Dataset Information

A Novel Dynamic Model for Health Economic Analysis of Influenza Vaccination in the Elderly.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

New vaccines are being developed to improve the efficacy of seasonal influenza immunization in elderly persons aged ≥65 years. These products require clinical and economic evaluation to aid policy decisions.

Methods

To address this need, a two-part model has been developed, which we have applied to examine the potential clinical and economic impact of vaccinating elderly persons with adjuvanted trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (aTIV) relative to conventional trivalent (TIV) and quadrivalent (QIV) vaccines. We compared outcomes in the US population for (1) aTIV in persons aged ≥65 years and QIV in all other age cohorts; (2) QIV in all cohorts; (3) TIV in all cohorts. Low, average, and high intensity seasons with low, average, and high vaccine match scenarios were compared. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted within each discrete scenario to explore the impact of variation in model inputs on potential outcomes.

Results

Assuming current vaccination coverage rates in the US population with (a) 25% better efficacy of adjuvanted versus non-adjuvanted vaccine against any strain and (b) 35% better efficacy of non-adjuvanted vaccine against matched B versus mismatched B strains, use of aTIV in persons aged ≥65 years and QIV in persons <65 years could reduce influenza cases by 11,166-1,329,200, hospitalizations by 1365-43,674, and deaths by 421-11,320 versus use of QIV in all cohorts. These outcomes are reflected in a corresponding increase in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 3003-94,084. If the prevalence of mismatched influenza B was >54.5% of all circulating strains, use of QIV in all cohorts would offset the clinical benefits of aTIV. Elderly aTIV or QIV vaccination was associated with improved outcomes over non-adjuvanted TIV in many of the scenarios, particularly in low match seasons of any intensity. Total cost savings (including direct and indirect healthcare costs plus productivity impacts) with aTIV in the elderly versus QIV in the whole population ranged from $27 million (low intensity, low match) to $934 million (high intensity, high match). Univariate sensitivity analysis of relative vaccine prices in the average intensity, average match scenario indicated that aTIV could be marginally cost saving relative to QIV at the currently published Medicare price for influenza vaccines offering enhanced efficacy in the elderly. Elderly vaccination with aTIV was associated with a higher overall cost compared with TIV in only two scenarios (low intensity with average or high match); the incremental cost/QALY relative to TIV was $9980 in the average match scenario and $28,800 in the high match scenario.

Conclusions

Vaccination of persons aged ≥65 years with aTIV has the potential to provide clinical and economic benefit relative to QIV and TIV. The new model allows the assessment of various alternative strategies for available influenza vaccines.

Funding

Novartis Vaccines.

SUBMITTER: Mullikin M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4675767 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA number of cost-effectiveness analysis of influenza vaccination have been conducted to estimate value of influenza vaccines in elderly and health workers (HWs). This study aims to summarize cost-effectiveness evidence by pooling the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) of influenza vaccination.MethodsA systematic review was performed in electronic databases from their inceptions to February 2022. Cost-effectiveness studies reporting quality-adjusted life year (QALY), or life year (LY) of influenza vaccination were included. Stratified meta-analyses by population, perspective, country income-level, and herd-effect were performed to pool INMB across studies. The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021246746).FindingsA total of 21 studies were included. Eighteen studies were conducted in elderly, two studies were conducted in HWs, and one study was conducted in both elderly and HWs. According to pre-specified analyses, studies for elderly in high-income economies (countries) (HIEs) and upper-middle income economies (UMIEs) without herd effect could be pooled. For HIEs under a societal perspective, the perspective which identify all relevant costs occurred in the society including direct medical cost, direct non-medical cost and indirect cost, pooled INMB was $217·38 (206·23, 228·53, I2 =28.2%), while that for healthcare provider/payer perspective was $0·20 (-11,908·67, 11,909·07, I2 = 0.0%). For societal perspective in UMIEs, pooled INMB was $28·39 (-190·65, 133·87, I2 = 92.8%). The findings were robust across a series of sensitivity analyses for HIEs. Studies in HWs indicated that influenza vaccination was cost-effective compared to no vaccination or current practice.InterpretationInfluenza vaccination might be cost-effective for HWs and elderly in HIEs under a societal perspective with relatively small variations among included studies, while there remains limited evidence for healthcare provider/payer perspective or other level of incomes. Further evidence is warranted.FundingThis study was funded by a grant of Immunization, Vaccine and Biologicals department of the World Health Organization. The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of the US CDC which provided financial support to the development and publication of this report. Grant number US CDC, WHO IVR (U50CK000431).

