International audienceBackground: Quadrivalent influenza vaccines (QIVs) contain antigens derived from an additional influenza type B virus as compared with currently used trivalent influenza vaccines (TIVs). This should overcome a potential reduced vaccine protection due to mismatches between TIV and circulating B viruses. In this study, we systematically reviewed the available literature on health economic evaluations of switching from TIV to QIV.Areas covered: The databases of Medline and Embase were searched systematically to identify health economic evaluations of QIV versus TIV published before September 2016.A total of sixteen studies were included, thirteen cost-effectiveness analyses and three cost-comparisons.Expert commentary: Published evidence on the cost-effectiveness of QIV suggests that switching from TIV to QIV would be a valuable intervention from both the public health and economic viewpoint. However, more research seems mandatory. Our main recommendations for future research include: 1) more extensive use of dynamic models in order to estimate the full impact of QIV on influenza transmission including indirect effects, 2) improved availability of data on disease outcomes and costs related to influenza type B viruses, and 3) more research on immunogenicity of natural influenza infection and vaccination, with emphasis on cross-reactivity between different influenza B viruses and duration of protection
High coronavirus incidence has prompted the Netherlands to implement a second lockdown. To elucidate the epidemic’s development preceding this second wave, we analysed weekly test positivity in public test locations by population subgroup between 1 June and 17 October 2020. Hospitality and public transport workers, driving instructors, hairdressers and aestheticians had higher test positivity compared with a reference group of individuals without a close-contact occupation. Workers in childcare, education and healthcare showed lower test positivity.
IntroductionVaccination is an effective preventive strategy against influenza. However, current trivalent influenza vaccines (TIVs) contain only one of the two influenza B lineages that circulate each year. Vaccine mismatches are frequent because predicting which one will predominate is difficult. Recently licensed quadrivalent influenza vaccines (QIVs) containing the two B lineages should address this issue. Our study estimates their impact by assessing what would have been the US public health benefit of routinely vaccinating with QIV in 2000–2013.MethodsWe developed a dynamic compartmental model that accounts for interactions between influenza B lineages (natural or vaccine-induced) and simulates the multiyear influenza dynamics for 2000–2013. Age-structured population dynamics, vaccine efficacy (VE) per strain, and weekly ramp-up of vaccination coverage are modeled. Sensitivity analyses were performed on VE, duration of immunity, and levels of vaccine-induced cross-protection between B lineages.ResultsAssuming a cross-protection of 70% of the VE of the matched vaccine, the model predicts 16% more B lineage cases prevented by QIV. Elderly (≥65 years) and young seniors (50–64 years) benefit most from QIV, with 21% and 18% reductions in B lineage cases. Reducing cross-protection to 50%, 30%, and 0% of the VE of the matched vaccine improves the relative benefit of QIV to 25%, 30%, and 34% less B lineage cases.ConclusionUsing a dynamic retrospective framework with real-life vaccine mismatch, our analysis shows that QIV routine vaccination in the United States has the potential to substantially reduce the number of influenza infections, even with relatively high estimates of TIV-induced cross-protection.
Introducing QIV into the US immunization program may prevent a substantial number of hospitalizations and deaths. QIV is also expected to be a cost-effective alternative option to TIV.
Low persistence with osteoporosis medication is associated with higher fracture risk. Previous studies estimated that 1-year persistence with osteoporosis medication is low. Our aim was to study persistence with osteoporosis medication among patients with long-term follow-up (to 5 years). The InterAction Database (IADB) was used to analyze persistence of 8610 Dutch patients initiating osteoporosis drugs between 2003 and 2011. Drugs under study were alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, etidronate, raloxifene and strontium ranelate. Cumulative persistence rates were calculated after different time frames (3 months-5 years) using survival analysis. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses were used to identify determinants of non-persistence. Furthermore, switching rates of persistent patients who initiated bisphosphonate therapy were analyzed. Persistence with osteoporosis therapy was 70.7 % (95 % CI, 69.7-71.7), 58.5 % (95 % CI, 57.4-59.6 %), 25.3 % (95 % CI, 24.1-26.5) after 6 months, 1 and 5 years, respectively. Determinants associated with higher risk to non-persistence within the first year were daily dosing regimen [HR, 1.76 (95 % CI, 1.46-2.14)], age <60 years [HR, 1.26 (95 % CI, 1.19-1.34)] and use of glucocorticoids [HR, 1.16 (95 % CI, 1.07-1.26)]. Monthly dosing schedule and use of generic brands of alendronate did not show a significant association with non-persistence. Approximately 4.0 % of patients initiating therapy with weekly alendronate or weekly risedronate switched therapy. Persistence with osteoporosis medication is low. Because low persistence is strongly associated with higher fracture risk, interventions to improve persistence are recommended. This study identified several patient groups in whom such interventions may be most relevant.
Our study revealed a highly structured contact and movement patterns within the LTCF. Accounting for this structure-instead of assuming randomness-in decision analytic methods can result in substantially different predictions.
BackgroundThe newly registered adjuvanted herpes zoster subunit vaccine (HZ/su) has a higher efficacy than the available live-attenuated vaccine (ZVL). National decision-makers soon need to decide whether to introduce HZ/su or to prefer HZ/su above ZVL.MethodsUsing a Markov model with a decision tree, we conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of vaccination with HZ/su (two doses within 2 months) or zoster vaccine live (ZVL) (single dose, or single dose with a booster after 10 years) for cohorts of 50-, 60-, 70- or 80-year-olds in the Netherlands. The model was parameterized using vaccine efficacy data from randomized clinical trials and up-to-date incidence, costs and health-related quality of life data from national datasets. We used a time horizon of 15 years, and the analysis was conducted from the societal perspective.ResultsAt a coverage of 50%, vaccination with two doses of HZ/su was estimated to prevent 4335 to 10,896 HZ cases, depending on the cohort age. In comparison, this reduction was estimated at 400–4877 for ZVL and 427–6466 for ZVL with a booster. The maximum vaccine cost per series of HZ/su to remain cost-effective to a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained ranged from €109.09 for 70-year-olds to €63.68 for 50-year-olds. The cost-effectiveness of ZVL changed considerably by age, with corresponding maximum vaccine cost per dose ranging from €51.37 for 60-year-olds to €0.73 for 80-year-olds. Adding a ZVL booster after 10 years would require a substantial reduction of the maximum cost per dose to remain cost-effective as compared to ZVL single dose. Sensitivity analyses on the vaccine cost demonstrated that there were scenarios in which vaccination with either HZ/su (two doses), ZVL single dose or ZVL + booster could be the most cost-effective strategy.ConclusionsA strategy with two doses of HZ/su was superior in reducing the burden of HZ as compared to a single dose or single dose + booster of ZVL. Both vaccines could potentially be cost-effective to a conventional Dutch willingness-to-pay threshold for preventive interventions. However, whether HZ/su or ZVL would be the most cost-effective alternative depends largely on the vaccine cost.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12916-018-1213-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.