Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26350238›Full record

ArticleInfectious diseases and therapy2015

A Novel Dynamic Model for Health Economic Analysis of Influenza Vaccination in the Elderly.

Mark Mullikin, Litjen Tan, Jeroen P Jansen, Marc Van Ranst, Norbert Farkas, Eckhardt Petri

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Infectious diseases and therapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Comparisons in the Health and Economic Assessments of Using Quadrivalent Versus Trivalent Influenza Vaccines: A Systematic Literature Review.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Mark MullikinNovartis Vaccines, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Litjen TanImmunization Action Coalition, Saint Paul, MN, USA.
Jeroen P JansenRedwood Outcomes, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Marc Van RanstKU Leuven, Rega Institute, Louvain, Belgium.
Norbert FarkasNovartis Vaccines, Basel, Switzerland.
Eckhardt PetriNovartis Vaccines, Marburg, Germany. eckhardt.petri@novartis.com.
Immunization Action Coalition · USNovartis (Germany) · DENovartis (Switzerland) · CHNovartis (United States) · USRega Institute for Medical Research · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionNew vaccines are being developed to improve the efficacy of seasonal influenza immunization in elderly persons aged ≥65 years. These products require clinical and economic evaluation to aid policy decisions.

methodsTo address this need, a two-part model has been developed, which we have applied to examine the potential clinical and economic impact of vaccinating elderly persons with adjuvanted trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (aTIV) relative to conventional trivalent (TIV) and quadrivalent (QIV) vaccines. We compared outcomes in the US population for (1) aTIV in persons aged ≥65 years and QIV in all other age cohorts; (2) QIV in all cohorts; (3) TIV in all cohorts. Low, average, and high intensity seasons with low, average, and high vaccine match scenarios were compared. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted within each discrete scenario to explore the impact of variation in model inputs on potential outcomes.

resultsAssuming current vaccination coverage rates in the US population with (a) 25% better efficacy of adjuvanted versus non-adjuvanted vaccine against any strain and (b) 35% better efficacy of non-adjuvanted vaccine against matched B versus mismatched B strains, use of aTIV in persons aged ≥65 years and QIV in persons <65 years could reduce influenza cases by 11,166-1,329,200, hospitalizations by 1365-43,674, and deaths by 421-11,320 versus use of QIV in all cohorts. These outcomes are reflected in a corresponding increase in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 3003-94,084. If the prevalence of mismatched influenza B was >54.5% of all circulating strains, use of QIV in all cohorts would offset the clinical benefits of aTIV. Elderly aTIV or QIV vaccination was associated with improved outcomes over non-adjuvanted TIV in many of the scenarios, particularly in low match seasons of any intensity. Total cost savings (including direct and indirect healthcare costs plus productivity impacts) with aTIV in the elderly versus QIV in the whole population ranged from $27 million (low intensity, low match) to $934 million (high intensity, high match). Univariate sensitivity analysis of relative vaccine prices in the average intensity, average match scenario indicated that aTIV could be marginally cost saving relative to QIV at the currently published Medicare price for influenza vaccines offering enhanced efficacy in the elderly. Elderly vaccination with aTIV was associated with a higher overall cost compared with TIV in only two scenarios (low intensity with average or high match); the incremental cost/QALY relative to TIV was $9980 in the average match scenario and $28,800 in the high match scenario.

conclusionsVaccination of persons aged ≥65 years with aTIV has the potential to provide clinical and economic benefit relative to QIV and TIV. The new model allows the assessment of various alternative strategies for available influenza vaccines.

fundingNovartis Vaccines.

Indexed as

AdjuvantClinicalEconomicElderlyInfluenzaOutcomeQuadrivalentTrivalentVaccinationVaccine

Identifiers

PMID26350238
PMCPMC4675767
OpenAlexW2114263856

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.