The European Journal of Health Economics

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 244–252 | Cite as

Influenza treatment with neuraminidase inhibitors

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility in healthy adults in the United Kingdom
  • Beate Sander
  • Marlene Gyldmark
  • Frederick G. Hayden
  • James Morris
  • Elvira Mueller
  • Rito Bergemann
Original Papers


We assessed the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of treating influenza with neuraminidase inhibitors (oseltamivir and zanamivir) from a health care payer’s and societal perspective in the United Kingdom. A simulation model was developed to predict morbidity and mortality due to influenza and its specified complications, comparing neuraminidase inhibitors with usual care in an otherwise healthy adult population. Robustness of the results was tested by one-way and multiway as well as probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Treatment with either neuraminidase inhibitor results in reduced morbidity and faster return to normal activities. However, oseltamivir dominates zanamivir in cost-utility analysis due to its lower costs. Comparing oseltamivir with usual care, the costs are £14.36 per day of normal activity gained and £5,600 per quality-adjusted life-year gained from the healthcare payer perspective. Oseltamivir dominates usual care from the societal perspective. Treatment with oseltamivir is a cost-effective strategy for otherwise healthy adults in the UK from both the healthcare payer and societal perspective.


Influenza Treatment Antivirals Cost-effectiveness Decision modeling 



Financial support for this study was provided entirely by a contract with F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Pharmaceuticals Division. The funding agreement ensured the authors’ independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report. M.G. and J.M. are employed by the sponsor.

Conflict of interest:

