Cost-effectiveness of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) in older Australians

Background: The 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) has been funded under the Australia National Immunisation Program (NIP) since January 2005 for those aged >65 years and other risk groups. In 2016, PCV13 was accepted by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) as a replacement for a single dose of PPV23 in older Australian adults. Methods: A single-cohort deterministic multi-compartment (Markov) model was developed describing the transition of the population between different invasive and non-invasive pneumococcal disease related health states. We applied a healthcare system perspective with costs (Australian dollars, A$) and health effects (measured in quality adjusted life-years, QALYs) attached to model states and discounted at 5% annually. We explored replacement of PPV23 with PCV13 at 65 years as well as other age based vaccination strategies. Parameter uncertainty was explored using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results: In a single cohort, we estimated PCV13 vaccination at the age of 65 years to cost similar to A$11,120,000 and prevent 39 hospitalisations and 6 deaths from invasive pneumococcal disease and 180 hospitalisations and 10 deaths from community acquired pneumonia. The PCV13 program had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of similar to A$88,100 per QALY gained when compared to a no-vaccination, whereas PPV23 was A$297,200 per QALY gained. To fall under a cost-effectiveness threshold of A$60,000 per QALY, PCV13 would have to be priced below similar to A$46 per dose. The cost-effectiveness of PCV13 in comparison to PPV23 was similar to A$35,300 per QALY gained. Conclusion: In comparison to no-vaccination, we found PCV13 use in those aged 65 years was unlikely to be cost-effective unless the vaccine price was below A$46 or a longer duration of protection can be established. However, we found that in comparison to the PPV23, vaccination with PCV13 was cost-effective. This partly reflects the poor value for money estimated for PPV23 use in Australia. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.