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:BackgroundThere is substantial burden of seasonal influenza in Kenya, which led the government to consider introducing a national influenza vaccination programme. Given the cost implications of a nationwide programme, local economic evaluation data are needed to inform policy on the design and benefits of influenza vaccination. We set out to estimate the cost-effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccination in Kenya.MethodsWe fitted an age-stratified dynamic transmission model to active surveillance data from patients with influenza from 2010 to 2018. Using a societal perspective, we developed a decision tree cost-effectiveness model and estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted for three vaccine target groups: children 6-23 months (strategy I), 2-5 years (strategy II) and 6-14 years (strategy III) with either the Southern Hemisphere influenza vaccine (Strategy A) or Northern Hemisphere vaccine (Strategy B) or both (Strategy C: twice yearly vaccination campaigns, or Strategy D: year-round vaccination campaigns). We assessed cost-effectiveness by calculating incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 1-51% of the annual gross domestic product per capita ($17-$872).ResultsThe mean number of infections across all ages was 2-15 million per year. When vaccination was well timed to influenza activity, the annual mean ICER per DALY averted for vaccinating children 6-23 months ranged between $749 and $1385 for strategy IA, $442 and $1877 for strategy IB, $678 and $4106 for strategy IC and $1147 and $7933 for strategy ID. For children 2-5 years, it ranged between $945 and $1573 for strategy IIA, $563 and $1869 for strategy IIB, $662 and $4085 for strategy IIC, and $1169 and $7897 for strategy IID. For children 6-14 years, it ranged between $923 and $3116 for strategy IIIA, $1005 and $2223 for strategy IIIB, $883 and $4727 for strategy IIIC and $1467 and $6813 for strategy IIID. Overall, no vaccination strategy was cost-effective at the minimum ($17) and median ($445) WTP thresholds. Vaccinating children 6-23 months once a year had the highest mean INMB value at $872 (WTP threshold upper limit); however, this strategy had very low probability of the highest net benefit.ConclusionVaccinating children 6-23 months once a year was the most favourable vaccination option; however, the strategy is unlikely to be cost-effective given the current WTP thresholds.

Project description:BACKGROUND: All influenza pandemic plans advocate pandemic vaccination. However, few studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of different vaccination strategies. This paper compares the economic outcomes of vaccination compared with treatment with antiviral agents alone, in Singapore. METHODOLOGY: We analyzed the economic outcomes of pandemic vaccination (immediate vaccination and vaccine stockpiling) compared with treatment-only in Singapore using a decision-based model to perform cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses. We also explored the annual insurance premium (willingness to pay) depending on the perceived risk of the next pandemic occurring. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The treatment-only strategy resulted in 690 deaths, 13,950 hospitalization days, and economic cost of USD$497 million. For immediate vaccination, at vaccine effectiveness of >55%, vaccination was cost-beneficial over treatment-only. Vaccine stockpiling is not cost-effective in most scenarios even with 100% vaccine effectiveness. The annual insurance premium was highest with immediate vaccination, and was lower with increased duration to the next pandemic. The premium was also higher with higher vaccine effectiveness, attack rates, and case-fatality rates. Stockpiling with case-fatality rates of 0.4-0.6% would be cost-beneficial if vaccine effectiveness was >80%; while at case-fatality of >5% stockpiling would be cost-beneficial even if vaccine effectiveness was 20%. High-risk sub-groups warrant higher premiums than low-risk sub-groups. CONCLUSIONS: The actual pandemic vaccine effectiveness and lead time is unknown. Vaccine strategy should be based on perception of severity. Immediate vaccination is most cost-effective, but requires vaccines to be available when required. Vaccine stockpiling as insurance against worst-case scenarios is also cost-effective. Research and development is therefore critical to develop and stockpile cheap, readily available effective vaccines.

Project description:ObjectivesThe incidence of young-onset oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) is growing, even among non-smokers/drinkers. The effects of adverse histopathological features on long-term oncologic outcomes between the young and old are controversial and confounded by significant heterogeneity. Few studies have evaluated the socio-economic impact of premature mortality from OSCC. Our study seeks to quantify these differences and their economic impact on society.Materials and methodsFour hundred and seventy-eight young (<45 years) and 1660 old patients (≥45 years) with OSCC were studied. Logistic regression determined predictors of recurrence and death. Survival analysis was calculated via the Kaplan-Meier method. A separate health economic analysis was conducted for India and Singapore. Years of Potential Productive Life Lost (YPPLL) were estimated with the Human Capital Approach, and premature mortality cost was derived using population-level data.ResultsAdverse histopathological features were seen more frequently in young OSCC: PNI (42.9% vs. 35%, p = 0.002), LVI (22.4% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.013) and ENE (36% vs. 24.5%, p < 0.001). Although 5-year OS/DSS were similar, the young cohort had received more intensive adjuvant therapy (CCRT 26.9% vs. 16.6%, p < 0.001). Among Singaporean males, the premature mortality cost per death was US $396,528, and per YPPLL was US $45,486. This was US $397,402 and US $38,458 for females. Among Indian males, the premature mortality cost per death was US $30,641, and per YPPLL was US $595. This was US $ 21,038 and US $305 for females.ConclusionYoung-onset OSCC is an aggressive disease, mitigated by the ability to receive intensive adjuvant treatment. From our loss of productivity analysis, the socio-economic costs from premature mortality are substantial. Early cancer screening and educational outreach campaigns should be tailored to this cohort. Alongside, more funding should be diverted to genetic research, developing novel biomarkers and improving the efficacy of adjuvant treatment in OSCC.

Project description:For infectious disease prevention, policy-makers are typically required to base policy decisions in light of operational and monetary restrictions, prohibiting implementation of all candidate interventions. To inform the evidence-base underpinning policy decision making, mathematical and health economic modelling can be a valuable constituent. Applied to England, this study aims to identify the optimal target age groups when extending a seasonal influenza vaccination programme of at-risk individuals to those individuals at low risk of developing complications following infection. To perform this analysis, we utilise an age- and strain-structured transmission model that includes immunity propagation mechanisms which link prior season epidemiological outcomes to immunity at the beginning of the following season. Making use of surveillance data from the past decade in conjunction with our dynamic model, we simulate transmission dynamics of seasonal influenza in England from 2012 to 2018. We infer that modified susceptibility due to natural infection in the previous influenza season is the only immunity propagation mechanism to deliver a non-negligible impact on the transmission dynamics. Further, we discerned case ascertainment to be higher for young infants compared to adults under 65 years old, and uncovered a decrease in case ascertainment as age increased from 65 to 85 years of age. Our health economic appraisal sweeps vaccination age space to determine threshold vaccine dose prices achieving cost-effectiveness under differing paired strategies. In particular, we model offering vaccination to all those low-risk individuals younger than a given age (but no younger than two years old) and all low-risk individuals older than a given age, while maintaining vaccination of at-risk individuals of any age. All posited strategies were deemed cost-effective. In general, the addition of low-risk vaccination programmes whose coverage encompassed children and young adults (aged 20 and below) were highly cost-effective. The inclusion of elder age-groups to the low-risk programme typically lessened the cost-effectiveness. Notably, elderly-centric programmes vaccinating from 65-75 years and above had the least permitted expense per vaccine.