Affiliations 

  • 1 Discipline of Social and Administrative Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), 11800, George Town, Penang, Malaysia. aakmal@usm.my
  • 2 Discipline of Social and Administrative Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), 11800, George Town, Penang, Malaysia
  • 3 Sanofi Pasteur SA, 2 Avenue Pont Pasteur, 69367, Lyon Cedex 07, France
  • 4 Sanofi Pasteur Malaysia, Unit TB-18-1, Level 18, Tower B, Plaza 33, No. 1 Jalan Kemajuan, Seksyen 13, 46200, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
  • 5 Disease Control Division, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Block E1, E3, E6, E7 and E10, Parcel E, Federal Government Administration Centre, 62590, Putrajaya, Malaysia
  • 6 Pediatric Department and Clinical Research Center, Hospital Raja Permaisuri Bainun Ipoh, Jalan Hospital, 30990, Ipoh, Perak, Malaysia
Pharmacoeconomics, 2017 May;35(5):575-589.
PMID: 28205150 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0487-3

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Dengue disease poses a great economic burden in Malaysia.

METHODS: This study evaluated the cost effectiveness and impact of dengue vaccination in Malaysia from both provider and societal perspectives using a dynamic transmission mathematical model. The model incorporated sensitivity analyses, Malaysia-specific data, evidence from recent phase III studies and pooled efficacy and long-term safety data to refine the estimates from previous published studies. Unit costs were valued in $US, year 2013 values.

RESULTS: Six vaccination programmes employing a three-dose schedule were identified as the most likely programmes to be implemented. In all programmes, vaccination produced positive benefits expressed as reductions in dengue cases, dengue-related deaths, life-years lost, disability-adjusted life-years and dengue treatment costs. Instead of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), we evaluated the cost effectiveness of the programmes by calculating the threshold prices for a highly cost-effective strategy [ICER <1 × gross domestic product (GDP) per capita] and a cost-effective strategy (ICER between 1 and 3 × GDP per capita). We found that vaccination may be cost effective up to a price of $US32.39 for programme 6 (highly cost effective up to $US14.15) and up to a price of $US100.59 for programme 1 (highly cost effective up to $US47.96) from the provider perspective. The cost-effectiveness analysis is sensitive to under-reporting, vaccine protection duration and model time horizon.

CONCLUSION: Routine vaccination for a population aged 13 years with a catch-up cohort aged 14-30 years in targeted hotspot areas appears to be the best-value strategy among those investigated. Dengue vaccination is a potentially good investment if the purchaser can negotiate a price at or below the cost-effective threshold price.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.