Man-Kit Leung1, Joyce H S You2. 1. School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong. 2. School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong. Electronic address: joyceyou@cuhk.edu.hk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intradermal (ID) injection is an alternative route for influenza vaccine administration in elderly with potential improvement of vaccine coverage. This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of an influenza vaccination program offering ID vaccine to elderly who had declined intramuscular (IM) vaccine from the perspective of Hong Kong public healthcare provider. METHODS: A decision analytic model was used to simulate outcomes of two programs: IM vaccine alone (IM program), and IM or ID vaccine (IM/ID program) in a hypothetic cohort of elderly aged 65 years. Outcome measures included influenza-related direct medical cost, infection rate, mortality rate, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) loss, and incremental cost per QALY saved (ICER). Model inputs were derived from literature. Sensitivity analyses evaluated the impact of uncertainty of model variables. RESULTS: In base-case analysis, the IM/ID program was more costly (USD52.82 versus USD47.59 per individual to whom vaccine was offered) with lower influenza infection rate (8.71% versus 9.65%), mortality rate (0.021% versus 0.024%) and QALYs loss (0.00336 versus 0.00372) than the IM program. ICER of IM/ID program was USD14,528 per QALY saved. One-way sensitivity analysis found ICER of IM/ID program to exceed willingness-to-pay threshold (USD39,933) when probability of influenza infection in unvaccinated elderly decreased from 10.6% to 5.4%. In 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations of elderly populations of Hong Kong, the IM/ID program was the preferred option in 94.7% of time. CONCLUSIONS: An influenza vaccination program offering ID vaccine to elderly who had declined IM vaccine appears to be a highly cost-effective option.
BACKGROUND: Intradermal (ID) injection is an alternative route for influenza vaccine administration in elderly with potential improvement of vaccine coverage. This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of an influenza vaccination program offering ID vaccine to elderly who had declined intramuscular (IM) vaccine from the perspective of Hong Kong public healthcare provider. METHODS: A decision analytic model was used to simulate outcomes of two programs: IM vaccine alone (IM program), and IM or ID vaccine (IM/ID program) in a hypothetic cohort of elderly aged 65 years. Outcome measures included influenza-related direct medical cost, infection rate, mortality rate, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) loss, and incremental cost per QALY saved (ICER). Model inputs were derived from literature. Sensitivity analyses evaluated the impact of uncertainty of model variables. RESULTS: In base-case analysis, the IM/ID program was more costly (USD52.82 versus USD47.59 per individual to whom vaccine was offered) with lower influenza infection rate (8.71% versus 9.65%), mortality rate (0.021% versus 0.024%) and QALYs loss (0.00336 versus 0.00372) than the IM program. ICER of IM/ID program was USD14,528 per QALY saved. One-way sensitivity analysis found ICER of IM/ID program to exceed willingness-to-pay threshold (USD39,933) when probability of influenza infection in unvaccinated elderly decreased from 10.6% to 5.4%. In 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations of elderly populations of Hong Kong, the IM/ID program was the preferred option in 94.7% of time. CONCLUSIONS: An influenza vaccination program offering ID vaccine to elderly who had declined IM vaccine appears to be a highly cost-effective option.