22 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Tdap in the Prevention of Pertussis in the Elderly
Objectives: Health benefits and costs of combined reduced-antigen-content tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap) immunization among adults ≥65 years have not been evaluated. In February 2012, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended expanding Tdap vaccination (one single dose) to include adults ≥65 years not previously vaccinated with Tdap. Our study estimated the health and economic outcomes of one-time replacement of the decennial tetanus and diphtheria (Td) booster with Tdap in the 10% of individuals aged 65 years assumed eligible each year compared with a baseline scenario of continued Td vaccination. Methods: We constructed a model evaluating the cost-effectiveness of vaccinating a cohort of adults aged 65 with Tdap, by calculating pertussis cases averted due to direct vaccine effects only. Results are presented from societal and payer perspectives for a range of pertussis incidences (25–200 cases per 100,000), due to the uncertainty in estimating true annual incidence. Cases averted were accrued throughout the patient 's lifetime, and a probability tree used to estimate the clinical outcomes and costs (US336,000, 17,000/QALY gained, respectively. Vaccination has a cost-effectiveness ratio less than $50,000/QALY if pertussis incidence is >116 cases/100,000 from societal and payer perspectives. Results were robust to scenario analyses. Conclusions: Tdap immunization of adults aged 65 years according to current ACIP recommendations is a cost-effective health-care intervention at plausible incidence assumptions
Recommended from our members
Cost-Effectiveness of Tdap Vaccination of Adults Aged ≥65 Years in the Prevention of Pertussis in the US: A Dynamic Model of Disease Transmission
Objectives: In February 2012, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) advised that all adults aged ≥65 years receive a single dose of reduced-antigen-content tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap), expanding on a 2010 recommendation for adults >65 that was limited to those with close contact with infants. We evaluated clinical and economic outcomes of adding Tdap booster of adults aged ≥65 to “baseline” practice [full-strength DTaP administered from 2 months to 4–6 years, and one dose of Tdap at 11–64 years replacing decennial Td booster], using a dynamic model. Methods: We constructed a population-level disease transmission model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of supplementing baseline practice by vaccinating 10% of eligible adults aged ≥65 with Tdap replacing the decennial Td booster. US population effects, including indirect benefits accrued by unvaccinated persons, were estimated during a 1-year period after disease incidence reached a new steady state, with consequences of deaths and long-term pertussis sequelae projected over remaining lifetimes. Model outputs include: cases by severity, encephalopathy, deaths, costs (of vaccination and pertussis care) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with each strategy. Results in terms of incremental cost/QALY gained are presented from payer and societal perspectives. Sensitivity analyses vary key parameters within plausible ranges. Results: For the US population, the intervention is expected to prevent >97,000 cases (>4,000 severe and >5,000 among infants) of pertussis annually at steady state. Additional vaccination costs are 47.7 million (societal perspective) and $44.8 million (payer perspective). From both perspectives, the intervention strategy is dominant (less costly, and more effective by >3,000 QALYs) versus baseline. Results are robust to sensitivity analyses and alternative scenarios. Conclusions: Immunization of eligible adults aged ≥65, consistent with the current ACIP recommendation, is cost saving from both payer and societal perspectives
Unintended consequences of the potential phase-out of gamma irradiation [version 1; referees: 2 approved]
The radioisotope cobalt-60 (Co-60) is important for commercial, medical, and agricultural applications. Its widespread use has meant that Co-60 can be found in less secured facilities, leading to the fear that unauthorized persons could obtain and use it to produce a “dirty bomb”. This potential security concern has led to government calls for phasing-out Co-60 and other radiation sources, despite ongoing safety and security regulations for handling, transport and use of radioactive sealed sources. This paper explores potential implications of phasing out radioisotopic technologies, including unintended safety and cost consequences for healthcare and food in the US and globally. The use of Co-60 for healthcare and agricultural applications is well-documented. Co-60 is used to sterilize single-use medical devices, tissue allografts, and a range of consumer products. Co-60 is used in Gamma Knife treatment of brain tumors in over 70,000 patients annually. Co-60 is also used to preserve food and kill insects and pathogens that cause food-borne illness. Co-60 is effective, reliable, and predictable. Limitations of alternative sterilization technologies include complex equipment, toxicities, incompatibilities with plastic, and physical hazards. Alternative ionizing radiation sources for wide-reaching applications, including e-beam and x-ray radiation, have advantages and drawbacks related to commercial scale capacity, penetrability, complexity and reliability. Identifying acceptable alternatives would require time, costs and lengthy regulatory review. FDA testing requirements and other hurdles would delay replacement of existing technologies and slow medical innovation, even delaying access to life-saving therapies. A phase-out would raise manufacturing costs, and reduce supply-chain efficiencies, potentially increasing consumer prices, and reducing supply. These consequences are poorly understood and merit additional research. Given Co-60’s importance across medical and non-medical fields, restrictions on Co-60 warrant careful consideration and evaluation before adoption
Comparative effectiveness of a bioengineered living cellular construct vs. a dehydrated human amniotic membrane allograft for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers in a real world setting
We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of a bioengineered living cellular construct (BLCC) and a dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane allograft (dHACM) for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). Using a wound care-specific electronic medical record database, we assessed real-world outcomes in 218 patients with 226 DFUs receiving treatment in 2014 at 99 wound care centers. The analysis included DFUs ≥1 and <25 cm2 with duration <=1 year and area reduction ≤20% in 14 days prior to treatment (N=163, BLCC; N=63, dHACM). The average baseline areas and durations were 6.0 cm2 and 4.4 months for BLCC and 5.2 cm2 and 4.6 months for dHACM, respectively. Patients treated with dHACM had more applications compared to those treated with BLCC (median 3.0 vs. 2.0) (p=0.003). A Cox model adjusted for key covariates including area and duration found the median time to closure for BLCC was 13.3 weeks compared to 26 weeks for dHACM, and the proportion of wounds healed were significantly higher for BLCC by 12 weeks (48% vs. 28%) and 24 weeks (72% vs. 47%) (p=0.01). Treatment with a bioengineered living cellular technology increased the probability of healing by 97% compared with a dehydrated amniotic membrane (hazard ratio = 1.97 [95% confidence interval 1.17, 3.33], p=0.01)
Pertussis cases avoided by vaccinating 10% of US population aged 65 years.
<p>Pertussis cases avoided by vaccinating 10% of US population aged 65 years.</p
Probabilistic sensitivity analysis, societal perspective.
<p>Probabilistic sensitivity analysis, societal perspective.</p
Incremental cost per case averted and per QALY gained (89% efficacy), societal perspective.
<p>Incremental cost per case averted and per QALY gained (89% efficacy), societal perspective.</p
Scenario analyses, societal perspective.
*<p>Mixed public and private incremental vaccine cost was calculated by weighing the public and private vaccine cost by the proportion of those who receive the vaccine at public cost.</p