Incremental net monetary benefit of herpes zoster vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness evidence
Issued Date
2022-01-01
Resource Type
ISSN
13696998
eISSN
1941837X
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85121044661
Pubmed ID
34791974
Journal Title
Journal of Medical Economics
Volume
25
Issue
1
Start Page
26
End Page
37
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Journal of Medical Economics Vol.25 No.1 (2022) , 26-37
Suggested Citation
Udayachalerm S. Incremental net monetary benefit of herpes zoster vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness evidence. Journal of Medical Economics Vol.25 No.1 (2022) , 26-37. 37. doi:10.1080/13696998.2021.2008195 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/86721
Title
Incremental net monetary benefit of herpes zoster vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness evidence
Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Objectives: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to pool the incremental net benefit (INB) of each herpes zoster vaccine [i.e. Zoster Vaccine Live (ZVL) and Recombinant Zoster Vaccine (RZV)]. Methods: We initially identified individual studies by hand-searching reference lists of the relevant systematic review articles. An updated comprehensive search was performed in Medline, Scopus, and Embase until June 2020 for additional studies. Studies were eligible if they assessed the cost-effectiveness/utility of any pair among ZVL and RZV, and no vaccine and reported economic outcomes. Details of the study characteristics, economic model inputs, costs, and outcomes were extracted. INB was calculated with monetary units adjusting for purchasing power parity for 2019 US dollars and pooled by meta-analysis. Results: A total of 37 studies were pooled for meta-analysis stratified by perspectives [i.e. societal (SP) and third-party payer (TPP)] and vaccine types. In SP, ZVL was cost-effective compared to no vaccine when vaccinated at ages of 50–59 and 70–79 years with INBs (95% CI) of $0.61 (0.37, 0.85) and $9.67 (5.20, 14.14), respectively. RZV was cost-effective for those aged 60–69 and 70–79 years with INBs of $75.61 (17.98, 133.23) and $85.01 (30.02, 140.01), respectively. In TPP, ZVL was cost-effective compared to no vaccine when vaccinated at age 70–79 years with INB of $7.57 (0.27, 14.86) and RZV was cost-effective at 60–69 years with INB $220.87 (47.80, 393.93). The cost-effectiveness of RZV was robust across a series of sensitivity analyses, but ZVL differs on different vaccination ages. Conclusions: RZV may be cost-effective for vaccination in ages of 60–79 years for both SP and TPP perspectives, while ZVL might be cost-effective in some age groups, but results are not robust.