scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Alain Brunot

Bio: Alain Brunot is an academic researcher from university of lille. The author has contributed to research in topics: Vaccination & Indirect costs. The author has an hindex of 3, co-authored 3 publications receiving 145 citations.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Considering the impact of vaccination onvaricella morbidity and costs, a routine varicella vaccination program appears to be cost saving in Germany and France from both a societal and a third-party payer perspective.

53 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: In this paper, the economic impact of childhood varicella vaccination in France and Germany was analyzed using three different coverage rates (90, 70, and 45%). Catch-up strategies were also analyzed.
Abstract: Objective To determine the economic impact of childhood varicella vaccination in France and Germany. Methods A common methodology based on the use of a varicella transmission model was used for the two countries. Cost data (2002‰) were derived from two previous studies. The analysis focused on a routine vaccination program for which three different coverage rates (CRs) were considered (90%, 70%, and 45%). Catch-up strategies were also analyzed. A societal perspective including both direct and indirect costs and a third-party payer perspective were considered (Social Security in France and Sickness Funds in Germany). Results A routine vaccination program has a clear positive impact on varicella-related morbidity in both countries. With a 90% CR, the number of varicella-related deaths was reduced by 87% in Germany and by 84% in France. In addition, with a CR of 90%, routine varicella vaccination induces savings in both countries from both societal (Germany 61%, France 60%) and third-party payer perspectives (Germany 51%, France 6.7%). For lower CRs, routine vaccination remains cost saving from a third-party payer perspective in Germany but not in France, where it is nevertheless cost-effective (cost per life-year gained of 6521‰ in the base case with a 45% CR). Conclusion Considering the impact of vaccination on varicella morbidity and costs, a routine varicella vaccination program appears to be cost saving in Germany and France from both a societal and a third-party payer perspective. For France, routine varicella vaccination remains cost-effective in worst cases when a third-party payer perspective is adopted. Catch-up programs provide additional savings.

49 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is suggested that routine ZVZ vaccination may be cost saving from both a societal and a health system perspective in the base case, and in the worst-case scenario of the sensitivity analysis, vaccination remains cost effective.
Abstract: Aim: To determine the economic impact (cost-benefit analysis) of childhood varicella vaccination, with the Oka/Merck varicella zoster virus vaccine live (Varivax®) in Italy. Methods: This analysis is based on an epidemiological model of varicella zoster virus (VZV) dynamics adapted to the Italian situation. Cost data (€, 2002 values) were collected through a literature review. Several vaccination scenarios were analysed: (i) routine vaccination programme for children aged 1–2 years with different levels of vaccination coverage (90%, 70% and 45%) without any catch-up programme; (ii) routine vaccination programme for children aged 1–2 years with different levels of vaccination coverage (90%, 70% and 45%) completed by a catch-up programme for 6-year-old children over the first 5 years of vaccine marketing; and (iii) routine vaccination programme for children aged 1–2 years with different levels of vaccination coverage (90%, 70% and 45%) completed by a catch-up programme during the first year of vaccine marketing for children aged 2–11 years. Perspectives: A societal perspective, including both direct and indirect costs, and a health-system perspective, limited to costs supported by Italian Health Authorities, were considered. Results: A routine vaccination programme has a clearly positive impact on chickenpox morbidity. Respectively, 68% and 57% of chickenpox-related hospitalisations and deaths could be prevented with a 90% coverage rate. With vaccination costs being more than offset by a reduction in chickenpox treatment costs in the base case, such a programme could also induce savings from both a societal and a health-system perspective (40% and 12% savings, respectively for a 90% coverage rate). A lower coverage rate reduces cost savings, but there is still a 9% decrease in overall societal costs for a 45% coverage rate. Although the reduction in total societal costs was robust to the sensitivity analyses performed, a slight uncertainty remains regarding cost reduction from a health-system perspective. However, in this latter perspective, even in the worst-case scenario of the sensitivity analysis, routine vaccination programmes may be cost effective, the worst-case scenario for cost parameters leading to cost per life-year gained of €2853. Catch-up programmes combined with routine vaccination should lead to further cost reductions from a societal perspective: 15% for a massive catch-up during the first year of vaccine marketing compared with toddlers’ vaccination alone, and 11% for a catch-up focused on 6-year-old children for a period of 5 years. However, the impact of catch-up programmes on the costs from an Italian health-system perspective remains close to zero (±1%). Conclusion: This model suggests, with its underlying assumptions and data, that routine ZVZ vaccination may be cost saving from both a societal and a health system perspective in the base case. In the worst-case scenario of the sensitivity analysis, vaccination remains cost effective.

