Delta Price Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of PCV21 vs. PCV20 Use in Adults Aged ?18 Years in Austria
Author(s)
Peter P. Mueller, PhD1, Maria Klicznik-Hollerer, PhD2, Evelyn Walter, PhD3, Eleana Tsoumani, MSc4, Agnes MM Sonnenschein, MD PhD5, Zinan Yi, PhD6, Christoph Jandl, PhD2, Theresa Pritz, PhD2, Philipp Wurm, PhD2, Kwame Owusu-Edusei, PhD7.
1Assoc Prin Scientist, Merck & Co., Inc., Boston, MA, USA, 2MSD Austria, Vienna, Austria, 3Institute for Pharmacoeconomic Research, Vienna, Austria, 4MSD Greece, Alimos, Greece, 5MSD Netherlands, Haarlem, Netherlands, 6Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, 7Merck & Co., Inc., West Point, PA, USA.
1Assoc Prin Scientist, Merck & Co., Inc., Boston, MA, USA, 2MSD Austria, Vienna, Austria, 3Institute for Pharmacoeconomic Research, Vienna, Austria, 4MSD Greece, Alimos, Greece, 5MSD Netherlands, Haarlem, Netherlands, 6Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, 7Merck & Co., Inc., West Point, PA, USA.
OBJECTIVES: Based on recent serotype distribution data for invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) in Austria [1], the new 21-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV), PCV21, is expected to prevent more cases than that of PCV20. In this cost-effectiveness analysis, we estimated outcomes prevented and applied a delta price method [2] to determine the price range over which PCV21 is cost-effective compared to PCV20.
METHODS: Data specific to Austria, including demographic, epidemiological, vaccination, and cost data, were used to adapt a previously published Markov model [3,4] to the adult population in Austria. We compared health and economic outcomes, for PCV21 vs PCV20, in adults ages ≥60 as well as 18-59 with risk conditions [5]. Vaccination coverage rates for influenza were used. The analysis determined the maximum price differences between PCV21 and PCV20 at which PCV21 was cost-saving and cost-effective (at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €40,000 per quality-adjusted life-year).
RESULTS: For adults ages ≥60, PCV21 prevented an extra 51 IPD cases, 757 hospitalized non-bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia (NBPP) cases, and saved €6 million societal costs beyond that of PCV20 (Table 1). As a result, PCV21 was cost-saving up until a price difference of €9.16 and cost-effective up to a price difference of €36.07, above that of PCV20 (Figure 1a).
For adults ages 18-59 with risk conditions, PCV21 prevented an extra 8 IPD cases, 35 hospitalized NBPP cases, and saved €1.5 million societal costs beyond that of PCV20 (Table 2). As a result, PCV21 was cost-saving up until a price difference of €7.79 and cost-effective up to a price difference of €12.83, above that of PCV20 (Figure 1b).
CONCLUSIONS: PCV21 yields better health outcomes and saves more medical and indirect costs than PCV20. As a result, PCV21 has a wide range of price differences over which it is either cost-saving or cost-effective compared to PCV20.
METHODS: Data specific to Austria, including demographic, epidemiological, vaccination, and cost data, were used to adapt a previously published Markov model [3,4] to the adult population in Austria. We compared health and economic outcomes, for PCV21 vs PCV20, in adults ages ≥60 as well as 18-59 with risk conditions [5]. Vaccination coverage rates for influenza were used. The analysis determined the maximum price differences between PCV21 and PCV20 at which PCV21 was cost-saving and cost-effective (at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €40,000 per quality-adjusted life-year).
RESULTS: For adults ages ≥60, PCV21 prevented an extra 51 IPD cases, 757 hospitalized non-bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia (NBPP) cases, and saved €6 million societal costs beyond that of PCV20 (Table 1). As a result, PCV21 was cost-saving up until a price difference of €9.16 and cost-effective up to a price difference of €36.07, above that of PCV20 (Figure 1a).
For adults ages 18-59 with risk conditions, PCV21 prevented an extra 8 IPD cases, 35 hospitalized NBPP cases, and saved €1.5 million societal costs beyond that of PCV20 (Table 2). As a result, PCV21 was cost-saving up until a price difference of €7.79 and cost-effective up to a price difference of €12.83, above that of PCV20 (Figure 1b).
CONCLUSIONS: PCV21 yields better health outcomes and saves more medical and indirect costs than PCV20. As a result, PCV21 has a wide range of price differences over which it is either cost-saving or cost-effective compared to PCV20.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
EPH56
Topic
Epidemiology & Public Health, Health Technology Assessment, Methodological & Statistical Research
Disease
Respiratory-Related Disorders (Allergy, Asthma, Smoking, Other Respiratory), Vaccines