Evaluating the impact of population-based and cohort-based models in cost-effectiveness analysis: a case study of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines in infants in Germany.
Johnna Perdrizet, Dominik Schröder, Felicitas Kühne, Julia Schiffner-Rohe, Maren Laurenz, Christian Theilacker, Aleksandar Ilic, An Ta, Christof von Eiff
{"title":"Evaluating the impact of population-based and cohort-based models in cost-effectiveness analysis: a case study of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines in infants in Germany.","authors":"Johnna Perdrizet, Dominik Schröder, Felicitas Kühne, Julia Schiffner-Rohe, Maren Laurenz, Christian Theilacker, Aleksandar Ilic, An Ta, Christof von Eiff","doi":"10.1080/13696998.2025.2536430","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this analysis is to evaluate the impact of model choice (closed single-cohort versus population-based) in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) using pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) in infants in Germany as a case study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two Markov models were developed: one with a closed single-cohort model and one with a population-based model. Except for the design of the modelled population/cohort, all other inputs and characteristics were kept identical between the models. Comparators included PCV20 under a 3 + 1 vaccination schedule versus PCV13 and PCV15 under a 2 + 1 vaccination schedule. Health and economic outcomes were compared between the two models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The population-based model demonstrated that PCV20 was cost-saving and provided better health outcomes compared to both PCV13 and PCV15, indicating PCV20 as the dominant strategy with negative ICERs per QALY. In contrast, the closed single-cohort model showed PCV20 was associated with higher total costs compared to PCV13 and PCV15.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This analysis highlights the importance of accurately identifying the relevant population when conducting CEAs of vaccines. This is particularly crucial when a vaccine produces indirect effects in individuals who are not directly vaccinated, as this otherwise leads to an underestimation of cost-effectiveness.</p>","PeriodicalId":16229,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Economics","volume":" ","pages":"1191-1197"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2025.2536430","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this analysis is to evaluate the impact of model choice (closed single-cohort versus population-based) in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) using pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) in infants in Germany as a case study.
Methods: Two Markov models were developed: one with a closed single-cohort model and one with a population-based model. Except for the design of the modelled population/cohort, all other inputs and characteristics were kept identical between the models. Comparators included PCV20 under a 3 + 1 vaccination schedule versus PCV13 and PCV15 under a 2 + 1 vaccination schedule. Health and economic outcomes were compared between the two models.
Results: The population-based model demonstrated that PCV20 was cost-saving and provided better health outcomes compared to both PCV13 and PCV15, indicating PCV20 as the dominant strategy with negative ICERs per QALY. In contrast, the closed single-cohort model showed PCV20 was associated with higher total costs compared to PCV13 and PCV15.
Conclusion: This analysis highlights the importance of accurately identifying the relevant population when conducting CEAs of vaccines. This is particularly crucial when a vaccine produces indirect effects in individuals who are not directly vaccinated, as this otherwise leads to an underestimation of cost-effectiveness.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Medical Economics'' mission is to provide ethical, unbiased and rapid publication of quality content that is validated by rigorous peer review. The aim of Journal of Medical Economics is to serve the information needs of the pharmacoeconomics and healthcare research community, to help translate research advances into patient care and be a leader in transparency/disclosure by facilitating a collaborative and honest approach to publication.
Journal of Medical Economics publishes high-quality economic assessments of novel therapeutic and device interventions for an international audience