Economic evaluation of vaccination programme of 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine to the birth cohort in Japan
Economic evaluation of vaccination programme of 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine to the birth cohort in Japan
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.02.033
复制
发表时间：
2012-05-09
期刊：
影响因子：
5.5
通讯作者：
Okubo, Ichiro
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hoshi, Shu-ling;Kondo, Masahide;Okubo, Ichiro
为了将7价肺炎球菌结合疫苗(PVC-7)引入常规接种计划，日本政府提供临时预算，鼓励市政当局启动公共疫苗接种计划，该计划于2010年11月26日开始，至2012年3月31日结束。本研究旨在从社会的角度评估PCV-7疫苗接种计划的“物有所值”，并从负责提供常规疫苗的市政当局的角度评估其对预算的影响。我们用马尔科夫模型进行了成本-效果分析，并计算了两种水平自付(SIC)1000(13美元)或(SIC)0以及接种疫苗(单独接种或与其他疫苗联合接种)两种情况下推出此类计划的增量成本-效果比(ICER)值。我们发现，当单独接种时，QALY中的ICE分别为7,441,000(93,013美元)或9,065,000(113,313美元)，在联合接种时(SIC)7,441,000(93,013美元)或(SIC)5,489,000(68,613美元)，无论方案的共同支付水平如何，没有或有生产力损失。联合接种方案比单独接种方案的ICER更低，这是因为减少了生产力损失。通过采用WHO的分类，如果ICER(以QALY为标准)在GDP的1-3倍之间，那么干预就是成本效益的。从社会的角度来看，日本的PCV-7疫苗接种计划被认为是成本效益的。引入不共付或(原文)1000(13美元)共付的疫苗接种计划似乎不能在前6年节省预算，而预算影响程度分别小于(原文)11,000,000(137,500美元)或(原文)8500,000(106,250美元)对于第一年和第二至第五年出生队列为1000人的直辖市，出生队列与预计未来人口的出生队列人口成正比。(C)2012爱思唯尔有限公司。保留所有权利。
Aiming to introduce 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PVC-7) into routine vaccination schedule, the government of Japan gives a temporary budget to encourage municipalities in launching public vaccination programme which started on November 26, 2010 and ends on March 31, 2012. This study aims to appraise the 'value for money' of PCV-7 vaccination programme from the societal perspective and the budget impact from the perspective of municipalities, which is responsible for providing routine vaccination.We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis with Markov modelling and calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) value of launching such programme with two levels of co-payment, (sic)1000 (US$13) or (sic)0, and two scenarios of the uptake of vaccine (vaccinated-alone or co-vaccinated with other vaccines).We found that when vaccinated-alone, ICERs in QALY were (sic)7,441,000 (US$93,013) or (sic)9,065,000 (US$113,313), and when co-vaccinated (sic)7,441,000 (US$93,013) or (sic)5,489,000 (US$68,613), without or with productivity loss, respectively, regardless of co-payment level of the programme. Co-vaccinated programmes had lower ICER than vaccinated-alone programmes due to the savings in productivity loss. By adopting WHO's classification that an intervention is 'cost-effective' if ICER (in QALY) is between 1 and 3 times of GDP as a criterion, PCV-7 vaccination programme in Japan is concluded as "cost-effective" from the perspective of society.The introduction of either no co-payment or (sic)1000 (US$13) co-payment vaccination programme appears to be not budget saving for the first 6 years, whereas the level of budget impact are less than (sic)11,000,000 (US$137,500) or (sic)8,500,000 (US$106,250), respectively, for a municipality with 1000 birth cohort in the 1st year and 2nd to 5th year birth cohort proportional to the birth cohort population of estimated future population. (c) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.