Clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of influenza vaccination among healthy working adults

Cost-effectiveness of routine annual influenza vaccination by age and risk status

BACKGROUND

The epidemiology of circulating seasonal influenza strains changed following the 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1). A universal influenza vaccination recommendation has been implemented and new vaccine types have become available post-2009. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of routine annual influenza vaccination in the context of this new evidence.

METHODS

A state transition simulation model was constructed to estimate the health and economic outcomes of influenza vaccination compared to no vaccination for hypothetical US cohorts stratified by age and risk status. Model input parameters were derived from multiple sources, including post-2009 vaccine effectiveness data from the US Flu Vaccine Effectiveness Network. The analysis used societal and healthcare sector perspectives and a one-year time horizon, except permanent outcomes were also included. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in dollars per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained.

RESULTS

Compared to no vaccination, vaccination yielded ICERs lower than $95,000/QALY for all age and risk groups, except for non-high-risk adults 18-49 years ($194,000/QALY). Vaccination was cost-saving for adults ≥50 years at higher risk for influenza-related complications. Results were most sensitive to changes in the probability of influenza illness. Performing the analysis from the healthcare sector perspective, excluding vaccination time costs, delivering vaccinations in lower-cost settings, and including productivity losses improved the cost-effectiveness of vaccination. Sensitivity analysis revealed that vaccination remains below $100,000/QALY for older persons ≥65 years at vaccine effectiveness estimates as low as 4 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination varied by age and risk status and was less than $95,000/QALY for all subgroups, except for non-high-risk working-age adults. Results were sensitive to the probability of influenza illness and vaccination was more favorable under certain scenarios. Vaccination for higher risk subgroups resulted in ICERs below $100,000/QALY even at low levels of vaccine effectiveness or circulating virus.

Cost-effectiveness of adult vaccinations: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Coverage levels for many recommended adult vaccinations are low. The cost-effectiveness research literature on adult vaccinations has not been synthesized in recent years, which may contribute to low awareness of the value of adult vaccinations and to their under-utilization. We assessed research literature since 1980 to summarize economic evidence for adult vaccinations included on the adult immunization schedule.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, EconLit, and Cochrane Library from 1980 to 2016 and identified economic evaluation or cost-effectiveness analysis for vaccinations targeting persons aged ≥18 years in the U.S. or Canada. After excluding records based on title and abstract reviews, the remaining publications had a full-text review from two independent reviewers, who extracted economic values that compared vaccination to "no vaccination" scenarios.

RESULTS

The systematic searches yielded 1688 publications. After removing duplicates, off-topic publications, and publications without a "no vaccination" comparison, 78 publications were included in the final analysis (influenza = 25, pneumococcal = 18, human papillomavirus = 9, herpes zoster = 7, tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis = 9, hepatitis B = 9, and multiple vaccines = 1). Among outcomes assessing age-based vaccinations, the percent indicating cost-savings was 56% for influenza, 31% for pneumococcal, and 23% for tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis vaccinations. Among age-based vaccination outcomes reporting $/QALY, the percent of outcomes indicating a cost per QALY of ≤$100,000 was 100% for influenza, 100% for pneumococcal, 69% for human papillomavirus, 71% for herpes zoster, and 50% for tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis vaccinations.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of published studies report favorable cost-effectiveness profiles for adult vaccinations, which supports efforts to improve the implementation of adult vaccination recommendations.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults

