Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22791791›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2012

Cost effectiveness of vaccination against pandemic influenza in European countries: mathematical modelling analysis.

Anna K Lugnér, Michiel van Boven, Robin de Vries, Maarten J Postma, Jacco Wallinga

Open access · hybridAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Climate influences on the cost-effectiveness of vector-based interventions against malaria in elimination scenarios.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2015
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Anna K LugnérCentre for Infectious Disease Control Netherlands, Epidemiology and Surveillance Unit, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, PO Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, Netherlands. anna.lugner@rivm.nl
Michiel van Boven
Robin de Vries
Maarten J Postma
Jacco Wallinga
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment · NLUniversity of Groningen · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate whether a single optimal vaccination strategy exists across countries to deal with a future influenza pandemic by comparing the cost effectiveness of different strategies in various pandemic scenarios for three European countries.

designEconomic and epidemic modelling study. SETTINGS: General populations in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. DATA SOURCES: Country specific patterns of social contact and demographic data. MODEL: An age structured susceptible-exposed-infected-recovered transmission model that describes how an influenza A virus will spread in the populations of Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.

interventionsComparison of four vaccination strategies: no vaccination, blanket vaccination, vaccination of elderly people (≥ 65 years), and vaccination of high transmitters (5-19 years). The four strategies were evaluated for scenarios in which a vaccine became available early or at the peak of the pandemic, and in which either everyone was initially susceptible or older age groups had pre-existing immunity.

main outcome measureCost per quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained.

resultsAll vaccination strategies were cost effective (incremental cost per QALY gained, comparing intervention with non-intervention). In scenarios where the vaccine became available at the peak of the pandemic and there was pre-existing immunity among elderly people the incremental cost effectiveness ratios for vaccinating high transmitters were €7325 (£5815; $10,470) per QALY gained for Germany, €10,216 per QALY gained for the Netherlands, and €7280 per QALY gained for the United Kingdom. The most cost effective strategy not only differed across the pandemic scenarios but also between countries. Specifically, when the vaccine was available early in the pandemic and there was no pre-existing immunity, in Germany it would be most cost effective to vaccinate elderly people ( €940 per QALY gained), whereas it would be most cost effective to vaccinate high transmitters in both the Netherlands (€525 per QALY gained) and the United Kingdom (€163 per QALY gained). This difference in optimal strategies was due to differences in the demographic characteristics of the countries: Germany has a significantly higher proportion of elderly people compared with the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

conclusionsNo single vaccination strategy was most cost effective across countries. With aging populations, pre-existing immunity in particular could be of crucial importance for the cost effectiveness of options to mitigate a future influenza pandemic.

Indexed as

Influenza A virusModels, BiologicalModels, EconomicAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsChildChild, PreschoolCost-Benefit AnalysisGermanyHealth Care CostsHumansInfantInfant, NewbornInfluenza Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID22791791
PMCPMC3395306
OpenAlexW2110062524

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.