Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/73094
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPiyameth Dilokthornsakulen_US
dc.contributor.authorLe My Lanen_US
dc.contributor.authorAmmarin Thakkinstianen_US
dc.contributor.authorRaymond Hutubessyen_US
dc.contributor.authorPhilipp Lambachen_US
dc.contributor.authorNathorn Chaiyakunapruken_US
dc.date.accessioned2022-05-27T08:35:30Z-
dc.date.available2022-05-27T08:35:30Z-
dc.date.issued2022-05-01en_US
dc.identifier.issn25895370en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85129460716en_US
dc.identifier.other10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101410en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85129460716&origin=inwarden_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/73094-
dc.description.abstractBackground: A number of cost-effectiveness analysis of influenza vaccination have been conducted to estimate value of influenza vaccines in elderly and health workers (HWs). This study aims to summarize cost-effectiveness evidence by pooling the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) of influenza vaccination. Methods: A systematic review was performed in electronic databases from their inceptions to February 2022. Cost-effectiveness studies reporting quality-adjusted life year (QALY), or life year (LY) of influenza vaccination were included. Stratified meta-analyses by population, perspective, country income-level, and herd-effect were performed to pool INMB across studies. The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021246746). Findings: A total of 21 studies were included. Eighteen studies were conducted in elderly, two studies were conducted in HWs, and one study was conducted in both elderly and HWs. According to pre-specified analyses, studies for elderly in high-income economies (countries) (HIEs) and upper-middle income economies (UMIEs) without herd effect could be pooled. For HIEs under a societal perspective, the perspective which identify all relevant costs occurred in the society including direct medical cost, direct non-medical cost and indirect cost, pooled INMB was $217·38 (206·23, 228·53, I2 =28.2%), while that for healthcare provider/payer perspective was $0·20 (-11,908·67, 11,909·07, I2 = 0.0%). For societal perspective in UMIEs, pooled INMB was $28·39 (-190·65, 133·87, I2 = 92.8%). The findings were robust across a series of sensitivity analyses for HIEs. Studies in HWs indicated that influenza vaccination was cost-effective compared to no vaccination or current practice. Interpretation: Influenza vaccination might be cost-effective for HWs and elderly in HIEs under a societal perspective with relatively small variations among included studies, while there remains limited evidence for healthcare provider/payer perspective or other level of incomes. Further evidence is warranted. Funding: This study was funded by a grant of Immunization, Vaccine and Biologicals department of the World Health Organization. The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of the US CDC which provided financial support to the development and publication of this report. Grant number US CDC, WHO IVR (U50CK000431).en_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleEconomic evaluation of seasonal influenza vaccination in elderly and health workers: A systematic review and meta-analysisen_US
dc.typeJournalen_US
article.title.sourcetitleeClinicalMedicineen_US
article.volume47en_US
article.stream.affiliationsOrganisation Mondiale de la Santéen_US
article.stream.affiliationsNaresuan Universityen_US
article.stream.affiliationsFaculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol Universityen_US
article.stream.affiliationsVA Medical Centeren_US
article.stream.affiliationsUniversity of Utah Healthen_US
article.stream.affiliationsChiang Mai Universityen_US
Appears in Collections:CMUL: Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in CMUIR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.