BACKGROUND: Zanamivir, a neuraminidase inhibitor, reduces the number of days of illness in influenza-positive patients. New bedside rapid flu tests (RFT) should increase the number of influenza-positive patients whom receive zanamivir appropriately. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the economic effects of implementing RFT and zanamivir among unvaccinated healthy working adults who consult within 2 days of the onset of influenza-like symptoms. METHODS: We constructed a decision tree to perform a cost-benefit analysis from a societal perspective. Clinical outcome, i.e. number of influenza days averted, and societal costs were compared for three strategies: RFT and conditional zanamivir prescription;systematic zanamivir prescription; and no zanamivir. A two-way sensitivity analysis was performed including the proportion of influenza-positive patients. RESULTS: During influenza epidemics, systematic zanamivir prescription provided the best health outcome (0.81 influenza days averted) and minimised societal costs (reduced by 29.80 US dollars per person compared with no zanamivir; 1999 values). RFT with conditional zanamivir averted 0.65 influenza days and saved 14.40 US dollars per person. When the proportion of influenza-positive patients was under 39%, the no zanamivir strategy yielded the greatest societal savings; otherwise, systematic zanamivir was the dominant strategy. Medical costs associated with no zanamivir were 88.70 US dollars per patient consulting with influenza-like illness, and increased to 125.50 US dollars with systematic zanamivir and to 127.60 US dollars with RFT and conditional zanamivir. CONCLUSIONS: Due to poor sensitivity of current RFT, systematic zanamivir prescription without RFT for unvaccinated healthy working adults should be recommended during influenza epidemics.
BACKGROUND:Zanamivir, a neuraminidase inhibitor, reduces the number of days of illness in influenza-positive patients. New bedside rapid flu tests (RFT) should increase the number of influenza-positive patients whom receive zanamivir appropriately. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the economic effects of implementing RFT and zanamivir among unvaccinated healthy working adults who consult within 2 days of the onset of influenza-like symptoms. METHODS: We constructed a decision tree to perform a cost-benefit analysis from a societal perspective. Clinical outcome, i.e. number of influenza days averted, and societal costs were compared for three strategies: RFT and conditional zanamivir prescription;systematic zanamivir prescription; and no zanamivir. A two-way sensitivity analysis was performed including the proportion of influenza-positive patients. RESULTS: During influenza epidemics, systematic zanamivir prescription provided the best health outcome (0.81 influenza days averted) and minimised societal costs (reduced by 29.80 US dollars per person compared with no zanamivir; 1999 values). RFT with conditional zanamivir averted 0.65 influenza days and saved 14.40 US dollars per person. When the proportion of influenza-positive patients was under 39%, the no zanamivir strategy yielded the greatest societal savings; otherwise, systematic zanamivir was the dominant strategy. Medical costs associated with no zanamivir were 88.70 US dollars per patient consulting with influenza-like illness, and increased to 125.50 US dollars with systematic zanamivir and to 127.60 US dollars with RFT and conditional zanamivir. CONCLUSIONS: Due to poor sensitivity of current RFT, systematic zanamivir prescription without RFT for unvaccinated healthy working adults should be recommended during influenza epidemics.
Authors: F G Hayden; A D Osterhaus; J J Treanor; D M Fleming; F Y Aoki; K G Nicholson; A M Bohnen; H M Hirst; O Keene; K Wightman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1997-09-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A S Monto; D M Fleming; D Henry; R de Groot; M Makela; T Klein; M Elliott; O N Keene; C Y Man Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 1999-08 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: J J Treanor; F G Hayden; P S Vrooman; R Barbarash; R Bettis; D Riff; S Singh; N Kinnersley; P Ward; R G Mills Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-02-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Timothy R Peters; Cynthia K Suerken; Beverly M Snively; James E Winslow; Milan D Nadkarni; Scott B Kribbs; Katherine A Poehling Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Simon van der Pol; Paula Rojas Garcia; Maarten J Postma; Fernando Antoñanzas Villar; Antoinette D I van Asselt Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2021-07-15 Impact factor: 4.981