Influenza is a viral respiratory disease that causes significant clinical and economic burden globally. Quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV) is frequently used to protect people who have a high-risk of developing influenza complications due to comorbidities. QIV offers protection against influenza A (A/H1N1 and H3N2) and B (B/Victoria, and B/Yamagata) strains. The European Medicines Agency has recently approved a cell-based QIV (QIVc) in people aged over 9 years old. QIVc has been shown to be more effective at preventing influenza than traditional egg-based QIV (QIVe). In this study, we use a health economic model adapted to Spain to assess the costs and outcomes associated with using QIVc instead of QIVe in people aged 9–64 at high-risk of complications. Observed vaccine coverage of 32% in the 9–17 age group, 17% in those aged 18–59, and 22% for ages 60–64 was used in the analysis. In total, 2.5 million people were vaccinated in the simulations. Using QIVc instead of QIVe was associated with 16,221fewer symptomatic cases, 4,522 fewer primary care visits, 1,015 fewer emergency room visits and 88 fewer hospitalizations. From a societal perspective, QIVc was more effective and less expensive compared to QIVe, leading to a cost-saving of €3.4 million. From a public payer perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for QIVc vs QIVe was €12,852 per QALY gained. In conclusion, QIVc offers a cost-effective alternative to QIVe and should be considered as an alternative vaccine to QIVe for people aged 9–64 at high-risk of influenza complications in Spain.

Influenza is a contagious respiratory disease that causes severe illness and death, particularly in elderly populations. Two enhanced formulations of quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV) are available in Spain. Adjuvanted QIV (aQIV) is available for those aged 65+ and high-dose QIV (HD-QIV) for those aged 60+. In this study, we used a health economic model to assess the costs and outcomes associated with using aQIV or HD-QIV in subjects aged 65+. Using aQIV instead of HD-QIV to vaccinate an estimated 5,126,343 elderly people results in reductions of 5405 symptomatic cases, 760 primary care visits, 171 emergency room visits, 442 hospitalizations, and 26 deaths in Spain each year. Life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) increases by 260 and 206, respectively, each year. Savings from a direct medical payer perspective are EUR 63.6 million, driven by the lower aQIV vaccine price and a minor advantage in effectiveness. From a societal perspective, savings increase to EUR 64.2 million. Results are supported by scenario and sensitivity analyses. When vaccine prices are assumed equal, aQIV remains dominant compared to HD-QIV. Potential savings are estimated at over EUR 61 million in vaccine costs alone. Therefore, aQIV provides a highly cost-effective alternative to HD-QIV for people aged 65+ in Spain.

Standard-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccines (QIV) are designed to provide protection against all four influenza strains. Adjuvanted QIV (aQIV), indicated for individuals aged 65+ years, combines MF59^® adjuvant (an oil-in-water emulsion of squalene oil) with a standard dose of antigen, and is designed to produce stronger and longer immune response, especially in the elderly where immunosenescence reduces vaccine effectiveness. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of aQIV vs. egg-based standard-dose QIV (QIVe) in the elderly population, from the payer and societal perspective in Spain. A dynamic transmission model, which accounts for herd protection, was used to predict the number of medically attended infections in Spain. A decision tree structure was used to forecast influenza-related costs and benefits. Influenza-related probabilities of outpatient visit, hospitalization, work absenteeism, mortality, and associated utilities and costs were extracted from Spanish and European published literature. Relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) was sourced from two different meta-analyses: the first meta-analysis was informed by laboratory-confirmed influenza studies only, resulting in a rVE = 34.6% (CI95% 2–66%) in favor of aQIV; the second meta-analysis included real world evidence influenza-related medical encounters outcomes, resulting in a rVE = 13.9% (CI95% 4.2–23.5%) in benefit of aQIV. All costs were expressed in 2021 euros. Results indicate that replacing QIVe with aQIV in the Spanish elderly population would prevent on average 43,664 influenza complicated cases, 1111 hospitalizations, and 569 deaths (with a rVE = 34.6%) or 19,104 influenza complicated cases, 486 hospitalizations, and 252 deaths (with a rVE = 13.9%). When the rVE of aQIV vs. QIVe is 34.6%, the incremental cost per quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained was €2240 from the payer; from the societal perspective, aQIV was cost saving compared with QIVe. If the rVE was 13.9%, the incremental cost per QALY was €6694 and €3936 from the payer and societal perspective, respectively. Sensitivity analyses validated the robustness of these findings. Results indicate that replacing QIVe with aQIV in the Spanish elderly population is a cost-effective strategy for the Spanish healthcare system.

Healthcare decision-makers face difficult decisions regarding COVID-19 booster selection given limited budgets and the need to maximize healthcare gain. A constrained optimization (CO) model was developed to identify booster allocation strategies that minimize bed-days by varying the proportion of the eligible population receiving different boosters, stratified by age, and given limited healthcare expenditure. Three booster options were included: B₁, costing US $1 per dose, B₂, costing US $2, and no booster (NB), costing US $0. B₁ and B₂ were assumed to be 55%/75% effective against mild/moderate COVID-19, respectively, and 90% effective against severe/critical COVID-19. Healthcare expenditure was limited to US$2.10 per person; the minimum expected expense using B_1, B_2, or NB for all. Brazil was the base-case country. The model demonstrated that B₁ for those aged <70 years and B₂ for those ≥70 years were optimal for minimizing bed-days. Compared with NB, bed-days were reduced by 75%, hospital admissions by 68%, and intensive care unit admissions by 90%. Total costs were reduced by 60% with medical resource use reduced by 81%. This illustrates that the CO model can be used by healthcare decision-makers to implement vaccine booster allocation strategies that provide the best healthcare outcomes in a broad range of contexts.