Health and economic impact of introducing norovirus vaccination in England accounting for acute kidney injury: model-based cost-effectiveness analysis

Abstract

Background Norovirus vaccines are currently undergoing advanced clinical trials. Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a serious sequelae of norovirus infection. This study evaluated the health and economic impact of implementing a norovirus vaccination programme in England and assessed the contribution of AKI.

Methods We constructed a deterministic age-stratified dynamic-transmission compartmental model. Three single-dose norovirus vaccination strategies were compared to a no-vaccination strategy: targeting children under 5 years of age, targeting adults aged 65 years or older, and targeting both age groups simultaneously. We estimated the impact on preventing primary care attendances, hospitalisations, and mortality from symptomatic norovirus, as well as hospitalisations and mortality due to norovirus-related AKI in adults aged 65 years or older. We evaluated the cost effectiveness over a 10-year time horizon, from a healthcare payer perspective, and discounted costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at 3.5%. We performed probabilistic sensitivity analysis. In one-way sensitivity analysis, we varied the vaccine prices and the proportion of AKI-linked norovirus hospitalisations.

Results A combined vaccination strategy of targeting children and older adults reduced symptomatic infections by 59% (37-84%) and 64% (39-87%) in these age groups, respectively. When including AKI outcomes, all vaccination strategies were cost-effective at £35 per dose and 60% efficacy. At a willingness-to-pay of £20,000 per QALY gained, the combined vaccination strategy had a 96% probability of being the most cost-effective option. Even with a norovirus-related AKI hospitalisation rate as low as 3% among symptomatic norovirus-infected adults, the strategy remained cost-effective. When excluding AKI outcomes, all strategies were not cost-effective.

Conclusions Introducing a norovirus vaccine could be cost-effective in England when accounting for the AKI-related sequelae, which are critical for the health economic evaluation.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

We would like to acknowledge the funding support from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Modelling and Health Economics, a partnership between UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), Imperial College London, and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The views expressed in the study are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Health Service, NIHR, UK Department of Health or UKHSA. The views and opinions expressed herein are the authors own and do not necessarily state or reflect those of Robert Koch Institute (RKI).

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The study used only openly available human data. All data sources are outlined in the manuscript. All simulated data and analysis code are available at: https://github.com/ehr-lshtm/acute_kidney_injury_norovirus_healthecon_evaluation

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Comments (0)

No login
gif