Cost-effectiveness of high-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine versus standard-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine for older people in a country with high influenza vaccination rate.

The highdose quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIVHD) has shown improved protection against influenza and its complications in older adults. We aimed to evaluate the costeffectiveness of QIVHD compared with QIVSD among Korean adults aged ≥ 65 years in reducing influenzarelated disease burden. We evaluated the 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 seasons and their average values using a static decision tree model. The difference in efficacy between standard-dose (SD) and high-dose (HD) was calculated based on the results of a clinical trial comparing Fluzone® High-Dose Vaccine and Fluzone® Vaccine in older adults. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were assessed from the healthcare system perspective. A discount rate of 4.5% was applied to life-year-gained (LYG) values and utilities. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to account for both epidemiological and economic sources of uncertainty. In the analysis of the 2017/2018 season, the QIV-HD strategy generated an excess of 0.00182 life-years (Lys)/person and 0.003953 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)/person compared with QIV-SD. The ICER was 6,467.56 United States Dollars (USD)/QALY. In the analysis from the 2016/2017 season, QIV-HD caused a surplus of 0.00117 Lys/person and 0.003272 QALYs/person compared with QIV-SD. ICER was 7,902.46 USD /QALY. From the average data of the 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 seasons, an excess of 0.00147 Lys/person and 0.003561 QALYs/person were generated using QIV-HD compared with QIV-SD, while the ICER was 7,190.44 USD /QALY. From the healthcare system perspective, QIV-HD was a more cost-effective vaccination option in reducing influenza-related disease burden and healthcare costs in Koreans aged ≥ 65 years compared with QIV-SD.

Cost-Effectiveness of Denosumab for the Treatment of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis in South Korea.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is a progressive skeletal disease associated with an increased risk of bone fracture. This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of denosumab for osteoporotic fracture prevention compared to bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, and zoledronate) and selective estrogen receptor modulators (raloxifene) in a cohort of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. METHODS: A Markov model was used to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of denosumab versus comparators. The model had a cycle length of 6 months and was run from the age of 68 years to individual patients' lifetime or the age of 100 years. The health states considered in the model were well, hip fracture, vertebral fracture, wrist fracture, other osteoporotic fracture, post-hip fracture, post-vertebral fracture, and death. Recent local data were used as inputs for the model parameters. A discount rate of 4.5% was applied to both costs and outcomes. RESULTS: From the perspective of the healthcare system, denosumab was cost-effective or cost-saving compared to all comparators, considering one unit of Korea's gross domestic product per capita, USA dollar (USD) 34,870. Denosumab was cost-saving compared to ibandronate (oral) and raloxifene. Compared to alendronate, denosumab was cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD 767.10 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The ICER of denosumab vs. ibandronate IV, risedronate, and zoledronate was USD 685.63, USD 1,469.71, USD 4,668.53 per QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this analysis suggest that denosumab is a cost-effective therapeutic option for preventing fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in South Korea.