Richard H Beigi1, Ann E Wiringa, Rachel R Bailey, Tina-Marie Assi, Bruce Y Lee. 1. Division of Reproductive Infectious Diseases, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Magee-Womens Hospital of University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA. rbeigi@mail.magee.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of maternal influenza immunization against laboratory-confirmed influenza has never been studied. The current 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic provides a timely opportunity to perform such analyses. The study objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of maternal influenza vaccination using both single- and 2-dose strategies against laboratory-confirmed influenza secondary to both seasonal epidemics and pandemic influenza outbreaks. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness decision analytic model construct using epidemic and pandemic influenza characteristics from both the societal and third-party payor perspectives. A comparison was made between vaccinating all pregnant women in the United States versus not vaccinating pregnant women. Probabilistic (Monte Carlo) sensitivity analyses were also performed. The main outcome measures were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Maternal influenza vaccination using either the single- or 2-dose strategy is a cost-effective approach when influenza prevalence > or =7.5% and influenza-attributable mortality is > or =1.05% (consistent with epidemic strains). As the prevalence of influenza and/or the severity of the outbreak increases the incremental value of vaccination also increases. At a higher prevalence of influenza (> or =30%) the single-dose strategy demonstrates cost-savings while the 2-dose strategy remains highly cost-effective (ICER, < or =$6787.77 per quality-adjusted life year). CONCLUSIONS: Maternal influenza immunization is a highly cost-effective intervention at disease rates and severity that correspond to both seasonal influenza epidemics and occasional pandemics. These findings justify ongoing efforts to optimize influenza vaccination during pregnancy from an economic perspective.
BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of maternal influenza immunization against laboratory-confirmed influenza has never been studied. The current 2009 H1N1influenza pandemic provides a timely opportunity to perform such analyses. The study objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of maternal influenza vaccination using both single- and 2-dose strategies against laboratory-confirmed influenza secondary to both seasonal epidemics and pandemic influenza outbreaks. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness decision analytic model construct using epidemic and pandemic influenza characteristics from both the societal and third-party payor perspectives. A comparison was made between vaccinating all pregnant women in the United States versus not vaccinating pregnant women. Probabilistic (Monte Carlo) sensitivity analyses were also performed. The main outcome measures were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Maternal influenza vaccination using either the single- or 2-dose strategy is a cost-effective approach when influenza prevalence > or =7.5% and influenza-attributable mortality is > or =1.05% (consistent with epidemic strains). As the prevalence of influenza and/or the severity of the outbreak increases the incremental value of vaccination also increases. At a higher prevalence of influenza (> or =30%) the single-dose strategy demonstrates cost-savings while the 2-dose strategy remains highly cost-effective (ICER, < or =$6787.77 per quality-adjusted life year). CONCLUSIONS: Maternal influenza immunization is a highly cost-effective intervention at disease rates and severity that correspond to both seasonal influenza epidemics and occasional pandemics. These findings justify ongoing efforts to optimize influenza vaccination during pregnancy from an economic perspective.
Authors: Flor M Munoz; Anthony J Greisinger; Oscar A Wehmanen; Melanie E Mouzoon; James C Hoyle; Frances A Smith; W Paul Glezen Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Niranjan Bhat; Jennifer G Wright; Karen R Broder; Erin L Murray; Michael E Greenberg; Maleeka J Glover; Anna M Likos; Drew L Posey; Alexander Klimov; Stephen E Lindstrom; Amanda Balish; Marie-jo Medina; Teresa R Wallis; Jeannette Guarner; Christopher D Paddock; Wun-Ju Shieh; Sherif R Zaki; James J Sejvar; David K Shay; Scott A Harper; Nancy J Cox; Keiji Fukuda; Timothy M Uyeki Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-12-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Penina Haber; Frank DeStefano; Fredrick J Angulo; John Iskander; Sean V Shadomy; Eric Weintraub; Robert T Chen Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-11-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: T Lasky; G J Terracciano; L Magder; C L Koski; M Ballesteros; D Nash; S Clark; P Haber; P D Stolley; L B Schonberger; R T Chen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1998-12-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Denise J Jamieson; Margaret A Honein; Sonja A Rasmussen; Jennifer L Williams; David L Swerdlow; Matthew S Biggerstaff; Stephen Lindstrom; Janice K Louie; Cara M Christ; Susan R Bohm; Vincent P Fonseca; Kathleen A Ritger; Daniel J Kuhles; Paula Eggers; Hollianne Bruce; Heidi A Davidson; Emily Lutterloh; Meghan L Harris; Colleen Burke; Noelle Cocoros; Lyn Finelli; Kitty F MacFarlane; Bo Shu; Sonja J Olsen Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-07-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: T Yamada; S Kawakami; Y Yoshida; H Kawamura; S Ohta; K Abe; H Hamada; S Dohi; K Ichizuka; H Takita; Y Baba; S Matsubara; J Mochizuki; N Unno; Y Maegawa; M Maeda; E Inubashiri; N Akutagawa; T Kubo; T Shirota; Y Oda; T Yamada; E Yamagishi; A Nakai; N Fuchi; H Masuzaki; S Urabe; Y Kudo; M Nomizo; N Sagawa; T Maeda; M Kamitomo; K Kawabata; S Kataoka; A Shiozaki; S Saito; A Sekizawa; H Minakami Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Paula M Frew; Laura A Randall; Fauzia Malik; Rupali J Limaye; Andrew Wilson; Sean T O'Leary; Daniel Salmon; Meghan Donnelly; Kevin Ault; Matthew Z Dudley; Vincent L Fenimore; Saad B Omer Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother Date: 2018-02-15 Impact factor: 3.452