COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF THE TWENTY-VALENT PNEUMOCOCCAL CONJUGATE VACCINE AGAINST CURRENTLY AVAILABLE LOWER-VALENT PNEUMOCOCCAL CONJUGATE VACCINES IN INDIAN CHILDREN FROM THE PRIVATE PAYER PERSPECTIVE
Author(s)
Dimitra Anglou, MSc.1, Liping Huang, MD2, Mukundraj Satyaranjan Keny, MD3, Santosh Taur, MD4.
1Pfizer Inc., Tadworth, Surrey, United Kingdom, 2Pfizer, Washington Crossing, PA, USA, 3Pfizer Inc., Mumbai, India, 4Pfizer, Mumbai, India.
1Pfizer Inc., Tadworth, Surrey, United Kingdom, 2Pfizer, Washington Crossing, PA, USA, 3Pfizer Inc., Mumbai, India, 4Pfizer, Mumbai, India.
OBJECTIVES: Multiple pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) are available for paediatric use in India’s private market, including two 13-valent (PCV13-PFE, PCV13-Walvax), two 10-valent (PCV10-GSK, PCV10-Serum) and one 14-valent (PCV14-BioE). PCV20-PFE is currently under Board of Health review in India for the paediatric indication. This study compared health and economic outcomes of different PCVs and cost-effectiveness of PCV20-PFE compared with currently available lower-valent PCVs in Indian children.
METHODS: A decision‑analytic Markov model evaluated PCV20‑PFE (3+1) versus PCV10‑GSK (3+1), PCV10‑Serum (3+0), PCV13‑PFE (3+1), PCV13‑Walvax (3+1), and PCV14‑BioE (3+1) over a 10‑year horizon with 3% annual discounting. Model inputs for pneumococcal disease (PD) incidence, serotype distribution, and health utilities were sourced from local data and published literature. Direct medical costs and vaccine prices were obtained from Indian private hospital data. Vaccine effectiveness estimates were based on clinical efficacy and effectiveness data from PCV7 and PCV13 studies and uniformly applied to all PCVs. Indirect effects were excluded in line with the private payer perspective. Outcomes included pneumococcal disease cases, quality‑adjusted life‑years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost‑effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
RESULTS: Over 10 years, PCV20‑PFE was estimated to prevent an additional 412,260, 404,654, 30,829, 30,200, and 103,671 PD cases compared with PCV10‑GSK, PCV10‑Serum, PCV13‑PFE, PCV13‑Walvax, and PCV14‑BioE, respectively. The ICERs of PCV20‑PFE versus these comparators were ₹56,422, ₹89,207, ₹101,608, ₹103,132, and ₹258,720 per QALY gained, respectively. All ICERs were below the willingness‑to‑pay threshold of one GDP per capita (₹260,409), indicating PCV20-PFE was cost-effective against these lower-valent vaccines.
CONCLUSIONS: From the Indian private payer perspective, PCV20‑PFE is cost‑effective compared to currently available lower‑valent PCVs, providing greater health benefits and favourable economic value through additional disease prevention, death reductions and QALY gains.
METHODS: A decision‑analytic Markov model evaluated PCV20‑PFE (3+1) versus PCV10‑GSK (3+1), PCV10‑Serum (3+0), PCV13‑PFE (3+1), PCV13‑Walvax (3+1), and PCV14‑BioE (3+1) over a 10‑year horizon with 3% annual discounting. Model inputs for pneumococcal disease (PD) incidence, serotype distribution, and health utilities were sourced from local data and published literature. Direct medical costs and vaccine prices were obtained from Indian private hospital data. Vaccine effectiveness estimates were based on clinical efficacy and effectiveness data from PCV7 and PCV13 studies and uniformly applied to all PCVs. Indirect effects were excluded in line with the private payer perspective. Outcomes included pneumococcal disease cases, quality‑adjusted life‑years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost‑effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
RESULTS: Over 10 years, PCV20‑PFE was estimated to prevent an additional 412,260, 404,654, 30,829, 30,200, and 103,671 PD cases compared with PCV10‑GSK, PCV10‑Serum, PCV13‑PFE, PCV13‑Walvax, and PCV14‑BioE, respectively. The ICERs of PCV20‑PFE versus these comparators were ₹56,422, ₹89,207, ₹101,608, ₹103,132, and ₹258,720 per QALY gained, respectively. All ICERs were below the willingness‑to‑pay threshold of one GDP per capita (₹260,409), indicating PCV20-PFE was cost-effective against these lower-valent vaccines.
CONCLUSIONS: From the Indian private payer perspective, PCV20‑PFE is cost‑effective compared to currently available lower‑valent PCVs, providing greater health benefits and favourable economic value through additional disease prevention, death reductions and QALY gains.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
EE747
Topic
Economic Evaluation, Health Policy & Regulatory, Health Technology Assessment
Disease
Pediatrics, Respiratory-Related Disorders (Allergy, Asthma, Smoking, Other Respiratory), Vaccines