The aim of this study was to compare the public health impact of introducing 2 Herpes Zoster (HZ) vaccines, Zoster Vaccine Live (ZVL) versus a non-live adjuvanted subunit candidate vaccine (HZ/su), in the German population aged 50+ years split into 3 age cohorts, i.e. 50–59, 60–69 and 70+ years, respectively. A multi-cohort static Markov model was developed following age cohorts over their lifetime. Demographic data were obtained from the German federal statistical office. HZ incidence and the proportion of HZ individuals developing post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) were derived from German specific sources. Age-specific vaccine efficacy and waning rates were based on published clinical trial data. Vaccine coverage for both vaccines was assumed to be 40%, with compliance of the second dose of the HZ/su vaccine of 70%. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the results. It was estimated that, over the remaining lifetime since vaccination, the HZ/su vaccine would reduce the number of HZ cases by 725,233, 533,162 and 486,794 in the 3 age cohorts, respectively, compared with 198,477, 196,000 and 104,640, using ZVL. The number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one HZ case ranged from 8 to 11 using the HZ/su vaccine compared with 20 to 50 using ZVL. Corresponding NNV to prevent one PHN case ranged from 39 to 53 using the HZ/su vaccine compared with 94 to 198 using ZVL. Due to the higher, sustained vaccine efficacy, the candidate HZ/su vaccine demonstrated superior public health impact compared with ZVL.

No abstract

BackgroundThe risk of Herpes Zoster (HZ) increases with age and various studies have also demonstrated an increasing HZ incidence globally. Simultaneously, the global trend of an aging population has placed a greater burden on the healthcare system. This study aims to estimate the potential burden of HZ over time accounting for the increasing trends of both HZ incidence and global aging.MethodsA recent systematic review on HZ incidence identified studies that evaluated the temporal effects of HZ incidence. Data from the identified studies were extracted to estimate the trend of HZ incidence in the ≥65-year-old age cohort. The incidence rates were estimated up to the year 2030 using two scenarios: a linear extrapolation and a last observation carried forward. Three countries were chosen to perform the analysis on: Australia, Japan and the United States.ResultsThe incidence data from the three countries showed an average annual increase between 2.35 and 3.74% over the time period of the studies selected. The elderly population for the US, Japan and Australia are expected to increase by 55, 10 and 53% respectively by the year 2030 compared to the levels in 2015. Under the first scenario between 2001 and 2030, the number of annual incident cases of HZ in those aged ≥65 years is expected to increase by +343% (293,785 to 1,303,328), +176% (158,616 to 437,867) and +376% (18,105 to 86,268) in the US, Japan and Australia respectively while those for the second scenario are +150%, +83% and +223% respectively. In the US alone, the estimated annual cost of HZ-related cases in the ≥65 age cohort is approximately 4.74 Billion US$ in 2030.ConclusionsThe increasing incidence of HZ coupled with the demographic trends (i.e., aging population and greater life expectancy) in many countries are likely to imply a rising economic burden of HZ on already constrained healthcare budgets.

ObjectivesIn Canada, incidences of herpes zoster (HZ) and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) are increasing, posing a significant burden on the healthcare system. This study aimed to determine the public health impact and cost effectiveness of an adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) compared to no vaccination and to the live attenuated vaccine (ZVL) in Canadians aged 60 years and older.MethodsA multi-cohort Markov model has been adapted to the Canadian context using recent demographic and epidemiologic data. Simulations consisted of age-cohorts annually transitioning between health states. Health outcomes and costs were discounted at 1.5% per year. The perspective of the Canadian healthcare payer was adopted. A coverage of 80% for the first RZV and ZVL dose and a compliance of 75% for the second RZV dose were assumed.ResultsRZV was estimated to be cost effective compared with no vaccination with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $28,360 (Canadian dollars) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in persons aged ≥ 60 years, avoiding 554,504 HZ and 166,196 PHN cases. Compared with ZVL, RZV accrued more QALYs through the remaining lifetime and an increase in costs of approximately $50 million resulting in an average ICER of $2396. Results were robust under deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. HZ incidence rate and persistence of vaccine efficacy had the largest impact on cost effectiveness.ConclusionsThe cost-utility analysis suggested that RZV would be cost effective in the Canadian population compared with no vaccination and vaccination with ZVL at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s40258-019-00491-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Each year, around 300,000 Herpes Zoster (HZ) cases are observed in the German population, resulting in costs over €182 million to society. The objective of this study was to estimate the potential public health and economic impact of the new Adjuvanted Recombinant Zoster Vaccine (RZV, Shingrix) in the German population ≥ 60 years of age (YOA) and to identify the optimal age of vaccination. We used a static, multi-cohort Markov model that followed a hypothetical cohort of 1 million people ≥ 60 YOA life-long after vaccination using German-specific inputs. Both costs and outcomes were discounted at 3%, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated based on the societal perspective. The coverage of RZV was set at 40% with a second-dose compliance of 70%. Vaccinating the population aged ≥ 60 YOA would result in 45,000 HZ cases avoided, 1,713 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained at a total cost of approximately €63 million compared to 38,000 cases avoided, 1,545 QALYs gained at a total cost of approximately €68 million in the population ≥ 70 YOA. This would result in an ICER of approximately €37,000 and €44,000/QALY, for the age cohort ≥ 60 and ≥ 70 YOA, respectively. Scenario analyses demonstrated that vaccinating at age 60 or 65 YOA would show greater public health impact and would result in the lowest observed ICER compared to vaccinating at 70 YOA. In conclusion, starting vaccination with RZV in the German population ≥ 60 YOA would demonstrate the best value from a public health and economic standpoint.[Figure: see text].

