OBJECTIVES: To develop 3 computer simulation models to determine the potential economic effect of using intravenous (IV) antiviral agents to treat hospitalized patients with influenza-like illness, as well as different testing and treatment strategies. STUDY DESIGN: Stochastic decision analytic computer simulation model. METHODS: During the 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic, the Food and Drug Administration granted emergency use authorization of IV neuraminidase inhibitors for hospitalized patients with influenza, creating a need for rapid decision analyses to help guide use. We compared the economic value from the societal and third-party payer perspectives of the following 4 strategies for a patient hospitalized with influenza-like illness and unable to take oral antiviral agents: Strategy 1: Administration of IV antiviral agents without polymerase chain reaction influenza testing. Strategy 2: Initiation of IV antiviral treatment, followed by polymerase chain reaction testing to determine whether the treatment should be continued. Strategy 3: Performance of polymerase chain reaction testing, followed by initiation of IV antiviral treatment if the test results are positive. Strategy 4: Administration of no IV antiviral agents. Sensitivity analyses varied the probability of having influenza (baseline, 10%; range, 10%-30%), IV antiviral efficacy (baseline, oral oseltamivir phosphate; range, 25%-75%), IV antiviral daily cost (range, $20-$1000), IV antiviral reduction of illness duration (baseline, 1 day; range, 1-2 days), and ventilated vs nonventilated status of the patient. RESULTS: When the cost of IV antiviral agents was no more than $500 per day, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for most of the IV antiviral treatment strategies was less than $10,000 per quality-adjusted life-year compared with no treatment. When the cost was no more than $100 per day, all 3 IV antiviral strategies were even more cost-effective. The order of cost-effectiveness from most to least was strategies 3, 1, and 2. The findings were robust to changing risk of influenza, influenza mortality, IV antiviral efficacy, IV antiviral daily cost, IV antiviral reduction of illness duration, and ventilated vs nonventilated status of the patient for both societal and third-party payer perspectives. CONCLUSION: Our study supports the use of IV antiviral treatment for hospitalized patients with influenza-like illness.
OBJECTIVES: To develop 3 computer simulation models to determine the potential economic effect of using intravenous (IV) antiviral agents to treat hospitalized patients with influenza-like illness, as well as different testing and treatment strategies. STUDY DESIGN: Stochastic decision analytic computer simulation model. METHODS: During the 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic, the Food and Drug Administration granted emergency use authorization of IV neuraminidase inhibitors for hospitalized patients with influenza, creating a need for rapid decision analyses to help guide use. We compared the economic value from the societal and third-party payer perspectives of the following 4 strategies for a patient hospitalized with influenza-like illness and unable to take oral antiviral agents: Strategy 1: Administration of IV antiviral agents without polymerase chain reaction influenza testing. Strategy 2: Initiation of IV antiviral treatment, followed by polymerase chain reaction testing to determine whether the treatment should be continued. Strategy 3: Performance of polymerase chain reaction testing, followed by initiation of IV antiviral treatment if the test results are positive. Strategy 4: Administration of no IV antiviral agents. Sensitivity analyses varied the probability of having influenza (baseline, 10%; range, 10%-30%), IV antiviral efficacy (baseline, oral oseltamivir phosphate; range, 25%-75%), IV antiviral daily cost (range, $20-$1000), IV antiviral reduction of illness duration (baseline, 1 day; range, 1-2 days), and ventilated vs nonventilated status of the patient. RESULTS: When the cost of IV antiviral agents was no more than $500 per day, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for most of the IV antiviral treatment strategies was less than $10,000 per quality-adjusted life-year compared with no treatment. When the cost was no more than $100 per day, all 3 IV antiviral strategies were even more cost-effective. The order of cost-effectiveness from most to least was strategies 3, 1, and 2. The findings were robust to changing risk of influenza, influenza mortality, IV antiviral efficacy, IV antiviral daily cost, IV antiviral reduction of illness duration, and ventilated vs nonventilated status of the patient for both societal and third-party payer perspectives. CONCLUSION: Our study supports the use of IV antiviral treatment for hospitalized patients with influenza-like illness.
Authors: Daniel E Dulek; John V Williams; C Buddy Creech; Alynna K Schulert; Haydar A Frangoul; Jennifer Domm; Mark R Denison; James D Chappell Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2010-06-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Melanie W Syrmis; David M Whiley; Marion Thomas; Ian M Mackay; Jeanette Williamson; David J Siebert; Michael D Nissen; Theo P Sloots Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Anand Kumar; Ryan Zarychanski; Ruxandra Pinto; Deborah J Cook; John Marshall; Jacques Lacroix; Tom Stelfox; Sean Bagshaw; Karen Choong; Francois Lamontagne; Alexis F Turgeon; Stephen Lapinsky; Stéphane P Ahern; Orla Smith; Faisal Siddiqui; Philippe Jouvet; Kosar Khwaja; Lauralyn McIntyre; Kusum Menon; Jamie Hutchison; David Hornstein; Ari Joffe; Francois Lauzier; Jeffrey Singh; Tim Karachi; Kim Wiebe; Kendiss Olafson; Clare Ramsey; Sat Sharma; Peter Dodek; Maureen Meade; Richard Hall; Robert A Fowler Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-10-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Seema Jain; Laurie Kamimoto; Anna M Bramley; Ann M Schmitz; Stephen R Benoit; Janice Louie; David E Sugerman; Jean K Druckenmiller; Kathleen A Ritger; Rashmi Chugh; Supriya Jasuja; Meredith Deutscher; Sanny Chen; John D Walker; Jeffrey S Duchin; Susan Lett; Susan Soliva; Eden V Wells; David Swerdlow; Timothy M Uyeki; Anthony E Fiore; Sonja J Olsen; Alicia M Fry; Carolyn B Bridges; Lyn Finelli Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-10-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Melissa A Rolfes; Kimberly M Yousey-Hindes; James I Meek; Alicia M Fry; Sandra S Chaves Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 3.835