BACKGROUND

The consequences of influenza in adults are mainly time off work. Vaccination of pregnant women is recommended internationally. This is an update of a review published in 2014. Future updates of this review will be made only when new trials or vaccines become available. Observational data included in previous versions of the review have been retained for historical reasons but have not been updated due to their lack of influence on the review conclusions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (efficacy, effectiveness, and harm) of vaccines against influenza in healthy adults, including pregnant women.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 12), MEDLINE (January 1966 to 31 December 2016), Embase (1990 to 31 December 2016), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 1 July 2017), and ClinicalTrials.gov (1 July 2017), as well as checking the bibliographies of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing influenza vaccines with placebo or no intervention in naturally occurring influenza in healthy individuals aged 16 to 65 years. Previous versions of this review included observational comparative studies assessing serious and rare harms cohort and case-control studies. Due to the uncertain quality of observational (i.e. non-randomised) studies and their lack of influence on the review conclusions, we decided to update only randomised evidence. The searches for observational comparative studies are no longer updated.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We rated certainty of evidence for key outcomes (influenza, influenza-like illness (ILI), hospitalisation, and adverse effects) using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 52 clinical trials of over 80,000 people assessing the safety and effectiveness of influenza vaccines. We have presented findings from 25 studies comparing inactivated parenteral influenza vaccine against placebo or do-nothing control groups as the most relevant to decision-making. The studies were conducted over single influenza seasons in North America, South America, and Europe between 1969 and 2009. We did not consider studies at high risk of bias to influence the results of our outcomes except for hospitalisation.Inactivated influenza vaccines probably reduce influenza in healthy adults from 2.3% without vaccination to 0.9% (risk ratio (RR) 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.47; 71,221 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and they probably reduce ILI from 21.5% to 18.1% (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.95; 25,795 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; 71 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to prevent one of them experiencing influenza, and 29 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to prevent one of them experiencing an ILI). The difference between the two number needed to vaccinate (NNV) values depends on the different incidence of ILI and confirmed influenza among the study populations. Vaccination may lead to a small reduction in the risk of hospitalisation in healthy adults, from 14.7% to 14.1%, but the CI is wide and does not rule out a large benefit (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.08; 11,924 participants; low-certainty evidence). Vaccines may lead to little or no small reduction in days off work (-0.04 days, 95% CI -0.14 days to 0.06; low-certainty evidence). Inactivated vaccines cause an increase in fever from 1.5% to 2.3%.We identified one RCT and one controlled clinical trial assessing the effects of vaccination in pregnant women. The efficacy of inactivated vaccine containing pH1N1 against influenza was 50% (95% CI 14% to 71%) in mothers (NNV 55), and 49% (95% CI 12% to 70%) in infants up to 24 weeks (NNV 56). No data were available on efficacy against seasonal influenza during pregnancy. Evidence from observational studies showed effectiveness of influenza vaccines against ILI in pregnant women to be 24% (95% CI 11% to 36%, NNV 94), and against influenza in newborns from vaccinated women to be 41% (95% CI 6% to 63%, NNV 27).Live aerosol vaccines have an overall effectiveness corresponding to an NNV of 46. The performance of one- or two-dose whole-virion 1968 to 1969 pandemic vaccines was higher (NNV 16) against ILI and (NNV 35) against influenza. There was limited impact on hospitalisations in the 1968 to 1969 pandemic (NNV 94). The administration of both seasonal and 2009 pandemic vaccines during pregnancy had no significant effect on abortion or neonatal death, but this was based on observational data sets.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Healthy adults who receive inactivated parenteral influenza vaccine rather than no vaccine probably experience less influenza, from just over 2% to just under 1% (moderate-certainty evidence). They also probably experience less ILI following vaccination, but the degree of benefit when expressed in absolute terms varied across different settings. Variation in protection against ILI may be due in part to inconsistent symptom classification. Certainty of evidence for the small reductions in hospitalisations and time off work is low. Protection against influenza and ILI in mothers and newborns was smaller than the effects seen in other populations considered in this review.Vaccines increase the risk of a number of adverse events, including a small increase in fever, but rates of nausea and vomiting are uncertain. The protective effect of vaccination in pregnant women and newborns is also very modest. We did not find any evidence of an association between influenza vaccination and serious adverse events in the comparative studies considered in this review. Fifteen included RCTs were industry funded (29%).

Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults

BACKGROUND

Different types of influenza vaccines are currently produced worldwide. Vaccination of pregnant women is recommended internationally, while healthy adults are targeted in North America.

