Dataset Information

Modelling the influenza disease burden in people aged 50-64 and ≥65 years in Australia.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Estimation of influenza disease burden is necessary to monitor the impact of intervention programmes. This study aims to estimate the attributable fraction of respiratory and circulatory disease due to influenza among Australian adults 50-64 and ≥65 years of age.

Methods

A semi-parametric generalised-additive model was used to estimate annual and average rate of influenza-attributable hospitalisation and death per 100,000 population under the principal diagnosis of influenza/pneumonia, respiratory, circulatory and myocardial infarction (MI) from 2001 through 2017.

Results

Over the study period, seasonal influenza accounted for an estimated annual average respiratory hospitalisation rate of 78.9 (95%CI: 76.3, 81.4) and 287.5 (95%CI: 279.8, 295.3) per 100,000 population in adults aged 50-64 and ≥65 years, respectively. The corresponding respiratory mortality rates were 0.9 (95%CI: 0.7, 1.2) and 18.2 (95%CI: 16.9, 19.4) per 100,000 population. The 2017 season had the highest influenza-attributable respiratory hospitalisations in both age groups, and respiratory complications were estimated approximately 2.5 times higher than the average annual estimate in adults aged ≥65 years in 2017. For mortality, on average, influenza attributed 1,080 circulatory and 361 MI deaths in adults aged ≥65 years per year. Influenza accounted for 1% and 2.8% of total MI deaths in adults aged 50-64 and ≥65 years, respectively.

Conclusion

Rates of cardiorespiratory morbidity and mortality were high in older adults, whilst the younger age group contributed a lower disease burden. Extension of influenza vaccination programme beyond the targeted population could be an alternative strategy to reduce the burden of influenza.

SUBMITTER: Moa AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8692809 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is low diagnostic accuracy of the proxy restrictive spirometric pattern (RSP) to identify true pulmonary restriction. This knowledge is based on patients referred for spirometry and total lung volume determination by plethysmograpy, single breath nitrogen washout technique or gas dilution and selected controls. There is, however, a lack of data from general populations analyzing whether RSP is a valid proxy for true pulmonary restriction. We have validated RSP in relation to true pulmonary restriction in a general population where we have access to measurements of total lung capacity (TLC) and spirometry.MethodsThe data was from the Swedish CArdioPulmonary bioImage Study (SCAPIS Pilot), a general population-based study, comprising 983 adults aged 50-64. All subjects answered a respiratory questionnaire. Forced expiratory volume in 1?s (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) were obtained before and after bronchodilation. TLC and residual volume (RV) was recorded using a body plethysmograph. All lung function values are generally expressed as percent predicted (% predicted) or in relation to lower limits of normal (LLN). True pulmonary restriction was defined as TLC?<?LLN5 defined as a Z score?<?-?1.645, i e the fifth percentile. RSP was defined as FEV1/FVC???LLN and FVC?<?LLN after bronchodilation. Specificity, sensitivity, positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.ResultsThe prevalence of true pulmonary restriction was 5.4%, and the prevalence of RSP was 3.4%. The sensitivity of RSP to identify true pulmonary restriction was 0.34 (0.20-0.46), the corresponding specificity was 0.98 (0.97-0.99), and the positive likelihood ratio was 21.1 (11.3-39.4) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.67 (0.55-0.81).ConclusionsRSP has low accuracy for identifying true pulmonary restriction. The results support previous observations that RSP is useful for ruling out true pulmonary restriction.

