Skip to main content

Table 4 ICER # of QIV versus TIV

From: Cost-effectiveness analysis of quadrivalent influenza vaccine versus trivalent influenza vaccine for elderly in Hong Kong

Year ICER
Age (years) 65-79 ≥80
Additional cost of QIV = USD$1
2001 1,168,835 2,447,575
2002 NE* NE*
2003 822,641 96,189
2004 −454 −11,969
2005 25,793 5,786
2006 103,072 78,633
2007 −490 −14,574
2008 4,022 −13,043
2010 42,714 −4,102
Additional cost of QIV = USD$2
2001 2,349,345 4,912,836
2002 NE* NE*
2003 1,656,956 210,065
2004 10,766 −6,252
2005 63,259 29,258
2006 217,818 174,952
2007 10,694 −11,461
2008 19,718 −8,400
2010 97,103 9,483
Additional cost of QIV = USD$5
2001 5,890,874 12,308,620
2002 NE* NE*
2003 4,159,902 551,693
2004 44,426 10,900
2005 175,659 99,676
2006 562,056 463,911
2007 44,245 −2,124
2008 66,806 5,531
2010 260,268 50,238
Additional cost of QIV = USD$10
2001 11,793,422 24,634,926
2002 NE* NE*
2003 8,331,478 1,121,073
2004 100,527 39,487
2005 362,993 217,039
2006 1,135,786 945,509
2007 100,164 13,440
2008 145,286 28,749
2010 532,209 118,163
  1. # ICER = incremental cost per QALY saved by QIV. Using the threshold of 3-time gross domestic product per capita in Hong Kong as the willingness-to-pay per QALY, QIV was cost-effective with ICER USD109,671 or less (bold). A negative value of ICER indicated that QIV was less costly than TIV and gained higher QALYs.
  2. *NE = Not effective. ICER was not calculated in 2002 because the expected reduction in infection and expected QALY gained were zero.
\