OBJECTIVES

To identify, retrieve and assess all studies evaluating the effects (efficacy, effectiveness and harm) of vaccines against influenza in healthy adults, including pregnant women.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2013) and EMBASE (1990 to May 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing influenza vaccines with placebo or no intervention in naturally occurring influenza in healthy individuals aged 16 to 65 years. We also included comparative studies assessing serious and rare harms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 90 reports containing 116 data sets; among these 69 were clinical trials of over 70,000 people, 27 were comparative cohort studies (about eight million people) and 20 were case-control studies (nearly 25,000 people). We retrieved 23 reports of the effectiveness and safety of vaccine administration in pregnant women (about 1.6 million mother-child couples).The overall effectiveness of parenteral inactivated vaccine against influenza-like illness (ILI) is limited, corresponding to a number needed to vaccinate (NNV) of 40 (95% confidence interval (CI) 26 to 128). The overall efficacy of inactivated vaccines in preventing confirmed influenza has a NNV of 71 (95% CI 64 to 80). The difference between these two values depends on the different incidence of ILI and confirmed influenza among the study populations: 15.6% of unvaccinated participants versus 9.9% of vaccinated participants developed ILI symptoms, whilst only 2.4% and 1.1%, respectively, developed laboratory-confirmed influenza.No RCTs assessing vaccination in pregnant women were found. The only evidence available comes from observational studies with modest methodological quality. On this basis, vaccination shows very limited effects: NNV 92 (95% CI 63 to 201) against ILI in pregnant women and NNV 27 (95% CI 18 to 185) against laboratory-confirmed influenza in newborns from vaccinated women.Live aerosol vaccines have an overall effectiveness corresponding to a NNV 46 (95% CI 29 to 115).The performance of one-dose or two-dose whole virion pandemic vaccines was higher, showing a NNV of 16 (95% CI 14 to 20) against ILI and a NNV of 35 (95% CI 33 to 47) against influenza, while a limited impact on hospitalisation was found (NNV 94, 95% CI 70 to 1022).Vaccination had a modest effect on time off work and had no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates. Inactivated vaccines caused local harms. No evidence of association with serious adverse events was found, but the harms evidence base was limited.The overall risk of bias in the included trials is unclear because it was not possible to assess the real impact of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Influenza vaccines have a very modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost in the general population, including pregnant women. No evidence of association between influenza vaccination and serious adverse events was found in the comparative studies considered in the review. This review includes 90 studies, 24 of which (26.7%) were funded totally or partially by industry. Out of the 48 RCTs, 17 were industry-funded (35.4%).

Intranasal administration of influenza vaccines: current status

AbstractThis review article focuses on intranasal immunisation against influenza,although it also encompasses antigen uptake and processing in the nasopharyngealpassages, host defence from influenza and current influenza vaccination practices.Improvement of current vaccination strategies is clearly required; current proceduresinvolve repeated annual injections that sometimes fail to protect the recipient. It isenvisaged that nonpercutaneous immunisation would be more attractive to potentialvaccinees, thus improving uptake and coverage. As well as satisfying noninvasivecriteria, intranasal influenza immunisation has a number of perceived immunologicaladvantages over current procedures. Perhaps one of the greatest attributes of thisapproach is its potential to evoke the secretion of haemagglutinin-specific IgAantibodies in the upper respiratory tract, the main site of viral infection. Inactivated influenza vaccines have the advantage that they have a long historyof good tolerability as injected immunogens, and in this respect are possibly morelikely to be licensed than attenuated viruses. Inert influenza vaccines are poormucosal immunogens, requiring several administrations, or prior immunologicalpriming, in order to engender significant antibody responses. The use of vaccinedelivery systems or mucosal adjuvants serves to appreciably improve theimmunogenicity of mucosally applied inactivated influenza vaccines. As is the casewhen they are introduced parenterally, inactivated influenza vaccines are relativelypoor stimulators of virus-specific cytotoxic T lymphocyte activity following nasalinoculation. Live attenuated intranasal influenza vaccines are at a far moreadvanced stage of clinical readiness (phase III versus phase I). With the use of liveattenuated vaccines, it is possible to stimulate mucosal and cell-mediatedimmunological responses of a similar kind to those elicited by natural influenzainfection. In children, recombinant live attenuated cold-adapted influenza viruses arewell tolerated. Moreover, cold-adapted influenza viruses usually stimulate protectiveimmunity following only a single nasal inoculation. Safety of recombinant liveattenuated cold-adapted influenza viruses has also been demonstrated in high riskindividuals with cystic fibrosis, asthma, cardiovascular disease and diabetes mellitus.They are not suitable for immunising immunocompromised patients, however, andare poorly efficacious in individuals with pre-existing immunity to strains closelyantigenically matched with the recombinant virus. According to the reviewedliterature, it is apparent that intranasal administration of vaccine as an aerosol issuperior to administration as nose drops. The information reviewed in this papersuggests that nasally administered influenza vaccines could make a substantialimpact on the human and economic cost of influenza.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults

BACKGROUND

Different types of influenza vaccines are currently produced worldwide. Healthy adults are presently targeted mainly in North America.

