Influenza vaccination can benefit most populations, including adults ≥ 65 years of age, who are at greater risk of influenza-related complications. In many countries, enhanced vaccines, such as adjuvanted, high-dose, and recombinant trivalent/quadrivalent influenza vaccines (aTIV/aQIV, HD-TIV/HD-QIV, and QIVr, respectively), are recommended in older populations to provide higher immunogenicity and increased relative vaccine efficacy/effectiveness (rVE) than standard-dose vaccines. This review explores how efficacy and effectiveness data from randomized controlled trials and real-world evidence (RWE) are used in economic evaluations. Findings from published cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) on enhanced influenza vaccines for older adults are summarized, and the assumptions and approaches used in these CEA are assessed alongside discussion of the importance of RWE in CEA. Results from many CEA showed that adjuvanted and high-dose enhanced vaccines were cost-effective compared with standard vaccines, and that differences in rVE estimates and acquisition price may drive differences in cost-effectiveness estimates between enhanced vaccines. Overall, RWE and CEA provide clinical and economic rationale for enhanced vaccine use in people ≥ 65 years of age, an at-risk population with substantial burden of disease. Countries that consider RWE when making vaccine recommendations have preferentially recommended aTIV/aQIV, as well as HD-TIV/HD-QIV and QIVr, to protect older individuals.

Apixaban, a novel oral anticoagulant which has been approved for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in non-valvular atrial fibrillation, reduces both ischemic and haemorrhagic stroke and produces fewer bleedings than vitamin K antagonist warfarin. These clinical results lead to a decrease in health care resource utilization and, therefore, have a positive impact on health economics of atrial fibrillation. The cost-effectiveness of apixaban has been assessed in a variety of clinical settings and countries. However, data from emergent markets, as is the case of Argentina, are still scarce. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of apixaban versus warfarin in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in patients suitable for oral anticoagulation in Argentina. A Markov-based model including both costs and effects were used to simulate a cohort of patients with NVAF. Local epidemiological, resource utilization and cost data were used and all inputs were validated by a Delphi Panel of local experts. We adopted the payer’s perspective with costs expressed in 2012 US Dollars. The study revealed that apixaban is cost-effective compared with warfarin using a willingness to pay threshold ranging from 1 to 3 per capita Gross Domestic Product (11558 – 34664 USD) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 786.08 USD per QALY gained. The benefit is primarily a result of the reduction in stroke and bleeding events. The study demonstrates that apixaban is a cost-effective alternative to warfarin in Argentina.

Background: Quadrivalent cell-based influenza vaccines (QIVc) avoid egg-adaptive mutations and can be more effective than traditional quadrivalent egg-based influenza vaccines (QIVe). This analysis compared the cost-effectiveness of QIVc and QIVe in Argentinian populations < 65 years old from the payer and societal perspectives. Methods: A static decision tree model compared the costs and health benefits of vaccination with QIVc vs. QIVe using a one-year time horizon. The relative vaccine effectiveness of QIVc vs. QIVe was assumed to be 8.1% for children and 11.4% for adults. An alternative high egg-adaptation scenario was also assessed. Model inputs were sourced from Argentina or the international literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Compared to QIVe, QIVc would prevent 17,857 general practitioner visits, 2418 complications, 816 hospitalizations, and 12 deaths per year. From the payers’ perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life years gained was USD12,214 in the base case and USD2311 in the high egg-adaptation scenario. QIVc was cost-saving from the societal perspective in both scenarios. Conclusions: QIVc in Argentina would be cost-effective relative to QIVe. The potential health benefits and savings would be even higher in high egg-adaptation seasons.