PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 23, Issue 11, pp 1083–1106

Antiviral agents for influenza

A comparison of cost-effectiveness data
Review Article

Abstract

The economic burden of influenza-related illness has been estimated to be $US71.3–166 billion in the US, the majority of which is attributable to indirect costs as a result of lost productivity. There are currently four antiviral drugs available for the treatment of influenza: two ion channel blockers, amantadine and rimantadine; and two neuraminidase inhibitors, zanamivir and oseltamivir. The objective of this paper was to review the studies evaluating the cost effectiveness of currently available antiviral treatment and prophylaxis management strategies for influenza. Published studies that reported both costs and effectiveness of influenza management were extracted using MEDLINE, pre-MEDLINE and EMBASE. To facilitate a broad comparison, all costs were inflated to 2003 $US.

Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria of the review, with 14 analyses based on decision-analytic modelling and one economic analysis performed alongside a clinical trial. Management strategies included antiviral influenza prophylaxis or vaccination, empiric treatment of suspected disease, or antiviral treatment following rapid influenza testing. Study populations included healthy adults, adults at risk of influenza-related adverse outcomes, institutionalised and non-institutionalised elderly, and children. The comparator in all studies was standard care (i.e. over-the-counter medications only), and analyses were carried out from both the societal and payer perspectives.

The only dominant strategy relative to standard care was vaccination of the institutionalised elderly. All other strategies in all populations were both more costly and more effective than standard care. Depending on the population and the perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for antiviral treatment strategies ranged from $US5000/QALY for amantadine in test-and-treat studies to >$US400 000/QALY for zanamivir or oseltamivir treatment in children.

Sensitivity analysis in all studies consistently reported a strong influence of the population prevalence or diagnostic accuracy of influenza on the cost effectiveness of all strategies. Baseline influenza prevalence varied widely between studies, ranging from 15% to 68%. There was also a wide variation in the assumption about the disutility of influenza (ranging from −0.137 to −0.983 for the elderly requiring hospitalisation), which also impacted the cost effectiveness.

Given the variation in the ICERs of antiviral treatment and prophylaxis, the uncertainty around many model parameters, and the dynamic nature of influenza from year to year, one can only conclude that antiviral treatment or prophylaxis for influenza is likely to be more cost effective in specific populations at specific times during the influenza season, and during influenza seasons when the population prevalence reaches epidemic levels or there is mismatch between the vaccine and the circulating virus.

References

  1. 1.
    Turner D, Wailoo A, Nicholson K, et al. Systematic review and economic decision modeling for the prevention and treatment of influenza A and B. Leicester, UK: National Institute of Clinical Excellence, 2002 Apr 29Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cox NJ, Subbarao K. Global epidemiology of influenza: past and present. Annu Rev Med 2000; 51 (1): 407–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stiver G. The treatment of influenza with antiviral drugs. CMAJ 2003; 168 (1): 49–56PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Simonsen L, Fukuda K, Schonberger LB, et al. The impact of influenza epidemics on hospitalizations. J Infect Dis 2000; 181 (3): 831–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bridges CB, Harper SA, Fukuda K, et al. Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACID). MMWR Recomm Rep 2003; 52 (RR-8): 1–34Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Levy E. French economic evaluations of influenza and influenza vaccination. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 9 Suppl. 3: 62–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Office of Technology Assessment UC. Cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1981. Report No.: 052-003-00855-6Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sullivan KM, Monto AS, Longini IM. Estimates of the US health impact of influenza. Am J Public Health 1993; 83 (12): 1712–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aimola A, Gianfrate F. Modeling a cost-of-illness study to evaluate the burden of influenza in Italy [abstract]. Value Health 2000; 3 (2): 117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aoki FY, Fleming DM, Griffin AD, et al. Impact of zanamivir treatment on productivity, health status and healthcare resource use in patients with influenza. Zanamivir Study Group. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17 (2): 187–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Szucs TD. Influenza: the role of burden-of-illness research. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 16 Suppl. 1: 27–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meltzer MI, Cox NJ, Fukuda K. The economic impact of pandemic influenza in the United States: priorities for intervention. Emerg Infect Dis 1999; 5 (5): 659–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    New vaccine development: establishing priorities. Vol. 1: dis-eases of importance in the United States. Report of a study by a committee of the Institute of Medicine, Division of health promotion and disease prevention. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1985: 342–64Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACID). MMWR Recomm Rep 1999; 48 (RR-4): 1–28Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Palache AM. Influenza vaccines: a reappraisal of their use. Drugs 1997; 54 (6): 841–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nichol KL, Margolis KL, Wuorenma J, et al. The efficacy and cost effectiveness of vaccination against influenza among elderly persons living in the community. N Engl J Med 1994; 331 (12): 778–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Center for Disease Control. Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACID). MMWR Recomm Rep 1999; 48 (RR-4): 1–28Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Govaert TM, Thijs CT, Masurel N, et al. The efficacy of influenza vaccination in elderly individuals: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. JAMA 1994; 272 (21): 1661–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Atkinson W, editor. Epidemiology and prevention of vaccine preventable diseases. 5th ed. Atlanta (GA): US Department of Health and Human Services, 1999Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nichol KL, Lind A, Margolis KL, et al. The effectiveness of vaccination against influenza in healthy, working adults. N Engl J Med 1995; 333 (14): 889–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Campbell DS, Rumley MH. Cost-effectiveness of the influenza vaccine in a healthy, working-age population. J Occup Environ Med 1997; 39 (5): 408–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bridges CB, Thompson WW, Meltzer MI, et al. Effectiveness and cost-benefit of influenza vaccination of healthy working adults: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2000; 284 (13): 1655–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza and pneumococcal vaccination levels among persons greater than 64 years: United States 1999. MMWR Moth Mortal Wkly Rep 2001; 50: 532–7Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gubareva LV, Kaiser L, Hayden FG. Influenza virus neuraminidase inhibitors. Lancet 2000; 355 (9206): 827–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sintchenko V, Gilbert GL, Coiera E, et al. Treat or test first? Decision analysis of empirical antiviral treatment of influenza virus infection versus treatment based on rapid test results. J Clin Virol 2002; 25 (1): 15–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Griffin AD, Perry AS, Fleming DM. Cost-effectiveness analysis of inhaled zanamivir in the treatment of influenza A and B in high-risk patients. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 (3): 293–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Smith KJ, Roberts MS. Cost-effectiveness of newer treatment strategies for influenza. Am J Med 2002; 113 (4): 300–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    O’Brien BJ, Goeree R, Blackhouse G, et al. Oseltamivir for treatment of influenza in healthy adults: pooled trial evidence and cost-effectiveness model for Canada. Value Health 2003; 6 (2): 116–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Husereau DR, Brady B, McGeer A. Oseltamivir for the treatment of suspected influenza. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, 2001: Report No.: 21Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mauskopf JA, Cates SC, Griffin AD, et al. Cost effectiveness of zanamivir for the treatment of influenza in a high risk population in Australia. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17 (6): 611–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Burls A, Clark W, Stewart T, et al. Zanamivir for the treatment of influenza in adults: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2002; 6 (9): 1–87Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brady B, McAuley L, Shukla VK. Economic evaluation of zanamivir for the treatment of influenza. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, 2001: Report No.: 13Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Muennig PA, Khan K. Cost-effectiveness of vaccination versus treatment of influenza in healthy adolescents and adults. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 33 (11): 1879–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rothberg MB, Bellantonio S, Rose DN. Management of influenza in adults older than 65 years of age: cost-effectiveness of rapid testing and antiviral therapy. Ann Intern Med 2003; 139 (5 Pt 1): 321–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Scuffham PA, West PA. Economic evaluation of strategies for the control and management of influenza in Europe. Vaccine 2002; 20 (19-20): 2562–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Blitz SG, Cram P, Chemew ME, et al. Diagnostic testing or empirical neuraminidase inhibitor therapy for patients with influenza-like illness: what a difference a day makes. Am J Manag Care 2002; 8 (3): 221–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Armstrong EP, Khan ZM, Perry AS, et al. The cost effectiveness of zanamivir and oseltramivir for influenza treatment. Formulary 2000; 35: 979–89Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lee PY, Matchar DB, Clements DA, et al. Economic analysis of influenza vaccination and antiviral treatment for healthy working adults. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137 (4): 225–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schwarzinger M, Housset B, Carrat F. Bedside rapid flu test and zanamivir prescription in healthy working adults: a cost-benefit analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2003; 21 (3): 215–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hammond ML, Ferris AA, Fame S, et al. Effective protection against influenza after vaccination with subunit vaccine. Med J Aust 1978; 1 (6): 301–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Couch RB. Advances in influenza virus vaccine research. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1993; 685: 803–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Demicheli V, Jefferson T, Rivetti D, et al. Prevention and early treatment of influenza in healthy adults. Vaccine 2000; 18 (11-12): 957–1030PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Keech M, Scott AJ, Ryan PJ. The impact of influenza and influenza-like illness on productivity and healthcare resource utilization in a working population. Occup Med (Lond) 1998; 48 (2): 85–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schoenbaum SC. Economic impact of influenza: the individual’s perspective. Am J Med 1987; 82 (6A): 26–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jefferson T, Demicheli V, Deeks J, et al. Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000; (2): CDO01265Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Monto AS, Fleming DM, Henry D, et al. Efficacy and safety of the neuraminidase inhibitor zanamivirin the treatment of influenza A and B virus infections. J Infect Dis 1999; 180 (2): 254–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hayden FG, Osterhaus AD, Treanor JJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of the neuraminidase inhibitor zanamivir in the treatment of influenzavirus infections. GG167 Influenza Study Group. N Engl J Med 1997; 337 (13): 874–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Randomised trial of efficacy and safety of inhaled zanamivir in treatment of influenza A and B virus infections. The MIST (Management of Influenza in the Southern Hemisphere Trialists) Study Group. Lancet 1998; 352 (9144): 1877–81Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hayden FG, Treanor JJ, Fritz RS, et al. Use of the oral neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir in experimental human influenza: randomized controlled trials for prevention and treatment. JAMA 1999; 282 (13): 1240–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hayden FG, Atmar RL, Schilling M, et al. Use of the selective oral neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir to prevent influenza. N Engl J Med 1999; 341 (18): 1336–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Carrat F, Sahler C, Rogez S, et al. Influenza burden of illness: estimates from a national prospective survey of household contacts in France. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162 (16): 1842–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ross AM, Kai J, Salter R, et al. Presentation with influenza-like illness in general practice: implications for use of neuraminidase inhibitors. Commun Dis Public Health 2000; 3 (4): 256–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Monto AS, Gravenstein S, Elliott M, et al. Clinical signs and symptoms predicting influenza infection. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160 (21): 3243–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Husereau DR. Do neuraminidase inhibitors prevent influenza? Issues Emerg Health Technol 2001; (27): 1–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Treanor JJ, Hayden FG, Vrooman PS, et al. Efficacy and safety of the oral neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir in treating acute influenza: a randomized controlled trial. US Oral Neuraminidase Study Group. JAMA 2000; 283 (8): 1016–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Nicholson KG, Aoki FY, Osterhaus AD, et al. Efficacy and safety of oseltamivir in treatment of acute influenza: a randomised controlled trial. Neuraminidase Inhibitor Flu Treatment Investigator Group. Lancet 2000; 355 (9218): 1845–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kashiwagi S, Kudoh S, Watanabe A, et al. Clinical efficacy and safety of the selective oral neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir in treating acute influenza: placebo-controlled double-blind multicenter phase III trial. Kansenshogaku Zasshi 2000; 74 (12): 1044–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Center for Drug Evaluation and Research - Food and Drug Administration. Treatment trials for naturally acquired influenza: 8.5 Protocol W V 15812. In: Medical officer review of NDA 21-087 Tamiflu (oseltamivir) in the treatment of influenza. Rockville (MD): The Center, 1999: 49–55Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Center for Drug Evaluation and Research - Food and Drug Administration. Treatment trials for naturally acquired influenza: 8.4 Protocol W V 15819. In: Medical officer review of NDA 21-087 Tamiflu (oseltamivir) in the treatment of influenza. Rockville (MD): The Center, 1999: 45–9Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Center for Drug Evaluation and Research - Food and Drug Administration. Treatment trials for naturally acquired influenza: 8.3 Protocol W V 15730. In: Medical officer review of NDA 21-087 Tamiflu (oseltamivir) in the treatment of influenza. Rockville (MD): The Center, 1999: 42–5Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    The MIST (Management of Influenza in the Southern Hemi-sphere Trialists) Study Group. Randomised trial of efficacy and safety of inhaled zanamivir in treatment of influenza A and B virus infections. Lancet 1998; 352 (9144): 1877–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Zanamivir for the treatment of influenza in adults: supplement to the assessment report. London, UK: National Institute of Clinical Excellence; 2000 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.nhs.uk/nice-web/pdf/updatezanamivir.pdf [Accessed 2004 Aug 24]Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Armstrong EP, Abarca J. Pharmacoeconomic model to evaluate new influenza treatments. Formulary 2000; 35: 169–81Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Lalezari J, Klein T, Stapleton JT. The efficacy and safety of inhaled zanamivir in the treatment of influenza in otherwise healthy and’ high risk’ individuals in North America [abstract]. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999; 44 Suppl. A: 42Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Makela MJ, Pauksens K, Rostila T, et al. 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 2000; 40 (1): 42–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Carrat F, Tachet A, Rouzioux C, et al. Evaluation of clinical case definitions of influenza: detailed investigation of patients during the 1995-1996 epidemic in France. Clin Infect Dis 1999; 28 (2): 283–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Larry D. Lynd
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ron Goeree
    • 3
    • 4
  • Bernie J. O’Brien
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Faculty of Pharmaceutical SciencesUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and EvaluationVancouver Coastal Health AuthorityVancouverCanada
  3. 3.Program for Assessment of Technology in HealthMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  4. 4.Program for Assessment of Technology in Health, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Health SciencesMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  5. 5.Faculty of Pharmaceutical SciencesCentre for Clinical Epidemiology and EvaluationVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations