Economic assessment of incorporating the Hexavalent vaccine as part of the National Immunization Program of Peru

Background This study aimed to estimate the economic impact of replacing the current Peruvian primary immunization scheme for infants under 1 year old with an alternative scheme with similar efficacy, based on a hexavalent vaccine. Methods A cost-minimization analysis compared the costs associated with vaccine administration, adverse reactions medical treatment, logistical activities, and indirect social costs associated with time spent by parents in both schemes. A budgetary impact analysis assessed the financial impact of the alternative scheme on healthcare budget. Results Incorporating the hexavalent vaccine would result in a 15.5% net increase in healthcare budget expenditure ($48,281,706 vs $55,744,653). Vaccination costs would increase by 54.1%, whereas logistical and adverse reaction costs would be reduced by 59.8% and 33.1%, respectively. When including indirect social costs in the analysis, the budgetary impact was reduced to 8.7%. Furthermore, the alternative scheme would enable the liberation of 17.5% of national vaccines storage capacity. Conclusions Despite of the significant reduction of logistical and adverse reaction costs, including the hexavalent vaccine into the National Immunization Program of Peru in place of the current vaccination scheme for infants under 1 year of age would increase the public financial budget of the government as it would represent larger vaccine acquisition costs. Incorporating the indirect costs would reduce the budgetary impact demonstrating the social value of the alternative scheme. This merits consideration by government bodies, and future studies investigating such benefits would be informative.

1400. Physician Attitudes towards Combination Vaccine Use in Infants up to 24 months of age in the United States (US)

Background Combination vaccines reduce the number of injections and improve the timeliness of vaccination coverage. US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendations state that combination vaccines are generally preferred over equivalent individual component vaccines. Healthcare providers strongly influence parental decisions about vaccination. We sought a contemporary understanding of physician’s attitudes towards combination vaccine use in infants. Methods We conducted an online survey of US physicians (70 pediatricians and 30 family practitioners) who administer vaccines to infants aged 0-24 months and spend at least 2 days a week providing patient care. Information was collected on attitudes towards combination vaccines and factors that influence the choice of combination vaccine used in clinical practice. Descriptive analyses were performed. Results Physicians (mean age=50.2 years, range 30.0-70.0; 66% white; 37% women) reported a median of 4 injections (range 2-9) as the maximum that parents would accept at a single visit, and 71% routinely explained what combination vaccines are to parents. When deciding which pentavalent vaccine to use, physicians considered how the brand fits into the current vaccine schedule (71%); upfront purchase costs (64%); and availability as a prefilled syringe (61%). The main reasons for using combination vaccines were to reduce the number of injections (96%); ensure the infant is up-to-date with vaccinations (86%); and reduce the pain that the infant experiences with multiple injections (68%). More than half reported that their institution or practice has a program to incentivize infant vaccination according to schedule. If a hexavalent vaccine-based schedule was available, 76% of physicians said they would choose it over their current schedule comprising pentavalent or equivalent component vaccines. Conclusion Choice of pentavalent combination vaccine among pediatricians and family practitioners was largely dependent on convenience and cost-related factors. Over three-quarters would be inclined to use a hexavalent vaccine schedule if available. Disclosures Ya-Ting Chen, PhD, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Xinyi Ng, PhD, Merck & Co., Inc. (Consultant) Tanaz Petigara, PhD, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Jyoti Aggarwal, MHS, Merck & Co., Inc. (Consultant) Jenna Bhaloo, MPH, Merck & Co., Inc. (Consultant) Michelle Goveia, MD, Merck & Co., Inc (Employee, Shareholder) David Johnson, MD, MPH, Sanofi Pasteur (Employee, Shareholder) Gary S. Marshall, MD, GlaxoSmithKline (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Merck (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Pfizer (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Sanofi Pasteur (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Honorarium for conference lecture)Seqirus (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)