, Volume 16, Supplement 1, pp 73–84 | Cite as

A Pharmacoeconomic Model for the Treatment of Influenza

  • Josephine A. Mauskopf
  • Sheryl C. Cates
  • Adrian Griffin
Section 4: The Socioeconomic Impact of Prevention and Control of Influenza Original Research Article


Objective: The aim of this study was to develop a generic treatment algorithm for influenza and influenza-like illness (ILI) that could be used to estimate the costs and outcomes of current and new treatments for influenza in different countries for different patient subgroups.

Methods: A series of possible treatment pathways was identified and the probabilities of different patient subgroups following each pathway were estimated by using the published literature. The health outcomes and health service use and unit costs for each pathway were estimated from trial data and standard data sources. An interactive computer model was created, the base-case input parameter values were assigned, and estimates of the current costs of influenza and ILI in different population subgroups estimated. Sensitivity analyses were performed by changing input parameter values.

Results: The average healthcare cost of influenza and ILI per person in the US was $US72 for the general population and $US330 for a high risk population (1997 values). The average total cost per patient (healthcare cost plus productivity losses) was $US320 for the general population and $US546 for a high risk population. These costs are sensitive to changes in the proportion of patients visiting a physician and to the proportion of patients hospitalised with complications of the disease. Days to alleviate major symptoms and other health outcome measures are sensitive to the percentage of patients who receive antiviral therapy as well as to the efficacy of this therapy.

Conclusions: The costs and health outcomes of influenza and ILI depend on the extent to which patients visit a physician, the use of antiviral drugs, and the incidence of complications requiring hospital care. The computer model will allow decision-makers to assess the cost effectiveness and the potential budget impact of new antivirals for treating influenza.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Levy E, Levy P. Anti-influenza vaccination for active persons (25–64 years): a cost-benefit study. Rev Epidemiol Santé Publique 1992; 40: 285–95PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vutuc C, Kunze M. Influenza: incidence and costs of inpatient treatment. Fortschr Med 1993; 111: 508–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schoenbaum SC. Economic impact of influenza. Am J Med 1987; 295: 759–65Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McBean AM, Babish JD, Warren JL. The impact and cost of influenza in the elderly. Arch Intern Med 1993; 153: 2105–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR 1998; 47 Suppl. (RR-6): 1–26Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hayden FG, Osterhaus ADME, Treanor JJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of the neuraminidase inhibitor zanamivir in the treatment of influenza virus infections. N Engl J Med 1997; 337 (13): 874–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Treanor JJ, Vrooman PS, Hayden FG, et al. Efficacy of oral GS4104 in treating acute influenza. 38th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC). 1998 Sep 24–27; San Diego, 1998Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    The MIST study group. Randomized trial of efficacy and safety of inhaled zanamivir in the treatment of influenza A and B virus infections. Lancet 1998; 352: 1877–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Department of Health and Human Services. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Washington DC: Department of Health and Human Services, 1990Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Department of Health and Human Services. National Hospital Discharge Survey. Washington DC: Department of Health and Human Services, 1990Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wingfield WL, Pollack D, Grunert RR. Therapeutic efficacy of amantadine HCl and rimantadine HCl in naturally occurring influenza A2 respiratory illness in man. N Engl J Med 1969; 28 (11): 579–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hayden FG, Hall WJ, Douglas RG. Therapeutic effects of aerosolized amantadine in naturally acquired infection due to influenza A virus. J Infect Dis 1980; 4 (5): 535–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Silagy CA, Griffin AD, Lacey LA, et al. Impact of zanamivir on health status, productivity and healthcare resource use in patients with influenza. Annual Meeting of the Infectious Disease Society of America; 1998 Nov 12–15: Denver, COGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Red Book. 1995Drug Topics Red Book. Montvale, NJ: Medical Economics Company, Inc., 1995Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    US Bureau of the Census. Statistical abstract of the United States: 1994, 114th ed. Washington, DC: US Bureau of the Census, 1994Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schoenbaum S, McNeil B, Kavet J. The swine-influenza decision. N Engl J Med 1976; 295: 759–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jefferson T, Demicheli V. Economic evaluation of influenza vaccination and economic modelling: can results be pooled? Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 9 Suppl. 3: 67–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). Cost effectiveness of influenza vaccination. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1981. Publication No: OTA-H-152Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Barker WH. Excess pneumonia and influenza associated hospitalization during influenza epidemics in the United States, 1970–78. Am J Public Health 1986; 76 (7): 761–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fleming DM. The impact of three influenza epidemics on primary care in England and Wales. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 9 Suppl. 3: 38–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nicholson KG. Clinical features of influenza. Semin Respir Infect 1992; 7 (1): 26–37PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Josephine A. Mauskopf
    • 1
  • Sheryl C. Cates
    • 1
  • Adrian Griffin
    • 2
  1. 1.Research Triangle InstituteResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  2. 2.GHO, Infectious DiseasesGlaxo Wellcome Research and DevelopmentGreenford, MiddlesexEngland

Personalised recommendations