Economic Assessment of High-Dose Versus Adjuvanted Influenza Vaccine: An Evaluation of Hospitalization Costs Based on a Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two influenza vaccines are licensed in the U.S. exclusively for the 65 years and older population: a trivalent inactivated high-dose influenza vaccine (HD-IIV3) and a trivalent inactivated adjuvanted influenza vaccine (aIIV3). In a recent publication, we estimated a relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of HD-IIV3 vs. aIIV3 of 12% (95% CI: 3.3-20%) for influenza-related hospitalizations using a retrospective study design, but did not report the number of prevented hospitalizations nor the associated avoided cost. In this paper we report estimations for both. METHODS: Leveraging the rVE of a cohort study over two influenza seasons (2016/17 and 2017/18), we collected cost data for healthcare provided to the same study population. Vaccine costs were obtained from the Medicare pricing schedule. Our economic assessment compared cost of vaccination and hospital care for patients experiencing acute respiratory or cardiovascular illness. RESULTS: We analyzed 1.9 million HD-IIV3 and 223,793 aIIV3 recipients. Average vaccine list prices were $46.23 for HD-IIV3 and $48.26 for aIIV3. The hospitalization rates for respiratory disease in HD-IIV3 and aIIV3 recipients were 187 (95% CI: 185-189) and 212 (195-231) per 10,000 persons-years, respectively. Attributing the average cost per hospitalization of $12,652 ($12,214-$13,090) to the difference in hospitalization rates, we estimate net savings of HD-IIV3 to be $34 ($10-$62) per recipient. CONCLUSION: Pooled over two predominantly A/H3N2 respiratory seasons, vaccination with HD-IIV3 was associated with lower hospitalization rates and associated costs compared to aIIV3 in senior members of a large national managed health care company in the U.S. Reduced hospitalizations affect healthcare utilization overall, and therefore other costly health outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".