46 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The results emphasize the need to improve modelling methods for CEAs of vaccination programmes; specifically, model choice, construction, assessment and validation.
Abstract: Cost effectiveness is becoming an increasingly important factor for stakeholders faced with decisions about adding a new vaccine into national immunization programmes versus alternative use of resources. Evaluating cost effectiveness, taking into account the relevant biological, clinical, epidemiological and economic factors of a vaccination programme, generally requires use of a model. This review examines the modelling approaches used in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of vaccination programmes. After overviewing the key attributes of models used in CEAs, a framework for categorising theoretical models is presented. Categories are based on three main attributes: static/dynamic; stochastic/deterministic; and aggregate/individual based. This framework was applied to a systematic review of CEAs of all currently available vaccines for the period of 1976 to May 2007. The systematic review identified 276 CEAs of vaccination programmes. The great majority (83%) of CEAs were conducted in the setting of high-income countries. Only a few vaccines were widely studied, with 57% of available CEAs being focused on the varicella, influenza, hepatitis A, hepatitis B or pneumococcal vaccine. Several time trends were evident, indicating that the number of vaccine CEAs being published is increasing; the main health outcome measures are moving away from the number of cases prevented towards quality-adjusted and unadjusted life-years gained, and more complex models are beginning to be used. The modelling approach was often not adequately described. Of the 208 CEAs that could be categorized according to the framework, around 90% were deterministic, aggregate-level static models. Although a dynamic transmission model is required to account for herd-immunity effects, only 23 of the CEAs were dynamic. None of the CEAs were individual based. To improve communication about the cost effectiveness of vaccination programmes, we believe the first step is for analysts to be more transparent with each other. A clear description of the model type using consistent terminology and justification for the model choice must begin to accompany all CEAs. As a minimum, we urge modellers to provide an explicit statement about the following attributes: static/dynamic; stochastic/deterministic; aggregate/individual based; open/closed. Where relevant, time intervals (discrete/continuous) and (non)linearity should also be described. Enhanced methods of assessing model performance and validity are also required. Our results emphasize the need to improve modelling methods for CEAs of vaccination programmes; specifically, model choice, construction, assessment and validation.

153 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Shingles Prevention Study examined whether vaccination with a live attenuated VZV vaccine would decrease the incidence and severity of herpes zoster and PHN in adults 60 years of age or older and performed an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of V ZV vaccination in immunocompetent older adults.
Abstract: According to this decision model, vaccinating older adults against herpes zoster can improve quality-adjusted life expectancy by small amounts. However, vaccination is unlikely to cost less than $1...

120 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Administration of 2 doses of the combined MMRV vaccine was as immunogenic and well-tolerated as separate injections of MMR and varicella vaccine, and did not induce an increased local or general reactogenicity compared with the separate administration.
Abstract: Background:Combination vaccines against common childhood diseases are widely used, provide an improved coverage, are more convenient and are more cost-effective than multiple injections. We conducted a study to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of acombined measles-mumps-rubella-varicella (MMRV

100 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Estimates of cost-effectiveness ratios at any single time point may fail to adequately consider the context of the investment made to date and the importance of population and other dynamics, and the need for living economic models for interventions that appropriately change with time is demonstrated.
Abstract: The history of polio vaccination in the United States spans 50 years and includes different phases of the disease, multiple vaccines, and a sustained significant commitment of resources. We estimated cost-effectiveness ratios and assessed the net benefits of polio vaccination applicable at various points in time from the societal perspective and we discounted these back to appropriate points in time. We reconstructed vaccine price data from available sources and used these to retrospectively estimate the total costs of the U.S. historical polio vaccination strategies (all costs reported in year 2002 dollars). We estimate that the United States invested approximately $35 billion (1955 net present value, discount rate of 3%) in polio vaccines between 1955 and 2005 and will invest approximately $1.4 billion (1955 net present value, or $6.3 billion in 2006 net present value) between 2006 and 2015 assuming a policy of continued use of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) for routine vaccination. The historical and future investments translate into over 1.7 billion vaccinations that prevent approximately 1.1 million cases of paralytic polio and over 160,000 deaths (1955 net present values of approximately 480,000 cases and 73,000 deaths). Due to treatment cost savings, the investment implies net benefits of approximately $180 billion (1955 net present value), even without incorporating the intangible costs of suffering and death and of averted fear. Retrospectively, the U.S. investment in polio vaccination represents a highly valuable, cost-saving public health program. Observed changes in the cost-effectiveness ratio estimates over time suggest the need for living economic models for interventions that appropriately change with time. This article also demonstrates that estimates of cost-effectiveness ratios at any single time point may fail to adequately consider the context of the investment made to date and the importance of population and other dynamics, and shows the importance of dynamic modeling.

87 citations