No information supplied


  1. 1.
    Meier C, Napalkov P, Wegmuller Y, Jefferson T, Jick H (2000) Population-based study on incidence, risk factors, clinical complications and drug utilisation associated with influenza in the United Kingdom. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 19:834–842CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2003) Guidance on the use of zanamivir, oseltamivir and amantadine for the treatment of influenza. Technology appraisal guidance no 58.
  3. 3.
    Baltussen R, Reinders A, Sprenger M, Postma M, Jager J, Ament A et al. (1998) Estimating influenza-related hospitalization in The Netherlands. Epidemiol Infect 121:129–138CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Simonsen L, Fukuda K, Schonberger L, Cox N (2000) The impact of influenza epidemics on hospitalizations. J Infect Dis 181:831–837CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kaiser L, Keene O, Hammond J, Elliott M, Hayden F (2000) Impact of zanamivir on antibiotic use for respiratory events following acute influenza in adolescents and adults. Arch Intern Med 160:3234–3240CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bochud P, Moser F, Erard P, Verdon F, Studer J, Villard G et al. (2001) Community-acquired pneumonia. A prospective outpatient study. Medicine (Baltimore) 80:75–87Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Spitäler der Schweiz (1997) H+ Spitalstatistiken. Medizinische Gesamtstatistik der Schweizer Spitäler. AarauGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anonymous (2001) British national formulary no 42. British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain: LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Netten A, Rees T, Harrison G (2001) Unit costs of health and social care. In: London School of Economics and University of Manchester (eds) Personal Social Services Research Unit at the University of Kent at Canterbury: CanterburyGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Anonymous (1997) National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS). In: National Centre for Health Statistics NCHS (ed) Department of Health and Human ServicesGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Anonymous (2001) New earnings survey 2000, rev edn. Office for National Statistics: LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nicholson KG, Aoki FY, Osterhaus AD, Trottier S, Carewicz O, Mercier CH et al. (2000) Efficacy and safety of oseltamivir in treatment of acute influenza: a randomised controlled trial. Neuraminidase Inhibitor Flu Treatment Investigator Group. Lancet 355:1845–1850CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Treanor JJ, Hayden FG, Vrooman PS, Barbarash R, Bettis R, Riff D et al. (2000) Efficacy and safety of the oral neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir in treating acute influenza: a randomized controlled trial. US Oral Neuraminidase Study Group. JAMA 283:1016–1024CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaiser L, Wat C, Mills T, Mahoney P, Ward P, Hayden F (2003) Impact of oseltamivir treatment on influenza-related lower respiratory tract complications and hospitalizations. Arch Intern Med 163:1667–1672CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vindt HM, Gyldmark M, Holme HE, Vindt Holm M, Gyldmark M, Holme Hansen E (2004) Pharmacoeconomic assessment of oseltamivir in treating influenza-the case of otherwise healthy Danish adolescents and adults. Pharm World Sci 26:339–345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gyldmark M, Wegmueller Y, Barker C (2002) The impact of influenza on individuals’ daily activities, the effect of treatment with oral oseltamivir on return to normal health. World Organisation of Family Doctors (WONCA) conference, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Makela MJ, Pauksens K, Rostila T, Fleming DM, Man CY, Keene ON et al. (2000) Clinical efficacy and safety of the orally inhaled neuraminidase inhibitor zanamivir in the treatment of influenza: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled European study. J Infect 40:42–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thompson W, Shay D, Weintraub E, Brammer L, Cox N, Anderson L et al. (2003) Mortality associated with influenza and respiratory syncytial virus in the United States. JAMA 8 289:179–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Burls A (2000) Is zanamivir effective for the treatment of influenza in adults? Submission to NICE. West Midlands Development and Evaluation ServiceGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nicholson K, Webster R, Hay A (1998) Textbook of influenza. Blackwell: LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Diggory P, Fernandez C, Humphrey A, Jones V, Murphy M (2001) Comparison of elderly people’s technique in using two dry powder inhalers to deliver zanamivir: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 322:577–579CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stouthard M, Essink-Bot M, Bonsel G, Barendregt J, Kramer P, van de Water H (1997) Disability weights for diseases in The Netherlands. Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Rotterdam: RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Turner D, Wailoo A, Nicholson K, Cooper N J, Sutton AJ, Abrams KR (2002) Systematic review and economic decision modelling for the prevention and treatment of influenza A and B. NICE assessment reportGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Briggs A (2000) Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 17:479–500PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hunink M, Glasziou P, Siegel J, Weeks J, Pliskin J, Elstein A et al. (2001) Decision making in health and medicine. Integrating evidence and values. Cambridge University Press: CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Drummond M, O’Brien B, Stoddart G, Torrance G (1997) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press: OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kielhorn A, Graf von der Schulenburg J (2000) The health economics handbook, 2nd edn. Adis International Limited: ChesterGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sculpher M (2001) The role and estimation of productivity costs in economic evaluation. In: Drummond M (ed) Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. pp 94–112Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2001) Guidance for manufacturers, sponsors. Technological appraisals process series 5. LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (2002) European public assessment report (EPAR): summary of product characteristics.
  31. 31.
    Akazawa M, Sindelar J, Paltiel A (2003) Economic costs of influenza-related work absenteeism. Value Health 6:107–115CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schwarzinger M, Housset B, Carrat F (2003) Bedside rapid flu test and zanamivir prescription in healthy working adults: a cost-benefit analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 21:215–224PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Meltzer MI, Cox N, Fukuda K (1999) The economic impact of pandemic influenza in the United States: priorities for intervention. Emerg Inf Dis 5:659–671Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Glick HA, Briggs HA, Polsky D (2001) Quantifying stochastic uncertainty and presenting results of cost-effectivenss analyses. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 1:89–100Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2000) Guidance on the use of zanamivir (relenza) in the treatment of influenza. Document no 15. NICE: LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beate Sander
    • 1
    • 5
  • Marlene Gyldmark
    • 2
  • Frederick G. Hayden
    • 3
  • James Morris
    • 4
  • Elvira Mueller
    • 1
  • Rito Bergemann
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Medical Outcome Research GmbHLörrachGermany
  2. 2.Health Economics and Strategic PricingF. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd Pharmaceuticals DivisionBaselSwitzerland
  3. 3.Division of Infectious Diseases and International Health, School of MedicineUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesville USA
  4. 4.Roche Products LtdWelwynUK
  5. 5.Division of Clinical Decision-Making & Health Care ResearchUniversity Health NetworkTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations