Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26459265›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2015

Extending the elderly- and risk-group programme of vaccination against seasonal influenza in England and Wales: a cost-effectiveness study.

Marc Baguelin, Anton Camacho, Stefan Flasche, W John Edmunds

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marc BaguelinRespiratory Diseases Department, Public Health England, London, UK. marc.baguelin@phe.gov.uk.
Anton CamachoCentre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, UK. anton.camacho@lshtm.ac.uk.
Stefan FlascheCentre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, UK. stefan.flasche@lshtm.ac.uk.
W John EdmundsCentre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, UK. john.edmunds@lshtm.ac.uk.
University of London · GBPublic Health England · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/J01432X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe present study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of extending the pre-2013 influenza immunisation programme for high-risk and elderly individuals to those at low risk of developing complications following infection with seasonal influenza.

methodsWe performed an economic evaluation comparing different extensions of the pre-2013 influenza programme to seven possible age groups of low-risk individuals (aged 2-4 years, 50-64 years, 5-16 years, 2-4 and 50-64 years, 2-16 years, 2-16 and 50-64 years, and 2-64 years). These extensions are evaluated incrementally on four base scenarios (no vaccination, risk group only with coverage as observed between 1995 and 2009, risk group and 65+, and risk group with 75% coverage and 65+). Impact of vaccination is assessed using a transmission model built and parameterised from a previously published study. The study population is all individuals of all ages in England and Wales representing an average total of 52.6 million people over 14 influenza seasons (1995-2009).

resultsThe influenza programme (risk group and elderly) prior to 2013 is likely to be cost effective (incremental cost effectiveness ratio: 7,475 £/QALY, net benefit: 253 M£ [15-829]). Extension to any one of the low-risk target groups defined earlier is likely to be cost-effective. However, strategies that do not include vaccination of school-aged children are less likely to be cost-effective. The most efficient strategy is extension to the 5-16 year age group while universal vaccination (extension to all low-risk individuals over 2 years) will achieve the highest net benefit. While extension to the 2-16 year age group is likely to be very cost effective, the cost-effectiveness of extensions beyond 2-16 years is very uncertain. Extension to the 5-16 year age group would likely remain cost-effective even without herd immunity effects to other age groups. As our study includes a strong historical component, our results depend on the efficacy of the influenza vaccine remaining at levels similar to the ones achieved in the past over a long-period of time (assumed to vary between 28% and 70% depending of the circulating strains and age groups).

conclusionsMaking use of surveillance data from over a decade in conjunction with a dynamic model, we find that vaccination of children in the United Kingdom is likely to be highly cost-effective, not only for their own benefit but also to reduce the disease burden in the rest of the community.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultChildChild, PreschoolCost-Benefit AnalysisEnglandHumansImmunization ProgramsInfluenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesMiddle AgedQuality of LifeRisk FactorsSeasonsVaccinationWalesInfluenza Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID26459265
PMCPMC4604076
OpenAlexW2118619656

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.