Dataset Information

Economic appraisal of Ontario's Universal Influenza Immunization Program: a cost-utility analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In July 2000, the province of Ontario, Canada, initiated a universal influenza immunization program (UIIP) to provide free seasonal influenza vaccines for the entire population. This is the first large-scale program of its kind worldwide. The objective of this study was to conduct an economic appraisal of Ontario's UIIP compared to a targeted influenza immunization program (TIIP).

Methods and findings

A cost-utility analysis using Ontario health administrative data was performed. The study was informed by a companion ecological study comparing physician visits, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and deaths between 1997 and 2004 in Ontario and nine other Canadian provinces offering targeted immunization programs. The relative change estimates from pre-2000 to post-2000 as observed in other provinces were applied to pre-UIIP Ontario event rates to calculate the expected number of events had Ontario continued to offer targeted immunization. Main outcome measures were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs in 2006 Canadian dollars, and incremental cost-utility ratios (incremental cost per QALY gained). Program and other costs were drawn from Ontario sources. Utility weights were obtained from the literature. The incremental cost of the program per QALY gained was calculated from the health care payer perspective. Ontario's UIIP costs approximately twice as much as a targeted program but reduces influenza cases by 61% and mortality by 28%, saving an estimated 1,134 QALYs per season overall. Reducing influenza cases decreases health care services cost by 52%. Most cost savings can be attributed to hospitalizations avoided. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is Can$10,797/QALY gained. Results are most sensitive to immunization cost and number of deaths averted.

Conclusions

Universal immunization against seasonal influenza was estimated to be an economically attractive intervention.

SUBMITTER: Sander B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2850382 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Economic appraisal of Ontario's Universal Influenza Immunization Program: a cost-utility analysis.

Sander Beate B Kwong Jeffrey C JC Bauch Chris T CT Maetzel Andreas A McGeer Allison A Raboud Janet M JM Krahn Murray M

PLoS medicine 20100406 4

<h4>Background</h4>In July 2000, the province of Ontario, Canada, initiated a universal influenza immunization program (UIIP) to provide free seasonal influenza vaccines for the entire population. This is the first large-scale program of its kind worldwide. The objective of this study was to conduct an economic appraisal of Ontario's UIIP compared to a targeted influenza immunization program (TIIP).<h4>Methods and findings</h4>A cost-utility analysis using Ontario health administrative data was ...[more]

PMID: 20386727

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA health technology assessment (HTA) of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (CA-AF) was commissioned by the Belgian government and performed by the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE). In this context, a systematic review of the economic literature was performed to assess the procedure's value for money.MethodsA systematic search for economic literature about the cost-effectiveness of CA-AF was performed by consulting various databases: CRD (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) HTA and CDSR (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) Technology Assessment, websites of HTA institutes, NHS EED (NHS Economic Evaluation Database), Medline (OVID), EMBASE and EconLit. No time or language restrictions were imposed and pre-defined selection criteria were used. The two-step selection procedure was performed by two persons. References of the selected studies were checked for additional relevant citations.ResultsOut of 697 references, seven relevant studies were selected. Based on current evidence and economic considerations, the rationale to support catheter ablation as first-line treatment was lacking.The economic evaluations for second-line catheter ablation included several assumptions that make the results rather optimistic or subject to large uncertainty. First, overall AAD (antiarrhythmic drugs) use after ablation was higher in reality than assumed in the economic evaluations, which had its impact on costs and effects. Second, several models focused on the impact of ablation on preventing stroke. This was questionable because there was no direct hard evidence from RCTs to support this assumption. An indirect impact through stroke on mortality should also be regarded with caution. Furthermore, all models included an impact on quality of life (QoL)/utility and assumed a long-term impact. Unfortunately, none of the RCTs measured QoL with a generic utility instrument and information on the long-term impact on both mortality and QoL was lacking.ConclusionsCatheter ablation is associated with high initial costs and may lead to life-threatening complications. Its cost-effectiveness depends on the belief one places on the impact on utility and/or preventing stroke, and the duration of these effects. Having no hard evidence for these important variables is rather troublesome. Although the technique is widely spread, the scientific evidence is insufficient for drawing conclusions about the intervention's cost-effectiveness.

Project description:BackgroundThis costing study in Malawi is a first evaluation of a Maternal Influenza Immunization Program Costing Tool (Costing Tool) for maternal immunization. The tool was designed to help low- and middle-income countries plan for maternal influenza immunization programs that differ from infant vaccination programs because of differences in the target population and potential differences in delivery strategy or venue.MethodsThis analysis examines the incremental costs of a prospective seasonal maternal influenza immunization program that is added to a successful routine childhood immunization and antenatal care program. The Costing Tool estimates financial and economic costs for different vaccine delivery scenarios for each of the major components of the expanded immunization program.ResultsIn our base scenario, which specifies a donated single dose pre-filled vaccine formulation, the total financial cost of a program that would reach 2.3 million women is approximately $1.2 million over five years. The economic cost of the program, including the donated vaccine, is $10.4 million over the same period. The financial and economic costs per immunized pregnancy are $0.52 and $4.58, respectively. Other scenarios examine lower vaccine uptake, reaching 1.2 million women, and a vaccine purchased at $2.80 per dose with an alternative presentation.ConclusionThis study estimates the financial and economic costs associated with a prospective maternal influenza immunization program in a low-income country. In some scenarios, the incremental delivery cost of a maternal influenza immunization program may be as low as some estimates of childhood vaccination programs, assuming the routine childhood immunization and antenatal care systems are capable of serving as the platform for an additional vaccination program. However, purchasing influenza vaccines at the prices assumed in this analysis, instead of having them donated, is likely to be challenging for lower-income countries. This result should be considered as a starting point to understanding the costs of maternal immunization programs in low- and middle-income countries.

