ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2017
Determining the Optimal Vaccination Schedule for Herpes Zoster: a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cost-Effectiveness of Herpes Zoster Vaccination: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Cost Effectiveness of Recombinant Zoster Vaccine and Live-Attenuated Vaccine Against Herpes Zoster for Adults Aged 50 and Over in China.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of herpes zoster vaccines in the U.S.: A systematic review.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Review
- Varicella zoster virus vaccines: an update.ImmunoTargets and therapy · 2019Article
- Article
- Cost-effectiveness of the Adjuvanted Herpes Zoster Subunit Vaccine in Older Adults.JAMA internal medicine · 2018Article
- Varicella and herpes zoster vaccine development: lessons learned.Expert review of vaccines · 2017Review
- Herpes Zoster Vaccine: Time for a Boost?Journal of general internal medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends a single dose of herpes zoster (HZ) vaccine in persons aged 60 years or older, but the efficacy decreases to zero after approximately 10 years. A booster dose administered after 10 years might extend protection, but the cost-effectiveness of a booster strategy has not been examined.
objectiveWe aimed to determine the optimal schedule for HZ vaccine
designWe built a Markov model to follow patients over their lifetime. From the societal perspective, we compared costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) saved of 11 strategies to start and repeat HZ vaccine at different ages. SUBJECTS: Adults aged 60 years.
interventionHZ vaccine. MAIN MEASURES: Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental costs per QALY saved. KEY
resultsAt a $100,000/QALY threshold, "vaccination at 70 plus one booster" was the most cost-effective strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $36,648/QALY. "Vaccination at 60 plus two boosters" was more effective, but had an ICER of $153,734/QALY. In deterministic sensitivity analysis, "vaccination at 60 plus two boosters" cost < $100,000/QALY if compliance rate was > 67 % or vaccine cost was < $156 per dose. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, "vaccination at 70 plus one booster" was preferred at a willingness-to-pay of up to $135,000/QALY.
conclusionsUnder current assumptions, initiating HZ vaccine at age 70 years with one booster dose 10 years later appears optimal. Future data regarding compliance with or efficacy of a booster could affect these conclusions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.