RESUMO
Better understanding of viral biology and the origins of influenza epidemics and pandemics may improve diagnosis and disease control. Advances to stop the spread of disease, including live-attenuated and inactivated vaccines and new antiviral agents, promise to reduce disease burden, mortality, and morbidity.
Assuntos
Virus da Influenza A Subtipo H5N1 , Influenza Aviária , Influenza Humana , Animais , Aves , Pré-Escolar , Surtos de Doenças , História do Século XX , História do Século XXI , Humanos , Lactente , Vírus da Influenza A Subtipo H1N1/patogenicidade , Vírus da Influenza A Subtipo H2N2/patogenicidade , Vírus da Influenza A Subtipo H3N2/patogenicidade , Influenza Humana/diagnóstico , Influenza Humana/tratamento farmacológico , Influenza Humana/epidemiologia , Influenza Humana/história , Influenza Humana/prevenção & controle , Programas de Assistência Gerenciada , Estados Unidos/epidemiologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recently expanded the influenza vaccine recommendation to include children 24-59 months of age. In a large head-to-head randomized controlled trial, live attenuated influenza vaccine, trivalent (LAIV) demonstrated a 54% relative reduction in culture-confirmed influenza illness compared with trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) among children aged 24-59 months. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative cost and benefit between two influenza vaccines (LAIV and TIV) for healthy children 24-59 months of age. METHODS: Using patient-level data from the clinical trial supplemented with cost data from published literature, we modeled the cost-effectiveness of these two vaccines. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and cases of influenza avoided. The analysis used the societal perspective. RESULTS: Due to its higher acquisition cost, LAIV increased vaccination costs by USD7.72 per child compared with TIV. However, compared with TIV, LAIV reduced the number of influenza illness cases and lowered the subsequent healthcare use of children and productivity losses of parents. The estimated offsets in direct and indirect costs saved USD15.80 and USD37.72 per vaccinated child, respectively. LAIV had a net total cost savings of USD45.80 per child relative to TIV. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated that the model was robust across a wide range of relative vaccine efficacy and cost estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Due to its increased relative vaccine efficacy over TIV, LAIV reduced the burden of influenza and lowered both direct health care and societal costs among children 24-59 months of age.
