A Profile of Influenza Vaccine Coverage for 2019-2020: Database Study of the English Primary Care Sentinel Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Innovation in seasonal influenza vaccine development has resulted in a wider range of formulations becoming available. Understanding vaccine coverage across populations including the timing of administration is important when evaluating vaccine benefits and risks. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to report the representativeness, uptake of influenza vaccines, different formulations of influenza vaccines, and timing of administration within the English Primary Care Sentinel Cohort (PCSC). METHODS: We used the PCSC of the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre. We included patients of all ages registered with PCSC member general practices, reporting influenza vaccine coverage between September 1, 2019, and January 29, 2020. We identified influenza vaccination recipients and characterized them by age, clinical risk groups, and vaccine type. We reported the date of influenza vaccination within the PCSC by International Standard Organization (ISO) week. The representativeness of the PCSC population was compared with population data provided by the Office for National Statistics. PCSC influenza vaccine coverage was compared with published UK Health Security Agency's national data. We used paired t tests to compare populations, reported with 95% CI. RESULTS: The PCSC comprised 7,010,627 people from 693 general practices. The study population included a greater proportion of people aged 18-49 years (2,982,390/7,010,627, 42.5%; 95% CI 42.5%-42.6%) compared with the Office for National Statistics 2019 midyear population estimates (23,219,730/56,286,961, 41.3%; 95% CI 4.12%-41.3%; P<.001). People who are more deprived were underrepresented and those in the least deprived quintile were overrepresented. Within the study population, 24.7% (1,731,062/7,010,627; 95% CI 24.7%-24.7%) of people of all ages received an influenza vaccine compared with 24.2% (14,468,665/59,764,928; 95% CI 24.2%-24.2%; P<.001) in national data. The highest coverage was in people aged ≥65 years (913,695/1,264,700, 72.3%; 95% CI 72.2%-72.3%). The proportion of people in risk groups who received an influenza vaccine was also higher; for example, 69.8% (284,280/407,228; 95% CI 69.7%-70%) of people with diabetes in the PCSC received an influenza vaccine compared with 61.2% (983,727/1,607,996; 95% CI 61.1%-61.3%; P<.001) in national data. In the PCSC, vaccine type and brand information were available for 71.8% (358,365/498,923; 95% CI 71.7%-72%) of people aged 16-64 years and 81.9% (748,312/913,695; 95% CI 81.8%-82%) of people aged ≥65 years, compared with 23.6% (696,880/2,900,000) and 17.8% (1,385,888/7,700,000), respectively, of the same age groups in national data. Vaccination commenced during ISO week 35, continued until ISO week 3, and peaked during ISO week 41. The in-week peak in vaccination administration was on Saturdays. CONCLUSIONS: The PCSC's sociodemographic profile was similar to the national population and captured more data about risk groups, vaccine brands, and batches. This may reflect higher data quality. Its capabilities included reporting precise dates of administration. The PCSC is suitable for undertaking studies of influenza vaccine coverage.

Cost-Effectiveness of the Use of Adjuvanted Quadrivalent Seasonal Influenza Vaccine in Older Adults in Ireland.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced vaccines (e.g., containing adjuvants) have shown increased immunogenicity and effectiveness in older adults, who often respond sub-optimally to conventional influenza vaccines. In this study, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of an inactivated, seasonal, MF59-adjuvanted quadrivalent influenza vaccine (aQIV) for use in adults ≥ 65 years in Ireland. METHODS: A published dynamic influenza model incorporating social contact, population immunity, and epidemiological data was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of aQIV in adults ≥ 65 years of age compared with a non-adjuvanted QIV. Sensitivity analysis was performed for influenza incidence, relative vaccine effectiveness, excess mortality, and the impact on bed occupancy from co-circulating influenza and COVID-19. RESULTS: The use of aQIV resulted in discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of EUR 2420/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and EUR 12,970/QALY from societal and payer perspectives, respectively, both of which are below the cost-effectiveness threshold of EUR 45,000/QALY. Sensitivity analysis showed that aQIV was effective in most scenarios, except when relative vaccine effectiveness compared to QIV was below 3%, and resulted in a modest reduction in excess bed occupancy. CONCLUSION: The use of aQIV for adults ≥ 65 years old in Ireland was shown to be highly cost-effective from both payer and societal perspectives.

Estimating the impact of influenza vaccination of low-risk 50-64-year-olds on acute and ICU hospital bed usage in an influenza season under endemic COVID-19 in the UK.

Co-circulation of influenza and SARS-CoV-2 has the potential to place considerable strain on health-care services. We estimate the cost-effectiveness and health-care resource utilization impacts of influenza vaccination of low-risk 50-64-y-olds in the United Kingdom (UK) against a background SARS-CoV-2 circulation. A dynamic susceptible-exposed-infected-recovered model was used to simulate influenza transmission, with varying rates of vaccine coverage in the low-risk 50-64 y age-group. Four scenarios were evaluated: no vaccination (baseline), 40%, 50%, and 60% coverage. For the 50% and 60% coverage, this rate was also applied to high-risk 50-64-y-olds, whereas 48.6% was used for the baseline and 40% coverage scenarios. Cost-effectiveness was estimated in terms of humanistic outcomes and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with discounting applied at 3%. Overall, influenza vaccination of 50-64-y-olds resulted in reductions in GP visits, hospitalizations, and deaths, with a reduction in influenza-related mortality of 34%, 41%, and 52% for 40%, 50%, and 60% coverage, respectively. All four scenarios resulted in acute and intensive care unit (ICU) bed occupancy levels above available capacity, although vaccination of low-risk 50-64-y-olds resulted in a 35-54% and 16-25% decrease in excess acute and ICU bed requirements, respectively. Vaccination of this group against influenza was highly cost-effective from the payer perspective, with ICERs of £2,200-£2,343/quality-adjusted life year across the coverage rates evaluated. In conclusion, in the UK, vaccination of low-risk 50-64-y-olds against influenza is cost-effective and can aid in alleviating bed shortages in a situation where influenza and SARS-CoV-2 are co-circulating.

Impact of General Practitioner Education on Acceptance of an Adjuvanted Seasonal Influenza Vaccine among Older Adults in England.

Seasonal vaccination against influenza and in-pandemic COVID-19 vaccination are top public health priorities; vaccines are the primary means of reducing infections and also controlling pressures on health systems. During the 2018-2019 influenza season, we conducted a study of the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours of 159 general practitioners (GPs) and 189 patients aged ≥65 years in England using a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches to document beliefs about seasonal influenza and seasonal influenza vaccine. GPs were surveyed before and after a continuing medical education (CME) module on influenza disease and vaccination with an adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine (aTIV) designed for patients aged ≥65 years, and patients were surveyed before and after a routine visit with a GP who participated in the CME portion of the study. The CME course was associated with significantly increased GP confidence in their ability to address patients' questions and concerns about influenza disease and vaccination (p < 0.001). Patients reported significantly increased confidence in the effectiveness and safety of aTIV after meeting their GP. Overall, 82.2% of the study population were vaccinated against influenza (including 137 patients vaccinated during the GP visit and 15 patients who had been previously vaccinated), a rate higher than the English national average vaccine uptake of 72.0% that season. These findings support the value of GP-patient interactions to foster vaccine acceptance.

How the COVID 19 pandemic will shape influenza public health initiatives: The UK experience.

Although caused by different pathogens, COVID-19 and influenza share many clinical features, as well as the potential for inflammatory, cardiovascular, and other long-term complications. During the 2020-2021 influenza season, COVID-19 mitigation efforts and a robust influenza vaccination campaign led to an unprecedented reduction in influenza cases. The lack of exposure to influenza, along with antigenic changes, may have reduced population immunity to influenza and set the stage for a high severity influenza season in 2021-2022. For the second consecutive season, the UK Department of Health and Social Care has expanded influenza vaccine eligibility to mitigate the impact of both COVID-19 and influenza. Continuation of clear policy decisions, as well as ongoing coordination between manufacturers, distributors, health authorities, and healthcare providers, is key to reducing the burden of influenza and COVID-19 and preventing large numbers of severe cases that can overwhelm the healthcare system.

An Economic Comparison of Influenza Vaccines Recommended for Use in Eligible Adults under 65 Years in the United Kingdom.

Background: In the United Kingdom (UK), a cell-based quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIVc) and a recombinant vaccine (QIVr) are recommended for eligible adults under 65 years. The objective of this analysis was to determine the potential cost-effectiveness of QIVc compared to QIVr for this age group using a range of assumptions about relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE). Methods: A dynamic transmission model, calibrated to match infection data from the UK, was used to estimate the clinical and economic impact of vaccination across 10 influenza seasons. The list price was £12.50 for QIVc and £22.00 for QIVr. The base case effectiveness of QIVc was 63.9%. As there are no data comparing the vaccines in the 18 to 64-year-old age group, rVE was varied. Results: For the base case, the rVE of QIVr compared with QIVc must be at least 25% in order for the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained to be £20,000 or lower. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the rVE required for QIVr to be cost-effective was most dependent on the absolute effectiveness of QIVc. Conclusion: At list prices, our analysis predicts that the rVE for QIVr must be at least 25% compared to QIVc in order to be considered cost-effective.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Expanding Vaccination with a Cell-Based Influenza Vaccine to Low Risk Adults Aged 50 to 64 Years in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: In response to COVID-19, the UK National Health Service (NHS) extended influenza vaccination in 50- to 64-year-olds from at-risk only to all in this age group for the 2020/21 season. The objective of this research is to determine the cost-effectiveness of continuing to vaccinate all with a quadrivalent cell-based vaccine (QIVc) compared to returning to an at-risk only policy after the pandemic resolves. METHODS: A dynamic transmission model, calibrated to match infection data from the UK, was used to estimate the clinical and economic impact of vaccination across 10 influenza seasons. The base case effectiveness of QIVc was 63.9% and the list price was GBP 9.94. RESULTS: Vaccinating 50% of all 50- to 64-year-olds with QIVc reduced the average annual number of clinical infections (-682,000), hospitalizations (-5800) and deaths (-740) in the UK. The base case incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained (ICER) of all compared to at-risk only was GBP6000 (NHS perspective). When the cost of lost productivity was considered, vaccinating all 50- to 64-year-olds with QIVc became cost-saving. CONCLUSION: Vaccinating all 50- to 64-year-olds with QIVc is likely to be cost-effective. The NHS should consider continuing this policy in future seasons.

Use of an automated bolus calculator reduces fear of hypoglycemia and improves confidence in dosage accuracy in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus treated with multiple daily insulin injections.

BACKGROUND: Many patients do not intensify their insulin regimens. It is believed that lack of adherence may be largely due to fear of hypoglycemia. We hypothesized that utilization of an automated bolus calculator (bolus advisor) might reduce fear of hypoglycemia and encourage patients to achieve improved glycemic control. METHOD: We surveyed 1,412 type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) patients treated with multiple daily insulin injection therapy at 270 hospitals in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland to assess their attitudes and behaviors regarding insulin therapy after use of a bolus advisor (Accu-Chek® Aviva Expert blood glucose meter and bolus advisor system, Roche Diagnostics). The device automatically calculates bolus dosages based on current blood glucose values, anticipated meal intake, and other parameters. RESULTS: Five hundred eighty-eight T1DM patients responded to the survey. Respondents were predominantly female, age <1 to 70 years, with diabetes duration of <1 to >15 years. Respondents had 4-12 weeks prior experience using the bolus advisor. 76.7% of respondents indicated current bolus advisor use to calculate insulin boluses for meals/snacks always or quite often. 52.0% of respondents indicated that fear of hypoglycemia was reduced (39.0%) or significantly reduced (13.0%). 78.8% indicated that confidence in the insulin dose calculation improved (50.8%) or significantly improved (28.0%). 89.3% indicated that the bolus advisor made bolus calculation easy or very easy compared with manual calculation. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients felt that using the bolus advisor was easier than manual bolus calculation, improved their confidence in the accuracy of their bolus dosage, and reduced their fear of hypoglycemia. Randomized trials are needed to confirm these perceptions and determine whether bolus advisor use improves clinical outcomes.