Project description:BackgroundThere is little consensus, and minimal evidence, regarding the age at which to stop cervical screening. We studied the association between screening at age 50-64 y and cervical cancer at age 65-83 y.Methods and findingsCases were women (n = 1,341) diagnosed with cervical cancer at age 65-83 y between 1 April 2007 and 31 March 2012 in England and Wales; age-matched controls (n = 2,646) were randomly selected from population registers. Screening details from 1988 onwards were extracted from national databases. We calculated the odds ratios (OR) for different screening histories and subsequent cervical cancer. Women with adequate negative screening at age 65 y (288 cases, 1,395 controls) were at lowest risk of cervical cancer (20-y risk: 8 cancers per 10,000 women) compared with those (532 cases, 429 controls) not screened at age 50-64 y (20-y risk: 49 cancers per 10,000 women, with OR = 0.16, 95% CI 0.13-0.19). ORs depended on the age mix of women because of the weakening association with time since last screen: OR = 0.11, 95% CI 0.08-0.14 at 2.5 to 7.5 y since last screen; OR = 0.27, 95% CI 0.20-0.36 at 12.5 to 17.5 y since last screen. Screening at least every 5.5 y between the ages 50 and 64 y was associated with a 75% lower risk of cervical cancer between the ages 65 and 79 y (OR = 0.25, 95% CI 0.21-0.30), and the attributable risk was such that in the absence of screening, cervical cancer rates in women aged 65+ would have been 2.4 (95% CI 2.1-2.7) times higher. In women aged 80-83 y the association was weaker (OR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.28-0.83) than in those aged 65-69 y (OR = 0.12, 95% CI 0.09-0.17). This study was limited by an absence of data on confounding factors; additionally, findings based on cytology may not generalise to human papillomavirus testing.ConclusionsWomen with adequate negative screening at age 50-64 y had one-sixth of the risk of cervical cancer at age 65-83 y compared with women who were not screened. Stopping screening between ages 60 and 69 y in women with adequate negative screening seems sensible, but further screening may be justifiable as life expectancy increases.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Changing pneumococcal disease epidemiology due to childhood vaccination has prompted re-examination of US adult pneumococcal vaccination policies, as have considerations of greater pneumococcal disease incidence and higher prevalence of conditions that increase risk in underserved minority populations. Prior analyses suggest routine pneumococcal vaccination at age 50 could be considered, which could disproportionately benefit underserved populations. METHODS:A Markov cohort model estimated the cost-effectiveness of US pneumococcal vaccination policies in hypothetical 50-year-old underserved minority and general population cohorts. Strategies included receiving one or both available pneumococcal vaccines based on age- or chronic condition-specific criteria. US databases and medical literature data calibrated pneumococcal illness incidence, vaccine serotype distributions, age- and race-specific chronic condition distributions, and costs. Black population data were used as a proxy for underserved minorities. We took a US healthcare perspective, discounting at 3%/year. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed and scenarios modeling differing vaccine assumptions were examined. RESULTS:In both black and general population 50-year-olds, giving both pneumococcal vaccines to all 50-year-olds prevented the most disease, but cost >$250,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Current CDC recommendations (both vaccines for the immunocompromised, polysaccharide vaccine for other high-risk conditions) were economically favorable in either population when analyses assumed polysaccharide vaccine was ineffective against nonbacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia (NBP). If polysaccharide vaccine is effective against NBP or if less complex age-based vaccination recommendations result in increased vaccine uptake, giving polysaccharide vaccine to all 50-year-olds cost <$100,000/QALY; this effect was more pronounced in black cohorts. Results were robust in 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS:Despite changes in pneumococcal epidemiology, current CDC recommendations were favored in underserved minority and general population cohorts. Polysaccharide vaccine for all 50-year-olds could be considered under some vaccine uptake and effectiveness assumptions, particularly if mitigating racial health disparities in pneumococcal disease is a priority.

Project description:ObjectiveThe prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing globally and there is critical need develop interventions to improve health outcomes among older people. The Group Appointments in Primary Care (GAP) study was a randomised controlled trial designed to test the efficacy of a group and team-based medical visit programme to lower haemoglobin A1c among patients with T2DM. We aimed to understand the barriers and facilitators to implement the GAP intervention within a primary care setting, with an emphasis on patient experience.Research design and methodsThis was a qualitative exploratory study. Data were gathered from semistructured interviews conducted with the first cohort of GAP study participants (n=15) at baseline and intervention completion. GAP participants were aged >65, diagnosed with T2DM and from one primary care clinic. The interview questions identified the patient perspectives and factors relating to their attendance at seven group medical visits that were part of the intervention programme. Data were analysed using framework analysis.ResultsWe identified four themes that captured participants' experiences: (1) Education: learning with professionals, learning with one another; (2) Social Support: common interests, common problems; (3) Setting: ease of location, ease of conversation and (4) Impact: expectations met, empowerment gained. The GAP intervention increased participants' self-reported diabetes literacy and self-management skills.ConclusionsWe learnt that: accessible community centres, not primary care offices, were the ideal location for GAP; the consistent leadership of the primary care physician was valued by participants; and, the content related to exercise and healthy diet were viewed as impactful. Also, learning was achieved through content delivered by clinical experts, and by T2DM experts with lived experience-the GAP peers. Our findings highlight the important role of group learning.Trial registration numberNCT02002143.