Jonathan M Raviotta1, Kenneth J Smith2, Jay DePasse3, Shawn T Brown3, Eunha Shim4, Mary Patricia Nowalk2, Richard K Zimmerman2. 1. School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. raviottaj@upmc.edu. 2. School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 3. Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Mathematics, Soongsil University, Seoul, South Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness of four influenza vaccines available in the United States for persons aged 65 and older: trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3), quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4), a more-expensive high-dose IIV3, and a newly approved adjuvanted IIV3. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model and sensitivity analyses. SETTING: A hypothetical influenza vaccination season modeled according to possible U.S. influenza vaccination policies. PARTICIPANTS: Hypothetical cohort of individuals aged 65 and older in the United States. MEASUREMENTS: Cost-effectiveness and public health benefits of available influenza vaccination strategies in U.S. elderly adults. RESULTS: IIV3 cost $3,690 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, IIV4 cost $20,939 more than IIV3 per QALY gained, and high-dose IIV3 cost $31,214 more per QALY than IIV4. The model projected 83,775 fewer influenza cases and 980 fewer deaths with high-dose IIV3 than with the next most-effective vaccine: IIV4. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, high-dose IIV3 was the favored strategy if willingness to pay is $25,000 or more per QALY gained. Adjuvanted IIV3 cost-effectiveness depends on its price and effectiveness (neither yet determined in the United States) but could be favored if its relative effectiveness is 15% greater than that of IIV3. CONCLUSION: From economic and public health standpoints, high-dose IIV3 for adults aged 65 years and older is likely to be favored over the other vaccines, based on currently available data. The cost-effectiveness of adjuvanted IIV3 should be reviewed after its effectiveness has been compared with that of other vaccines and its U.S. price is established.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness of four influenza vaccines available in the United States for persons aged 65 and older: trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3), quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4), a more-expensive high-dose IIV3, and a newly approved adjuvanted IIV3. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model and sensitivity analyses. SETTING: A hypothetical influenza vaccination season modeled according to possible U.S. influenza vaccination policies. PARTICIPANTS: Hypothetical cohort of individuals aged 65 and older in the United States. MEASUREMENTS: Cost-effectiveness and public health benefits of available influenza vaccination strategies in U.S. elderly adults. RESULTS: IIV3 cost $3,690 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, IIV4 cost $20,939 more than IIV3 per QALY gained, and high-dose IIV3 cost $31,214 more per QALY than IIV4. The model projected 83,775 fewer influenza cases and 980 fewer deaths with high-dose IIV3 than with the next most-effective vaccine: IIV4. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, high-dose IIV3 was the favored strategy if willingness to pay is $25,000 or more per QALY gained. Adjuvanted IIV3 cost-effectiveness depends on its price and effectiveness (neither yet determined in the United States) but could be favored if its relative effectiveness is 15% greater than that of IIV3. CONCLUSION: From economic and public health standpoints, high-dose IIV3 for adults aged 65 years and older is likely to be favored over the other vaccines, based on currently available data. The cost-effectiveness of adjuvanted IIV3 should be reviewed after its effectiveness has been compared with that of other vaccines and its U.S. price is established.
Authors: Bruce Y Lee; Sarah M Bartsch; Shawn T Brown; Philip Cooley; William D Wheaton; Richard K Zimmerman Journal: Med Care Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Hector S Izurieta; Nicole Thadani; David K Shay; Yun Lu; Aaron Maurer; Ivo M Foppa; Riley Franks; Douglas Pratt; Richard A Forshee; Thomas MaCurdy; Chris Worrall; Andrew E Howery; Jeffrey Kelman Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2015-02-09 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Ayman Chit; Debbie L Becker; Carlos A DiazGranados; Michael Maschio; Eddy Yau; Michael Drummond Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2015-09-08 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Bryan R Luce; Kristin L Nichol; Robert B Belshe; Kevin D Frick; Su Xia Li; Audra Boscoe; Matthew D Rousculp; Parthiv J Mahadevia Journal: Vaccine Date: 2008-05-06 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Lisa A Grohskopf; Leslie Z Sokolow; Sonja J Olsen; Joseph S Bresee; Karen R Broder; Ruth A Karron Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2015-08-07 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Jay V DePasse; Mary Patricia Nowalk; Kenneth J Smith; Jonathan M Raviotta; Eunha Shim; Richard K Zimmerman; Shawn T Brown Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother Date: 2019-06-18 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Kenneth J Smith; Glenson France; Mary Patricia Nowalk; Jonathan M Raviotta; Jay DePasse; Angela Wateska; Eunha Shim; Richard K Zimmerman Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Jonathan M Raviotta; Kenneth J Smith; Jay DePasse; Shawn T Brown; Eunha Shim; Mary Patricia Nowalk; Richard K Zimmerman Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2017-06-06 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Mohammad B Nusair; Rasha Arabyat; Tareq L Mukattash; Hamza Alhamad; Marah T Abu Ghaida; Mohammad Y Momani Journal: Risk Manag Healthc Policy Date: 2020-10-16
Authors: Jonathan M Raviotta; Kenneth J Smith; Jay DePasse; Shawn T Brown; Eunha Shim; Mary Patricia Nowalk; Angela Wateska; Glenson S France; Richard K Zimmerman Journal: Vaccine Date: 2017-09-07 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Jessica R Cataldi; Laura P Hurley; Megan C Lindley; Sean T O'Leary; Carol Gorman; Michaela Brtnikova; Brenda L Beaty; Lori A Crane; David K Shay; Allison Kempe Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-01-22 Impact factor: 6.473