PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 373–386 | Cite as

Post-Exposure Influenza Prophylaxis with Oseltamivir

Cost Effectiveness and Cost Utility in Families in the UK
  • Beate Sander
  • Frederick G. Hayden
  • Marlene Gyldmark
  • Louis P. GarrisonJr
Original Research Article

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the cost effectiveness and cost utility of preventing postexposure influenza infection using the neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir from a healthcare payer’s perspective in the UK.

Methods: A simulation model was developed, based on clinical trial results and published data, to predict morbidity and mortality due to influenza and to compare oseltamivir post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) with no prophylaxis within families with members aged ≥13 years. Two scenarios were tested
  1. 1.

    Comparison of patients receiving PEP versus patients not receiving PEP and not being treated with oseltamivir should they become infected.

     
  2. 2.

    Comparison of patients receiving PEP versus patients not receiving PEP but being treated with oseltamivir should they become infected.

     

The model was run with an attack rate in household contacts of 8% for the base case, with higher rates (up to 30%, representing pandemic conditions) tested in sensitivity analyses. A societal perspective and other key parameters were tested in sensitivity analysis. The year of costing was 2002. The time span for the model was up to 1 year (including one influenza season), but loss of life was included in the QALY calculation and based on expected life expectancy.

Results: PEP with oseltamivir results in reduced morbidity (i.e. fewer influenza cases) and associated reductions in complications, hospitalisations and mortality due to influenza. When comparing oseltamivir PEP with no prophylaxis for contact attack rates of 8%, 12% and 30%, the mean costs per QALY gained for scenario one were estimated at £29 938, £18 697 and £5403, respectively; the mean costs per case avoided were £467, £293 and £84, respectively. The corresponding results for scenario two were £52 202, £31 610 and £9688 per QALY gained.

Conclusions: PEP with oseltamivir is likely to be a cost-effective strategy for family contacts in the UK from a healthcare payer perspective when influenza-like illness contact attack rates are 8% or higher and the only treatment given is ‘usual care’.

