PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF TYPE-A INFLUENZA INFECTIONS IN NURSING-HOMES - BENEFITS AND COSTS OF 4 APPROACHES USING VACCINATION AND AMANTADINE
PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF TYPE-A INFLUENZA INFECTIONS IN NURSING-HOMES - BENEFITS AND COSTS OF 4 APPROACHES USING VACCINATION AND AMANTADINE
复制标题
DOI：
10.7326/0003-4819-107-5-732
复制
发表时间：
1987-11-01
影响因子：
39.2
通讯作者：
GOODMAN, RA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
PATRIARCA, PA;ARDEN, NH;GOODMAN, RA
我们开发了一个模型来预测养老院中A型流感病毒感染的发病率、死亡率和成本，并评估预防和控制方案的相对效益和成本。在模型的各种模拟下，流感疫苗接种是最具成本效益的干预措施，但与其他替代方案相比，其发病率和死亡率通常较高。在疗养院爆发期间，既往疫苗接种和化学预防的联合使用与单独使用疫苗接种的病例显著减少相关，净计划成本仅略有增加。在整个流感季节使用化学预防（不接种疫苗）导致的疾病，住院和死亡人数最少，但成本至少比涉及疫苗接种的替代品高650%。无论选择哪种策略，我们的模型表明，养老院的流感控制计划既有益又具有成本效益，应被视为标准护理的一部分。
We developed a model to project morbidity, mortality, and costs attributable to type A influenza virus infections in nursing homes and to evaluate the relative benefits and costs of programs for prevention and control. Influenza vaccination was the most cost-effective intervention under various simulations in the model but usually allowed for higher rates of morbidity and mortality compared with other alternatives. The combined use of previous vaccination and chemoprophylaxis during outbreaks in the nursing home was associated with significantly fewer cases than use of vaccination alone, with only modest increases in net program costs. The use of chemoprophylaxis throughout the influenza season (without vaccination) resulted in the fewest number of illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths but would cost at least 650% more than alternatives involving vaccination. Regardless of which strategy is chosen, our model suggests that influenza control programs in nursing homes are both beneficial and cost-effective and should be considered a part of standard care.