Meningococcemia cost-effectiveness of therapy

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Meningococcemia Microchapters

Home

Patient Information

Overview

Historical Perspective

Classification

Pathophysiology

Causes

Differentiating Meningococcemia from other Diseases

Epidemiology and Demographics

Risk Factors

Screening

Natural History, Complications and Prognosis

Diagnosis

History and Symptoms

Physical Examination

Laboratory Findings

Treatment

Medical Therapy

Primary Prevention

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapy

Future or Investigational Therapies

Case Studies

Case #1

Meningococcemia cost-effectiveness of therapy On the Web

Most recent articles

Most cited articles

Review articles

CME Programs

Powerpoint slides

Images

American Roentgen Ray Society Images of Meningococcemia cost-effectiveness of therapy

All Images
X-rays
Echo & Ultrasound
CT Images
MRI

Ongoing Trials at Clinical Trials.gov

US National Guidelines Clearinghouse

NICE Guidance

FDA on Meningococcemia cost-effectiveness of therapy

CDC on Meningococcemia cost-effectiveness of therapy

Meningococcemia cost-effectiveness of therapy in the news

Blogs on Meningococcemia cost-effectiveness of therapy

Directions to Hospitals Treating Meningococcemia

Risk calculators and risk factors for Meningococcemia cost-effectiveness of therapy

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1] ; Associate Editor(s)-in-Chief: Ammu Susheela, M.D. [2]

Overview

Cost effective analysis study has indicated that a 2-dose series at ages 11 years and 16 years has a similar cost-effectiveness compared with moving the single dose to age 15 years or maintaining the single dose at 11 years.

Cost-effective Analysis

  • As part of the evaluation of the adolescent vaccination program, a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to compare the cost-effectiveness of the following three vaccination strategies: [1]
  • A single dose at age 11 years
  • A single dose at age 15 years
  • A dose at age 11 years with a booster dose at age 16 years. The economic costs and benefits of these meningococcal vaccination strategies in adolescents were assessed from a societal perspective [2][3].
[(http://www.cdc.gov/meningococcal/)][1]
  • A multivariable analysis was performed with a Monte Carlo simulation in which multiple parameters were varied simultaneously over specified probability distributions.
  • These parameters included disease incidence (46%–120% of the 10-year average), case-fatality ratio (34%–131% of the 10-year average), rates of long-term sequelae, acute meningococcal disease costs (i.e., inpatient care, parents' work loss, public health response, and premature mortality costs), lifetime direct and indirect costs of meningococcal disease sequelae (i.e., long-term special education and reduced productivity), and cost of vaccine and vaccine administration (range: $64–$114).
  • Vaccination coverage (37%–90%) and initial vaccine efficacy (39%–99%) also were varied for evaluation purposes.
  • The vaccine was assumed to be 93% effective in the first year, and then waning immunity was modeled as a linear decline over the next 9 years unless a booster dose was administered.
  • The vaccine effectiveness of the second dose was assumed to be higher with a slower rate of waning immunity.
  • The results of the cost-effectiveness analysis indicate that a 2-dose series at ages 11 years and 16 years has a similar cost-effectiveness compared with moving the single dose to age 15 years or maintaining the single dose at 11 years. However, the number of cases and deaths prevented is substantially higher with the 2-dose strategy

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC)".
  2. Trotter CL, Edmunds WJ (2002). "Modelling cost effectiveness of meningococcal serogroup C conjugate vaccination campaign in England and Wales". BMJ. 324 (7341): 809. PMC 100788. PMID 11934772.
  3. Shepard CW, Ortega-Sanchez IR, Scott RD, Rosenstein NE, ABCs Team (2005). "Cost-effectiveness of conjugate meningococcal vaccination strategies in the United States". Pediatrics. 115 (5): 1220–32. doi:10.1542/peds.2004-2514. PMID 15867028.