27
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The economic disease burden of measles in Japan and a benefit cost analysis of vaccination, a retrospective study

      research-article
      1 , 2 , , 3 , 4
      BMC Health Services Research
      BioMed Central

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          During 1999-2003, Japan experienced a series of measles epidemics, and in Action Plans to Control Measles and the Future Problems, it was proposed that infants be immunized soon after their one-year birthday.

          In this study, we attempted to estimate the nationwide economic disease burden of measles based on clinical data and the economic effectiveness of this proposal using the benefit cost ratio.

          Methods

          Our survey target was measles patients treated at Chiba-Nishi general hospital from January 1999 to September 2001. Two hundred ninety-one cases were extracted from the database. The survey team composed of 3 pediatricians and 1 physician from Chiba-Nishi general hospital examined patient files and obtained additional information by telephone interview.

          We analyzed data based on a static model, which assumed that the number of measles patients would be zero after 100% coverage of single-antigen measles vaccine.

          Costs were defined as the direct cost for measles treatment, vaccination and transportation and the indirect cost of workdays lost due to the nursing of patients, hospital visits for vaccination or nursing due to adverse reactions. Benefits were defined as savings on direct and indirect costs. Based on these definitions, we estimated the nationwide costs of treatment and vaccination.

          Results

          Using our static model, the nationwide total cost for measles treatment was estimated to be US$ 404 million, while the vaccination cost was US$165 million. The benefit cost ratio of the base case was 2.48 and ranged from 2.21 to 4.97 with sensitivity analysis.

          Conclusions

          Although the model has some limitations, we conclude that the policy of immunizing infants soon after their one-year birthday is economically effective.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The effectiveness of vaccination against influenza in healthy, working adults.

          Although influenza causes substantial morbidity and mortality in all age groups, current recommendations emphasize annual immunization for people at high risk for complications of influenza. We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of vaccination against influenza in healthy, working adults. In the fall of 1994, we recruited working adults from 18 to 64 years of age from in and around the Minneapolis-St. Paul area and randomly assigned them to receive either influenza vaccine or placebo injections. The primary study outcomes included upper respiratory illnesses, absenteeism from work because of upper respiratory illnesses, and visits to physicians' offices for upper respiratory illnesses. The economic benefits of vaccination were analyzed by estimating the direct and indirect costs associated with immunization and with upper respiratory illnesses. We enrolled a total of 849 subjects. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. During the follow-up period, consisting of the 1994-1995 influenza season (December 1, 1994, through March 31, 1995), those who received the vaccine reported 25 percent fewer episodes of upper respiratory illness than those who received the placebo (105 vs. 140 episodes per 100 subjects, P < 0.001), 43 percent fewer days of sick leave from work due to upper respiratory illness (70 vs. 122 days per 100 subjects, P = 0.001), and 44 percent fewer visits to physicians' offices for upper respiratory illnesses (31 vs. 55 visits per 100 subjects, P = 0.004). The cost savings were estimated to be $46.85 per person vaccinated. Vaccination against influenza has substantial health-related and economic benefits for healthy, working adults.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Cost-benefit analysis of a strategy to vaccinate healthy working adults against influenza.

            Influenza is a major cause of illness, disruption to daily life, and work absenteeism among healthy working adults aged between 18 and 64 years. This group is not included among the traditional priority groups for annual vaccination. Immunization rates remain low. To assess the economic implications of a strategy for annual vaccination of this group. Using the societal perspective, this cost-benefit analysis included the direct and indirect costs associated with vaccination as well as the direct and indirect costs prevented by vaccination. Clinical and economic variable estimates were derived primarily from the published literature. For this model, it was assumed that vaccination occurred in efficient, low-cost settings such as at the work site. Monte Carlo simulation was used to calculate the mean net costs or savings along with the 95% probability interval, and sensitivity analyses explored the sensitivity of the cost model to different values of the input variables. Vaccinating healthy working adults was on average cost saving, with mean savings of $13.66 per person vaccinated (95% probability interval: net savings of $32.97 to net costs of $2.18), with vaccination generating net savings 95% of the time. The model was most sensitive to the influenza illness rate, the work absenteeism rate due to influenza, and hourly wages. In the worst-case scenario vaccination was not cost saving. Vaccination also generated net costs to society during years with a poor vaccine-circulating virus strain match. In all of the other sensitivity analysis scenarios, vaccination was cost saving. Influenza vaccination of healthy working adults on average is cost saving. These findings support a strategy of routine, annual vaccination for this group, especially when vaccination occurs in efficient and low-cost sites.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Economic evaluation of vaccination programs: the impact of herd-immunity.

              The unique characteristic of vaccination is that it not only reduces the incidence of disease in those immunized but also indirectly protects nonvaccinated susceptibles against infection (produces herd-immunity). The bulk of economic evaluations of vaccination programs continue to use models that cannot take into account the indirect effects produced by herd-immunity. Here, the authors illustrate the importance of incorporating herd-immunity externalities when assessing the cost-effectiveness of vaccination progams. To do this, they compare 2 methods of estimating the benefits of routine mass vaccination: one that includes herd-immunity (dynamic approach) and one that does not (static approach). Finally, they use the results to clarify a number of misconceptions that are common in the literature concerning herd-immunity and dynamical effects produced by models.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central
                1472-6963
                2011
                7 October 2011
                : 11
                : 254
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Clinical Research Center Sanno Hospital, International University of Health and Welfare, 8-10-16 Akasaka, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 107-0052, Japan
                [2 ]Department of International Health Cooperation, Japan(IMCJ), National Center for Global Health and Medicine, 1-21-1 Toyama, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo,162-8655, Japan
                [3 ]Infectious Disease Surveillance Center, National Institute of Infectious Diseases, 1-23-1 Toyama, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8640, Japan
                [4 ]Department of Pediatrics, Chiba-Nishi General Hospital, 107-1 Kanegasaku, Matsudo-shi, Chiba, 270-2251, Japan
                Article
                1472-6963-11-254
                10.1186/1472-6963-11-254
                3217873
                21978107
                31a7b3ac-bb9f-4d73-b0e4-88b010acfa99
                Copyright ©2011 Takahashi et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 17 November 2010
                : 7 October 2011
                Categories
                Research Article

                Health & Social care
                Health & Social care

                Comments

                Comment on this article