Sroczynski G.,UMIT University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology |
Schnell-Inderst P.,UMIT University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology |
Muhlberger N.,UMIT University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology |
Lang K.,CAREM GmbH |
And 12 more authors.
European Journal of Cancer | Year: 2011
Objectives: To systematically evaluate the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HPV-based primary cervical cancer screening in the German health care context using a decision-analysis approach. Methods: A Markov-model for HPV-infection and cervical cancer was developed for the German health care context, and applied to evaluate various screening strategies that differ by screening interval and test algorithms, including HPV-testing alone or in combination with cytology. German clinical, epidemiological, and economic data, and test accuracy data from international meta-analyses were used. Outcomes predicted included the reduction in cervical cancer cases and deaths, life expectancy and discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). The analysis was performed from the perspective of the healthcare system adopting a 3% annual discount rate for costs and outcomes. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: HPV-based screening is more effective than cytology alone. It results in a 71-97% reduction in cervical cancer cases as compared to 53-93% for cytology alone. The ICER range from 2600 Euro/LYG (cytology, 5-year-interval) to 155,500 Euro/LYG (annual HPV-testing starting at age 30 years, cytology age 20-29 years). Annual cytology alone, the current recommended screening strategy in Germany, is dominated by HPV-strategies. Increasing the age at screening initiation from 20 to 25 years does not result in a relevant loss in effectiveness but results in lower costs. Conclusions: Based on our analyses, HPV-based cervical cancer screening is more effective than cytology alone and could be cost-effective if performed at intervals of two years or longer. In the German context, an optimal screening strategy may be biennial HPV screening starting at age 30 years preceded by biennial cytology for women aged 25-29 years. Longer screening intervals may be considered in low-risk women with good screening adherence and in populations with low HPV-incidence. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Source
Preaud E.,Sanofi S.A. |
Uhart M.,Sanofi S.A. |
Bohm K.,CAREM GmbH |
Aidelsburger P.,CAREM GmbH |
And 3 more authors.
Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics | Year: 2015
Herpes zoster (HZ; shingles) is a common viral disease that affects the nerves and surrounding skin causing a painful dermatomal rash and leading to debilitating complications such as, mainly, post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN). Currently, there is no effective treatment for HZ and PHN. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a HZ vaccination program in Germany. An existing Markov Model was adapted to the German healthcare setting to compare a vaccination policy to no vaccination on a lifetime time-horizon, considering 2 scenarios: vaccinating people starting at the age of 50 or at the age of 60 years, from the perspective of the statutory health insurance (SHI) and the societal perspective. According to the perspective, vaccinating 20% of the 60C German population resulted in 162,713 to 186,732 HZ and 31,657 to 35,793 PHN cases avoided. Corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were 39,306 €/QALY from the SHI perspective and 37,417 €/QALY from a societal perspective. Results for the 50+ German population ranged from 336,468 to 394,575 HZ and from 48,637 to 56,087 PHN cases avoided from the societal perspective. Corresponding ICER were 39,782 €/QALY from a SHI perspective and 32,848 €/QALY from a societal perspective. Sensitivity analyses showed that results are mainly impacted by discount rates, utility values and use of alternative epidemiological data.The model indicated that a HZ vaccination policy in Germany leads to significant public health benefits and could be a cost-effective intervention. The results were robust and consistent with local and international existing literature. © 2015 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. Source
Aidelsburger P.,CAREM GmbH |
Grabein K.,CAREM GmbH |
Bohm K.,CAREM GmbH |
Dietl M.,CAREM GmbH |
And 6 more authors.
Vaccine | Year: 2014
Background: Rotavirus (RV) causes a highly contagious gastroenteritis especially in children under five years of age. Since 2006 two RV-vaccines are available in Europe (Rotarix® and RotaTeq®). To support informed decision-making within the German Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO) the cost-effectiveness of these two vaccines was evaluated for the German healthcare setting. Methods: A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness from the statutory health insurance (SHI) and from the societal perspective. RV-cases prevented, RV-associated hospitalizations avoided, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained were considered as health outcomes. RV-incidences were calculated based on data from the national mandatory disease reporting system. RV-vaccine efficacy was determined as pooled estimates based on data from randomized controlled trials. Vaccine list prices and price catalogues were used for cost-assessment. Effects and costs were discounted with an annual discount rate of 3%. Results: The base-case analysis (SHI-perspective) resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratio for Rotarix® of € 184 per RV-case prevented, € 2457 per RV-associated hospitalization avoided, and € 116,973 per QALY gained. For RotaTeq®, the results were € 234 per RV-case prevented, € 2622 per RV-associated hospitalization avoided, and € 142,732 per QALY gained. Variation of various parameters in sensitivity analyses showed effects on the ICERs without changing the overall trend of base-case results. When applying base-case results to the 2012 birthcohort in Germany with 80% vaccination coverage, an estimated 206,000-242,000 RV-cases and 18,000 RV-associated hospitalizations can be prevented in this birthcohort over five years for an incremental cost of 44.5-48.2 million €. Conclusion: Our analyses demonstrate that routine RV-vaccination could prevent a substantial number of RV-cases and hospitalizations in the German healthcare system, but the saved treatment costs are counteracted by costs for vaccination. However, with vaccine prices reduced by ~62-66%, RV-vaccination could even become a cost-saving preventive measure. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. Source