IntroductionThe aim of this study was to compare the public health impact of introducing two herpes zoster (HZ) vaccines into the vaccination programs for the Japanese population aged ≥ 50 years: a single-dose Varicella Vaccine Live (VVL) or a two-dose adjuvanted Recombinant Zoster Vaccine (RZV).MethodsA multi-cohort static Markov model was developed to follow age cohorts (50–59, 60–69, 70–79 and ≥ 80 years) over their remaining lifetime. Japan-specific data inputs for the model were obtained from Japanese data sources. Age-stratified vaccine efficacy and waning rates were based on published clinical trial data. In the base-case analysis, vaccine coverage was assumed to be 40% for both vaccines, and compliance with second-dose of the RZV vaccine was set to 95%.ResultsVaccination with RZV was projected to prevent approximately 3.3 million HZ cases, 692,000 cases of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), and 281,000 cases of other complications, compared with the prevention of 0.8 million HZ cases, 216,000 PHN cases, and 57,000 other complications with vaccination with VVL. The number of individuals needed to vaccinate in order to prevent one HZ case ranged from 6 to 14 using RZV (depending on age and assumed second-dose compliance) and from 21 to 138 depending on age using VVL. By preventing a higher number of HZ cases and its complications, RZV vaccination led to fewer outpatient visits and hospitalizations than vaccination with VVL.ConclusionBoth vaccines had a positive public health impact compared to no vaccination, but due to its higher vaccine efficacy, RZV demonstrated a superior public health impact compared with VVL.FundingGlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s13555-018-0236-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background:Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is the economic analysis method most commonly applied today in the context of replacing one treatment with a new one in a developed healthcare system to improve efficiency. CEA is often requested by local healthcare decisionmakers to grant reimbursement.New preventative interventions, such as new vaccines, may however have much wider benefits inside and outside healthcare, when compared with treatment. These additional benefits include externalities on indirect clinical impact, reallocation of specific healthcare resources, improved quality of care, better productivity, better disease control, better fiscal revenues, and others. But these effects are sometimes difficult to integrate into a meaningful CEA result. They may appear as specific benefits for specific stakeholders, other than the stakeholders in healthcare.Objective: Based on a historical view about the application of economic assessments for vaccines our objective has been to make the inventory of who was/is interested in knowing the economic value of vaccines, in what those different stakeholders are likely to see the benefit from their perspective and how were/are we able to measure those benefits and to report them well. Results: The historical view disclosed a limited interest in the economic assessment of vaccines at start, more than 50 years ago, that was comparable to the assessment of looking for more efficiency in new industries through optimization exercises. Today, we are exposed to a very rich panoply of different stakeholders (n= 16). They have their specific interest in many different facets of the vaccine benefit of which some are well known in the conventional economic analysis (n=9), but most outcomes are hidden and not enough evaluated and reported (n=26). Meanwhile we discovered that many different methods of evaluation have been explored to facilitate the measurement and reporting of the benefits (n=18). Conclusion: Our recommendation for future economic evaluations of new vaccines is therefore to find the right combination among the three entities of stakeholder type selection, outcome measure of interest for each stakeholder, and the right method to apply. We present at the end examples that illustrate how successful this approach can be.

No abstract