References

  1. 1.
    Meier CR, Napalkov PN, Wegmuller Y, et al. 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 2000; 19: 834–842PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hak E, Hoes AW, Verheij TJM. Influenza vaccinations: who needs them and when? Drugs 2002; 62: 2413–2420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tacken M, Braspenning J, Spreeuwenberg P, et al. Patient characteristics determine differences in the influenza vaccination rate more so than practice features. Prev Med 2002; 35: 401–406PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Jong JC, Beyer WE, Palache AM, et al. Mismatch between the 1997/1998 influenza vaccine and the major epidemic A (H3N2) virus strain as the cause of an inadequate vaccine-induced antibody response to this strain in the elderly. J Med Virol 2000; 61: 94–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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: 1336–1343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Peters PH, Gravenstein S, Norwood P, et al. Long-term use of oseltamivir for the prophylaxis of influenza in a vaccinated frail older population. J Am Geriatr Soc 2001; 49: 1025–1031PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Welliver R, Monto AS, Carewicz O, et al. Effectiveness of oseltamivir in preventing influenza in household contacts: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001; 285: 748–754PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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: 1016–1024PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nicholson KG, Aoki FY, Ostethaus 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: 1845–1850PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Whitley RJ, Hayden FG, Reisinger KS, et al. Oral oseltamivir treatment of influenza in children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2001; 20: 127–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hayden FG, Belshe R, Villanueva C, et al. Management of influenza in households: a prospective, randomized comparison of oseltamivir treatment with or without postexposure prophylaxis. J Infect Dis 2004; 189: 440–449PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Neuzil KM, Mellen BG, Wright PF, et al. The effect of influenza on hospitalisations, outpatient visits, and courses of antibiotics in children. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 225–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fox JP, Cooney MK, Hall CE, et al. Influenza virus infections in Seattle families, 1975–1979: II. Pattern of infection in invaded households and relation of age and prior antibody to occurrence of infection and related illness. Am J Epidemiol 1982; 116: 228–242PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the use of oseltamivir and amantadine for the prophylaxis of influenza. NICE Technology Appraisal Guidance. No 67. Ref: N0292. London: NICE, 2003 Sep [online]. Available from URL: http:/www.nice.org.uk [Accessed 2002 Feb]Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vindt Holm M, Gyldmark M, Holme Hansen E. Pharmacoeconomic assessment of oseltamivir in treating influenza: the case of otherwise healthy Danish adults and adolescents. Pharm World Sci 2004 Dec; 26 (6): 339–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Aoki FY, Macleod MD, Paggiaro P, et al. Early administration of oral oseltamivir increases the benefits of influenza treatment. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003; 51 (1): 123–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nicholson KG, Webster RG, Hay AI. Textbook of influenza. London: Blackwell Science Ltd, 1998Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kaiser L, Wat C, Mills T, et al. Impact of oseltamivir treatment on influenza-related lower respiratory tract complications and hospitalisations. Arch Intern Med 2003; 163: 1667–1672PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance for manufacturers and sponsors: technological appraisals process series 5. London: NICE, 2001Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Simonsen L, Fukuda K, Schonberger LB, et al. The impact of influenza epidemics on hospitalisations. J Infect Dis 2000; 181: 831–837PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thompson WW, Shay DK, Weintraub E, et al. Mortality associated with influenza and respiratory syncytial virus in the United States. JAMA 2003; 289: 179–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bochud PY, Moser F, Erard P, et al. Community-acquired pneumonia: a prospective outpatient study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2001; 80: 75–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Die Spitaler der Schweiz. H+ Spitalstatistiken, Medizinische Gesarrtstatistik der Schweizer Spitalër 1996. H+ Verlag CH-5001 Aarau, 1997Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Data on file, Hoffmann-La RocheGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Netten A, Curtis L. Unit costs of health and social care. Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent at Canterbury [online]. Available from URL: http://www.pssru.ac.uk/pdf/uc2003/uc2003.pdf [Accessed 2003 Sep 9]Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Department of Health and Human Services. National ambulatory medical care survey (NAMCS). Ann Arbor (MI): National Centre for Health Statistics, 1997Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    British National Formulary No 42. London: British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, 2001Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Office for National Statistics. New earnings survey 2000. Rev. ed. London: 2001 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.statistics.gov.uk [Accessed 2003 Sep]Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stouthard M, Essink-Bot M, Bonsel G, et al. Disability weights for diseases in the Netherlands. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 1997Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Enger C, Nordstrom BL, Thakrar B, et al. Health outcomes among patients receiving oseltamivir. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2004; 13: 227–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Osborne R, Hawthorne G, Papanicolaou M, et al. Measurement of rapid changes in health outcomes in people with influenza symptoms. J Outcomes Res 2000; 4: 15–30Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    MVH Group. The measurement and valuation of health: final report on the modelling of valuation tariffs. York University: Centre for Health Economics, 1995Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pearce D, Goldblatt P, editors. United Kingdom health statistics life expectancy: the government actuary’s department: interim life tables. London: The Stationery Office Health Statistics Quarterly (12), Winter 2001Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hayden FG, Belshe RB, Clover RD, et al. Emergence and apparent transmission of rimantadine-resistant influenza A virus in families. N Engl J Med 1989; 321: 1696–1702Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Galbraith AW, Oxford JS, Schild GC, et al. Study of 1-adamantanamine hydrochloride used prophylactically during the Hong Kong influenza epidemic in the family environment. Bull World Health Organ 1969; 41: 677–682Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Thompson WW, Shay DK, Weintraub E, et al. Influenza-associated hospitalisations in the United States. JAMA 2004; 292: 1333–1340Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, et al. Effectiveness of neuraminidase inhibitors in treatment and prevention of influenza A and B: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2003; 326: 1235–1241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hayden FG, Gubareva LV, Monto AS, et al. Inhaled zanamivir for the prevention of influenza in families: Zanamivir Family Study Group. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 1282–1289PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Leneva IA, Roberts N, Govorkova EA, et al. The neuraminidase inhibitor GS4104 (oseltamivir phosphate) is efficacious against A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) and A/Hong Kong/1074/99 (H9N2) influenza viruses. Antiviral Res 2000; 48: 101–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hayden FG. Perspectives on antiviral use during pandemic influenza. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2001; 356: 1877–1884PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Monto AS. The threat of an avian influenza pandemic. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 323–325PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Neuraminidase Inhibitor Susceptibility Network. Use of influenza antivirals during 2003–2004 and monitoring of neuraminidase inhibitor resistance. Wkly Epidemiol Rec 2005; 17: 156Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ward P, Small I, Smith J, et al. Oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and its potential for use in the event of an influenza pandemic. J Antimicrob Chemother 2005; 55 Suppl. 1: 15–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kiso M, Mitamura K, Sakai-Tagwaw Y, et al. Resistant influenza A viruses in children treated with oseltamivir: descriptive study. Lancet 2004; 364: 759–765PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beate Sander
    • 1
  • Frederick G. Hayden
    • 2
  • Marlene Gyldmark
    • 3
  • Louis P. GarrisonJr
    • 3
  1. 1.Division of Clinical Decision-Making and Health Care ResearchUniversity Health NetworkTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of Internal MedicineUniversity of Virginia School of MedicineCharlottesvilleUSA
  3. 3.Pharmaceuticals Division, Health Economics and Strategic PricingF. Hoffmann-La Roche LtdBaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations