Single-dose vaccine formats can prevent clinic-level vaccine wastage but may incur higher production, medical waste disposal, and storage costs than multi-dose formats. To help guide vaccine developers, manufacturers, distributors, and purchasers, we developed a computational model to predict the potential economic impact of various single-dose versus multi-dose measles (MEA), hemophilus influenzae type B (Hib), Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG), yellow fever (YF), and pentavalent (DTP-HepB-Hib) vaccine formats. Lower patient demand favors fewer dose formats. The mean daily patient arrival thresholds for each vaccine format are as follows: for the MEA vaccine, 2 patients/day (below which the single-dose vial and above which the 10-dose vial are least costly); BCG vaccine, 6 patients/day (below, 10-dose vial; above, 20-dose vial); Hib vaccine, 5 patients/day (below, single-dose vial; above, 10-dose vial); YF vaccine, 33 patients/day (below, 5-dose vials; above 50-dose vial); and DTP-HepB-Hib vaccine, 5 patients/day (below, single-dose vial; above, 10-dose vial).

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 two-dosing 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 two-dose strategy is a cost-effective approach when influenza prevalence greater than or equal to 7.5% and influenza-attributable mortality is greater than or equal to 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 (≥30%) the single-dose strategy demonstrates cost-savings while the two-dose strategy remains highly cost-effective (ICER ≤ $6,787.77 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.

BackgroundDue to the unpredictable burden of pandemic influenza, the best strategy to manage testing, such as rapid or polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and antiviral medications for patients who present with influenza-like illness (ILI) is unknown.Methodology/Principal FindingsWe developed a set of computer simulation models to evaluate the potential economic value of seven strategies under seasonal and pandemic influenza conditions: (1) using clinical judgment alone to guide antiviral use, (2) using PCR to determine whether to initiate antivirals, (3) using a rapid (point-of-care) test to determine antiviral use, (4) using a combination of a point-of-care test and clinical judgment, (5) using clinical judgment and confirming the diagnosis with PCR testing, (6) treating all with antivirals, and (7) not treating anyone with antivirals. For healthy younger adults (<65 years old) presenting with ILI in a seasonal influenza scenario, strategies were only cost-effective from the societal perspective. Clinical judgment, followed by PCR and point-of-care testing, was found to be cost-effective given a high influenza probability. Doubling hospitalization risk and mortality (representing either higher risk individuals or more virulent strains) made using clinical judgment to guide antiviral decision-making cost-effective, as well as PCR testing, point-of-care testing, and point-of-care testing used in conjunction with clinical judgment. For older adults (≥65 years old), in both seasonal and pandemic influenza scenarios, employing PCR was the most cost-effective option, with the closest competitor being clinical judgment (when judgment accuracy ≥50%). Point-of-care testing plus clinical judgment was cost-effective with higher probabilities of influenza. Treating all symptomatic ILI patients with antivirals was cost-effective only in older adults.Conclusions/SignificanceOur study delineated the conditions under which different testing and antiviral strategies may be cost-effective, showing the importance of accuracy, as seen with PCR or highly sensitive clinical judgment.

Although studies have suggested that a patient’s perceived cost-benefit of a medical intervention could affect his or her utilization of the intervention, the economic value of influenza vaccine from the patient’s perspective remains unclear. Therefore, we developed a stochastic decision analytic computer model representing an adult’s decision of whether to get vaccinated. Different scenarios explored the impact of the patient being insured versus uninsured, influenza attack rate, vaccine administration costs and vaccination time costs. Results indicated that cost of avoiding influenza was fairly low, with one driver being required vaccination time. To encourage vaccination, decision makers may want to focus on ways to reduce this time, such as vaccinating at work, churches, or other normally frequented locations.