Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 May 4.
Published in final edited form as: Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019 Jul 4;26(3):373–380. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2019.06.029

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of routine paediatric bivalent EV71/CA16 versus monovalent EV71 vaccination. TVC was calculated with a societal willingness-to-pay threshold of one GDPpc, an annual discount rate of 3% and VEm = VE1 = VE2 = 95%. (A) TVC (€) of the 51 scenarios regarding HFMD risk from Fig. S2 are listed along the x-axis in ascending order. The square grids in blue and orange at the bottom indicate the assumptions regarding the percentage of test-negative cases that were mild during 2010–2012 (bottom row) and the percentage of test-negative severe/fatal and mild cases that were CA16-HFMD (middle and top row) in each scenario, where darker shades correspond to higher percentage. The red arrow indicates the base case (scenario 1). (B–D) The risk of mild, severe, and fatal CA16-HFMD listed along the x-axis in ascending order of TVC. The error bars show the 95% CIs, but in some cases they are not apparent for the risk of mild and severe CA16-HFMD. Fig. 3A and B have a similar trend, indicating that the TVC depends mainly on the risk of mild CA16-HFMD. The percentage of mild test-negatives that were CA16-HFMD (top row of the square grids) also has a similar trend to Fig. 3A. HFMD, hand, foot and mouth disease.