Project description:BackgroundA vaccine matched to a newly emerged pandemic influenza virus would require a production time of at least 6 months with current proven techniques, and so could only be used reactively after the peak of the pandemic. A pre-pandemic vaccine, although probably having lower efficacy, could be produced and used pre-emptively. While several previous studies have investigated the cost effectiveness of pre-emptive vaccination strategies, they have not been directly compared to realistic reactive vaccination strategies.MethodsAn individual-based simulation model of ~30,000 people was used to examine a pre-emptive vaccination strategy, assuming vaccination conducted prior to a pandemic using a low-efficacy vaccine. A reactive vaccination strategy, assuming a 6-month delay between pandemic emergence and availability of a high-efficacy vaccine, was also modelled. Social distancing and antiviral interventions were examined in combination with these alternative vaccination strategies. Moderate and severe pandemics were examined, based on estimates of transmissibility and clinical severity of the 1957 and 1918 pandemics respectively, and the cost effectiveness of each strategy was evaluated.ResultsProvided that a pre-pandemic vaccine achieved at least 30% efficacy, pre-emptive vaccination strategies were found to be more cost effective when compared to reactive vaccination strategies. Reactive vaccination coupled with sustained social distancing and antiviral interventions was found to be as effective at saving lives as pre-emptive vaccination coupled with limited duration social distancing and antiviral use, with both strategies saving approximately 420 life-years per 10,000 population for a moderate pandemic with a basic reproduction number of 1.9 and case fatality rate of 0.25%. Reactive vaccination was however more costly due to larger productivity losses incurred by sustained social distancing, costing $8 million per 10,000 population ($19,074/LYS) versus $6.8 million per 10,000 population ($15,897/LYS) for a pre-emptive vaccination strategy. Similar trends were observed for severe pandemics.ConclusionsCompared to reactive vaccination, pre-emptive strategies would be more effective and more cost effective, conditional on the pre-pandemic vaccine being able to achieve a certain level of coverage and efficacy. Reactive vaccination strategies exist which are as effective at mortality reduction as pre-emptive strategies, though they are less cost effective.

Project description:BackgroundInternet-delivered psychosocial interventions can overcome barriers to face-to-face psychosocial care, but limited evidence supports their cost-effectiveness for people with bipolar disorders (BDs).ObjectiveThis study aimed to conduct within-trial cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses of an internet-based intervention for people with BD, MoodSwings 2.0, from an Australian health sector perspective.MethodsMoodSwings 2.0 included an economic evaluation alongside an international, parallel, and individually stratified randomized controlled trial comparing an internet-based discussion forum (control; group 1), a discussion forum plus internet-based psychoeducation (group 2), and a discussion forum plus psychoeducation and cognitive behavioral tools (group 3). The trial enrolled adults (aged 21 to 65 years) with a diagnosis of BD assessed by telephone using a structured clinical interview. Health sector costs included intervention delivery and additional health care resources used by participants over the 12-month trial follow-up. Outcomes included depression symptoms measured by the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS; the trial primary outcome) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) calculated using the short-form 6-dimension instrument derived from the 12-item version of the short-form health survey. Average incremental cost-effectiveness (cost per MADRS score) and cost-utility (cost per QALY) ratios were calculated using estimated mean differences between intervention and control groups from linear mixed effects models in the base case.ResultsIn total, 304 participants were randomized. Average health sector cost was lowest for group 2 (Aus $9431, SD Aus $8540; Aus $1=US $0.7058) compared with the control group (Aus $15,175, SD Aus $17,206) and group 3 (Aus $15,518, SD Aus $30,523), but none was statistically significantly different. The average QALYs were not significantly different among the groups (group 1: 0.627, SD 0.062; group 2: 0.618, SD 0.094; and group 3: 0.622, SD 0.087). The MADRS scores were previously shown to differ significantly between group 2 and the control group at all follow-up time points (P<.05). Group 2 was dominant (lower costs and greater effects) compared with the control group for average incremental cost per point decrease in MADRS score over 12 months (95% CI dominated to Aus $331). Average cost per point change in MADRS score for group 3 versus the control group was dominant (95% CI dominant to Aus $22,585). Group 2 was dominant (95% CI Aus $43,000 to dominant) over the control group based on lower average health sector cost and average QALY benefit of 0.012 (95% CI -0.009 to 0.033). Group 3, compared with the control group, had an average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of dominant (95% CI dominated to Aus $19,978).ConclusionsWeb-based psychoeducation through MoodSwings 2.0 has the potential to be a cost-effective intervention for people with BD. Additional research is needed to understand the lack of effectiveness for the addition of cognitive behavioral tools with the group 3 intervention.

Dataset Information

Economic appraisal of Ontario's Universal Influenza Immunization Program: a cost-utility analysis.

Background

Methods and findings

Conclusions

Publications

Economic appraisal of Ontario's Universal Influenza Immunization Program: a cost-utility analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets