Background: To compare cost and quality-adjusted life–years (QALYs) gained by influenza vaccination with or without pneumococcal vaccination in the elderly living in long-term care facilities (LTCFs).
Methods: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on Markov modelling over 5 years, from a Hong Kong public health provider’s perspective, on a hypothetical cohort of LTCF residents aged ⩾65 years. Benefit–cost ratio (BCR) and net present value (NPV) of two vaccination strategies versus no vaccination were estimated. The cost and QALYs gained by two vaccination strategies were compared by Student’s t-test in probabilistic sensitivity analysis (10 000 Monte Carlo simulations).
Results: Both vaccination strategies had high BCRs and NPVs (6.39 and US$334 for influenza vaccination; 5.10 and US$332 for influenza plus pneumococcal vaccination). In base case analysis, the two vaccination strategies were expected to cost less and gain higher QALYs than no vaccination. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the cost of combined vaccination and influenza vaccination was significantly lower (p<0.001) than the cost of no vaccination. Both vaccination strategies gained significantly higher (p<0.001) QALYs than no vaccination. The QALYs gained by combined vaccination were significantly higher (p = 0.030) than those gained by influenza vaccination alone. The total cost of combined vaccination was significantly lower (p = 0.011) than that of influenza vaccination.
Conclusion: Influenza vaccination with or without pneumococcal vaccination appears to be less costly with higher QALYs gained than no vaccination, over a 5-year period, for elderly people living in LTCFs from the perspective of a Hong Kong public health organisation. Combined vaccination was more likely to gain higher QALYs with lower total cost than influenza vaccination alone.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval The study protocol was approved by the Joint Chinese University of Hong Kong–New Territories East Cluster clinical research ethics committee.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.