RESUMO
Influenza causes an estimated 3 to 5 million cases of severe illness annually, along with substantial morbidity and mortality, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Currently, Sri Lanka has no influenza vaccination policies and does not offer vaccination within the public healthcare sector. Therefore, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of influenza vaccine implementation for the Sri Lankan population. We designed a static Markov model that followed a population cohort of Sri Lankans in three age groups, 0-4, 5-64, and 65+ years, through two potential scenarios: trivalent inactivated vaccination (TIV) and no TIV across twelve-monthly cycles using a governmental perspective at the national level. We also performed probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses to identify influential variables and account for uncertainty. The vaccination model arm reduced influenza outcomes by 20,710 cases, 438 hospitalizations, and 20 deaths compared to no vaccination in one year. Universal vaccination became cost-effective at approximately 98.01% of Sri Lanka's 2022 GDP per capita (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = 874,890.55 Rs/DALY averted; 3624.84 USD/DALY averted). Results were most sensitive to the vaccine coverage in the 5-64-year-old age group, the cost of the influenza vaccine dose in the 5-64-years-old age group, vaccine effectiveness in the under-5-years-old age group, and the vaccine coverage in the under-5-years-old age group. No value for a variable within our estimated ranges resulted in ICERs above Rs. 1,300,000 (USD 5386.15) per DALY adverted. Providing influenza vaccines was considered highly cost-effective compared to no vaccines. However, large-scale national studies with improved data are needed to better inform estimates and determine the impact of vaccination implementation.
RESUMO
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010091.].
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems in dengue-endemic countries are often overburdened due to the high number of patients hospitalized according to dengue management guidelines. We systematically evaluated clinical outcomes in a large cohort of patients hospitalized with acute dengue to support triaging of patients to ambulatory versus inpatient management in the future. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: From June 2017- December 2018, we conducted surveillance among children and adults with fever within the prior 7 days who were hospitalized at the largest tertiary-care (1,800 bed) hospital in the Southern Province, Sri Lanka. Patients who developed platelet count ≤100,000/µL (threshold for hospital admission in Sri Lanka) and who met at least two clinical criteria consistent with dengue were eligible for enrollment. We confirmed acute dengue by testing sera collected at enrollment for dengue NS1 antigen or IgM antibodies. We defined primary outcomes as per the 1997 and 2009 World Health Organization (WHO) classification criteria: dengue hemorrhagic fever (DHF; WHO 1997), dengue shock syndrome (DSS; WHO 1997), and severe dengue (WHO 2009). Overall, 1064 patients were confirmed as having acute dengue: 318 (17.4%) by NS1 rapid antigen testing and 746 (40.7%) by IgM antibody testing. Of these 1064 patients, 994 (93.4%) were adults ≥18 years and 704 (66.2%) were male. The majority (56, 80%) of children and more than half of adults (544, 54.7%) developed DHF during hospitalization, while 6 (8.6%) children and 22 (2.2%) adults developed DSS. Overall, 10 (14.3%) children and 113 (11.4%) adults developed severe dengue. A total of 2 (0.2%) patients died during hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: One-half of patients hospitalized with acute dengue progressed to develop DHF and a very small number developed DSS or severe dengue. Developing an algorithm for triaging patients to ambulatory versus inpatient management should be the future goal to optimize utilization of healthcare resources in dengue-endemic countries.