OBJECTIVES

Identify, retrieve and assess all studies evaluating the effects of vaccines against influenza in healthy adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2010, issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1966 to June 2010) and EMBASE (1990 to June 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing influenza vaccines with placebo or no intervention in naturally-occurring influenza in healthy individuals aged 16 to 65 years. We also included comparative studies assessing serious and rare harms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 50 reports. Forty (59 sub-studies) were clinical trials of over 70,000 people. Eight were comparative non-RCTs and assessed serious harms. Two were reports of harms which could not be introduced in the data analysis. In the relatively uncommon circumstance of vaccine matching the viral circulating strain and high circulation, 4% of unvaccinated people versus 1% of vaccinated people developed influenza symptoms (risk difference (RD) 3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2% to 5%). The corresponding figures for poor vaccine matching were 2% and 1% (RD 1, 95% CI 0% to 3%). These differences were not likely to be due to chance. Vaccination had a modest effect on time off work and had no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates. Inactivated vaccines caused local harms and an estimated 1.6 additional cases of Guillain-Barré Syndrome per million vaccinations. The harms evidence base is limited.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.WARNING: This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding.

Economic evaluations of neuraminidase inhibitors to control influenza

Up to 10% of individuals present influenza-like illness each year. Neuraminidase inhibitors significantly reduce the median duration of influenza symptoms by 1.38 days and median time to return to normal activities by 0.9 days in adults. This review presents the economic evaluations of neuraminidase inhibitors in adults. The choice of key parameter estimates in cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis is sensitive to the perspective of analysis: healthcare payer or societal, including productivity gains. This review discusses, among other key parameters, the proportion of influenza-like illness due to the influenza virus (targeted by neuraminidase inhibitors and influenza vaccine), and the measure of health benefits by either quality-adjusted life years gained or willingness-to-pay for a day of symptoms averted. Overall, neuraminidase inhibitors are worth their costs and do not challenge annual influenza vaccination but should be seen as a complementary option to reduce the burden of influenza.

Non-traditional settings for influenza vaccination of adults: costs and cost effectiveness

OBJECTIVE

Influenza vaccination rates remain far below national goals in the US. Expanding influenza vaccination in non-traditional settings such as worksites and pharmacies may be a way to enhance vaccination coverage for adults, but scant data exist on the cost effectiveness of this strategy. The aims of this study were to (i) describe the costs of vaccination in non-traditional settings such as pharmacies and mass vaccination clinics; and (ii) evaluate the projected health benefits, costs and cost effectiveness of delivering influenza vaccination to adults of varying ages and risk groups in non-traditional settings compared with scheduled doctor's office visits. All analyses are from the US societal perspective.

METHODS

We evaluated the costs of influenza vaccination in non-traditional settings via detailed telephone interviews with representatives of organizations that conduct mass vaccination clinics and pharmacies that use pharmacists to deliver vaccinations. Next, we constructed a decision tree to compare the projected health benefits and costs of influenza vaccination delivered via non-traditional settings or during scheduled doctor's office visits with no vaccination. The target population was stratified by age (18-49, 50-64 and >or=65 years) and risk status (high or low risk for influenza-related complications). Probabilities and costs (direct and opportunity) for uncomplicated influenza illness, outpatient visits, hospitalizations, deaths, vaccination and vaccine adverse events were derived from primary data and from published and unpublished sources.

