[Cost-effectiveness in the detection of influenza H1N1: clinical data versus rapid tests].

Hospital de Especialidades, Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, D.F., México.
Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública (Impact Factor: 0.85). 01/2011; 29(1):1-8. DOI: 10.1590/S1020-49892011000100001
Source: PubMed


Evaluate the performance of clinical data and the rapid influenza diagnostic test (RIDT) in diagnosing influenza H1N1, and analyze the cost-benefit of using this diagnostic tool.
The RIDT was used for patients who came to four hospitals in Mexico City with an influenza-like illness (ILI) in October and November 2009. The diagnostic performance of the ILI clinical data and the RIDT was compared to that of the real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) test. The rRT-PCR test was conducted in a reference laboratory and blinded to the results of the RIDT. An economic evaluation also was conducted to estimate the budgetary impact of using the RIDT.
The study included 78 patients, 39 of whom tested positive for influenza H1N1 and 6 tested positive for seasonal influenza A, according to the results of the rRT-PCR. The ILI clinical data yielded a sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 21%; the RIDT yielded a sensitivity of 76% and specificity of 82%; and the ILI clinical data and RIDT together yielded a sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 100%. The positive likelihood quotient for ILI-headaches was 31.5 and that of ILI-odynophagia, 330. The use of RIDT yielded savings of US$12.6 per each suspected case.
Use of the RIDT to aid in the diagnosis of influenza H1N1 increases certainty and lowers the average cost per suspected and infected patient.

Download full-text


Available from: Rodolfo Rivas-Ruiz, Oct 06, 2015
57 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although public health guidelines have implications for resource allocation, these issues were not explicitly considered in previous WHO pandemic preparedness and response guidance. In order to ensure a thorough and informed revision of this guidance following the H1N1 2009 pandemic, a systematic review of published and unpublished economic evaluations of preparedness strategies and interventions against influenza pandemics was conducted. The search was performed in September 2011 using 10 electronic databases, 2 internet search engines, reference list screening, cited reference searching, and direct communication with relevant authors. Full and partial economic evaluations considering both costs and outcomes were included. Conversely, reviews, editorials, and studies on economic impact or complications were excluded. Studies were selected by 2 independent reviewers. 44 studies were included. Although most complied with the cost effectiveness guidelines, the quality of evidence was limited. However, the data sources used were of higher quality in economic evaluations conducted after the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Vaccination and drug regimens were varied. Pharmaceutical plus non-pharmaceutical interventions are relatively cost effective in comparison to vaccines and/or antivirals alone. Pharmaceutical interventions vary from cost saving to high cost effectiveness ratios. According to ceiling thresholds (Gross National Income per capita), the reduction of non-essential contacts and the use of pharmaceutical prophylaxis plus the closure of schools are amongst the cost effective strategies for all countries. However, quarantine for household contacts is not cost effective even for low and middle income countries. The available evidence is generally inconclusive regarding the cost effectiveness of preparedness strategies and interventions against influenza pandemics. Studies on their effectiveness and cost effectiveness should be readily implemented in forthcoming events that also involve the developing world. Guidelines for assessing the impact of disease and interventions should be drawn up to facilitate these studies.
    PLoS ONE 02/2012; 7(2):e30333. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0030333 · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although the socioeconomic burden of 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) was considerable, no reliable estimates have been reported. Our aim was to compared medical costs and socioeconomic burden resulting from pandemic influenza A (H1N1) 2009 with that of previous seasonal influenza. We estimated the medical costs and socioeconomic burden of influenza from May 2007 to April 2010. We used representative national data sources(data from the Health Insurance Review Agency, the National Health Insurance Corporation, the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Korean National Statistics Office) including medical utilization, prescription of antivirals, and vaccination. Uncertainty of data was explored through sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation. Compared with the seasonal influenza, total medical costs (US$291.7 million) associated with pandemic (H1N1) 2009 increased more than 37-fold. Compared with the 2007-2008 season, outpatient diagnostic costs (US$135.3 million) were 773 times higher in the 2009-2010 season, and the mean diagnostic cost per outpatient visit was 58.8 times higher. Total socioeconomic burden of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 was estimated at US$1581.3 million (10%-90%: US$1436.0-1808.3 million) and those of seasonal influenza was estimated at US$44.7 million (10%-90%: US$32.4-57.9 million) in 2007-2008 season and US$42.3 million (10%-90%: US$31.5-53.8 million) in 2008-2009 season. Indirect costs accounted for 56.0% of total costs in pandemic (H1N1) 2009, and 66.48-68.09% in seasonal influenza. The largest contributors to total burden were productivity losses of caregiver in pandemic (H1N1) 2009, and productivity losses due to morbidity of outpatient in seasonal influenza. In the Republic of Korea, socioeconomic burden of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 were considerably higher than burden of the previous two influenza seasons, primarily because of high diagnostic costs and longer sick leave.
    PLoS ONE 12/2013; 8(12):e84121. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0084121 · 3.23 Impact Factor