IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1004333.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Costs and cost-effectiveness of influenza illness and vaccination in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review from 2012 to 2022

Author

Listed:
  • Radhika Gharpure
  • Anna N Chard
  • Maria Cabrera Escobar
  • Weigong Zhou
  • Molly M Valleau
  • Tat S Yau
  • Joseph S Bresee
  • Eduardo Azziz-Baumgartner
  • Sarah W Pallas
  • Kathryn E Lafond

Abstract

Background: Historically, lack of data on cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination has been identified as a barrier to vaccine use in low- and middle-income countries. We conducted a systematic review of economic evaluations describing (1) costs of influenza illness; (2) costs of influenza vaccination programs; and (3) vaccination cost-effectiveness from low- and middle-income countries to assess if gaps persist that could hinder global implementation of influenza vaccination programs. Methods and findings: We performed a systematic search in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Scopus in January 2022 and October 2023 using a combination of the following key words: “influenza” AND “cost” OR “economic.” The search included studies with publication years 2012 through 2022. Studies were eligible if they (1) presented original, peer-reviewed findings on cost of illness, cost of vaccination program, or cost-effectiveness of vaccination for seasonal influenza; and (2) included data for at least 1 low- or middle-income country. We abstracted general study characteristics and data specific to each of the 3 study types. Of 54 included studies, 26 presented data on cost-effectiveness, 24 on cost-of-illness, and 5 on program costs. Represented countries were classified as upper-middle income (UMIC; n = 12), lower-middle income (LMIC; n = 7), and low-income (LIC; n = 3). The most evaluated target groups were children (n = 26 studies), older adults (n = 17), and persons with chronic medical conditions (n = 12); fewer studies evaluated pregnant persons (n = 9), healthcare workers (n = 5), and persons in congregate living settings (n = 1). Costs-of-illness were generally higher in UMICs than in LMICs/LICs; however, the highest national economic burden, as a percent of gross domestic product and national health expenditure, was reported from an LIC. Among studies that evaluated the cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccine introduction, most (88%) interpreted at least 1 scenario per target group as either cost-effective or cost-saving, based on thresholds designated in the study. Key limitations of this work included (1) heterogeneity across included studies; (2) restrictiveness of the inclusion criteria used; and (3) potential for missed influenza burden from use of sentinel surveillance systems. Conclusions: The 54 studies identified in this review suggest an increased momentum to generate economic evidence about influenza illness and vaccination from low- and middle-income countries during 2012 to 2022. However, given that we observed substantial heterogeneity, continued evaluation of the economic burden of influenza illness and costs/cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination, particularly in LICs and among underrepresented target groups (e.g., healthcare workers and pregnant persons), is needed. Use of standardized methodology could facilitate pooling across settings and knowledge sharing to strengthen global influenza vaccination programs. In a systematic review of economic evaluations, Gharpure and team examine the costs of influenza illness and vaccination programs in low- and middle-income countries to assess potential barriers to global implementation. Full length: In this systematic review of economic evaluations, Radhika Gharpure and colleagues examine the costs of influenza illness, the costs of influenza vaccination programs, and the cost-effectiveness of vaccination from low- and middle-income countries to assess whether gaps remain that could hinder global implementation of influenza vaccination programs.Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • Radhika Gharpure & Anna N Chard & Maria Cabrera Escobar & Weigong Zhou & Molly M Valleau & Tat S Yau & Joseph S Bresee & Eduardo Azziz-Baumgartner & Sarah W Pallas & Kathryn E Lafond, 2024. "Costs and cost-effectiveness of influenza illness and vaccination in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review from 2012 to 2022," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(1), pages 1-26, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1004333
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004333
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004333
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004333&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004333?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

    Keywords

    “influenza” and “cost” or “economic.” the search included studies with publication years 2012 through 2022. studies were eligible if they (1) presented original; peer-reviewed findings on cost of illness; cost of vaccination program; or cost-effectiveness of vaccination for seasonal influenza; and (2) included data for at least 1 low- or middle-income country. we abstracted general study characteristics and data specific to each of the 3 study types. of 54 included studies; 26 presented data on cost-effectiveness; 24 on cost-of-illness; and 5 on program costs. represented countries were classified as upper-middle income (umic; n = 12); lower-middle income (lmic; n = 7); and low-income (lic; n = 3). the most evaluated target groups were children (n = 26 studies); older adults (n = 17); and persons with chronic medical conditions (n = 12); fewer studies evaluated pregnant persons (n = 9); healthcare workers (n = 5); and persons in congregate living settings (n = 1). costs-of-illness were generally higher in umics than in lmics/lics; however; the highest national economic burden; as a percent of gross domestic product and national health expenditure; was reported from an lic. among studies that evaluated the cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccine introduction; most (88%) interpreted at least 1 scenario per target group as either cost-effective or cost-saving; based on thresholds designated in the study. key limitations of this work included (1) heterogeneity across included studies; (2) restrictiveness of the inclusion criteria used; and (3) potential for missed influenza burden from use of sentinel surveillance systems. conclusions: the 54 studies identified in this review suggest an increased momentum to generate economic evidence about influenza illness and vaccination from low- and middle-income countries during 2012 to 2022. however; given that we observed substantial heterogeneity; continued evaluation of the economic burden of influenza illness and costs/cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination; particularly in lics and among underrepresented target groups (e.g.; healthcare workers and pregnant persons); is needed. use of standardized methodology could facilitate pooling across settings and knowledge sharing to strengthen global influenza vaccination programs. in a systematic review of economic evaluations; gharpure and team examine the costs of influenza illness and vaccination programs in low- and middle-income countries to assess potential barriers to global implementation. full length: in this systematic review of economic evaluations; radhika gharpure and colleagues examine the costs of influenza illness; the costs of influenza vaccination programs; and the cost-effectiveness of vaccination from low- and middle-income countries to assess whether gaps remain that could hinder global implementation of influenza vaccination programs.why was this study done?: what did the researchers do and find?: what do these findings mean?:;
    All these keywords.

    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:pmed00:1004333. 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: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    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.