Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle 98195, USA; Vaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle 98109, USA.
Centre for Global Health, Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, Edinburgh Medical School, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9AG, UK; Centre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK; Department for Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK.
Vaccine. 2021 Jan 8;39(2):447-456. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.10.007. Epub 2020 Dec 4.
The current pediatric vaccination program in England and Wales administers Live-Attenuated Influenza Vaccine (LAIV) to children ages 2-16 years old. Annual administration of LAIV to this age group is costly and poses substantial logistical issues. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of prioritizing vaccination to age groups within the 2-16 year old age range to mitigate the operational and resource challenges of the current strategy. We performed economic evaluations comparing the influenza vaccination program from 1995-2013 to seven alternative strategies targeted at low risk individuals along the school age divisions Preschool (2-4 years old), Primary school (5-11 years old), and Secondary school (12-16 years old). These extensions are evaluated incrementally on the status quo scenario (vaccinating subgroups at high risk of influenza-related complications and individuals 65+ years old). Impact of vaccination was assessed using a transmission model from a previously published study and updated with new data. At all levels of coverage, all strategies had a 100% probability of being cost-effective at the current National Health Service threshold, £20,000/QALY gained. The incremental analysis demonstrated vaccinating Primary School children was the most cost-efficient strategy compared incrementally against others with an Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio of £639 spent per QALY gained (Net Benefit: 404 M£ [155, 795]). When coverage was varied between 30%, 55%, and 70% strategies which included Primary school children had a higher probability of being cost-effective at lower willingness-to-pay levels. Although children were the vaccine target the majority of QALY gains occurred in the 25-44 years old and 65+ age groups. Influenza strain A/H3N2 incurred the greatest costs and QALYs lost regardless of which strategy was used. Improvement could be made to the current LAIV pediatric vaccination strategy by eliminating vaccination of 2-4 year olds and focusing on school-based delivery to Primary and Secondary school children in tandem.
英格兰和威尔士目前的儿科疫苗接种计划为 2-16 岁儿童接种活减毒流感疫苗(LAIV)。为该年龄段接种 LAIV 每年都需要花费大量资金,并且存在大量后勤问题。本研究旨在评估在 2-16 岁年龄范围内对疫苗接种组进行优先排序的成本效益,以减轻当前策略的运营和资源挑战。我们通过经济评估比较了 1995-2013 年的流感疫苗接种计划和七种针对学龄儿童(2-4 岁、5-11 岁和 12-16 岁)的低风险人群的替代策略。这些扩展方案是在现状(为有流感相关并发症高风险的亚组和 65 岁以上的个体接种疫苗)的基础上逐步评估的。使用先前发表的研究中的传播模型和新数据评估疫苗接种的影响。在所有覆盖水平下,所有策略在当前国家卫生服务机构阈值(每获得 1 个质量调整生命年的成本为 20000 英镑)下都有 100%的成本效益概率。增量分析表明,与其他策略相比,逐步为小学儿童接种疫苗是最具成本效益的策略,增量成本效益比为每获得 1 个质量调整生命年花费 639 英镑(净效益:40400 万英镑[155000-795000])。当覆盖范围在 30%、55%和 70%之间变化时,包括小学儿童在内的策略在较低的支付意愿水平上更有可能具有成本效益。尽管儿童是疫苗接种的目标人群,但获得的大部分质量调整生命年都发生在 25-44 岁和 65 岁以上的人群中。无论使用哪种策略,流感 A/H3N2 株都会导致最大的成本和质量调整生命年损失。通过取消对 2-4 岁儿童的疫苗接种,并集中在小学和中学儿童的学校接种,可以改进当前的 LAIV 儿科疫苗接种策略。