Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T19:25:27.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Extending influenza vaccination to individuals aged 50–64: A budget impact analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2010

Americo Cicchetti
Affiliation:
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
Matteo Ruggeri
Affiliation:
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
Lara Gitto
Affiliation:
Università di Roma Tor Vergata
Francesco Saverio Mennini
Affiliation:
Università di Roma Tor Vergata

Abstract

Objectives: Influenza (vernacular name, flu) is a viral infection that causes a high consumption of resources. Several studies have been carried out to provide an economic evaluation of the vaccination programs against influenza. Nevertheless, there is still a lack of evidence about the dynamic effects resulting from the reduction of the transmission power. This study considers the impact on contagiousness of alternative strategies against influenza in people aged 50–64 in Italy, France, Germany, and Spain.

Methods: By using the Influsim 2.0 dynamic model, we have determined the social benefits of different coverage levels in every country compared with the ones currently recommended. We have subsequently performed a Budget Impact Analysis to determine whether the currently recommended coverage results from an optimal budget allocation. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was also conducted.

Results: We found that in Germany, the optimal coverage level is 38.5 percent, in France 32.4 percent, in Italy 32.75 percent, and 28.3 percent in Spain. By extending the coverage level, social saving tends to increase up to 100 percent for France and Italy and up to 80 percent for Germany and Spain.

Conclusions: Decision makers should allocate the budget for vaccination against influenza consistently with the estimation of the optimal coverage level and with the dynamic effects resulting from the reduction of the transmission power.

Type
ASSESSMENTS
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Aballéa, S, Chancellor, J, Martin, M, et al. The cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination for people aged 50 to 64 years: An international model. Value Health. 2007;10:98116.Google Scholar
2. Aballéa, S, De Juanes, R, Barbieri, M. The cost effectiveness of influenza vaccination for adults aged 50 to 64 years: A model-based analysis for Spain. Vaccine. 2007;25:69006910.Google Scholar
3. Carman, WF, Elder, AG, Wallace, LA, et al. Effects of influenza vaccination of health-care workers on mortality of elderly people in long-term care: A randomised control trial. Lancet. 2000;355:9397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Centre d'estutis en economia de la salud i de la politica social. Base de datos. Barcellona: SOIKOS; 2004.Google Scholar
5. Chowell, G, Nishiura, H, Bettencourt, LMA. Comparative estimation of the reproduction number for pandemic influenza from daily case notification data. J R Soc Interface. 2006;8:112.Google Scholar
6. Eichner, M, Schwehm, M, Duerr, HP, et al. The influenza pandemic preparedness planning tool Influsim. BMC Infect Dis. 2007;13:717.Google Scholar
7. European Scientific Working Group on Influenza. The benefits of influenza vaccination. Options for the control of influenza. Crete: ESWI Conference; September 23–28, 2000.Google Scholar
8. http://www.biam2.org. (Accessed March to June 2008)Google Scholar
11. http://www.g-drg.de. (Accessed March to June 2008)Google Scholar
12. http://www.giofil.it. (Accessed March to June 2008)Google Scholar
15. http://www.rote-liste.de/Online. (Accessed March to June 2008)Google Scholar
16. http://www.sante-sports.gouv.fr/etudes-recherches-statistiques. (Accessed March to June 2008)Google Scholar
17. ISPOR. Country specific pharmacoeconomic guidelines. Dublin: ISPOR; 2006.Google Scholar
18. Jefferson, T, Smith, S, Demicheli, V, et al. Assessment of the efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines in healthy children: Systematic review. Lancet. 2005;365:773780.Google Scholar
19. McElhaney, J. Neuraminidase inhibitors in the elderly and high-risk. In: Program and abstracts of the Second International Symposium on Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses. Grand Cayman Islands, British West Indies; 1999.Google Scholar
20. Medicom, SA. Vademecum internacional. Madrid: Medi Medic; 2005.Google Scholar
21. Salute, Ministero della. Ricognizione e primo aggiornamento delle tariffe massime per la remunerazione delle prestazioni sanitarie. Roma: Gazzetta Ufficiale dello Stato; 2006.Google Scholar
22. Office for Technology Assessment. Cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination. Washington, DC: Congress of the United States; 1981.Google Scholar
23. de Salud, Sistema Nacional. Estadısticos de referencia estatal de los sistemas de agrupacion de registros de pacientes. Madrid: CMBD; 1999.Google Scholar
24. Turner, D, Wailoo, A, Nicholson, K, et al. Systematic review and economic decision modelling for the prevention and treatment of influenza A and B. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:1182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Wallinga, J, Teunis, P, Kretzschmar, M. Using social contact data to estimate age-specific transmission parameters for infectious respiratory spread agents. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;164:936944.Google Scholar
26. Wezel, H. Handkommentar zum EBM mit BMÄ und E-GO und GOÄ. 6 edn 43 Ergänzungslieferung: St. Augustin; 1999.Google Scholar
27. World Health Organisation. Influenza vaccines: Recommendations for the use of inactivated influenza vaccines and other preventive measures. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2000;75:281288.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Cicchetti et al. supplementary material

Supplementary tables

Download Cicchetti et al. supplementary material(File)
File 94.7 KB