Cost-effectiveness of treating influenzalike illness with oseltamivir in the United States
Talbird, S., Brogan, A., Winiarski, A. P., & Sander, B. (2009). Cost-effectiveness of treating influenzalike illness with oseltamivir in the United States. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 66(5), 469-480.
PURPOSE: The cost-effectiveness of treating influenzalike illness (ILI) with oseltamivir in the United States was assessed. METHODS: A decision-analysis model was developed with a one-year time horizon to assess the cost-effectiveness of oseltamivir compared with usual care from societal and payer perspectives for four patient populations: high-risk adults, healthy adults, elderly adults, and children. The model used efficacy data from oseltamivir clinical trials and other published literature and assumed oseltamivir was effective only in individuals infected with influenza virus not resistant to oseltamivir and treated within 48 hours of symptom onset. Direct medical costs were based on resources used; indirect costs were estimated based on time lost from work due to illness and premature mortality. Base-case estimates were tested in one-way sensitivity and variability analyses. RESULTS: From a societal perspective, oseltamivir was cost-effective across all populations modeled, with an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained of $5,388, $6,317, $7,652, and $16,176 for high-risk adults, children, elderly adults, and healthy adults, respectively. Results were similar from a payer perspective. When indirect costs were included (for all populations except elderly adults), oseltamivir was cost saving. In sensitivity analyses, oseltamivir remained cost-effective across all patient populations for all values tested, except the probability of developing influenza-related pneumonia. Variability analyses showed that oseltamivir remained cost-effective under most scenarios tested. CONCLUSION: Base-case results and sensitivity analyses from a decision-analysis model found that treatment of ILI with oseltamivir was cost-effective compared with usual care from U.S. payer and societal perspectives in all patient populations studied when only direct costs were considered