Back to Browse Journals » ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research » Volume 4

Cost-effectiveness analysis of intranasal live attenuated vaccine (LAIV) versus injectable inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) for Canadian children and adolescents

Authors Tarride JE, Burke N, Von Keyserlingk C, O'Reilly D, Xie F, Goeree R

Published Date October 2012 Volume 2012:4 Pages 287—298

DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S33444

Received 1 May 2012, Accepted 21 June 2012, Published 4 October 2012

Jean-Eric Tarride,1,2 Natasha Burke,1,2 Camilla Von Keyserlingk,1,2 Daria O'Reilly,1,2 Feng Xie,1,2 Ron Goeree1,2

1Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, St Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, 2Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Background: Influenza affects all age groups and is common in children. Between 15% and 42% of preschool- and school-aged children experience influenza each season. Recently, intranasal live attenuated influenza vaccine, trivalent (LAIV) has been approved in Canada.
Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of LAIV compared with that of the injectable inactivated influenza vaccine, trivalent (TIV) in Canadian children and adolescents from both a payer (eg. Ministry of Health) perspective and a societal perspective.
Methods: A cost-effectiveness model comparing LAIV and TIV in children aged 24–59 months old was supplemented by primary (ie, a survey of 144 Canadian physicians) and secondary (eg, literature) data to model children aged 2–17 years old. Parameter uncertainty was addressed through univariate and probability analyses.
Results: Although LAIV increased vaccination costs when compared to TIV, LAIV reduced the number of influenza cases and lowered the number of hospitalizations, emergency room visits, outpatient visits, and parents’ days lost from work. The estimated offsets in direct and societal costs saved were CAD$4.20 and CAD$35.34, respectively, per vaccinated child aged 2–17 years old. When costs and outcomes were considered, LAIV when compared to TIV, was the dominant strategy. At a willingness to pay of CAD$50,000 per quality adjusted life year gained, or CAD$100,000 per quality adjusted life year gained, the probabilistic results indicated that the probability of LAIV being cost-effective was almost 1.
Conclusions: LAIV reduces the burden of influenza in children and adolescents. Consistent with previously reported results, vaccinating children with LAIV, rather than TIV, is the dominant strategy from both a societal perspective and a Ministry of Health perspective.

Keywords: influenza, vaccine, children, cost-effectiveness

Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML] 

Creative Commons License This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. Permissions beyond the scope of the License are administered by Dove Medical Press Limited. Information on how to request permission may be found at: http://www.dovepress.com/permissions.php

Other article by this author:

Health status, hospitalizations, day procedures, and physician costs associated with body mass index (BMI) levels in Ontario, Canada

Tarride JE, Haq M, Taylor VH, Sharma AM, Nakhai-Pour HR,  O'Reilly D, Xie F, Dolovich L, Goeree R

ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research 2012, 4:21-30

Published Date: 24 January 2012

Readers of this article also read:

The Danish National Prescription Registry in studies of a biological pharmaceutical: palivizumab – validation against two external data sources

Haerskjold A, Henriksen L, Way S, Malham M, Hallas J, Pedersen L, Stensballe LG

Clinical Epidemiology 2015, 7:305-312

Published Date: 8 May 2015

Profile of gantenerumab and its potential in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease [Corrigendum]

Novakovic D, Feligioni M, Scaccianoce S, Caruso A, Piccinin S, Schepisi C, Errico F, Mercuri NB, Nicoletti F, Nisticò R

Drug Design, Development and Therapy 2014, 8:569-570

Published Date: 21 May 2014

Clinical experimentation with aerosol antibiotics: current and future methods of administration [Corrigendum]

Zarogoulidis P, Kioumis I, Porpodis K, Spyratos D, Tsakiridis K, Huang H, Li Q, Turner JF, Browning R, Hohenforst-Schmidt W, Zarogoulidis K

Drug Design, Development and Therapy 2014, 8:121-122

Published Date: 16 January 2014

Bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.03% lowered intraocular pressure of normal-tension glaucoma with minimal adverse events. [Corrigendum]

Tsumura T, Yoshikawa K, Suzumura H, Kimura T, Sasaki S, Kimura I, Takeda R

Clinical Ophthalmology 2013, 7:129-130

Published Date: 16 January 2013

Corrigendum

Mizoguchi T, Ozaki M, Unoki K, Dake Y, Eto T, Arai M

Clinical Ophthalmology 2012, 6:1717-1718

Published Date: 26 October 2012

Development and characterization of a novel nanoemulsion drug-delivery system for potential application in oral delivery of protein drugs

Sun H, Liu K, Liu W, Wang W, Guo C, Tang B, Gu J, Zhang J, Li H, Mao X, Zou Q, Zeng H

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2012, 7:5529-5543

Published Date: 26 October 2012

Current and emerging quantitative magnetic resonance imaging methods for assessing and predicting the response of breast cancer to neoadjuvant therapy

Abramson RG, Arlinghaus LR, Weis JA, Li X, Dula AN, Chekmenev EY, Smith SA, Miga MI, Abramson VG, Yankeelov TE

Breast Cancer: Targets and Therapy 2012, 4:139-154

Published Date: 11 October 2012

Corrigendum

Sakai T, Kohzaki K, Watanabe A, Tsuneoka H, Shimadzu M

Clinical Ophthalmology 2012, 6:1035-1036

Published Date: 5 July 2012

Detemir as a once-daily basal insulin in type 2 diabetes

Nelson SE

Clinical Pharmacology: Advances and Applications 2011, 3:27-37

Published Date: 18 August 2011