RESULTS

The mean cost (year 2004 values) of vaccination was lower in mass vaccination (dollars US 17.04) and pharmacy (dollars US 11.57) settings than in scheduled doctor's office visits (dollars US 28.67). Vaccination in non-traditional settings was projected to be cost saving for healthy adults aged >or=50 years, and for high-risk adults of all ages. For healthy adults aged 18-49 years, preventing an episode of influenza would cost dollars US 90 if vaccination were delivered via the pharmacy setting, dollars US 210 via the mass vaccination setting and dollars US 870 via a scheduled doctor's office visit. Results were sensitive to assumptions on the incidence of influenza illness, the costs of vaccination (including recipient time costs) and vaccine effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

Using non-traditional settings to deliver routine influenza vaccination to adults is likely to be cost saving for healthy adults aged 50-64 years and relatively cost effective for healthy adults aged 18-49 years when preferences for averted morbidity are included.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults

BACKGROUND

Different types of influenza vaccines are currently produced world-wide. Healthy adults are at present targeted only in North America. Despite the publication of a large number of clinical trials, there is still substantial uncertainty about the clinical effectiveness of influenza vaccines and this has a negative impact on their acceptance and uptake.

OBJECTIVES

To identify, retrieve and assess all studies evaluating the effects (efficacy, effectiveness and harms) of vaccines against influenza in healthy adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2005) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group trials register; MEDLINE (January 1966 to January 2006); and EMBASE (1990 to January 2006). We wrote to vaccine manufacturers and first or corresponding authors of studies in the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any randomised or quasi-randomised studies comparing influenza vaccines in humans with placebo, no intervention. Live, attenuated, or killed vaccines or fractions of them administered by any route, irrespective of antigenic configuration were assessed. Only studies assessing protection from exposure to naturally occurring influenza in healthy individuals aged 16 to 65 years were considered. Comparative non-randomised studies were included if they assessed evidence of the possible association between influenza vaccines and serious harms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-eight reports were included: 38 (57 sub-studies) were clinical trials providing data about effectiveness, efficacy and harms of influenza vaccines and involved 66,248 people; 8 were comparative non-randomised studies and tested the association of the vaccines with serious harms; 2 were reports of harms which could not be introduced in the data analysis. Inactivated parenteral vaccines were 30% effective (95% CI 17% to 41%) against influenza-like illness, and 80% (95% CI 56% to 91%) efficacious against influenza when the vaccine matched the circulating strain and circulation was high, but decreased to 50% (95% CI 27% to 65%) when it did not. Excluding the studies of the 1968 to 1969 pandemic, effectiveness was 15% (95% CI 9% to 22%) and efficacy was 73% (95% CI 53% to 84%). Vaccination had a modest effect on time off work, but there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on hospital admissions or complication rates. Inactivated vaccines caused local tenderness and soreness and erythema. Spray vaccines had more modest performance. Monovalent whole-virion vaccines matching circulating viruses had high efficacy (VE 93%, 95% CI 69% to 98%) and effectiveness (VE 66%, 95% CI 51% to 77%) against the 1968 to 1969 pandemic.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Influenza vaccines are effective in reducing cases of influenza, especially when the content predicts accurately circulating types and circulation is high. However, they are less effective in reducing cases of influenza-like illness and have a modest impact on working days lost. There is insufficient evidence to assess their impact on complications. Whole-virion monovalent vaccines may perform best in a pandemic.

Universal influenza vaccination: the time to act is now

Annual influenza epidemics create a significant public health burden each year in the United States. That influenza continues to pose a public health threat despite being largely preventable through vaccination is indicative of continuing weaknesses in the U.S.'s public health system. Moreover, the burden of annual influenza epidemics and the fragility and instability of the capacity to respond to them underscore the U.S.'s ongoing vulnerability to pandemic influenza and highlights gaps in bioterrorism preparedness and response efforts. This article examines the burden of annual influenza epidemics in the U.S., efforts to combat that burden with vaccination, shortcomings of influenza vaccination efforts, and how those shortcomings exemplify weaknesses in pandemic influenza and bioterrorism preparedness efforts. We make the case for establishing an annual universal influenza vaccination program to assure access to influenza vaccination to anyone who can safely receive vaccination and desires it. Such a program could greatly reduce the annual burden of influenza while advancing and maintaining U.S. pandemic influenza and bioterrorism preparedness and response efforts.

Cost-effectiveness of universal influenza vaccination in a pregnant population

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to estimate whether universal influenza vaccination of pregnant women was cost-effective in the management of influenza-like illness during influenza season.

METHODS

A decision analysis model was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of providing inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine to all pregnant women. This scenario was compared with providing supportive care only on a case-by-case basis to the unvaccinated pregnant population.

RESULTS

Vaccination of 100% of pregnant women would save approximately 50 dollars per woman, resulting in a net gain of approximately 45 quality-adjusted hours relative to providing supportive care only.

CONCLUSION

Universal vaccination with inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine is cost-saving relative to providing supportive care alone in the pregnant population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Workplace vaccination against influenza in Malaysia: does the employer benefit?

This study was designed to evaluate the health and economic benefits of a workplace vaccination programme against influenza funded by the employer. Employees of a Malaysian petrochemical plant volunteered to take part in this prospective, non-randomised, non-placebo-controlled study. Demographic and health information, including influenza-like symptoms, sick leave and post-vaccination adverse events were collected via questionnaires. Cost-benefit analyses were performed from the employer's perspective.

RESULTS

A total of 1,022 employees took part in the study, with 504 choosing to be vaccinated against influenza, and 518 remaining unvaccinated. The rate of influenza-like illness (ILI) was lower among vaccinated (8.13%) than non-vaccinated subjects (30.31%). Fever and respiratory symptoms were associated with all ILI cases. ILI-related sick leave was taken by 58.54% of vaccinated employees with ILI and 71.34% of non-vaccinated employees with ILI. Vaccination was financially beneficial, with the employer saving up to US dollar 53.00 per vaccinated employee when labour costs only were considered. Savings rose to up to US dollar 899.70 when the operating income of each employee was also considered. Workplace vaccination of healthy adults against influenza had a clear impact on ILI rates, absenteeism and reduced productivity in this Malaysian company. The health benefits translated into financial benefits for the employer, with cost savings significantly outweighting the costs of the vaccination programme.

The cost of influenza in Thailand

The cost of influenza in less wealthy tropical countries is needed to inform national vaccine policy decisions. Between September 2003 and August 2004, we prospectively identified hospitalized pneumonia cases and outpatients with laboratory confirmed influenza in a Thai province. Disease incidence, patient interviews, medical record reviews, and data from a national health survey were used to calculate direct and indirect costs which were extrapolated to the Thai population. Influenza was identified in 80 (11%) of 761 hospitalized pneumonia inpatients with projected annual incidence of 18-111/100,000 population. Influenza was confirmed in 23% of 1092 outpatients with an estimated annual incidence of 1420/100,000 population. Influenza was estimated to cause between US dollar 23.4 and US dollar 62.9 million in economic losses with lost productivity accounting for 56% of all costs. The burden of influenza in Thailand is greater than previously appreciated, particularly in young children and the elderly. The impact and cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination for high-risk groups merits further investigation.

Costs and benefits of influenza vaccination and work productivity in a Colombian company from the employer's perspective

OBJECTIVES

This study was designed to evaluate the effects of an employee influenza vaccination campaign, measured in terms of health and economic benefits.

METHODS

Colombian bank employees volunteered to take part in this prospective observational study involving two groups: vaccinated and nonvaccinated. Socioeconomic and health status information, including influenza-like symptoms, sick leave, and postvaccination adverse events, were collected via questionnaires. Cost-benefit analyses were performed to determine whether the employer would save money overall by paying for the vaccination program.

RESULTS

Between October 2000 and May 2001, 424 vaccinated subjects and 335 nonvaccinated subjects volunteered to join the study. Cumulative incidence of influenza-like illness (ILI) was lower among vaccinated (14.6%) than nonvaccinated subjects (39.4%). Fever was the most common ILI symptom (93% of all reported ILI). Absence rates because of ILI were similar in the two groups (2.59%-2.69%). Assuming that employees with ILI who continue to work have reduced effectiveness (30%-70% of normal) the employer can save 6.4 US dollars to 25.8 US dollars per vaccinated employee based on labor costs alone. This saving increases to 89.3 US dollars to 237.8 US dollars when operating income is also considered. Sensitivity analyses indicate that the vaccination program will be cost saving for vaccination coverage above 20% and ILI rates above 10%.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the studied volunteers, ILI has significant impact on work productivity in terms of indirect costs. Implementing an influenza vaccination program would reduce the burden of ILI and save substantial amounts of money for the company.

