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.

IF 3 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Medical Economics Pub Date : 2025-12-01 Epub Date: 2025-07-25 DOI:10.1080/13696998.2025.2536430
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.

评估基于人群和基于队列的模型在成本效益分析中的影响:德国婴儿肺炎球菌结合疫苗的案例研究
目的:本分析的目的是评估模型选择的影响(封闭的单队列与基于人群的)在成本效益分析(CEA)中使用德国婴儿肺炎球菌结合疫苗(PCVs)作为案例研究。方法:建立了两个马尔可夫模型:一个是封闭的单队列模型,一个是基于人群的模型。除了建模人群/队列的设计外,所有其他输入和特征在模型之间保持相同。比较者包括3 + 1疫苗接种计划下的PCV20与2 + 1疫苗接种计划下的PCV13和PCV15。对两种模型的健康和经济结果进行了比较。结果:基于人群的模型表明,与PCV13和PCV15相比,PCV20节省了成本,提供了更好的健康结果,表明PCV20是每个QALY的ICERs为负的优势策略。相比之下,封闭的单队列模型显示,与PCV13和PCV15相比,PCV20与更高的总成本相关。结论:该分析强调了在进行疫苗cea时准确识别相关人群的重要性。当疫苗对未直接接种疫苗的个人产生间接影响时,这一点尤为重要,否则会导致对成本效益的低估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Economics
Journal of Medical Economics HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
4.20%
发文量
122
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
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信