REPLY
Economic Analysis of Influenza Vaccination and Treatment
Patrick Y. Lee, MD, and
Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH
1 April 2003 | Volume 138 Issue 7 | Pages 608-609
IN RESPONSE:
We agree that vaccine has limited ability to prevent influenza-like illness. However, because our study focused on preventing true influenza cases, our model's annual incidence rates were specific for influenza, not influenza-like illness. Likewise, our vaccination efficacy rate of 68% was conservative relative to the 74% found by Demicheli and colleagues (1). We also believe our assumptions regarding the value of lost workdays were fair. We assumed that worker productivity is related to wage and that 1 day of work lost throughout the year should be valued at the average wage, an assumption that is consistent with economic theory when the market is at equilibrium.
In terms of health values, we agree that these should come from a general population. Thus, we did not limit our survey to those with respiratory illness. Regardless of the sample, our model found that treatment decisions were generally unaffected by willingness to pay even if symptomatic benefits equaled $0. In fact, we found that societal treatment costs could theoretically be recouped by earlier return to work of those afflicted (which is not purely a "personal benefit").
Brodkin questions whether our health care system has the capacity to handle all patients seeking influenza treatment. Although this is an interesting point, vaccination, through prevention, may actually reduce the need for acute office visits. In addition, it is unclear whether coverage for antiviral therapies, which are already marketed, would actually induce more visits from persons with influenza, since sick patients often seek medical attention regardless of options for therapy.
The final questions raised had to do with our model assumptions for probability of influenza and workdays saved. Our base-case probability of 15% for influenza-related symptomatic illness was based on rates of serologically demonstrated influenza in a longitudinal epidemiologic study (2). The references cited by Meltzer and Bridges actually show a serologically proven infection rate between 13% and 23% (3). Our estimate of workdays lost was also based on a survey of 411 adults (4) and was further confirmed by a randomized trial of influenza vaccination (5). This trial demonstrated 4.9 workdays lost per episode of illness, making our estimate (2.8 workdays) conservative. We agree, however, that research is needed to confirm that antiviral treatment results in more rapid return to work, and we called for these important studies in our discussion.
|
Author and Article Information
|
|---|
Duke Clinical Research Institute; Durham, NC 27715 (Lee, Peterson)
1. Demicheli V, Rivetti D, Deeks JJ, Jefferson TO. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;4:001269 [PMID: 11687102].
2. Sullivan KM, Monto AS, Longini IM Jr. Estimates of the US health impact of influenza Am J Public Health. 1993;83:1712-6. [PMID: 8259800].[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. Keitel WA, Cate TR, Couch RB, Huggins LL, Hess KR. Efficacy of repeated annual immunization with inactivated influenza virus vaccines over a five year period Vaccine. 1997;15:1114-22. [PMID: 9269055].[Medline]
4. Keech M, Scott AJ, Ryan PJ. The impact of influenza and influenza-like illness on productivity and healthcare resource utilization in a working population Occup Med (Lond). 1998;48:85-90. [PMID: 9614766].
5. Kumpulainen V, Mäkelä M. Influenza vaccination among healthy employees: a costbenefit analysis Scand J Infect Dis. 1997;29:181-5. [PMID: 9181656].[Medline]
About Letters
The Editors welcome submissions for possible publication in the Letters section. Authors of letters should:
Include no more than 300 words of text, three authors, and five references
Type with double-spacing
Send three copies of the letter, an authors' form signed by all authors, and a cover letter describing any conflicts of interest related to the contents of the letter.
Letters commenting on an Annals article will be considered if they are received within 6 weeks of the time the article was published. Only some of the letters received can be published. Published letters are edited and may be shortened; tables and figures are included only selectively. Authors will be notified that the letter has been received. If the letter is selected for publication, the author will be notified about 3 weeks before the publication date. Unpublished letters cannot be returned.
Annals welcomes electronically submitted letters.