Safety and efficacy of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in young children: a summary for the new era of routine vaccination

Increasing use of influenza vaccine in children is expected as this important virus becomes more widely recognized as a major cause of morbidity in young children. Clinicians and third party payers must consider the implications of national vaccine use recommendations, with their current focus on young children, on their practices and on the community at large. Two influenza vaccines are available in the United States, an inactivated, trivalent intramuscular formulation (TIV) which is approved for use among children > or =6 months of age; and a live, attenuated intranasal trivalent preparation (LAIV) indicated for healthy persons 5 to 49 years of age. This review summarizes available data regarding the safety and efficacy of TIV, in comparison with LAIV, with particular attention to children <9 years of age, the population for whom two doses of vaccine are recommended for first time vaccination. It is apparent that relatively few data are available on the safety of TIV in young children, that important age-specific differences in TIV vaccine efficacy exist and that LAIV appears similar to TIV with regard to safety and efficacy in younger children, but no head-to-head comparison of these two licensed products is available.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults

BACKGROUND

Three different types of influenza vaccines are currently produced worldwide. None is traditionally targeted to healthy adults. Despite the publication of a large number of clinical trials, there is still substantial uncertainty about the clinical effectiveness of influenza vaccines and this has negative impact on the vaccines acceptance and uptake.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of vaccines on influenza in healthy adults. To assess the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing cases of influenza in healthy adults. To estimate the frequency of adverse effects associated with influenza vaccination in healthy adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2004) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group trials register; MEDLINE (January 1966 to December 2003); and EMBASE (1990 to December 2003). We wrote to vaccine manufacturers and first or corresponding authors of studies in the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any randomised or quasi-randomised studies comparing influenza vaccines in humans with placebo, control vaccines or no intervention, or comparing types, doses or schedules of influenza vaccine. Live, attenuated or killed vaccines or fractions thereof administered by any route, irrespective of antigenic configuration were considered. Only studies assessing protection from exposure to naturally occurring influenza in healthy individuals aged 14 to 60 (irrespective of influenza immune status) were considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty five reports of studies involving 59,566 people were included. The recommended live aerosol vaccines reduced the number of cases of serologically confirmed influenza by 48% (95% confidence interval (CI) 24% to 64%), whilst recommended inactivated parenteral vaccines had a vaccine efficacy of 70% (95% CI 56% to 80%). The yearly recommended vaccines had low effectiveness against clinical influenza cases: 15%(95% CI 8% to 21%) and 25% (95% CI 13% to 35%) respectively. Overall the percentage of participants experiencing clinical influenza decreased by 6%. Use of the vaccine significantly reduced time off work but only by 0.16 days for each influenza episode (95% CI 0.04 to 0.29 days); Analysis of vaccines matching the circulating strain gave higher estimates of efficacy, whilst inclusion of all other vaccines reduced the efficacy.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Influenza vaccines are effective in reducing serologically confirmed cases of influenza. However, they are not as effective in reducing cases of clinical influenza and number of working days lost. Universal immunisation of healthy adults is not supported by the results of this review.

Cost-effectiveness of vaccination versus treatment of influenza in healthy adolescents and adults

At present time, there is uncertainty regarding whether influenza-like illness in healthy adults is best managed by preventive efforts that use the trivalent influenza vaccine, administration of neuraminidase inhibitors at the onset of illness, or recommendation of supportive care alone at the onset of illness. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis that examined these 3 strategies for managing influenza-like illness. Vaccination with inactivated trivalent vaccine would save approximately 25 dollars per person while resulting in a net gain of approximately 3.2 quality-adjusted hours relative to providing treatment with the neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir. A quality-adjusted hour is a fraction of a quality-adjusted life-year, which is the equivalent of 1 year lived in perfect health. Treatment with oseltamivir was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness of approximately 27,619 dollars per quality-adjusted life-year gained relative to providing supportive care. Vaccination is cost-saving relative to providing either treatment with oseltamivir or providing supportive care alone.