Vaccine · 2021
Pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine is a cost saving strategy for prevention of acute coronary syndrome.
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.
Ren Shu, Attia John, Li Shu Chuen, Newby David
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: There is evidence that the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV) may reduce cardiovascular disease. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PPV for primary prevention of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the elderly in Australia.
METHODS: A Markov model was developed to investigate the costs, QALYs and ICERs of PPV administration in those aged ≥65 years without a history of ACS from the perspective of Australian healthcare system, using elderly-specific clinical data and local costs from Australian Heart Foundation and Australian Institute of Health and Welfare databases. A ten-years horizon was used, and all costs and health outcomes were discounted at 5% annually. The impact of various assumptions was tested with sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, interventional strategy (100% PPV coverage) prevented an additional five incident ACS events among 1000 "Работает" elderly individuals compared with standard of care (50% PPV coverage) over 10 years. 100% PPV was the dominant strategy, resulting in a QALY gain of 0.0075 and cost saving of AU$ 179 per person. The results were most sensitive to effectiveness of PPV at preventing ACS and reducing hospital bed-days, and cost of ACS admission, but in all sensitivity analyses 100% PPV remained the dominant strategy. Shortening the time horizon from ten to five years resulted in further cost saving.
CONCLUSION: PPV for the prevention of ACS in those aged ≥65 is a dominant intervention strategy, with cost saving and minor improvements in QALY. Healthcare providers should promote PPV administration for all eligible populations.
METHODS: A Markov model was developed to investigate the costs, QALYs and ICERs of PPV administration in those aged ≥65 years without a history of ACS from the perspective of Australian healthcare system, using elderly-specific clinical data and local costs from Australian Heart Foundation and Australian Institute of Health and Welfare databases. A ten-years horizon was used, and all costs and health outcomes were discounted at 5% annually. The impact of various assumptions was tested with sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, interventional strategy (100% PPV coverage) prevented an additional five incident ACS events among 1000 "Работает" elderly individuals compared with standard of care (50% PPV coverage) over 10 years. 100% PPV was the dominant strategy, resulting in a QALY gain of 0.0075 and cost saving of AU$ 179 per person. The results were most sensitive to effectiveness of PPV at preventing ACS and reducing hospital bed-days, and cost of ACS admission, but in all sensitivity analyses 100% PPV remained the dominant strategy. Shortening the time horizon from ten to five years resulted in further cost saving.
CONCLUSION: PPV for the prevention of ACS in those aged ≥65 is a dominant intervention strategy, with cost saving and minor improvements in QALY. Healthcare providers should promote PPV administration for all eligible populations.