OBJECTIVE: The cost-effectiveness of palivizumab has previously been reported among certain guideline-eligible, high-risk premature infants in Medicaid. Because guideline authorities base decisions on a national perspective, the economic model of palivizumab was adapted to include all infants, that is, public and privately insured patients (60% of palivizumab use is public, 40% is private). METHODS: This study examined four groups of premature infants without chronic lung disease of prematurity or congenital heart disease: (1) <32 weeks gestational age (wGA) and ≤ 6 months chronologic age (CA); (2) 32-34 wGA, ≤ 3 months CA, with 2009 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) risk factors (RFs); (3) 32-35 wGA, ≤ 6 months CA, with 2006 AAP RFs; and (4) 32-35 wGA, ≤ 6 months CA, with ≤ 1 RF. An average estimate was used between public and private payors for (1) background rates of respiratory syncytial virus hospitalization (RSV-H), (2) direct medical costs associated with RSV-H, and (3) cost of palivizumab. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are reported in cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Palivizumab saved costs and improved QALYs among infants <32 wGA. Palivizumab was cost-effective in infants 32-34 wGA with 2009 AAP RFs ($44,774 per QALY) and in infants 32-35 wGA with 2006 AAP RFs ($79,477 per QALY). The ICER for infants 32-35 wGA with ≤ 1 RF was $464,476 per QALY. Influential variables in the sensitivity analysis included background rate of RSV-H and cost and efficacy of palivizumab. LIMITATIONS: The results are not generalizable to populations outside of the US. The model did not examine all RFs. The wholesale acquisition cost was used as a payment benchmark; actual price paid by end providers varies. CONCLUSIONS: From a national policy perspective, palivizumab remained cost-effective for publically and commercially insured, guideline-eligible, high-risk premature infants. Palivizumab was not cost-effective in infants of 32-35 wGA with ≤ 1 RF.
OBJECTIVE: The cost-effectiveness of palivizumab has previously been reported among certain guideline-eligible, high-risk premature infants in Medicaid. Because guideline authorities base decisions on a national perspective, the economic model of palivizumab was adapted to include all infants, that is, public and privately insured patients (60% of palivizumab use is public, 40% is private). METHODS: This study examined four groups of premature infants without chronic lung disease of prematurity or congenital heart disease: (1) <32 weeks gestational age (wGA) and ≤ 6 months chronologic age (CA); (2) 32-34 wGA, ≤ 3 months CA, with 2009 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) risk factors (RFs); (3) 32-35 wGA, ≤ 6 months CA, with 2006 AAP RFs; and (4) 32-35 wGA, ≤ 6 months CA, with ≤ 1 RF. An average estimate was used between public and private payors for (1) background rates of respiratory syncytial virus hospitalization (RSV-H), (2) direct medical costs associated with RSV-H, and (3) cost of palivizumab. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are reported in cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS:Palivizumab saved costs and improved QALYs among infants <32 wGA. Palivizumab was cost-effective in infants 32-34 wGA with 2009 AAP RFs ($44,774 per QALY) and in infants 32-35 wGA with 2006 AAP RFs ($79,477 per QALY). The ICER for infants 32-35 wGA with ≤ 1 RF was $464,476 per QALY. Influential variables in the sensitivity analysis included background rate of RSV-H and cost and efficacy of palivizumab. LIMITATIONS: The results are not generalizable to populations outside of the US. The model did not examine all RFs. The wholesale acquisition cost was used as a payment benchmark; actual price paid by end providers varies. CONCLUSIONS: From a national policy perspective, palivizumab remained cost-effective for publically and commercially insured, guideline-eligible, high-risk premature infants. Palivizumab was not cost-effective in infants of 32-35 wGA with ≤ 1 RF.
Authors: Song Feng; Di Hong; Baoxia Wang; Xiufang Zheng; Kun Miao; Lisha Wang; Hongying Yun; Lu Gao; Shuhai Zhao; Hong C Shen Journal: ACS Med Chem Lett Date: 2015-01-25 Impact factor: 4.345
Authors: Andrew Hiatt; Natasha Bohorova; Ognian Bohorov; Charles Goodman; Do Kim; Michael H Pauly; Jesus Velasco; Kevin J Whaley; Pedro A Piedra; Brian E Gilbert; Larry Zeitlin Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2014-04-07 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Dan Yan; Sujin Lee; Vidhi D Thakkar; Ming Luo; Martin L Moore; Richard Karl Plemper Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2014-08-04 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Dan Yan; Marco Weisshaar; Kristen Lamb; Hokyung K Chung; Michael Z Lin; Richard K Plemper Journal: Biochemistry Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 3.162
Authors: Jeong-Joong Yoon; Mart Toots; Sujin Lee; Myung-Eun Lee; Barbara Ludeke; Jasmina M Luczo; Ketaki Ganti; Robert M Cox; Zachary M Sticher; Vindya Edpuganti; Deborah G Mitchell; Mark A Lockwood; Alexander A Kolykhalov; Alexander L Greninger; Martin L Moore; George R Painter; Anice C Lowen; Stephen M Tompkins; Rachel Fearns; Michael G Natchus; Richard K Plemper Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2018-07-27 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Terianne M Wong; Nikolai Petrovsky; Stephanie J Bissel; Clayton A Wiley; Ted M Ross Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 3.452