Article

Cost-effectiveness of pneumococcal and influenza vaccination standing order programs.

Department of Family Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA. E-mail: .
The American journal of managed care (Impact Factor: 2.17). 01/2013; 19(1):e30-7.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Objectives: Despite the benefits of vaccination and guidelines for their use, the rates for influenza and pneumococcal vaccination remain below the 90% goal set by Healthy People 2010 for persons 65 years and older. Standing order programs (SOPs) authorize vaccination administration without physician orders. Here we examine the cost-effectiveness of SOPs to improve both pneumococcal and influenza vaccination rates in outpatient settings for individuals 65 years and older. Study Design: Decision analysis-based cost-effectiveness analysis. Methods: A Markov model was constructed to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of outpatient SOPs for pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV) and influenza vaccination in hypothetical US population cohorts 65 years and older. Vaccination rate improvement data were obtained from the medical literature. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Active Bacterial Core surveillance data and US national databases were used to estimate costs and outcomes. Results: SOPs cost $14,171 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with no program from a third-party payer perspective. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, the SOP strategy cost less than $50,000/QALY if SOPs increased absolute vaccination rates by 4% or more (base case: 18%), annual SOP costs were less than $21 per person (base case: $4.60), or annual influenza incidence was 4% or more (base case: 10%). Model results were insensitive to other individual parameter variations, and were supported by a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Conclusions: SOPs used to improve PPSV and influenza vaccination rates in outpatient settings is a promising and economically favorable investment, with cost-effectiveness analysis results remaining robust to parameter variation over clinically plausible ranges.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Chyongchiou Jeng (C.J.) Lin, Jul 05, 2015
2 Followers
 · 
271 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Bacterial infections following influenza are an important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Based on the historical importance of pneumonia as a cause of death during pandemic influenza, the increasingly likely possibility that highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses will trigger the next worldwide pandemic underscores the need to understand the multiple mechanisms underlying the interaction between influenza virus and bacterial pathogens such as Streptococcus pneumoniae. There is ample evidence to support the historical view that influenza virus alters the lungs in a way that predisposes to adherence, invasion, and induction of disease by pneumococcus. Access to receptors is a key factor and may be facilitated by the virus through epithelial damage, by exposure or up-regulation of receptors, or by provoking the epithelial regeneration response to cytotoxic damage. More recent data indicate that alteration of the immune response by diminishing the ability of the host to clear pneumococcus or by amplification of the inflammatory cascade is another key factor. Identification and exploration of the underlying mechanisms responsible for this synergism will provide targets for prevention and treatment using drugs and vaccines.
    Clinical Microbiology Reviews 08/2006; 19(3):571-82. DOI:10.1128/CMR.00058-05 · 16.00 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare the effectiveness of three interventions designed to improve the pneumococcal vaccination rate. A prospective controlled trial. Department of Veterans Affairs ambulatory care clinic. There were 3, 502 outpatients with scheduled visits divided into three clinic teams (A, B, or C). During a 12-week period, each clinic team received one intervention: (A) nurse standing orders with comparative feedback as well as patient and clinician reminders; (B) nurse standing orders with compliance reminders as well as patient and clinician reminders; and (C) patient and clinician reminders alone. Team A nurses (comparative feedback group) received information on their vaccine rates relative to those of team B nurses. Team B nurses (compliance reminders group) received reminders to vaccinate but no information on vaccine rates. Team A nurses assessed more patients than team B nurses (39% vs 34%, p =.009). However, vaccination rates per total patient population were similar (22% vs 25%, p =.09). The vaccination rates for both team A and team B were significantly higher than the 5% vaccination rate for team C (p <.001). Nurse-initiated vaccine protocols raised vaccination rates substantially more than a physician and patient reminder system. The nurse-initiated protocol with comparative feedback modestly improved the assessment rate compared with the protocol with compliance reminders, but overall vaccination rates were similar.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 07/1999; 14(6):351-6. · 3.42 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To develop consensus-based recommendations for the conduct of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). This article, the second in a 3-part series, describes the basis for recommendations constituting the reference case analysis, the set of practices developed to guide CEAs that inform societal resource allocation decisions, and the content of these recommendations. The Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, a nonfederal panel with expertise in CEA, clinical medicine, ethics, and health outcomes measurement, was convened by the US Public Health Service (PHS). The panel reviewed the theoretical foundations of CEA, current practices, and alternative methods used in analyses. Recommendations were developed on the basis of theory where possible, but tempered by ethical and pragmatic considerations, as well as the needs of users. The panel developed recommendations through 2 1/2 years of discussions. Comments on preliminary drafts prepared by panel working groups were solicited from federal government methodologists, health agency officials, and academic methodologists. The panel's methodological recommendations address (1) components belonging in the numerator and denominator of a cost-effectiveness (C/E) ratio; (2) measuring resource use in the numerator of a C/E ratio; (3) valuing health consequences in the denominator of a C/E ratio; (4) estimating effectiveness of interventions; (5) incorporating time preference and discounting; and (6) handling uncertainty. Recommendations are subject to the ¿rule of reason,¿ balancing the burden engendered by a practice with its importance to a study. If researchers follow a standard set of methods in CEA, the quality and comparability of studies, and their ultimate utility, can be much improved.
    JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 11/1996; 276(15):1253-8. · 30.39 Impact Factor