Economic Evaluations of Childhood Influenza Vaccination
- 266 Downloads
The potential benefits of influenza vaccination programmes targeted at children have gained increasing attention in recent years.
We conducted a literature search of economic evaluations of influenza vaccination in those aged ≤18 years. The search revealed 20 relevant articles, which were reviewed. The studies differed widely in terms of the costs and benefits that were included. The conclusions were generally favourable for vaccination, but often applied a wider perspective (i.e. including productivity losses) than the reference case for economic evaluations used in many countries. Several evaluations estimated outcomes from a single-year epidemiological study, which may limit their validity given the year-to-year variation in influenza transmissibility, virulence, vaccine match and prior immunity. Only one study used a dynamic transmission model able to fully incorporate the indirect herd protection to the wider community.
The use of dynamic models offers great scope to capture the population-wide implications of seasonal vaccination efforts, particularly those targeted at children.
KeywordsInfluenza Economic Evaluation Influenza Vaccine Influenza Vaccination Health Technology Assessment
ATN holds a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Training Fellowship (no. 630724; Australian-based Public Health Fellowship). PB is supported by ‘SIMID’ (Simulation Models of Infectious Disease Transmission and Control Processes), a project funded by the Flemish Government Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology (IWT).
ATN has in the past received research funding for other previous projects from a manufacturer of the influenza vaccine, GlaxoSmithKline Pty Ltd. MJ and PB have no conflicts to declare.
ATN led the project and conducted the literature review. PB initiated the idea for the review. ATN and MJ assembled the tables in consultation with PB. All authors contributed to the study design, the analysis and interpretation of the literature, and the drafting of the manuscript. ATN acts as the guarantor for the content of this paper.
This paper is part of a theme issue co-edited by Lisa Prosser, University of Michigan, USA, and no external funding was used to support the publication of this theme issue.
- 2.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Seasonal influenza vaccination coverage among children aged 6 months-18 years: eight immunization information system sentinel sites, United States, 2009–10 influenza season. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2010; 59(39): 1266–9Google Scholar
- 4.UK Department of Health. JCVI statement on seasonal influenza vaccination of 30 December 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@ab/documents/digitalasset/dh_123209.pdf [Accessed 2012 Jun 13]
- 5.Monto AS, Koopman JS, Longini Jr IM. Tecumseh study of illness: XIII. Influenza infection and disease, 1976–1981. Am J Epidemiol 1985; 121(6): 811–22Google Scholar
- 24.European Medicines Agency. Fluenz influenza vaccine (live attenuated, nasal) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Summary_for_the_public/human/001101/WC500103712.pdf [Accessed 2012 Jun 13]
- 31.Turner D, Wailoo A, Nicholson K, et al. Systematic review and economic decision modelling for the prevention and treatment of influenza A and B. Health Technol Assess 2003; 7(35): 1–170Google Scholar
- 66.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2008Google Scholar
- 67.Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies. Ottawa (ON): CADTH, 2006Google Scholar
- 69.Drummond M, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005Google Scholar
- 72.Tarn TY, Smith MD. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world. ISPOR Connections 2004; 10(4): 5Google Scholar
- 74.Influenza vaccines. Wkly Epidemiol Rec 2005; 80(33): 279–87Google Scholar