Dataset Information

The cost effectiveness of pandemic influenza interventions: a pandemic severity based analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The impact of a newly emerged influenza pandemic will depend on its transmissibility and severity. Understanding how these pandemic features impact on the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of alternative intervention strategies is important for pandemic planning.

Methods

A cost effectiveness analysis of a comprehensive range of social distancing and antiviral drug strategies intended to mitigate a future pandemic was conducted using a simulation model of a community of ?30,000 in Australia. Six pandemic severity categories were defined based on case fatality ratio (CFR), using data from the 2009/2010 pandemic to relate hospitalisation rates to CFR.

Results

Intervention strategies combining school closure with antiviral treatment and prophylaxis are the most cost effective strategies in terms of cost per life year saved (LYS) for all severity categories. The cost component in the cost per LYS ratio varies depending on pandemic severity: for a severe pandemic (CFR of 2.5%) the cost is ?$9 k per LYS; for a low severity pandemic (CFR of 0.1%) this strategy costs ?$58 k per LYS; for a pandemic with very low severity similar to the 2009 pandemic (CFR of 0.03%) the cost is ?$155 per LYS. With high severity pandemics (CFR >0.75%) the most effective attack rate reduction strategies are also the most cost effective. During low severity pandemics costs are dominated by productivity losses due to illness and social distancing interventions, while for high severity pandemics costs are dominated by hospitalisation costs and productivity losses due to death.

Conclusions

The most cost effective strategies for mitigating an influenza pandemic involve combining sustained social distancing with the use of antiviral agents. For low severity pandemics the most cost effective strategies involve antiviral treatment, prophylaxis and short durations of school closure; while these are cost effective they are less effective than other strategies in reducing the infection rate.

SUBMITTER: Milne GJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3621766 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The cost effectiveness of pandemic influenza interventions: a pandemic severity based analysis.

Milne George J GJ Halder Nilimesh N Kelso Joel K JK

PloS one 20130409 4

<h4>Background</h4>The impact of a newly emerged influenza pandemic will depend on its transmissibility and severity. Understanding how these pandemic features impact on the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of alternative intervention strategies is important for pandemic planning.<h4>Methods</h4>A cost effectiveness analysis of a comprehensive range of social distancing and antiviral drug strategies intended to mitigate a future pandemic was conducted using a simulation model of a community ...[more]

PMID: 23585906

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: A critical issue in planning pandemic influenza mitigation strategies is the delay between the arrival of the pandemic in a community and the availability of an effective vaccine. The likely scenario, born out in the 2009 pandemic, is that a newly emerged influenza pandemic will have spread to most parts of the world before a vaccine matched to the pandemic strain is produced. For a severe pandemic, additional rapidly activated intervention measures will be required if high mortality rates are to be avoided. METHODS: A simulation modelling study was conducted to examine the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of plausible combinations of social distancing, antiviral and vaccination interventions, assuming a delay of 6-months between arrival of an influenza pandemic and first availability of a vaccine. Three different pandemic scenarios were examined; mild, moderate and extreme, based on estimates of transmissibility and pathogenicity of the 2009, 1957 and 1918 influenza pandemics respectively. A range of different durations of social distancing were examined, and the sensitivity of the results to variation in the vaccination delay, ranging from 2 to 6 months, was analysed. RESULTS: Vaccination-only strategies were not cost effective for any pandemic scenario, saving few lives and incurring substantial vaccination costs. Vaccination coupled with long duration social distancing, antiviral treatment and antiviral prophylaxis was cost effective for moderate pandemics and extreme pandemics, where it saved lives while simultaneously reducing the total pandemic cost. Combined social distancing and antiviral interventions without vaccination were significantly less effective, since without vaccination a resurgence in case numbers occurred as soon as social distancing interventions were relaxed. When social distancing interventions were continued until at least the start of the vaccination campaign, attack rates and total costs were significantly lower, and increased rates of vaccination further improved effectiveness and cost effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness and cost effectiveness consequences of the time-critical interplay of pandemic dynamics, vaccine availability and intervention timing has been quantified. For moderate and extreme pandemics, vaccination combined with rapidly activated antiviral and social distancing interventions of sufficient duration is cost effective from the perspective of life years saved.

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:ObjectiveTo investigate whether a single optimal vaccination strategy exists across countries to deal with a future influenza pandemic by comparing the cost effectiveness of different strategies in various pandemic scenarios for three European countries.DesignEconomic and epidemic modelling study.SettingsGeneral populations in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.Data sourcesCountry specific patterns of social contact and demographic data.ModelAn age structured susceptible-exposed-infected-recovered transmission model that describes how an influenza A virus will spread in the populations of Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.InterventionsComparison of four vaccination strategies: no vaccination, blanket vaccination, vaccination of elderly people (≥ 65 years), and vaccination of high transmitters (5-19 years). The four strategies were evaluated for scenarios in which a vaccine became available early or at the peak of the pandemic, and in which either everyone was initially susceptible or older age groups had pre-existing immunity.Main outcome measureCost per quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained.ResultsAll vaccination strategies were cost effective (incremental cost per QALY gained, comparing intervention with non-intervention). In scenarios where the vaccine became available at the peak of the pandemic and there was pre-existing immunity among elderly people the incremental cost effectiveness ratios for vaccinating high transmitters were €7325 (£5815; $10,470) per QALY gained for Germany, €10,216 per QALY gained for the Netherlands, and €7280 per QALY gained for the United Kingdom. The most cost effective strategy not only differed across the pandemic scenarios but also between countries. Specifically, when the vaccine was available early in the pandemic and there was no pre-existing immunity, in Germany it would be most cost effective to vaccinate elderly people ( €940 per QALY gained), whereas it would be most cost effective to vaccinate high transmitters in both the Netherlands (€525 per QALY gained) and the United Kingdom (€163 per QALY gained). This difference in optimal strategies was due to differences in the demographic characteristics of the countries: Germany has a significantly higher proportion of elderly people compared with the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.ConclusionsNo single vaccination strategy was most cost effective across countries. With aging populations, pre-existing immunity in particular could be of crucial importance for the cost effectiveness of options to mitigate a future influenza pandemic.

Project description:BackgroundNonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) may be considered as part of national pandemic preparedness as a first line defense against influenza pandemics. Preemptive school closures (PSCs) are an NPI reserved for severe pandemics and are highly effective in slowing influenza spread but have unintended consequences.MethodsWe used results of simulated PSC impacts for a 1957-like pandemic (i.e., an influenza pandemic with a high case fatality rate) to estimate population health impacts and quantify PSC costs at the national level using three geographical scales, four closure durations, and three dismissal decision criteria (i.e., the number of cases detected to trigger closures). At the Chicago regional level, we also used results from simulated 1957-like, 1968-like, and 2009-like pandemics. Our net estimated economic impacts resulted from educational productivity costs plus loss of income associated with providing childcare during closures after netting out productivity gains from averted influenza illness based on the number of cases and deaths for each mitigation strategy.ResultsFor the 1957-like, national-level model, estimated net PSC costs and averted cases ranged from $7.5 billion (2016 USD) averting 14.5 million cases for two-week, community-level closures to $97 billion averting 47 million cases for 12-week, county-level closures. We found that 2-week school-by-school PSCs had the lowest cost per discounted life-year gained compared to county-wide or school district-wide closures for both the national and Chicago regional-level analyses of all pandemics. The feasibility of spatiotemporally precise triggering is questionable for most locales. Theoretically, this would be an attractive early option to allow more time to assess transmissibility and severity of a novel influenza virus. However, we also found that county-wide PSCs of longer durations (8 to 12 weeks) could avert the most cases (31-47 million) and deaths (105,000-156,000); however, the net cost would be considerably greater ($88-$103 billion net of averted illness costs) for the national-level, 1957-like analysis.ConclusionsWe found that the net costs per death averted ($180,000-$4.2 million) for the national-level, 1957-like scenarios were generally less than the range of values recommended for regulatory impact analyses ($4.6 to 15.0 million). This suggests that the economic benefits of national-level PSC strategies could exceed the costs of these interventions during future pandemics with highly transmissible strains with high case fatality rates. In contrast, the PSC outcomes for regional models of the 1968-like and 2009-like pandemics were less likely to be cost effective; more targeted and shorter duration closures would be recommended for these pandemics.

Project description:Background: Oseltamivir and zanamivir are recommended for treating and preventing influenza A (H1N1) worldwide. In Brazil, this official recommendation lacks an economic evaluation. Our objective was to assess the efficiency of influenza A chemoprophylaxis in the Brazilian context. Methods: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of oseltamivir and zanamivir for prophylaxis of influenza for high risk population, compared to no prophylaxis, in the perspective of Brazilian public health system. Quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and effectiveness data were based on literature review and costs in Brazilian real (BRL) were estimated from official sources and micro-costing of 2016's H1N1 admissions at a university hospital. We used a decision-tree model considering prophylaxis and no prophylaxis and the probabilities of H1N1, ambulatory care, admission to hospital, intensive care, patient discharge, and death. Adherence and adverse events from prophylaxis were included. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was converted to 2016 United States dollar (USD). Uncertainty was assessed with univariated and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results: Adherence to prophylaxis was 0.70 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54; 0.83]; adverse events, 0.09 (95% CI 0.02; 0.18); relative risk of H1N1 infection in chemoprophylaxis, 0.43 (95% CI 0.33; 0.57); incidence of H1N1, 0.14 (95% CI 0.11; 0.16); ambulatory care, 0.67 (95% CI 0.58; 0.75); hospital admission, 0.43 (CI 95% 0.39; 0.42); hospital mortality, 0.14 (CI 95% 0.12; 0.15); intensive care unit admission, 0.23 (95% CI 0.20; 0.27); and intensive care mortality, 0.40 (95% CI 0.29; 0.52). QALY in H1N1 state was 0.50 (95% CI 0.46; 0.53); in H1N1 inpatients, 0.23 (95% CI 0.18; 0.28); healthy, 0.885 (95% CI 0.879; 0.891); death, 0. Adverse events estimated to affect QALY in -0.185 (95% CI -0.290; -0.050). Cost for chemoprophylaxis was BRL 39.42 [standard deviation (SD) 17.94]; ambulatory care, BRL 12.47 (SD 5.21); hospital admission, BRL 5,727.59 (SD 7,758.28); intensive care admission, BRL 19,217.25 (SD 7,917.33); and adverse events, BRL 292.05 (SD 724.95). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was BRL -4,080.63 (USD -1,263.74)/QALY and -982.39 (USD -304.24)/H1N1 prevented. Results were robust to sensitivity analysis. Conclusion: Chemoprophylaxis of influenza A (H1N1) is cost-saving in Brazilian health system context.

Project description:ImportanceSeveral interventions exist for treating myopia progression in children. While these interventions' efficacy has been studied, their cost-effectiveness remains unknown and has not been compared.ObjectiveTo determine cost-effective options for controlling myopia progression in children.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cost-effectiveness analysis, a Markov model was designed to compare the cost-effectiveness of interventions for controlling myopia progression over 5 years from a societal perspective in a simulated hypothetical cohort of patients aged 10 years with myopia. Myopia interventions considered included atropine eye drops, 0.05% and 0.01%, defocus incorporated multiple segment spectacles, outdoor activity, soft contact lenses (daily disposable and multifocal), rigid gas-permeable contact lenses, progressive addition lenses, bifocal spectacle lenses, orthokeratology, highly aspherical lenslets (HALs), and red light therapy; all interventions were compared with single-vision lenses. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis determined the association of model uncertainties with the cost-effectiveness. Costs were obtained from the charges of the Hospital Authority of Hong Kong and The Chinese University of Hong Kong Eye Center.Main outcome and measuresThe mean costs (in US dollars) per child included the cost of hospital visits, medications, and optical lenses. The outcomes of effectiveness were the annual spherical equivalent refraction (SER) and axial length (AL) reductions. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each strategy relative to single-vision lenses over a time horizon of 5 years.ResultsOutdoor activity, atropine (0.05%), red light therapy, HALs, and orthokeratology were cost-effective. The ICER of atropine, 0.05%, was US $220/SER reduction; red light therapy, US $846/SER reduction; and HALs, US $448/SER reduction. Outdoor activity yielded a savings of US $5/SER reduction and US $8/AL reduction. Orthokeratology resulted in an ICER of US $2376/AL reduction.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that atropine eye drops, 0.05%, and outdoor activity are cost-effective for controlling myopia progression in children. Though more expensive, red light therapy, HALs, and orthokeratology may also be cost-effective. The use of these interventions may help to control myopia in a cost-effective way.

Dataset Information

The cost effectiveness of pandemic influenza interventions: a pandemic severity based analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The cost effectiveness of pandemic influenza interventions: a pandemic severity based analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets