OBJECTIVES: Economic evaluations on influenza vaccination from low resource settings are scarce and have not been evaluated using a systematic approach. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review on the value for money of influenza vaccination in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: PubMed and EMBASE were searched for economic evaluations published in any language between 1960 and 2011. Main outcome measures were costs per influenza outcome averted, costs per quality-adjusted life years gained or disability-adjusted life years averted, costs per benefit in monetary units or cost-benefit ratios. RESULTS: Nine economic evaluations on seasonal influenza vaccine met the inclusion criteria. These were model- or randomized-controlled-trial (RCT)-based economic evaluations from middle-income countries. Influenza vaccination provided value for money for elderly, infants, adults and children with high-risk conditions. Vaccination was cost-effective and cost-saving for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients and in elderly above 65 y from model-based evaluations, but conclusions from RCTs on elderly varied. CONCLUSION: Economic evaluations from middle income regions differed in population studied, outcomes and definitions used. Most findings are in line with evidence from high-income countries highlighting that influenza vaccine is likely to provide value for money. However, serious methodological limitations do not allow drawing conclusions on cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination in middle income countries. Evidence on cost-effectiveness from low-income countries is lacking altogether, and more information is needed from full economic evaluations that are conducted in a standardized manner.
OBJECTIVES: Economic evaluations on influenza vaccination from low resource settings are scarce and have not been evaluated using a systematic approach. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review on the value for money of influenza vaccination in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: PubMed and EMBASE were searched for economic evaluations published in any language between 1960 and 2011. Main outcome measures were costs per influenza outcome averted, costs per quality-adjusted life years gained or disability-adjusted life years averted, costs per benefit in monetary units or cost-benefit ratios. RESULTS: Nine economic evaluations on seasonal influenza vaccine met the inclusion criteria. These were model- or randomized-controlled-trial (RCT)-based economic evaluations from middle-income countries. Influenza vaccination provided value for money for elderly, infants, adults and children with high-risk conditions. Vaccination was cost-effective and cost-saving for chronic obstructive pulmonary diseasepatients and in elderly above 65 y from model-based evaluations, but conclusions from RCTs on elderly varied. CONCLUSION: Economic evaluations from middle income regions differed in population studied, outcomes and definitions used. Most findings are in line with evidence from high-income countries highlighting that influenza vaccine is likely to provide value for money. However, serious methodological limitations do not allow drawing conclusions on cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination in middle income countries. Evidence on cost-effectiveness from low-income countries is lacking altogether, and more information is needed from full economic evaluations that are conducted in a standardized manner.
Authors: E Burckel; T Ashraf; J P de Sousa Filho; E Forleo Neto; H Guarino; C Yauti; B Barreto F de; L Champion Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Alvaro Morales; Maria M Martinez; Anne Tasset-Tisseau; Elena Rey; Florence Baron-Papillon; Alain Follet Journal: Value Health Date: 2004 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Rohan Deogaonkar; Raymond Hutubessy; Inge van der Putten; Silvia Evers; Mark Jit Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-10-16 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: David Shapiro; Champica K Bodinayake; Ajith Nagahawatte; Vasantha Devasiri; Ruvini Kurukulasooriya; Jeremy Hsiang; Bradley Nicholson; Aruna Dharshan De Silva; Truls Østbye; Megan E Reller; Christopher W Woods; L Gayani Tillekeratne Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Aldiouma Diallo; Ousmane M Diop; Doudou Diop; Mbayame Nd Niang; Jonathan D Sugimoto; Justin R Ortiz; El Hadji Abdourahmane Faye; Bou Diarra; Deborah Goudiaby; Kristen D C Lewis; Shannon L Emery; Sahar Z Zangeneh; Kathryn E Lafond; Cheikh Sokhna; M Elizabeth Halloran; Marc-Alain Widdowson; Kathleen M Neuzil; John C Victor Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2019-10-30 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Prashant V Nigwekar; Anuj Kumar; Vikram V Padbidri; Amlan Choudhury; Amol B Chaudhari; Prasad S Kulkarni Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 5.228
Authors: Clint Pecenka; Spy Munthali; Paul Chunga; Ann Levin; Win Morgan; Philipp Lambach; Niranjan Bhat; Kathleen M Neuzil; Justin R Ortiz; Raymond Hutubessy Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-12-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Anthony T Newall; Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk; Philipp Lambach; Raymond C W Hutubessy Journal: Influenza Other Respir Viruses Date: 2017-12-27 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Kathleen F Morales; David W Brown; Laure Dumolard; Claudia Steulet; Alba Vilajeliu; Alba Maria Ropero Alvarez; Ann Moen; Martin Friede; Philipp Lambach Journal: Vaccine X Date: 2021-04-20