Dataset Information

Assessing key model parameters for economic evaluation of pandemic influenza interventions: the data source matters.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In our previous systematic review of economic evaluations of pandemic influenza interventions, five model parameters, namely probability of pandemic, duration of pandemic, severity, attack rate, and intervention efficacy, were not only consistently used in all studies but also considered important by authors.

Objectives

Because these parameters originated from sources of varying quality ranging from experimental studies to expert opinion, this study aims to analyze the variation in values used according to sources of information across studies.

Methods

An analysis of estimated values of key parameters for economic modeling was performed against their different data sources, following the standard hierarchy of evidence.

Results

A lack of good-quality evidence to estimate pandemic duration, pandemic probability, and mortality reduction from antiviral treatment results in a large variation of values used in economic evaluations. Although there are variations in quality of evidence used for attack rate, basic reproduction number, and reduction in hospitalizations from antiviral treatment, the estimated values do not vary significantly. The use of higher-quality evidence results in better precision of estimated values compared to lower-quality sources.

Conclusion

Hierarchies of evidence are a necessary tool to identify appropriate model parameters to populate economic evaluations and should be included in methodological guidelines. Knowledge gaps in some key parameters should be addressed, because if good-quality evidence is available, future economic evaluations will be more reliable. Some gaps may not be fulfilled by research but consensus among experts to ensure consistency in the use of these assumptions.

SUBMITTER: Praditsitthikorn N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5909394 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessing key model parameters for economic evaluation of pandemic influenza interventions: the data source matters.

Praditsitthikorn Naiyana N Kotirum Surachai S Mohara Adun A Dumrongprat Kuntika K Velasco Román Pérez RP Teerawattananon Yot Y

Influenza and other respiratory viruses 20130901

<h4>Background</h4>In our previous systematic review of economic evaluations of pandemic influenza interventions, five model parameters, namely probability of pandemic, duration of pandemic, severity, attack rate, and intervention efficacy, were not only consistently used in all studies but also considered important by authors.<h4>Objectives</h4>Because these parameters originated from sources of varying quality ranging from experimental studies to expert opinion, this study aims to analyze the ...[more]

PMID: 24034486

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe allocation of limited available healthcare resources demands an agreed rational allocation principle and the consequent priority setting. We assessed the association between economic evaluations of healthcare interventions published in Spain (1983-2008) and the disease burden in the population.MethodsElectronic databases (e.g., PubMed/MEDLINE, SCOPUS, ISI Web of Knowledge, CRD, IME, IBECS) and reports from health technology assessment agencies were systematically reviewed. For each article, multiple variables were recorded such as: year and journal of publication, type of study, health intervention targetted, perspective of analysis, type of costs and sources of information, first author's affiliation, explicit recommendations aimed at decision-making, and the main disease cause to which the intervention was addressed. The following disease burden measures were calculated: years of life lost (YLLs), years lived with disability (YLDs), disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), and mortality by cause. Correlation and linear regression models were fitted.ResultsFour hundred and seventy-seven economic evaluations were identified. Cardiovascular diseases (15.7%), infectious diseases (15.3%), malignant neoplasms (13.2%), and neuropsychiatric diseases (9.6%) were the conditions most commonly addressed. Accidents and injuries, congenital anomalies, oral conditions, nutritional deficiencies and other neoplasms were the categories with a lowest number of studies (0.6% for each of them). For the main disease categories (n = 20), a correlation was seen with: mortality 0.67 (p = 0.001), DALYs 0.63 (p = 0.003), YLLs 0.54 (p = 0.014), and YLDs 0.51 (p = 0.018). By disease sub-categories (n = 51), the correlations were generally low and non statistically significant.ConclusionsExamining discrepancies between economic evaluations in particular diseases and the overall burden of disease helps shed light on whether there are potentially over- and under-investigated areas. The approach taken could help policy-makers understand whether resources for economic evaluation are being allocated by using summary measures of population health.

Project description:The study objective is to estimate the epidemiological and economic impact of vaccine interventions during influenza pandemics in Chicago, and assist in vaccine intervention priorities. Scenarios of delay in vaccine introduction with limited vaccine efficacy and limited supplies are not unlikely in future influenza pandemics, as in the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. We simulated influenza pandemics in Chicago using agent-based transmission dynamic modeling. Population was distributed among high-risk and non-high risk among 0-19, 20-64 and 65+ years subpopulations. Different attack rate scenarios for catastrophic (30.15%), strong (21.96%), and moderate (11.73%) influenza pandemics were compared against vaccine intervention scenarios, at 40% coverage, 40% efficacy, and unit cost of $28.62. Sensitivity analysis for vaccine compliance, vaccine efficacy and vaccine start date was also conducted. Vaccine prioritization criteria include risk of death, total deaths, net benefits, and return on investment. The risk of death is the highest among the high-risk 65+ years subpopulation in the catastrophic influenza pandemic, and highest among the high-risk 0-19 years subpopulation in the strong and moderate influenza pandemics. The proportion of total deaths and net benefits are the highest among the high-risk 20-64 years subpopulation in the catastrophic, strong and moderate influenza pandemics. The return on investment is the highest in the high-risk 0-19 years subpopulation in the catastrophic, strong and moderate influenza pandemics. Based on risk of death and return on investment, high-risk groups of the three age group subpopulations can be prioritized for vaccination, and the vaccine interventions are cost saving for all age and risk groups. The attack rates among the children are higher than among the adults and seniors in the catastrophic, strong, and moderate influenza pandemic scenarios, due to their larger social contact network and homophilous interactions in school. Based on return on investment and higher attack rates among children, we recommend prioritizing children (0-19 years) and seniors (65+ years) after high-risk groups for influenza vaccination during times of limited vaccine supplies. Based on risk of death, we recommend prioritizing seniors (65+ years) after high-risk groups for influenza vaccination during times of limited vaccine supplies.

