BACKGROUND: Vaccinating children against influenza virus may reduce infections in immunised children and household contacts, thereby reducing the household-based cost associated with respiratory illnesses. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of influenza virus vaccination of daycare children on costs of respiratory illnesses of the children and their household contacts from the household and societal perspective. STUDY DESIGN: Cost analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial covering the period November to April of 1996-7 and 1998-9. Children (127 in 1996-7 and 133 in 1998-9) from daycare centres in Californian (USA) naval bases receivedinfluenza virus vaccine (inactivated) or hepatitis A virus vaccination. OUTCOME MEASURES: Direct and indirect costs (1997 and 1999 US dollars) of respiratory illnesses in households of vaccinated and not vaccinated daycare children, excluding the cost of vaccination. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in household costs of respiratory illness between households with or without influenza virus-vaccinated children (USD 635 vs USD 492: p = 0.98 [1996-7]; USD 412.70 vs USD 499.50: p = 0.42 [1998-9]). In 1996-7, adult and 5- to 17-year-old contacts of vaccinated children had lower household costs than contacts of unvaccinated children (USD 58.50 vs USD 83.20, p = 0.01 and USD 32.80 vs USD 59.50, p = 0.04, respectively), while vaccinated children 0-4 years old had higher household costs than unvaccinated children in the same age group (USD 383 vs USD 236, p = 0.05). In 1998-9, there were no differences within individual age groups. Results from societal perspective were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, from both the household and societal perspectives, there were no economic benefits to households from vaccinating daycare children against influenza virus. However, we found some over-time inconsistency in results; this should be considered if changing recommendations about routine influenza virus vaccination of healthy children. Our study size may limit the generalisability of the results.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Vaccinating children against influenza virus may reduce infections in immunised children and household contacts, thereby reducing the household-based cost associated with respiratory illnesses. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of influenza virus vaccination of daycare children on costs of respiratory illnesses of the children and their household contacts from the household and societal perspective. STUDY DESIGN: Cost analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial covering the period November to April of 1996-7 and 1998-9. Children (127 in 1996-7 and 133 in 1998-9) from daycare centres in Californian (USA) naval bases received influenza virus vaccine (inactivated) or hepatitis A virus vaccination. OUTCOME MEASURES: Direct and indirect costs (1997 and 1999 US dollars) of respiratory illnesses in households of vaccinated and not vaccinated daycare children, excluding the cost of vaccination. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in household costs of respiratory illness between households with or without influenza virus-vaccinated children (USD 635 vs USD 492: p = 0.98 [1996-7]; USD 412.70 vs USD 499.50: p = 0.42 [1998-9]). In 1996-7, adult and 5- to 17-year-old contacts of vaccinated children had lower household costs than contacts of unvaccinated children (USD 58.50 vs USD 83.20, p = 0.01 and USD 32.80 vs USD 59.50, p = 0.04, respectively), while vaccinated children 0-4 years old had higher household costs than unvaccinated children in the same age group (USD 383 vs USD 236, p = 0.05). In 1998-9, there were no differences within individual age groups. Results from societal perspective were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, from both the household and societal perspectives, there were no economic benefits to households from vaccinating daycare children against influenza virus. However, we found some over-time inconsistency in results; this should be considered if changing recommendations about routine influenza virus vaccination of healthy children. Our study size may limit the generalisability of the results.
Authors: E S Hurwitz; M Haber; A Chang; T Shope; S T Teo; J S Giesick; M M Ginsberg; N J Cox Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2000-09-08 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: C B Bridges; W W Thompson; M I Meltzer; G R Reeve; W J Talamonti; N J Cox; H A Lilac; H Hall; A Klimov; K Fukuda Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-10-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: D M Bell; D W Gleiber; A A Mercer; R Phifer; R H Guinter; A J Cohen; E U Epstein; M Narayanan Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 1989-04 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Rebecca J Hart; Michelle D Stevenson; Michael J Smith; A Scott LaJoie; Keith Cross Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2018-01-02 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Verughese Jacob; Sajal K Chattopadhyay; David P Hopkins; Jennifer Murphy Morgan; Adesola A Pitan; John M Clymer Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-02-01 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Lisa A Prosser; Tara A Lavelle; Anthony E Fiore; Carolyn B Bridges; Carrie Reed; Seema Jain; Kelly M Dunham; Martin I Meltzer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-07-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Lisa A Prosser; Carolyn Buxton Bridges; Timothy M Uyeki; Virginia L Hinrichsen; Martin I Meltzer; Noelle-Angelique M Molinari; Benjamin Schwartz; William W Thompson; Keiji Fukuda; Tracy A Lieu Journal: Emerg Infect Dis Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 6.883