Resource use and direct medical costs of acute respiratory illness in the UK based on linked primary and secondary care records from 2001 to 2009

BackgroundPrevious studies have shown that influenza is associated with a substantial healthcare burden in the United Kingdom (UK), but more studies are needed to evaluate the resource use and direct medical costs of influenza in primary care and secondary care.MethodsA retrospective observational database study in the UK to describe the primary care and directly-associated secondary care resource use, and direct medical costs of acute respiratory illness (ARI), according to age, and risk status (NCT Number: 01521416). Patients with influenza, ARI or influenza-related respiratory infections during 9 consecutive pre-pandemic influenza peak seasons were identified by READ codes in the linked Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) dataset. The study period was from 21st January 2001 to 31st March 2009.ResultsA total of 156,193 patients had ≥1 general practitioner (GP) episode of ARI, and a total of 82,204 patients received ≥1 GP prescription, at a mean of 2.5 (standard deviation [SD]: 3.0) prescriptions per patient. The total cost of GP consultations and prescriptions equated to £462,827 per year per 100,000 patients. The yearly cost of prescribed medication for ARI was £319,732, at an estimated cost of £11,596,350 per year extrapolated to the UK, with 40% attributable to antibiotics. The mean cost of hospital admissions equated to a yearly cost of £981,808 per 100,000 patients. The total mean direct medical cost of ARI over 9 influenza seasons was £21,343,445 (SD: £10,441,364), at £136.65 (SD: £66.85) per case.ConclusionsExtrapolating to the UK population, for pre-pandemic influenza seasons from 2001 to 2009, the direct medical cost of ARI equated to £86 million each year. More studies are needed to assess the costs of influenza disease to help guide public health decision-making for seasonal influenza in the UK

Racial differences in influenza vaccination among older americans 1996–2000: longitudinal analysis of the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) and the Asset and Health Dynamics Among the Oldest Old (AHEAD) survey

BACKGROUND: Influenza is a common and serious public health problem among the elderly. The influenza vaccine is safe and effective. METHODS: The purpose of the study was to determine whether frequencies of receipt vary by race, age group, gender, and time (progress from 1995/1996 to 2000), and whether any racial differences remain in age groups covered by Medicare. Subjects were selected from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) (12,652 Americans 50–61 years of age (1992–2000)) and the Asset and Health Dynamics Among the Oldest Old (AHEAD) survey (8,124 community-dwelling seniors aged 70+ years (1993–2000)). Using multivariate logistic regression, adjusting for potential confounders, we estimated the relationship between race, age group, gender, time and the main outcome measure, receipt of influenza vaccination in the last 2 years. RESULTS: There has been a clear increase in the unadjusted rates of receipt of influenza vaccination for all groups from 1995/1996 to 2000. However, the proportions immunized are 10–20% higher among White than among Black elderly, with no obvious narrowing of the racial gap from 1995/1996 to 2000. There is an increase in rates from age 50 to age 65. After age 70, the rate appears to plateau. In multivariate analyses, the racial difference remains after adjusting for a series of socioeconomic, health, and health care related variables. (HRS: OR = 0.63 (0.55–0.72), AHEAD: OR = 0.55 (0.44–0.66)) CONCLUSIONS: There is much work left if the Healthy People 2010 goal of 90% of the elderly immunized against influenza annually is to be achieved. Close coordination between public health programs and clinical prevention efforts in primary care is necessary, but to be truly effective, these services must be culturally appropriate

Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in the Elderly Based on Administrative Databases: Change in Immunization Habit as a Marker for Bias

Administrative databases provide efficient methods to estimate influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) against severe outcomes in the elderly but are prone to intractable bias. This study returns to one of the linked population databases by which IVE against hospitalization and death in the elderly was first assessed. We explore IVE across six more recent influenza seasons, including periods before, during, and after peak activity to identify potential markers for bias.Acute respiratory hospitalization and all-cause mortality were compared between immunized/non-immunized community-dwelling seniors ≥65 years through administrative databases in Manitoba, Canada between 2000-01 and 2005-06. IVE was compared during pre-season/influenza/post-season periods through logistic regression with multivariable adjustment (age/sex/income/residence/prior influenza or pneumococcal immunization/medical visits/comorbidity), stratification based on prior influenza immunization history, and propensity scores. Analysis during pre-season periods assessed baseline differences between immunized and unimmunized groups. The study population included ∼140,000 seniors, of whom 50-60% were immunized annually. Adjustment for key covariates and use of propensity scores consistently increased IVE. Estimates were paradoxically higher pre-season and for all-cause mortality vs. acute respiratory hospitalization. Stratified analysis showed that those twice consecutively and currently immunized were always at significantly lower hospitalization/mortality risk with odds ratios (OR) of 0.60 [95%CI0.48-0.75] and 0.58 [0.53-0.64] pre-season and 0.77 [0.69-0.86] and 0.71 [0.66-0.77] during influenza circulation, relative to the consistently unimmunized. Conversely, those forgoing immunization when twice previously immunized were always at significantly higher hospitalization/mortality risk with OR of 1.41 [1.14-1.73] and 2.45 [2.21-2.72] pre-season and 1.21 [1.03-1.43] and 1.78 [1.61-1.96] during influenza circulation.The most pronounced IVE estimates were paradoxically observed pre-season, indicating bias tending to over-estimate vaccine protection. Change in immunization habit from that of the prior two years may be a marker for this bias in administrative data sets; however, no analytic technique explored could adjust for its influence. Improved methods to achieve valid interpretation of protection in the elderly are needed

Safety and efficacy of long-term use of rimantadine for prophylaxis of type A influenza in nursing homes.

The safety and efficacy of rimantadine for long-term prophylaxis of influenza A (H3N2) infection were evaluated among elderly residents in 10 nursing homes. Within each nursing home, participating residents were randomly assigned to receive placebo or rimantadine at 100 or 200 mg/day. Residents were evaluated daily for symptoms and significant health events as possible side effects, as well as for influenza-like illness. The study medications were administered to 328 residents for up to 8 weeks, with no statistically significant differences in the frequencies of gastrointestinal or central nervous system symptoms between the groups. However, residents in the active medication groups were more likely to withdraw from the study and to experience various health events including death; some but not all of these differences were statistically significant. Efficacy evaluations were carried out on the 68 vaccinated residents in the two nursing homes with demonstrated influenza virus activity. Rimantadine appeared to provide an additional protective effect beyond vaccination in reducing the risk of clinical and laboratory-confirmed influenza-like illness; however, the efficacy estimates were never statistically significant. The efficacies of the 100- and 200-mg/day dosages were generally similar. When data for the 100- and 200-mg/day dosage groups were combined and compared with data for the group receiving placebo, the efficacy of rimantadine in reducing the risk of clinical influenza-like illness was estimated to be 58 percent (P = 0.079). The results suggest the relative safety and clinical efficacy of using rimantadine for influenza prophylaxis among vaccinated elderly individuals and support the recommendation for a dosage reduction to 100 mg/day in this population