ArticleVaccine2024
Cost-effectiveness of recombinant influenza vaccine compared with standard dose influenza vaccine in adults 18-64 years of age.
Article in Vaccine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Use of Health State Utility Values in Cost-Utility Analyses of Selected Infectious Diseases in Aging Populations: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2026Pooled it
- A Clinical and Economic Comparison of Cell-Based Versus Recombinant Influenza Vaccines in Adults 18-64 Years in the United States.Vaccines · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) uses the Evidence to Recommendations Framework that includes cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) for determining vaccine recommendations. ACIP's preference for protecting adults ≥ 65 years is enhanced vaccines, including recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), adjuvanted or high dose influenza vaccine. Less is known about the CEA of enhanced vaccines for younger adults.
methodsWe used decision analysis modeling from a societal perspective to determine the cost-effectiveness, measured in quality adjusted life years (QALYs), of RIV4 compared with standard dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine (SD-IIV4) in adults 18-64 years old. Model inputs included 2018-2020 vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates based on medical record data from a large local health system, 2019-2020 national vaccination and influenza epidemic parameters, with costs and population distributions fitted to the season.
resultsAmong adults ages 18-64 years, RIV4 cost $94,186/QALY gained, compared to SD-IIV4. Among those 50-64 years old, RIV4 was relatively more cost-effective ($61,329/QALY gained). Cost-effectiveness estimates for 18-64-year-olds were sensitive to the absolute difference in VE between SD-IIV4 and RIV4, among other parameters. Use of RIV4 in 18-64-year-olds would result in fewer cases (669,984), outpatient visits (261,293), hospitalizations (20,046) and deaths (1,018) annually. The majority (59 %; 597 of 1018) of the decreases in deaths occurred in the 50-64-year-olds.
conclusionsWhile RIV4 was effective and cost-effective relative to SD-IIV4 for both 50-64-year-old and 18-64-year-old adults, cost-effectiveness was sensitive to small changes in parameters among 18-64-year-olds. Because substantial public health benefits occur with enhanced vaccines, health systems and policy makers may opt for preferential product use in select age/risk groups (e.g., 50-64 year olds) to maximize their cost-benefit ratios.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.