BACKGROUND: Although influenza vaccination has been shown to reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) among those with existing cardiovascular disease (CVD), in the 2015-16 season, coverage for persons with heart disease was only 48% in the US. METHODS: We built a Monte Carlo (probabilistic) spreadsheet-based decision tree in 2018 to estimate the cost-effectiveness of increased influenza vaccination to prevent MACE readmissions. We based our model on current US influenza vaccination coverage of the estimated 493,750 US acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients from the healthcare payer perspective. We excluded outpatient costs and time lost from work and included only hospitalization and vaccination costs. We also estimated the incremental cost/MACE case averted and incremental cost/QALY gained (ICER) if 75% hospitalized ACS patients were vaccinated by discharge and estimated the impact of increasing vaccination coverage incrementally by 5% up to 95% in a sensitivity analysis, among hospitalized adults aged >/= 65 years and 18-64 years, and varying vaccine effectiveness from 30-40%. RESULT: At 75% vaccination coverage by discharge, vaccination was cost-saving from the healthcare payer perspective in adults >/= 65 years and the ICER was $12,680/QALY (95% CI: 6,273-20,264) in adults 18-64 years and $2,400 (95% CI: -1,992-7,398) in all adults 18 + years. These resulted in ~ 500 (95% CI: 439-625) additional averted MACEs/year for all adult patients aged >/=18 years and added ~700 (95% CI: 578-825) QALYs. In the sensitivity analysis, vaccination becomes cost-saving in adults 18+years after about 80% vaccination rate. To achieve 75% vaccination rate in all adults aged >/= 18 years will require an additional cost of $3 million. The effectiveness of the vaccine, cost of vaccination, and vaccination coverage rate had the most impact on the results. CONCLUSION: Increasing vaccination rate among hospitalized ACS patients has a favorable cost-effectiveness profile and becomes cost-saving when at least 80% are vaccinated.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the societal economic and health impacts of Maine's school-based influenza vaccination (SIV) program during the 2009 A(H1N1) influenza pandemic. DATA SOURCES: Primary and secondary data covering the 2008-09 and 2009-10 influenza seasons. STUDY DESIGN: We estimated weekly monovalent influenza vaccine uptake in Maine and 15 other states, using difference-in-difference-in-differences analysis to assess the program's impact on immunization among six age groups. We also developed a health and economic Markov microsimulation model and conducted Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis. DATA COLLECTION: We used national survey data to estimate the impact of the SIV program on vaccine coverage. We used primary data and published studies to develop the microsimulation model. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The program was associated with higher immunization among children and lower immunization among adults aged 18-49 years and 65 and older. The program prevented 4,600 influenza infections and generated $4.9 million in net economic benefits. Cost savings from lower adult vaccination accounted for 54 percent of the economic gain. Economic benefits were positive in 98 percent of Monte Carlo simulations. CONCLUSIONS: SIV may be a cost-beneficial approach to increase immunization during pandemics, but programs should be designed to prevent lower immunization among nontargeted groups.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high mortality and morbidity resulting from acute respiratory infections (ARI) globally, there are few data from low-income countries on costs of ARI to inform public health policy decisions We conducted a prospective survey to assess costs of ARI episodes in selected primary, secondary, and tertiary healthcare facilities in north India where no respiratory pathogen vaccine is routinely recommended. METHODS: Face-to-face interviews were conducted among a purposive sample of patients with ARI from healthcare facilities. Data were collected on out-of-pocket costs of hospitalization, medical consultations, medications, diagnostics, transportation, lodging, and missed work days. Telephone surveys were conducted two weeks after medical encounters to ask about subsequent missed work and costs incurred. Costs of prescriptions and diagnostics in public facilities were supplemented with WHO-CHOICE estimates of hospital bed costs. Missed work days were assigned cost based on the national annual per capita income (US$1,104). Non-medically attended ARI cases were identified from an ongoing community-based ARI surveillance project in Faridabad. RESULTS: During September 2012-March 2013, 1766 patients with ARI were enrolled, including 451 hospitalized patients, 1056 outpatients, and 259 non-medically attended patients. The total direct cost of an ARI episode requiring outpatient care was US$4- $6 for public and $3-$10 for private institutions based on age groups. The total direct cost of an ARI episode requiring hospitalized care was $54-$120 in public and $135-$355 in private institutions. The cost of ARI among those hospitalized was highest among persons aged > = 65 years and lowest among children aged < 5 years. Indirect costs due to missed work days were 16-25% of total costs. The direct out-of-pocket cost of hospitalized ARI was 34% of annual per capita income. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of hospitalized ARI episodes in India is high relative to median per capita income. Data from this study can inform evaluations of the cost effectiveness of proven ARI prevention strategies such as vaccination.