A cost-effectiveness analysis of reduced viral transmission with baloxavir marboxil versus oseltamivir or no treatment for seasonal and pandemic influenza management in the United Kingdom.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Svenn Alexander Kommandantvold, Annabelle Lemenuel-Diot, Chris Skedgel, Richard Pitman, Peter Rouse, Hassan Zaraket, Hao Zhou, Marie-Helene Blanchet Zumofen
{"title":"A cost-effectiveness analysis of reduced viral transmission with baloxavir marboxil versus oseltamivir or no treatment for seasonal and pandemic influenza management in the United Kingdom.","authors":"Svenn Alexander Kommandantvold, Annabelle Lemenuel-Diot, Chris Skedgel, Richard Pitman, Peter Rouse, Hassan Zaraket, Hao Zhou, Marie-Helene Blanchet Zumofen","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2024.2365421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Baloxavir marboxil is an oral, single-dose, cap-dependent endonuclease inhibitor that reduces the duration of influenza symptoms and rapidly stops viral shedding. We developed a susceptible, exposed, infected, recovered (SEIR) model to inform a cost-effectiveness model (CEM) of baloxavir versus oseltamivir or no antiviral treatment in the UK.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>The SEIR model estimated the attack rates among otherwise healthy and high-risk individuals in seasonal and pandemic settings. The CEM assumed that a proportion of infected patients would receive antiviral treatment. Results were reported at the population level (per 10,000 at risk of infection).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The SEIR model estimated greater reductions in infections with baloxavir. In a seasonal setting, baloxavir provided incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of £1884 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained versus oseltamivir and a dominant cost-effectiveness position versus no antiviral treatment in the total population; ICERs of £2574/QALY versus oseltamivir and £128/QALY versus no antiviral treatment were seen in the high-risk population. Baloxavir was also cost-effective versus oseltamivir or no antiviral treatment and reduced population-level health system occupancy concerns during a pandemic.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Baloxavir treatment resulted in the fewest influenza cases and was cost-effective versus oseltamivir or no antiviral treatment from a UK National Health Service perspective.</p>","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2024.2365421","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Baloxavir marboxil is an oral, single-dose, cap-dependent endonuclease inhibitor that reduces the duration of influenza symptoms and rapidly stops viral shedding. We developed a susceptible, exposed, infected, recovered (SEIR) model to inform a cost-effectiveness model (CEM) of baloxavir versus oseltamivir or no antiviral treatment in the UK.

Research design and methods: The SEIR model estimated the attack rates among otherwise healthy and high-risk individuals in seasonal and pandemic settings. The CEM assumed that a proportion of infected patients would receive antiviral treatment. Results were reported at the population level (per 10,000 at risk of infection).

Results: The SEIR model estimated greater reductions in infections with baloxavir. In a seasonal setting, baloxavir provided incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of £1884 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained versus oseltamivir and a dominant cost-effectiveness position versus no antiviral treatment in the total population; ICERs of £2574/QALY versus oseltamivir and £128/QALY versus no antiviral treatment were seen in the high-risk population. Baloxavir was also cost-effective versus oseltamivir or no antiviral treatment and reduced population-level health system occupancy concerns during a pandemic.

Conclusion: Baloxavir treatment resulted in the fewest influenza cases and was cost-effective versus oseltamivir or no antiviral treatment from a UK National Health Service perspective.

英国季节性流感和大流行性流感管理中使用巴洛沙韦 marboxil 与使用奥司他韦或不使用治疗方法相比,减少病毒传播的成本效益分析。
背景介绍巴洛沙韦(Baloxavir marboxil)是一种口服、单剂量、瓶盖依赖性内切酶抑制剂,可缩短流感症状持续时间并迅速阻止病毒脱落。我们开发了一个易感、暴露、感染、康复(SEIR)模型,为英国的巴洛沙韦与奥司他韦或无抗病毒治疗的成本效益模型(CEM)提供信息:SEIR 模型估算了在季节性和大流行环境中原本健康的高危人群的发病率。CEM假定一定比例的感染者将接受抗病毒治疗。结果按人群水平(每 10,000 名有感染风险的人)进行报告:结果:根据 SEIR 模型估计,使用巴洛沙韦可更大程度地降低感染率。在季节性环境中,巴洛沙韦与奥司他韦相比,每获得一个质量调整生命年(QALY)的增量成本效益比(ICER)为 1884 英镑,与不进行抗病毒治疗相比,在总人口中的成本效益处于优势地位;在高风险人群中,与奥司他韦相比,ICER 为 2574 英镑/QALY,与不进行抗病毒治疗相比,ICER 为 128 英镑/QALY。与奥司他韦或不进行抗病毒治疗相比,巴洛沙韦的成本效益也很高,并可减少大流行期间人口层面的卫生系统占用问题:结论:从英国国民健康服务的角度来看,巴洛沙韦治疗导致的流感病例最少,与奥司他韦或无抗病毒治疗相比具有成本效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.30%
发文量
68
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review. The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections: Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信