• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Cost-effectiveness of an influenza vaccination program offering intramuscular and intradermal vaccines versus intramuscular vaccine alone for elderly

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Vaccine. 2016 Apr 11. pii: S0264-410X(16)30128-1. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.04.008. [Epub ahead of print]
[h=1]Cost-effectiveness of an influenza vaccination program offering intramuscular and intradermal vaccines versus intramuscular vaccine alone for elderly.[/h] Leung MK[SUP]1[/SUP], You JH[SUP]2[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]

[h=3]Abstract[/h] [h=4]BACKGROUND:[/h] Intradermal (ID) injection is an alternative route for influenza vaccine administration in elderly with potential improvement of vaccine coverage. This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of an influenza vaccination program offering ID vaccine to elderly who had declined intramuscular (IM) vaccine from the perspective of Hong Kong public healthcare provider.
[h=4]METHODS:[/h] A decision analytic model was used to simulate outcomes of two programs: IM vaccine alone (IM program), and IM or ID vaccine (IM/ID program) in a hypothetic cohort of elderly aged 65 years. Outcome measures included influenza-related direct medical cost, infection rate, mortality rate, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) loss, and incremental cost per QALY saved (ICER). Model inputs were derived from literature. Sensitivity analyses evaluated the impact of uncertainty of model variables.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h] In base-case analysis, the IM/ID program was more costly (USD52.82 versus USD47.59 per individual to whom vaccine was offered) with lower influenza infection rate (8.71% versus 9.65%), mortality rate (0.021% versus 0.024%) and QALYs loss (0.00336 versus 0.00372) than the IM program. ICER of IM/ID program was USD14,528 per QALY saved. One-way sensitivity analysis found ICER of IM/ID program to exceed willingness-to-pay threshold (USD39,933) when probability of influenza infection in unvaccinated elderly decreased from 10.6% to 5.4%. In 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations of elderly populations of Hong Kong, the IM/ID program was the preferred option in 94.7% of time.
[h=4]CONCLUSIONS:[/h] An influenza vaccination program offering ID vaccine to elderly who had declined IM vaccine appears to be a highly cost-effective option.
Copyright ? 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.


[h=4]KEYWORDS:[/h] Cost-effectiveness; Elderly; Intradermal injection; Intramuscular injection; Microneedle; Seasonal influenza vaccine

PMID: 27079928 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
 
Back
Top Bottom