Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to pool the incremental net benefit (INB) of each herpes zoster vaccine [i.e. Zoster Vaccine Live (ZVL) and Recombinant Zoster Vaccine (RZV)].
UNASSIGNED: We initially identified individual studies by hand-searching reference lists of the relevant systematic review articles. An updated comprehensive search was performed in Medline, Scopus, and Embase until June 2020 for additional studies. Studies were eligible if they assessed the cost-effectiveness/utility of any pair among ZVL and RZV, and no vaccine and reported economic outcomes. Details of the study characteristics, economic model inputs, costs, and outcomes were extracted. INB was calculated with monetary units adjusting for purchasing power parity for 2019 US dollars and pooled by meta-analysis.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 37 studies were pooled for meta-analysis stratified by perspectives [i.e. societal (SP) and third-party payer (TPP)] and vaccine types. In SP, ZVL was cost-effective compared to no vaccine when vaccinated at ages of 50-59 and 70-79 years with INBs (95% CI) of $0.61 (0.37, 0.85) and $9.67 (5.20, 14.14), respectively. RZV was cost-effective for those aged 60-69 and 70-79 years with INBs of $75.61 (17.98, 133.23) and $85.01 (30.02, 140.01), respectively. In TPP, ZVL was cost-effective compared to no vaccine when vaccinated at age 70-79 years with INB of $7.57 (0.27, 14.86) and RZV was cost-effective at 60-69 years with INB $220.87 (47.80, 393.93). The cost-effectiveness of RZV was robust across a series of sensitivity analyses, but ZVL differs on different vaccination ages.
UNASSIGNED: RZV may be cost-effective for vaccination in ages of 60-79 years for both SP and TPP perspectives, while ZVL might be cost-effective in some age groups, but results are not robust.
UNASSIGNED: We initially identified individual studies by hand-searching reference lists of the relevant systematic review articles. An updated comprehensive search was performed in Medline, Scopus, and Embase until June 2020 for additional studies. Studies were eligible if they assessed the cost-effectiveness/utility of any pair among ZVL and RZV, and no vaccine and reported economic outcomes. Details of the study characteristics, economic model inputs, costs, and outcomes were extracted. INB was calculated with monetary units adjusting for purchasing power parity for 2019 US dollars and pooled by meta-analysis.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 37 studies were pooled for meta-analysis stratified by perspectives [i.e. societal (SP) and third-party payer (TPP)] and vaccine types. In SP, ZVL was cost-effective compared to no vaccine when vaccinated at ages of 50-59 and 70-79 years with INBs (95% CI) of $0.61 (0.37, 0.85) and $9.67 (5.20, 14.14), respectively. RZV was cost-effective for those aged 60-69 and 70-79 years with INBs of $75.61 (17.98, 133.23) and $85.01 (30.02, 140.01), respectively. In TPP, ZVL was cost-effective compared to no vaccine when vaccinated at age 70-79 years with INB of $7.57 (0.27, 14.86) and RZV was cost-effective at 60-69 years with INB $220.87 (47.80, 393.93). The cost-effectiveness of RZV was robust across a series of sensitivity analyses, but ZVL differs on different vaccination ages.
UNASSIGNED: RZV may be cost-effective for vaccination in ages of 60-79 years for both SP and TPP perspectives, while ZVL might be cost-effective in some age groups, but results are not robust.
摘要：
■进行系统评价和荟萃分析，以汇集每种带状疱疹疫苗[即带状疱疹活疫苗（ZVL）和重组带状疱疹疫苗（RZV）]的增量净收益（INB）。
■我们最初通过手工搜索相关系统综述文章的参考列表来确定个别研究。在Medline中进行了更新的全面搜索，Scopus,和Embase，直到2020年6月进行额外的研究。如果他们评估ZVL和RZV中任何一对的成本效益/效用，没有疫苗和报告的经济结果。详细的研究特点，经济模型投入，成本,并提取结果。INB是根据2019年美元的购买力平价调整的货币单位计算的，并通过荟萃分析汇总。
■共有37项研究按观点[即社会（SP）和第三方付款人（TPP）]和疫苗类型进行了分层的荟萃分析。在SP中,在50-59岁和70-79岁的年龄接种疫苗时，ZVL与没有疫苗相比具有成本效益，INB（95％CI）为0.61美元（0.37，0.85）和9.67美元（5.20，14.14），分别。RZV对于60-69岁和70-79岁的人群具有成本效益，INB分别为75.61美元（17.98，133.23美元）和85.01美元（30.02，140.01美元），分别。在TPP中,ZVL在70-79岁时接种疫苗时具有成本效益，INB为7.57美元（0.27，14.86），RZV在60-69岁时具有成本效益，INB为220.87美元（47.80，393.93）。在一系列敏感性分析中，RZV的成本效益是稳健的，但ZVL在不同的疫苗接种年龄不同。
■从SP和TPP的角度来看，RZV对于60-79岁的疫苗接种可能具有成本效益。虽然ZVL在某些年龄组可能具有成本效益，但结果并不稳健。
■我们最初通过手工搜索相关系统综述文章的参考列表来确定个别研究。在Medline中进行了更新的全面搜索，Scopus,和Embase，直到2020年6月进行额外的研究。如果他们评估ZVL和RZV中任何一对的成本效益/效用，没有疫苗和报告的经济结果。详细的研究特点，经济模型投入，成本,并提取结果。INB是根据2019年美元的购买力平价调整的货币单位计算的，并通过荟萃分析汇总。
■共有37项研究按观点[即社会（SP）和第三方付款人（TPP）]和疫苗类型进行了分层的荟萃分析。在SP中,在50-59岁和70-79岁的年龄接种疫苗时，ZVL与没有疫苗相比具有成本效益，INB（95％CI）为0.61美元（0.37，0.85）和9.67美元（5.20，14.14），分别。RZV对于60-69岁和70-79岁的人群具有成本效益，INB分别为75.61美元（17.98，133.23美元）和85.01美元（30.02，140.01美元），分别。在TPP中,ZVL在70-79岁时接种疫苗时具有成本效益，INB为7.57美元（0.27，14.86），RZV在60-69岁时具有成本效益，INB为220.87美元（47.80，393.93）。在一系列敏感性分析中，RZV的成本效益是稳健的，但ZVL在不同的疫苗接种年龄不同。
■从SP和TPP的角度来看，RZV对于60-79岁的疫苗接种可能具有成本效益。虽然ZVL在某些年龄组可能具有成本效益，但结果并不稳健。
