Cost-benefit evaluation of routine influenza immunisation in people 65-74 years of age

OBJECTIVES: To determine the cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination in people aged 65-74 years in the absence of co-morbidity. DESIGN: Primary research: randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: People without risk factors for influenza or contraindications to vaccination were identified from 20 general practitioner (GP) practices in Liverpool in September 1999 and invited to participate in the study. There were 5875/9727 (60.4%) people aged 65-74 years identified as potentially eligible and, of these, 729 (12%) were randomised. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised to receive either influenza vaccine or placebo (ratio 3:1), with all individuals receiving pneumococcal vaccine unless administered in the previous 10 years. Of the 729 people randomised, 552 received vaccine and 177 received placebo; 726 individuals were administered pneumococcal vaccine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND METHODOLOGY OF ECONOMIC EVALUATION: GP attendance with influenza-like illness (ILI) or pneumonia (primary outcome measure); or any respiratory symptoms; hospitalisation with a respiratory illness; death; participant self-reported ILI; quality of life (QoL) measures at 2, 4 and 6 months post-study vaccination; adverse reactions 3 days after vaccination. A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken to identify the incremental cost associated with the avoidance of episodes of influenza in the vaccination population and an impact model was used to extrapolate the cost-effectiveness results obtained from the trial to assess their generalisability throughout the NHS. RESULTS: In England and Wales, weekly consultations for influenza and ILI remained at baseline levels (less than 50 per 100,000 population) until week 50/1999 and then increased rapidly, peaking during week 2/2000 with a rate of 231/100,000. This rate fell within the range of 'higher than expected seasonal activity' of 200-400/100,000. Rates then quickly declined, returning to baseline levels by week 5/2000. The predominant circulating strain during this period was influenza A (H3N2). Five (0.9%) people in the vaccine group were diagnosed by their GP with an ILI compared to two (1.1%) in the placebo group [relative risk (RR), 0.8; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.16 to 4.1]. No participants were diagnosed with pneumonia by their GP and there were no hospitalisations for respiratory illness in either group. Significantly fewer vaccinated individuals self-reported a single ILI (4.6% vs 8.9%, RR, 0.51; 95% CI for RR, 0.28 to 0.96). There was no significant difference in any of the QoL measurements over time between the two groups. Reported systemic side-effects showed no significant differences between groups. Local side-effects occurred with a significantly increased incidence in the vaccine group (11.3% vs 5.1%, p = 0.02). Each GP consultation avoided by vaccination was estimated from trial data to generate a net NHS cost of 174 pounds. CONCLUSIONS: No difference was seen between groups for the primary outcome measure, although the trial was underpowered to demonstrate a true difference. Vaccination had no significant effect on any of the QoL measures used, although vaccinated individuals were less likely to self-report ILI. The analysis did not suggest that influenza vaccination in healthy people aged 65-74 years would lead to lower NHS costs. Future research should look at ways to maximise vaccine uptake in people at greatest risk from influenza and also the level of vaccine protection afforded to people from different age and socio-economic populations.

Intensive case management for severe psychotic illness: is there a general benefit for patients with complex needs? A secondary analysis of the UK700 trial data

The UK700 trial failed to demonstrate an overall benefit of intensive case management (ICM) in patients with severe psychotic illness. This does not discount a benefit for particular subgroups, and evidence of a benefit of ICM for patients of borderline intelligence has been presented. The aim of this study is to investigate whether this effect is part of a general benefit for patients with severe psychosis complicated by additional needs. In the UK700 trial patients with severe psychosis were randomly allocated to ICM or standard case management. For each patient group with complex needs the effect of ICM is compared with that in the rest of the study cohort. Outcome measures are days spent in psychiatric hospital and the admission and discharge rates. ICM may be of benefit to patients with severe psychosis complicated by borderline intelligence or depression, but may cause patients using illicit drugs to spend more time in hospital. There was no convincing evidence of an effect of ICM in a further seven patient groups. ICM is not of general benefit to patients with severe psychosis complicated by additional needs. The benefit of ICM for patients with borderline intelligence is an isolated effect which should be interpreted cautiously until further data are available.

The benefits of providing benefit information in a patient information leaflet

Objective: To examine the effects of providing two different types of written information about medicine benefits in a patient information leaflet (PIL). Setting: Participants were 358 adult volunteers from the general population recruited from a London railway station and central Reading. Method: The study used a controlled empirical methodology in which people were given a hypothetical, but realistic, scenario about visiting their doctor and being prescribed medication. They then read an information leaflet about the medicine that contained neither, one, or both benefit statements, and finally completed a number of Likert rating scales. Outcome measures included perceived satisfaction and helpfulness of the information, effectiveness and appropriateness of the medicine, benefit and risk to health, and intention to comply. Key findings: Both types of benefit information led to significantly higher ratings on all of the measures taken. Conclusions: Provision of a relatively short ‘benefit’ statement can significantly improve people’s judgements and intention to take a medicine. The findings are important and timely as the European Union is currently considering reviewing their regulations to allow for the inclusion of limited non-promotional benefit information in PILs.

The benefits of providing benefit information: examining the effectiveness of provision of simple benefit statements on people's judgements about a medicine

Three experiments examined the effects of adding information about medication benefits to a short written explanation about a medicine. Participants were presented with a fictitious scenario about visiting the doctor, being prescribed an antibiotic and being given information about the medicine. They were asked to make various judgements relating to the information, the medicine and their intention to take it. Experiment 1 found that information about benefits enhanced the judgements, but did not influence the intention to comply. Experiment 2 compared the relative effectiveness of two different forms of the benefit statement, and found that both were effective in improving judgements, but had no effect on intention to comply. Experiment 3 compared the effectiveness of the two forms of benefit information but participants were told that the medicine was associated with four named side effects. Both types of statement improved ratings of the intention to comply, as well as ratings on the other measures. The experiments provide fairly consistent support for the inclusion of benefit information in medicine information leaflets, particularly to balance concerns about side effects.