IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0213499.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-effectiveness of increased influenza vaccination uptake against readmissions of major adverse cardiac events in the US

Author

Listed:
  • Samuel K Peasah
  • Martin I Meltzer
  • Michelle Vu
  • Danielle L Moulia
  • Carolyn B Bridges

Abstract

Background: Although influenza vaccination has been shown to reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) among those with existing cardiovascular disease (CVD), in the 2015–16 season, coverage for persons with heart disease was only 48% in the US. Methods: We built a Monte Carlo (probabilistic) spreadsheet-based decision tree in 2018 to estimate the cost-effectiveness of increased influenza vaccination to prevent MACE readmissions. We based our model on current US influenza vaccination coverage of the estimated 493,750 US acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients from the healthcare payer perspective. We excluded outpatient costs and time lost from work and included only hospitalization and vaccination costs. We also estimated the incremental cost/MACE case averted and incremental cost/QALY gained (ICER) if 75% hospitalized ACS patients were vaccinated by discharge and estimated the impact of increasing vaccination coverage incrementally by 5% up to 95% in a sensitivity analysis, among hospitalized adults aged ≥ 65 years and 18–64 years, and varying vaccine effectiveness from 30–40%. Result: At 75% vaccination coverage by discharge, vaccination was cost-saving from the healthcare payer perspective in adults ≥ 65 years and the ICER was $12,680/QALY (95% CI: 6,273–20,264) in adults 18–64 years and $2,400 (95% CI: -1,992–7,398) in all adults 18 + years. These resulted in ~ 500 (95% CI: 439–625) additional averted MACEs/year for all adult patients aged ≥18 years and added ~700 (95% CI: 578–825) QALYs. In the sensitivity analysis, vaccination becomes cost-saving in adults 18+years after about 80% vaccination rate. To achieve 75% vaccination rate in all adults aged ≥ 18 years will require an additional cost of $3 million. The effectiveness of the vaccine, cost of vaccination, and vaccination coverage rate had the most impact on the results. Conclusion: Increasing vaccination rate among hospitalized ACS patients has a favorable cost-effectiveness profile and becomes cost-saving when at least 80% are vaccinated.

Suggested Citation

  • Samuel K Peasah & Martin I Meltzer & Michelle Vu & Danielle L Moulia & Carolyn B Bridges, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness of increased influenza vaccination uptake against readmissions of major adverse cardiac events in the US," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-13, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0213499
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213499
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0213499
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0213499&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0213499?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0213499. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.