Project description:BACKGROUND: In an influenza pandemic, the benefit of vaccines and antiviral medications will be constrained by limitations on supplies and effectiveness. Non-pharmaceutical public health interventions will therefore be vital in curtailing disease spread. However, the most comprehensive assessments of the literature to date recognize the generally poor quality of evidence on which to base non-pharmaceutical pandemic planning decisions. In light of the need to prepare for a possible pandemic despite concerns about the poor quality of the literature, combining available evidence with expert opinion about the relative merits of non-pharmaceutical interventions for pandemic influenza may lead to a more informed and widely accepted set of recommendations. We evaluated the evidence base for non-pharmaceutical public health interventions. Then, based on the collective evidence, we identified a set of recommendations for and against interventions that are specific to both the setting in which an intervention may be used and the pandemic phase, and which can be used by policymakers to prepare for a pandemic until scientific evidence can definitively respond to planners' needs. METHODS: Building on reviews of past pandemics and recent historical inquiries, we evaluated the relative merits of non-pharmaceutical interventions by combining available evidence from the literature with qualitative and quantitative expert opinion. Specifically, we reviewed the recent scientific literature regarding the prevention of human-to-human transmission of pandemic influenza, convened a meeting of experts from multiple disciplines, and elicited expert recommendation about the use of non-pharmaceutical public health interventions in a variety of settings (healthcare facilities; community-based institutions; private households) and pandemic phases (no pandemic; no US pandemic; early localized US pandemic; advanced US pandemic). RESULTS: The literature contained a dearth of evidence on the efficacy or effectiveness of most non-pharmaceutical interventions for influenza. In an effort to inform decision-making in the absence of strong scientific evidence, the experts ultimately endorsed hand hygiene and respiratory etiquette, surveillance and case reporting, and rapid viral diagnosis in all settings and during all pandemic phases. They also encouraged patient and provider use of masks and other personal protective equipment as well as voluntary self-isolation of patients during all pandemic phases. Other non-pharmaceutical interventions including mask-use and other personal protective equipment for the general public, school and workplace closures early in an epidemic, and mandatory travel restrictions were rejected as likely to be ineffective, infeasible, or unacceptable to the public. CONCLUSION: The demand for scientific evidence on non-pharmaceutical public health interventions for influenza is pervasive, and present policy recommendations must rely heavily on expert judgment. In the absence of a definitive science base, our assessment of the evidence identified areas for further investigation as well as non-pharmaceutical public health interventions that experts believe are likely to be beneficial, feasible and widely acceptable in an influenza pandemic.

Project description:BackgroundThe threat of emergence of a human-to-human transmissible strain of highly pathogenic influenza A(H5N1) is very real, and is reinforced by recent results showing that genetically modified A(H5N1) may be readily transmitted between ferrets. Public health authorities are hesitant in introducing social distancing interventions due to societal disruption and productivity losses. This study estimates the effectiveness and total cost (from a societal perspective, with a lifespan time horizon) of a comprehensive range of social distancing and antiviral drug strategies, under a range of pandemic severity categories.MethodsAn economic analysis was conducted using a simulation model of a community of ~30,000 in Australia. Data from the 2009 pandemic was used to derive relationships between the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) and hospitalization rates for each of five pandemic severity categories, with CFR ranging from 0.1% to 2.5%.ResultsFor a pandemic with basic reproduction number R0 = 1.8, adopting no interventions resulted in total costs ranging from $441 per person for a pandemic at category 1 (CFR 0.1%) to $8,550 per person at category 5 (CFR 2.5%). For severe pandemics of category 3 (CFR 0.75%) and greater, a strategy combining antiviral treatment and prophylaxis, extended school closure and community contact reduction resulted in the lowest total cost of any strategy, costing $1,584 per person at category 5. This strategy was highly effective, reducing the attack rate to 5%. With low severity pandemics costs are dominated by productivity losses due to illness and social distancing interventions, whereas higher severity pandemic costs are dominated by healthcare costs and costs arising from productivity losses due to death.ConclusionsFor pandemics in high severity categories the strategies with the lowest total cost to society involve rigorous, sustained social distancing, which are considered unacceptable for low severity pandemics due to societal disruption and cost.

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.

Dataset Information

Assessing key model parameters for economic evaluation of pandemic influenza interventions: the data source matters.

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Assessing key model parameters for economic evaluation of pandemic influenza interventions: the data source matters.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets