Key parameters in the epidemiological model.

<p>Key parameters in the epidemiological model.</p

Distribution of outcomes in case of exposure.

<p>Distribution of outcomes in case of contact with an infectious person according to immunological status. Values for susceptible, immune and natural waning are taken from <i>Van Rie et al.</i><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0006284#pone.0006284-Coudeville1" target="_blank">[25]</a>. Values for vaccine-related compartments are estimated using <i>Bisgard et al.</i><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0006284#pone.0006284-Bisgard2" target="_blank">[<i>31</i>]</a> and <i>Ward et al.</i><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0006284#pone.0006284-Ward1" target="_blank">[10]</a>. Figures in parentheses define the range used in the sensitivity analysis.</p

Variation in pertussis incidence and costs according to the age at which the adult booster dose is administered (Childhood vaccination+adolescent+cocoon+1 booster dose for adult vaccination - steady-state situation).

<p>Variation in pertussis incidence and costs according to the age at which the adult booster dose is administered (Childhood vaccination+adolescent+cocoon+1 booster dose for adult vaccination - steady-state situation).</p

Average annual predicted costs of pertussis and vaccination from 2006 to 2106.

<p>Average annual predicted costs of pertussis and vaccination from 2006 to 2106.</p

Estimates for the short term cost per case of pertussis infection (ranges used in sensitivity analyzes presented in parentheses).

*<p>Applies only to the fraction of patients with long term sequelae following infection.</p>**<p>Applies only to the fraction of patients with fatal cases of pertussis or long term sequelae following infection.</p>+<p>Caro et al. [43] updated to 2006 using CPI for medical care (<a href="http://www.bls.gov" target="_blank">www.bls.gov</a>).</p>#<p>Lee et al. <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0006284#pone.0006284-Lee1" target="_blank">[20]</a> updated to 2006 using CPI for medical care (<a href="http://www.bls.gov" target="_blank">www.bls.gov</a>).</p

Cost-utility analysis of memantine extended release added to cholinesterase inhibitors compared to cholinesterase inhibitor monotherapy for the treatment of moderate-to-severe dementia of the Alzheimer’s type in the US

<div><p></p><p>Objective:</p><p>This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of memantine extended release (ER) as an add-on therapy to acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (AChEI) [combination therapy] for treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe Alzheimer’s disease (AD) from both a healthcare payer and a societal perspective over 3 years when compared to AChEI monotherapy in the US.</p><p>Methods:</p><p>A phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of memantine ER for treatment of AD patients taking an AChEI. The analysis assessed the long-term costs and health outcomes using an individual patient simulation in which AD progression is modeled in terms of cognition, behavior, and functioning changes. Input parameters are based on patient-level trial data, published literature, and publicly available data sources. Changes in anti-psychotic medication use are incorporated based on a published retrospective cohort study. Costs include drug acquisition and monitoring, total AD-related medical care, and informal care associated with caregiver time. Incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), life years, care time for caregiver, time in community and institution, time on anti-psychotics, time by disease severity, and time without severe symptoms are reported. Costs and health outcomes are discounted at 3% per annum.</p><p>Results:</p><p>Considering a societal perspective over 3 years, this analysis shows that memantine ER combined with an AChEI provides better clinical outcomes and lower costs than AChEI monotherapy. Discounted average savings were estimated at $18,355 and$20,947 per patient and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) increased by an average of 0.12 and 0.13 from a societal and healthcare payer perspective, respectively. Patients on combination therapy spent an average of 4 months longer living at home and spend less time in moderate–severe and severe stages of the disease.</p><p>Conclusion:</p><p>Combination therapy for patients with moderate-to-severe AD is a cost-effective treatment compared to AChEI monotherapy in the US.</p></div

Invasive meningococcal disease epidemiology and control measures: a framework for evaluation-3

<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "Invasive meningococcal disease epidemiology and control measures: a framework for evaluation"</p><p>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/7/130</p><p>BMC Public Health 2007;7():130-130.</p><p>Published online 29 Jun 2007</p><p>PMCID:PMC1925079.</p><p></p>ase case relative risk. Low/high incidence – 75%/125% of base case incidence. Low/high vaccine efficacy – doubling/cutting in half the rate of decay for vaccine effectiveness. No/Low/High herd immunity – 0%/50%/150% of base case herd immunity. 50%/90% coverage – coverage rate for routine vaccination

Invasive meningococcal disease epidemiology and control measures: a framework for evaluation-0

<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "Invasive meningococcal disease epidemiology and control measures: a framework for evaluation"</p><p>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/7/130</p><p>BMC Public Health 2007;7():130-130.</p><p>Published online 29 Jun 2007</p><p>PMCID:PMC1925079.</p><p></p>ase case relative risk. Low/high incidence – 75%/125% of base case incidence. Low/high vaccine efficacy – doubling/cutting in half the rate of decay for vaccine effectiveness. No/Low/High herd immunity – 0%/50%/150% of base case herd immunity. 50%/90% coverage – coverage rate for routine vaccination

Invasive meningococcal disease epidemiology and control measures: a framework for evaluation-2

<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "Invasive meningococcal disease epidemiology and control measures: a framework for evaluation"</p><p>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/7/130</p><p>BMC Public Health 2007;7():130-130.</p><p>Published online 29 Jun 2007</p><p>PMCID:PMC1925079.</p><p></p>ase case relative risk. Low/high incidence – 75%/125% of base case incidence. Low/high vaccine efficacy – doubling/cutting in half the rate of decay for vaccine effectiveness. No/Low/High herd immunity – 0%/50%/150% of base case herd immunity. 50%/90% coverage – coverage rate for routine vaccination