Varicella Vaccination in Italy

Aim: To determine the economic impact (cost-benefit analysis) of childhood varicella vaccination, with the Oka/Merck varicella zoster virus vaccine live (Varivax®) in Italy.

Methods: This analysis is based on an epidemiological model of varicella zoster virus (VZV) dynamics adapted to the Italian situation. Cost data (€, 2002 values) were collected through a literature review. Several vaccination scenarios were analysed: (i) routine vaccination programme for children aged 1–2 years with different levels of vaccination coverage (90%, 70% and 45%) without any catch-up programme; (ii) routine vaccination programme for children aged 1–2 years with different levels of vaccination coverage (90%, 70% and 45%) completed by a catch-up programme for 6-year-old children over the first 5 years of vaccine marketing; and (iii) routine vaccination programme for children aged 1–2 years with different levels of vaccination coverage (90%, 70% and 45%) completed by a catch-up programme during the first year of vaccine marketing for children aged 2–11 years.

Perspectives: A societal perspective, including both direct and indirect costs, and a health-system perspective, limited to costs supported by Italian Health Authorities, were considered.

Results: A routine vaccination programme has a clearly positive impact on chickenpox morbidity. Respectively, 68% and 57% of chickenpox-related hospitalisations and deaths could be prevented with a 90% coverage rate. With vaccination costs being more than offset by a reduction in chickenpox treatment costs in the base case, such a programme could also induce savings from both a societal and a health-system perspective (40% and 12% savings, respectively for a 90% coverage rate). A lower coverage rate reduces cost savings, but there is still a 9% decrease in overall societal costs for a 45% coverage rate. Although the reduction in total societal costs was robust to the sensitivity analyses performed, a slight uncertainty remains regarding cost reduction from a health-system perspective. However, in this latter perspective, even in the worst-case scenario of the sensitivity analysis, routine vaccination programmes may be cost effective, the worst-case scenario for cost parameters leading to cost per life-year gained of €2853. Catch-up programmes combined with routine vaccination should lead to further cost reductions from a societal perspective: 15% for a massive catch-up during the first year of vaccine marketing compared with toddlers’ vaccination alone, and 11% for a catch-up focused on 6-year-old children for a period of 5 years. However, the impact of catch-up programmes on the costs from an Italian health-system perspective remains close to zero (±1%).

Conclusion: This model suggests, with its underlying assumptions and data, that routine ZVZ vaccination may be cost saving from both a societal and a health system perspective in the base case. In the worst-case scenario of the sensitivity analysis, vaccination remains cost effective.