Department of Expanded Program on Immunization, Hangzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Hangzhou, China.
Front Public Health. 2022 Sep 23;10:990042. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.990042. eCollection 2022.
It is necessary to select suitable inactivated poliovirus vaccine(IPV) and live, attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) sequential immunization programs and configure the corresponding health resources. An economic evaluation was conducted on the sequential procedures of Sabin strain-based IPV (sIPV) and bivalent OPV (bOPV) with different doses to verify whether a cost-effectiveness target can be achieved. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different sIPV immunization schedules, which would provide convincing evidence to further change the poliovirus vaccine (PV) immunization strategies in China.
Five strategies were included in this analysis. Based on Strategy 0(S), the incremental cost (IC), incremental effect (IE), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the four different strategies (S/S/S/S) were calculated based on the perspective of the society. Seven cost items were included in this study. Results of field investigations and expert consultations were used to calculate these costs.
The ICs of S/S/S/S was Chinese Yuan (CNY) 30.77, 68.58, 103.82, and 219.82 million, respectively. The IE of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (IE) cases of S/S/S/S were 0.22, 0.22, 0.22, and 0.11, respectively, while the IE of disability-adjusted life-years (IE) of S/S/S/S were 8.98, 8.98, 8.98, and 4.49, respectively. The ICER of S/S/S/S gradually increased to CNY 13.99, 31.17, 47.19, and 199.83 million/VAPP, respectively. The ICER of S/S/S/S also gradually increased to CNY 0.34, 0.76, 1.16, and 4.90 million/DALY, respectively.
ICER and ICER were substantially higher for S (four-sIPV) and S (replacement of self-funded sIPV based on one-sIPV-three-bOPV). Two-sIPV-two-bOPV had a cost-effectiveness advantage, whereas S2/S3/S4 had no cost-effectiveness advantage.
有必要选择合适的灭活脊灰病毒疫苗(IPV)和减毒口服脊灰病毒疫苗(OPV)序贯免疫程序,并配置相应的卫生资源。本研究对不同剂量的基于沙宾株的 IPV(sIPV)和二价 OPV(bOPV)序贯程序进行了经济性评价,以验证是否可以达到成本效益目标。本研究旨在评估不同 sIPV 免疫方案的成本效益,为进一步改变中国脊灰病毒疫苗(PV)免疫策略提供有力证据。
本研究纳入了 5 种策略。基于策略 0(S),从社会角度计算了四种不同策略(S/S/S/S)的增量成本(IC)、增量效果(IE)和增量成本效益比(ICER)。本研究共纳入 7 项成本。这些成本是通过现场调查和专家咨询来计算的。
S/S/S/S 的 IC 分别为 3077 万元、6858 万元、10382 万元和 21982 万元。S/S/S/S 的疫苗相关麻痹性脊灰病例的 IE 分别为 0.22、0.22、0.22 和 0.11,而 S/S/S/S 的残疾调整生命年的 IE 分别为 8.98、8.98、8.98 和 4.49。S/S/S/S 的 ICER 逐渐增加到 1399 万元/VAPP、3117 万元/VAPP、4719 万元/VAPP 和 19983 万元/VAPP。S/S/S/S 的 ICER 也逐渐增加到 340 万元/DALY、760 万元/DALY、1160 万元/DALY 和 4900 万元/DALY。
S(四价 sIPV)和 S(基于单价 sIPV 的自费 sIPV 替代)的 ICER 和 ICER 明显较高。两价 sIPV-两价 OPV 具有成本效益优势,而 S2/S3/S4 则没有成本效益优势。