Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Inhaled Zanamivir in the Treatment of Influenza A and B in High-Risk Patients

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of zanamivir 10mg twice daily for 5 days in the treatment of influenza in high-risk patients.

Design: Bootstrap cost-effectiveness analysis incorporating within-trial analysis of pooled patient-level cost and effect data.

Setting: UK unit costs and utilities applied to high-risk patients drawn from 6 multinational clinical trials.

Patients: A total of 154 zanamivir and 167 placebo high-risk patients were included in the analysis.

Main outcome measures: Cost per day of normal activities; cost per symptom-free day; cost per complication averted; cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

Results: The mean benefit was estimated to be 2.5 days [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68 to 4.27] of normal activities gained; 2.0 (95% CI: 0.56 to 3.51) symptom-free days; and a 9% reduction in complications (95% CI: 0 to 18%). Excluding the effect of rare hospitalisation costs, the cost (1999 values) of gaining a day of normal activities was £9.50 (95% CI: £5 to £39); cost per symptom-free day was £11.56 (95% CI: £6 to £43); cost per complication averted was £262 (95% CI: £90 to £1574). Influenza was estimated to reduce utility by 0.883 per day, demonstrating the debilitating effect of the disease. Extrapolating a day of normal activities to a standard utility measure resulted in a cost per QALY of £3900 excluding inpatient costs (£7490 including inpatient costs). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves demonstrated 90% certainty that zanamivir would be cost effective at £8000 per QALY.

Conclusions: Significant health benefits can be obtained with zanamivir treatment in high-risk patients. The cost per QALY for zanamivir in these patients compares well with that of other commonly used pharmacological interventions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Table III
Fig. 1
Table IV
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jefferson T, Demichelli V. Socieoeconomics of influenza. In: Nicholson KG, Webster RG, Hay AJ, editors. Textbook of influenza. London: Blackwell Science, 1998: 541–7

    Google Scholar 

  2. Fleming DM. The contribution of influenza to combined acute respiratory infections, hospital admissions and deaths in winter. Commun Dis Public Health 2000; 3 (1): 32–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. von Itzstein M, Wu WY, Kok GB, et al. Rational design of potent sialidase-based inhibitors of influenza virus replication. Nature 1993; 363: 418–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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): 611–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Lalezari J, Campion K, Keene O, et al. Zanamivir for the treatment of influenza A and B infection in high-risk patients: a pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161: 212–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Monto AS, Webster A, Keene O. Randomized, placebo-controlled studies of inhaled zanamivir in the treatment of influenza A and B: pooled efficacy analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999; 44: 23–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. MIST (Management of Influenza in the Southern Hemisphere Trialists) Study Group. Randomised trial of efficacy and safety of inhaled zanamivir in treatment of influenza A and B virus infections. Lancet 1998; 352: 1877–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lalezari J, Klein T, Stapleton J, et al. The efficacy and safety of inhaled zanamivir in the treatment of influenza in otherwise healthy and ‘high risk’ individuals in North America [abstract no. P8]. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999; 44 Suppl. A: 42

    Google Scholar 

  9. Makela MJ, Pauksens K, Rostila T, et al. 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: 42–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hendrick JA, Barzilai A, Behre U, et al. Zanamivir for treatment of symptomatic influenza A and B infection in children five to twelve years of age: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2000; 19 (5): 410–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hayden F, Gubareva L, Klein T, et al. Inhaled zanamivir for preventing transmission of influenza in families. 39th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC); 1999 Sep 26–29; San Francisco (CA), 13

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bland JM, Altman DG. Survival probabilities (the Kaplan-Meier method). BMJ 1998; 317: 1572–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Etzioni RD, Feuer EJ, Sullivan SD, et al. On the use of survival analysis techniques to estimate medical care costs. J Health Econ 1999; 18 (3): 365–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. EuroQol Group. EuroQol — a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, et al. A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK General Population Study. University of York: Centre for Health Economics Discussion Paper 138, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  16. Forbes RB, Lees A, Waugh N, et al. Population based cost utility study of interferon beta-1b in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. BMJ 1999; 319: 1529–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  18. Netten A, Dennett J, Knight J. Unit costs of health and social care 1999. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  19. Authors compilation of data from Medical Data Index, IMS Health Incorporated, Westport (CT), USA

  20. British National Formulary. 38th ed. London: British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, 1999

  21. Briggs AH, Wonderling DE, Mooney CZ. Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ 1997; 6 (4): 327–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Van Hout BA, Al MJ, Gordon GS, et al. Costs, effects and C/E-ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ 1994; 3 (5): 309–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Cost effectiveness analysis of improved blood pressure control in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 40. BMJ 1998; 317: 720–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Löthgren M, Zethraeus N. Definition, interpretation and calculation of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ 2000; 9: 623–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Stinnet AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 1998; 18 (2 Suppl.): S65–S80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, et al. Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ 1998; 316: 736–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Bala MV, Zarkin GA. Are QALYs an appropriate measure for valuing morbidity in acute diseases? Health Econ 2000; 9: 177–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Briggs AH, Gray AM. Handling uncertainty when performing economic evaluation of healthcare interventions. Health Technol Assess 1999; 3 (2): 1–134

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Andrew Briggs (Institute of Health Sciences, University of Oxford); Neil Dobson; Rebecca Warren; and Sophie Hall (GlaxoWellcome UK, Stockley Park, UK). A.D. Griffin and A.S. Perry conceived, designed and performed the economic evaluation. D.M. Fleming conducted the utility measurement in influenza patients and contributed to interpretation of clinical data. A.D. Griffin and A.S. Perry drafted the manuscript and D.M. Fleming critically reviewed it. All authors had final approval of the manuscript. D.M. Fleming serves as a consultant advisor to GlaxoWellcome in relation to their clinical trial programme for zanamivir. He has also received honoraria in respect of lecture presentations on influenza-related issues and for service on advisory boards to the pharmaceutical industry covering influenza vaccination and treatment.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. GlaxoWellcome R&D, Greenford Road, Greenford, Middlesex, UB6 0HE, UK

    Adrian D. Griffin & Andrew S. Perry

  2. Northfield Health Centre, Birmingham, UK

    Douglas M. Fleming

Authors
  1. Adrian D. Griffin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew S. Perry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Douglas M. Fleming
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew S. Perry.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Griffin, A.D., Perry, A.S. & Fleming, D.M. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Inhaled Zanamivir in the Treatment of Influenza A and B in High-Risk Patients. Pharmacoeconomics 19, 293–301 (2001). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200119030-00007

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200119030-00007

Keywords

Search

Navigation