Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Más filtros










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
PLoS One ; 14(4): e0213499, 2019.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31034485

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Although influenza vaccination has been shown to reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) among those with existing cardiovascular disease (CVD), in the 2015-16 season, coverage for persons with heart disease was only 48% in the US. METHODS: We built a Monte Carlo (probabilistic) spreadsheet-based decision tree in 2018 to estimate the cost-effectiveness of increased influenza vaccination to prevent MACE readmissions. We based our model on current US influenza vaccination coverage of the estimated 493,750 US acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients from the healthcare payer perspective. We excluded outpatient costs and time lost from work and included only hospitalization and vaccination costs. We also estimated the incremental cost/MACE case averted and incremental cost/QALY gained (ICER) if 75% hospitalized ACS patients were vaccinated by discharge and estimated the impact of increasing vaccination coverage incrementally by 5% up to 95% in a sensitivity analysis, among hospitalized adults aged ≥ 65 years and 18-64 years, and varying vaccine effectiveness from 30-40%. RESULT: At 75% vaccination coverage by discharge, vaccination was cost-saving from the healthcare payer perspective in adults ≥ 65 years and the ICER was $12,680/QALY (95% CI: 6,273-20,264) in adults 18-64 years and $2,400 (95% CI: -1,992-7,398) in all adults 18 + years. These resulted in ~ 500 (95% CI: 439-625) additional averted MACEs/year for all adult patients aged ≥18 years and added ~700 (95% CI: 578-825) QALYs. In the sensitivity analysis, vaccination becomes cost-saving in adults 18+years after about 80% vaccination rate. To achieve 75% vaccination rate in all adults aged ≥ 18 years will require an additional cost of $3 million. The effectiveness of the vaccine, cost of vaccination, and vaccination coverage rate had the most impact on the results. CONCLUSION: Increasing vaccination rate among hospitalized ACS patients has a favorable cost-effectiveness profile and becomes cost-saving when at least 80% are vaccinated.


Asunto(s)
Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Vacunas contra la Influenza/economía , Gripe Humana/prevención & control , Vacunación/economía , Adolescente , Adulto , Femenino , Hospitalización/economía , Humanos , Vacunas contra la Influenza/uso terapéutico , Gripe Humana/economía , Gripe Humana/epidemiología , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Modelos Económicos , Readmisión del Paciente , Cobertura de Vacunación/economía , Adulto Joven
3.
Am J Public Health ; 107(S2): S177-S179, 2017 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28892450

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To assess how US Public Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP) awardees plan to respond to an influenza pandemic with vaccination. METHODS: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention developed the Pandemic Influenza Readiness Assessment, an online survey sent to PHEP directors, to analyze, in part, the readiness of PHEP awardees to vaccinate 80% of the populations of their jurisdictions with 2 doses of pandemic influenza vaccine, separated by 21 days, within 16 weeks of vaccine availability. RESULTS: Thirty-eight of 60 (63.3%) awardees reported being able to vaccinate their populations within 16 weeks; 38 (63.3%) planned to allocate more than 20% of their pandemic vaccine supply to points of dispensing (PODs). Thirty-four of 58 (58.6%) reported staffing as a challenge to vaccinating 80% of their populations; 28 of 60 (46.7%) reported preparedness workforce decreases, and 22 (36.7%) reported immunization workforce decreases between January 2012 and July 2015. CONCLUSIONS: Awardees relied on PODs to vaccinate segments of their jurisdictions despite workforce decreases. Planners must ensure readiness for POD sites to vaccinate, but should also leverage complementary sites and providers to augment public health response.


Asunto(s)
/organización & administración , Defensa Civil/organización & administración , Planificación en Desastres/organización & administración , Servicios Médicos de Urgencia/organización & administración , Gripe Humana/prevención & control , Vacunación Masiva/organización & administración , Pandemias/prevención & control , Humanos , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Estados Unidos
4.
Am J Public Health ; 107(10): 1643-1645, 2017 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28817330

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To assess the readiness to vaccinate critical infrastructure personnel (CIP) involved in managing public works, emergency services, transportation, or any other system or asset that would have an immediate debilitating impact on the community if not maintained. METHODS: We analyzed self-reported planning to vaccinate CIP during an influenza pandemic with data from 2 surveys: (1) the Program Annual Progress Assessment of immunization programs and (2) the Pandemic Influenza Readiness Assessment of public health emergency preparedness programs. Both surveys were conducted in 2015. RESULTS: Twenty-six (43.3%) of 60 responding public health emergency preparedness programs reported having an operational plan to identify and vaccinate CIP, and 16 (26.2%) of 61 responding immunization programs reported knowing the number of CIP in their program's jurisdictions. CONCLUSIONS: Many programs may not be ready to identify and vaccinate CIP during an influenza pandemic. Additional efforts are needed to ensure operational readiness to vaccinate CIP during the next influenza pandemic.


Asunto(s)
Actitud del Personal de Salud , Vacunas contra la Influenza/administración & dosificación , Gripe Humana/epidemiología , Gripe Humana/prevención & control , Pandemias/prevención & control , Planificación en Desastres , Humanos , Estados Unidos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA