Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 187–195 | Cite as

Impact of Zanamivir Treatment on Productivity, Health Status and Healthcare Resource Use in Patients with Influenza

  • Fred Y. Aoki
  • Douglas M. Fleming
  • Adrian D. Griffin
  • Loretto A. Lacey
  • Sally Edmundson
Original Research Article

Abstract

Objective: This study examined the impact of zanamivir treatment on patient morbidity in patients with influenza.

Design and setting: This was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study conducted in 14 countries in Europe and North America during the winter of 1995/1996.

Patients and participants: The study included 722 individuals with virologically confirmed influenza.

Interventions: Two different zanamivir treatment regimens [twice daily (bid) or 4 times daily (qid) for 5 days] were compared with placebo.

Main outcome measures and results: Efficacy was measured using a number of patient-assessment questionnaires. Results showed that significantly fewer patients with influenza who were treated with zanamivir had additional contacts with healthcare professionals compared with those who received placebo (8 vs 14%; p ≤ 0.049, bid and qid vs placebo). Individuals treated with zanamivir also spent fewer days absent from work (placebo: mean = 3.28 days; qid: mean = 2.52 days; p = 0.031) or college/school (placebo: mean = 2.90 days; bid: mean = 2.24 days; p = 0.032), and showed significant improvements in productivity compared with placebo. The health status questionnaire revealed significant improvements in patient well-being over the first 5 days of the study in those treated with zanamivir compared with those who received placebo.

Conclusions: Zanamivir treatment reduced absenteeism, improved patient productivity and well-being, and reduced the additional use of healthcare resources in patients with influenza.

Keywords

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Influenza Sleep Quality Zanamivir Influenza Infection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a grant from Glaxo Wellcome Research and Development.

We would like to thank the following people: Drs G. Adam, E. Barbaix, L. De Lille, V. Formato, M. Pollet and H. van Pottelbergh (Belgium); Drs F. Aoki, G. Boivin, E. Brankston, B. Clecner, J. Dylewski, K. Forward, P. Orr, C. St-Pierre, J. Simonsen, R. Ward, K. Williams and D. Zoutman (Canada); Drs T. Hviid, A. Jorgensen, N. Mosbaek, H. Ohlenschlaeger, M. Makela and T. Rostila (Denmark); Drs M. Behar, R. Benady, M. Chelly, J. Cozic, F. Dupont, P. Huin, J. Luciani, C. Rebelle, A. Serrero, A. Simmons, P. Triot and R. Yaeche (France); Drs H. Becker, D. Berger, P. Klinger, H. Kuhl, D. Schmikale, A. Schwall and S. Tomingas (Germany); Professor P. Crovari, Dr F. Pregliasco and Professor P. Urbano (Italy); Dr R. de Groot (The Netherlands); Drs P. Christensen, H. Gjessing, H. Hauge, K. Innvik, K. Lund, O. Sand and H. Skjerven (Norway); Drs M. Alonso, A. Dalfo, L. De Marcos and M. Palomo (Spain); Drs C. Ahlm, M. Glimaker, Associate Professor B. Ljungberg, Dr K. Pauksens and Associate Professor T. Sandberg (Sweden); Drs J. Adelglass, R. Andruczk, S. Becker, T. Bock, G. Bottenfield, R. Hardoin, H. Resnick, A. Brown, D. Bukstein, S. Campbell, F. Cole, G. Collins, M. Conway, P. Craven, B. deBoisblanc, R. Desai, V. Elinoff, R. Emerson, J. Felicetta, L. Gilderman, D. Gold, A. Graff, J. Grossman, F. Hayden, D. Henry, W. Henry, R. Holloway, S. Kelsen, T. Klein, R. Kobayashi, P. Krumpe, C. Macy, A. Mangione, E. Meltzer, D. Mikolich, A. Monto, C. Briefer, A. Morrison, J. Morton, J. O’Rourke, S. Pace, B. Pogue, P. Ratner, J. Rhudy, E. Riffer, P. Ripley, J. Rubino, G. Ruoff, J. Ryder-Benz, J. Schoenberger, H. Serfer, G. Settipane, D. Skoner, J. Stapleton, W. Stein, J. Stone, J. Tan, C. Van Hook, V. Wender, J. Wheeler and M. Yocum (USA); and Drs M. Duffy, D. Fleming, P. Horn, D. Khan, K. Nicholson, O. O’Toole (England); Dr J. Hosie (Scotland); and Dr H. Thomas (Wales).

References

  1. 1.
    US Centers for Disease Control. Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1998; 47 (no. RR-6)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Levy E. French economic evaluations of influenza and influenza vaccination. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 9 Suppl. 3: 62–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Szucs TD. Influenza: the role of burden-of-illness research. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 16 Suppl. 1: 27–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Office of Technology Assessment, US Congress. Cost effectiveness of influenza vaccination. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1981. Report No.: 052–003-00855–6Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liu C, Air GM. Selection and characterization of a neuraminidase-minus mutant of influenza virus and its rescue by cloned neuraminidase genes. Virology 1993; 194: 403–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Woods JM, Bethell RC, Coates JAV, et al. 4-guanidino 2, 4-dideoxy-2, 3-dehydro-N-acetylneuraminic acid is a highly effective inhibitor both of the sialidase (neuraminidase) and of growth of a wide range of influenza A and B viruses in vitro. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37: 1473–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hayden FG, Rollins BS, Madren LK. Anti-influenza virus activity of the neuraminidase inhibitor 4-guanidino-Neu5Ac2en in cell culture and in human respiratory epithelium. [published erratum appears in Antiviral Res 1994; 25: 287] Antiviral Res 1994; 25 (2): 123–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hayden FG, Albert DME, Osterhaus DVM, et al. Efficacy and safety of the neuraminidase inhibitor zanamivir in the treatment of influenza virus infections. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 874–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Monto AS, Fleming DM, Hendry D, et al. Efficacy and safety of the neuraminidase inhibitor, zanamivir, in the treatment of influenza A and B virus infections. J Infect Dis 1999; 180: 254–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ware JE, Nelson EC, Sherbourne CD, et al. Preliminary tests of a 6-item general health survey: a patient application. In: Stewart AL, Ware JE, editors. Measuring functioning and wellbeing: the Medical Outcomes Study approach. Durham (NC): Duke University Press, 1992Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ware JE, Kosinski M, Dewey JE, et al. How to score and interpret single-item health status measures: a manual for users of the SF6 and SF8 health surveys. Lincoln (RI): Quality Metric Incoroporated, 1999Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hays RD, Stewart AL. Sleep measures. In: Stewart AL, Ware JE, editors. Measuring functioning and well-being: the Medical Outcomes Study approach. Durham (NC): Duke University Press, 1992: 235–59Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    The MIST Study Group. Randomised trial of efficacy and safety of inhaled zanamivir in treatment of influenza A and B virus infections. Lancet 1998; 352: 1877–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fleming D, Makela M, Pauksens K, et al. ’High risk’ and otherwise healthy patients demonstrate alleviation of influenza symptoms 2.5 days earlier following inhaled zanamivir treatment; European study;Winter 1997/8 [abstract no.789]. 36th meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America: 1998 Nov 12–15; Denver (CO), 249Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lalezari J, Klein T, Stapleton J, et al. The efficacy and safety of inhaled zanamivir of influenza in otherwise healthy and ’high risk’ individuals in North America [abstract no. P8]. In: Abstracts of the 21st International Congress of Chemotherapy; 1999 Jul; Birmingham. JAC 1999; 44 Suppl. A: 42Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Silagy CA, Griffin AD, Lacey LA, et al., on behalf of MIST. Impact of zanamivir on health status, productivity and health care resource use in patients with influenza [abstract]. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 27 (4): 926Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mauskopf JA, Cates SC, Griffin AD. A pharmacoeconomic model for the treatment of influenza. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 16 Suppl. 1: 73–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schoenbaum SC, McNeil BJ, Kavet J. The swine-influenza decision. N Engl J Med 1976; 295: 759–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fred Y. Aoki
    • 1
  • Douglas M. Fleming
    • 2
  • Adrian D. Griffin
    • 3
  • Loretto A. Lacey
    • 3
  • Sally Edmundson
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Medical MicrobiologyThe University of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  2. 2.Northfield Health CentreBirminghamEngland
  3. 3.Global Health OutcomesGlaxo Wellcome R & DGreenford, MiddlesexEngland

Personalised recommendations