Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Switching from Trivalent to Quadrivalent Seasonal Influenza Vaccine in Argentina

The burden of seasonal influenza disease in Argentina is considerable. The cost-effectiveness of trivalent (TIV) versus quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV) in Argentina was assessed. An age-stratified, static, decision-tree model compared the costs and benefits of vaccination for an average influenza season. Main outcomes included: numbers of influenza cases; general practitioner (GP) visits; complicated ambulatory cases; hospitalizations; deaths averted; and costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Epidemiological data from Argentina for 2014-2019 were used to determine the proportion of A and B strain cases, and the frequency of mismatch between vaccine and circulating B strains. To manage uncertainty, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Switching from TIV to QIV would prevent 19,128 influenza cases, 16,164 GP visits, 2440 complicated ambulatory cases, 524 hospitalizations, and 82 deaths. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per QALY were 13,590 and 11,678 USD from the payer's and societal perspectives, respectively. The greatest health benefits and direct medical cost savings would occur in >= 65-year-olds. One-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated the principal drivers of ICER to be vaccine acquisition costs, environmental B strain predominance, and B strain mismatch. Introducing QIV in Argentina would be beneficial and cost-effective relative to TIV, particularly in older adults.

Automated summary

The study assessed the cost-effectiveness of using quadrivalent influenza vaccine compared to trivalent influenza vaccine in Argentina. The results showed that introducing the quadrivalent vaccine would prevent more influenza cases and be more cost-effective, particularly for individuals aged 65 and older.