Australian and New Zealand journal of public health · 2001
Cost-effectiveness analysis of changing from live oral poliovirus vaccine to inactivated poliovirus vaccine in Australia.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tucker A W, Isaacs D, Burgess M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Estimate the economic impact of introducing inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) into the Australian childhood immunisation schedule to eliminate vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP).
METHODS: Cost-effectiveness of two different four-dose IPV schedules (monovalent vaccine and IPV-containing combination vaccine) compared with the current four-dose oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) schedule for Australian children through age six years. Model used estimates of VAPP incidence, costs, and vaccine utilisation and price obtained from published and unpublished sources. Main outcome measures were total costs, outcomes prevented, and incremental cost-effectiveness, expressed as net cost per case of VAPP prevented.
RESULTS: Changing to an IPV-based schedule would prevent 0.395 VAPP cases annually. At $20 per dose for monovalent vaccine and $14 per dose for the IPV component in a combination vaccine, the change would incur incremental, annual costs of $19.5 million ($49.3 million per VAPP case prevented) and $6.7 million ($17.0 million per VAPP case prevented), respectively. Threshold analysis identified break-even prices per dose of $1 for monovalent and $7 for combination vaccines.
CONCLUSIONS: Introducing IPV into the Australian childhood immunisation schedule is not likely to be cost-effective unless it comes in a combined vaccine with the IPV-component price below $10.
IMPLICATIONS: More precise estimates of VAPP incidence in Australia and IPV price are needed. However, poor cost-effectiveness will make the decision about switching from OPV to IPV in the childhood schedule difficult.
METHODS: Cost-effectiveness of two different four-dose IPV schedules (monovalent vaccine and IPV-containing combination vaccine) compared with the current four-dose oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) schedule for Australian children through age six years. Model used estimates of VAPP incidence, costs, and vaccine utilisation and price obtained from published and unpublished sources. Main outcome measures were total costs, outcomes prevented, and incremental cost-effectiveness, expressed as net cost per case of VAPP prevented.
RESULTS: Changing to an IPV-based schedule would prevent 0.395 VAPP cases annually. At $20 per dose for monovalent vaccine and $14 per dose for the IPV component in a combination vaccine, the change would incur incremental, annual costs of $19.5 million ($49.3 million per VAPP case prevented) and $6.7 million ($17.0 million per VAPP case prevented), respectively. Threshold analysis identified break-even prices per dose of $1 for monovalent and $7 for combination vaccines.
CONCLUSIONS: Introducing IPV into the Australian childhood immunisation schedule is not likely to be cost-effective unless it comes in a combined vaccine with the IPV-component price below $10.
IMPLICATIONS: More precise estimates of VAPP incidence in Australia and IPV price are needed. However, poor cost-effectiveness will make the decision about switching from OPV to IPV in the childhood schedule difficult.