Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Economic evaluation of oseltamivir phosphate for postexposure prophylaxis of influenza in long-term care facilities.
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005 Mar; 53(3):444-51.JA

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To compare the cost-effectiveness of oseltamivir postexposure prophylaxis during influenza A outbreaks with that of amantadine postexposure prophylaxis or no postexposure prophylaxis in long-term care facilities (LTCFs).

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis based on decision analytic model from a government-payer perspective.

SETTING

A Canadian LTCF, with high staff vaccination, at the beginning of influenza season.

PARTICIPANTS

Elderly, influenza-vaccinated patients living in a Canadian LTCF.

MEASUREMENTS

Incremental costs (or savings) per influenza-like illness case avoided compared with usual care.

RESULTS

From a government-payer perspective, this analysis showed that oseltamivir was a dominant strategy because it was associated with the fewest influenza-like illness cases, with cost savings of $1,249 per 100 patients in 2001 Canadian dollars compared with amantadine and $3,357 per 100 patients compared with no prophylaxis. Costs for amantadine dose calculation and hospitalization for adverse events contributed to amantadine being a more-expensive prophylaxis strategy than oseltamivir. Both prophylaxis strategies were more cost-effective than no prophylaxis.

CONCLUSION

Despite high influenza vaccination rates, influenza outbreaks continue to emerge in LTCFs, necessitating cost-effective measures to further limit the spread of influenza and related complications. Although amantadine has a lower acquisition cost than oseltamivir, it is associated with more adverse events, lower efficacy, and individualized dosing requirements, leading to higher overall costs and more influenza-like illness cases than oseltamivir. Therefore the use of oseltamivir postexposure prophylaxis is more cost-effective than the current standard of care with amantadine prophylaxis or no prophylaxis.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomics Research Center, Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada. nancy.risenbrough@sw.caNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

15743287

Citation

Risebrough, Nancy A., et al. "Economic Evaluation of Oseltamivir Phosphate for Postexposure Prophylaxis of Influenza in Long-term Care Facilities." Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, vol. 53, no. 3, 2005, pp. 444-51.
Risebrough NA, Bowles SK, Simor AE, et al. Economic evaluation of oseltamivir phosphate for postexposure prophylaxis of influenza in long-term care facilities. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(3):444-51.
Risebrough, N. A., Bowles, S. K., Simor, A. E., McGeer, A., & Oh, P. I. (2005). Economic evaluation of oseltamivir phosphate for postexposure prophylaxis of influenza in long-term care facilities. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53(3), 444-51.
Risebrough NA, et al. Economic Evaluation of Oseltamivir Phosphate for Postexposure Prophylaxis of Influenza in Long-term Care Facilities. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(3):444-51. PubMed PMID: 15743287.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Economic evaluation of oseltamivir phosphate for postexposure prophylaxis of influenza in long-term care facilities. AU - Risebrough,Nancy A, AU - Bowles,Susan K, AU - Simor,Andrew E, AU - McGeer,Alison, AU - Oh,Paul I, PY - 2005/3/4/pubmed PY - 2005/4/29/medline PY - 2005/3/4/entrez SP - 444 EP - 51 JF - Journal of the American Geriatrics Society JO - J Am Geriatr Soc VL - 53 IS - 3 N2 - OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness of oseltamivir postexposure prophylaxis during influenza A outbreaks with that of amantadine postexposure prophylaxis or no postexposure prophylaxis in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on decision analytic model from a government-payer perspective. SETTING: A Canadian LTCF, with high staff vaccination, at the beginning of influenza season. PARTICIPANTS: Elderly, influenza-vaccinated patients living in a Canadian LTCF. MEASUREMENTS: Incremental costs (or savings) per influenza-like illness case avoided compared with usual care. RESULTS: From a government-payer perspective, this analysis showed that oseltamivir was a dominant strategy because it was associated with the fewest influenza-like illness cases, with cost savings of $1,249 per 100 patients in 2001 Canadian dollars compared with amantadine and $3,357 per 100 patients compared with no prophylaxis. Costs for amantadine dose calculation and hospitalization for adverse events contributed to amantadine being a more-expensive prophylaxis strategy than oseltamivir. Both prophylaxis strategies were more cost-effective than no prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: Despite high influenza vaccination rates, influenza outbreaks continue to emerge in LTCFs, necessitating cost-effective measures to further limit the spread of influenza and related complications. Although amantadine has a lower acquisition cost than oseltamivir, it is associated with more adverse events, lower efficacy, and individualized dosing requirements, leading to higher overall costs and more influenza-like illness cases than oseltamivir. Therefore the use of oseltamivir postexposure prophylaxis is more cost-effective than the current standard of care with amantadine prophylaxis or no prophylaxis. SN - 0002-8614 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/15743287/Economic_evaluation_of_oseltamivir_phosphate_for_postexposure_prophylaxis_of_influenza_in_long_term_care_facilities_ L2 - https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53162.x DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -