09-12 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Dang Duc Anh; Paul E Kilgore; Mary P E Slack; Batmunkh Nyambat; Le Huu Tho; Lay Myint Yoshida; Hien Anh Nguyen; Cat Dinh Nguyen; Chia Yin Chong; Dong Nguyen; Koya Ariyoshi; John D Clemens; Luis Jodar Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2009-03-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Joshua A Salomon; Theo Vos; Daniel R Hogan; Michael Gagnon; Mohsen Naghavi; Ali Mokdad; Nazma Begum; Razibuzzaman Shah; Muhammad Karyana; Soewarta Kosen; Mario Reyna Farje; Gilberto Moncada; Arup Dutta; Sunil Sazawal; Andrew Dyer; Jason Seiler; Victor Aboyans; Lesley Baker; Amanda Baxter; Emelia J Benjamin; Kavi Bhalla; Aref Bin Abdulhak; Fiona Blyth; Rupert Bourne; Tasanee Braithwaite; Peter Brooks; Traolach S Brugha; Claire Bryan-Hancock; Rachelle Buchbinder; Peter Burney; Bianca Calabria; Honglei Chen; Sumeet S Chugh; Rebecca Cooley; Michael H Criqui; Marita Cross; Kaustubh C Dabhadkar; Nabila Dahodwala; Adrian Davis; Louisa Degenhardt; Cesar Díaz-Torné; E Ray Dorsey; Tim Driscoll; Karen Edmond; Alexis Elbaz; Majid Ezzati; Valery Feigin; Cleusa P Ferri; Abraham D Flaxman; Louise Flood; Marlene Fransen; Kana Fuse; Belinda J Gabbe; Richard F Gillum; Juanita Haagsma; James E Harrison; Rasmus Havmoeller; Roderick J Hay; Abdullah Hel-Baqui; Hans W Hoek; Howard Hoffman; Emily Hogeland; Damian Hoy; Deborah Jarvis; Ganesan Karthikeyan; Lisa Marie Knowlton; Tim Lathlean; Janet L Leasher; Stephen S Lim; Steven E Lipshultz; Alan D Lopez; Rafael Lozano; Ronan Lyons; Reza Malekzadeh; Wagner Marcenes; Lyn March; David J Margolis; Neil McGill; John McGrath; George A Mensah; Ana-Claire Meyer; Catherine Michaud; Andrew Moran; Rintaro Mori; Michele E Murdoch; Luigi Naldi; Charles R Newton; Rosana Norman; Saad B Omer; Richard Osborne; Neil Pearce; Fernando Perez-Ruiz; Norberto Perico; Konrad Pesudovs; David Phillips; Farshad Pourmalek; Martin Prince; Jürgen T Rehm; Guiseppe Remuzzi; Kathryn Richardson; Robin Room; Sukanta Saha; Uchechukwu Sampson; Lidia Sanchez-Riera; Maria Segui-Gomez; Saeid Shahraz; Kenji Shibuya; David Singh; Karen Sliwa; Emma Smith; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Timothy Steiner; Wilma A Stolk; Lars Jacob Stovner; Christopher Sudfeld; Hugh R Taylor; Imad M Tleyjeh; Marieke J van der Werf; Wendy L Watson; David J Weatherall; Robert Weintraub; Marc G Weisskopf; Harvey Whiteford; James D Wilkinson; Anthony D Woolf; Zhi-Jie Zheng; Christopher J L Murray; Jost B Jonas Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-12-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: M Carolina Danovaro-Holliday; Salvador Garcia; Ciro de Quadros; Gina Tambini; Jon K Andrus Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2008-04-22 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Emma Rey-Jurado; Felipe Tapia; Natalia Muñoz-Durango; Margarita K Lay; Leandro J Carreño; Claudia A Riedel; Susan M Bueno; Yvonne Genzel; Alexis M Kalergis Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2018-01-18 Impact factor: 7.561