, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 293–301 | Cite as

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Inhaled Zanamivir in the Treatment of Influenza A and B in High-Risk Patients

  • Adrian D. Griffin
  • Andrew S. Perry
  • Douglas M. Fleming
Original Research Article


Objective: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of zanamivir 10mg twice daily for 5 days in the treatment of influenza in high-risk patients.

Design: Bootstrap cost-effectiveness analysis incorporating within-trial analysis of pooled patient-level cost and effect data.

Setting: UK unit costs and utilities applied to high-risk patients drawn from 6 multinational clinical trials.

Patients: A total of 154 zanamivir and 167 placebo high-risk patients were included in the analysis.

Main outcome measures: Cost per day of normal activities; cost per symptom-free day; cost per complication averted; cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

Results: The mean benefit was estimated to be 2.5 days [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68 to 4.27] of normal activities gained; 2.0 (95% CI: 0.56 to 3.51) symptom-free days; and a 9% reduction in complications (95% CI: 0 to 18%). Excluding the effect of rare hospitalisation costs, the cost (1999 values) of gaining a day of normal activities was £9.50 (95% CI: £5 to £39); cost per symptom-free day was £11.56 (95% CI: £6 to £43); cost per complication averted was £262 (95% CI: £90 to £1574). Influenza was estimated to reduce utility by 0.883 per day, demonstrating the debilitating effect of the disease. Extrapolating a day of normal activities to a standard utility measure resulted in a cost per QALY of £3900 excluding inpatient costs (£7490 including inpatient costs). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves demonstrated 90% certainty that zanamivir would be cost effective at £8000 per QALY.

Conclusions: Significant health benefits can be obtained with zanamivir treatment in high-risk patients. The cost per QALY for zanamivir in these patients compares well with that of other commonly used pharmacological interventions.


Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Influenza Oseltamivir Zanamivir Diary Card 
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.



We thank Andrew Briggs (Institute of Health Sciences, University of Oxford); Neil Dobson; Rebecca Warren; and Sophie Hall (GlaxoWellcome UK, Stockley Park, UK). A.D. Griffin and A.S. Perry conceived, designed and performed the economic evaluation. D.M. Fleming conducted the utility measurement in influenza patients and contributed to interpretation of clinical data. A.D. Griffin and A.S. Perry drafted the manuscript and D.M. Fleming critically reviewed it. All authors had final approval of the manuscript. D.M. Fleming serves as a consultant advisor to GlaxoWellcome in relation to their clinical trial programme for zanamivir. He has also received honoraria in respect of lecture presentations on influenza-related issues and for service on advisory boards to the pharmaceutical industry covering influenza vaccination and treatment.


  1. 1.
    Jefferson T, Demichelli V. Socieoeconomics of influenza. In: Nicholson KG, Webster RG, Hay AJ, editors. Textbook of influenza. London: Blackwell Science, 1998: 541–7Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fleming DM. The contribution of influenza to combined acute respiratory infections, hospital admissions and deaths in winter. Commun Dis Public Health 2000; 3 (1): 32–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    von Itzstein M, Wu WY, Kok GB, et al. Rational design of potent sialidase-based inhibitors of influenza virus replication. Nature 1993; 363: 418–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mauskopf JA, Cates SC, Griffin AD, et al. Cost effectiveness of zanamivir for the treatment of influenza in a high risk population in Australia. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17 (6): 611–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lalezari J, Campion K, Keene O, et al. Zanamivir for the treatment of influenza A and B infection in high-risk patients: a pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161: 212–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Monto AS, Webster A, Keene O. Randomized, placebo-controlled studies of inhaled zanamivir in the treatment of influenza A and B: pooled efficacy analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999; 44: 23–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    MIST (Management of Influenza in the Southern Hemisphere Trialists) 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
  8. 8.
    Lalezari J, Klein T, Stapleton J, et al. The efficacy and safety of inhaled zanamivir in the treatment of influenza in otherwise healthy and ‘high risk’ individuals in North America [abstract no. P8]. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999; 44 Suppl. A: 42Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Makela MJ, Pauksens K, Rostila T, et al. Efficacy and safety of the orally inhaled neuraminidase inhibitor, zanamivir, in the treatment of influenza: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled European study. J Infect 2000; 40: 42–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hendrick JA, Barzilai A, Behre U, et al. Zanamivir for treatment of symptomatic influenza A and B infection in children five to twelve years of age: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2000; 19 (5): 410–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hayden F, Gubareva L, Klein T, et al. Inhaled zanamivir for preventing transmission of influenza in families. 39th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC); 1999 Sep 26–29; San Francisco (CA), 13Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bland JM, Altman DG. Survival probabilities (the Kaplan-Meier method). BMJ 1998; 317: 1572–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Etzioni RD, Feuer EJ, Sullivan SD, et al. On the use of survival analysis techniques to estimate medical care costs. J Health Econ 1999; 18 (3): 365–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    EuroQol Group. EuroQol — a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, et al. A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK General Population Study. University of York: Centre for Health Economics Discussion Paper 138, 1995Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Forbes RB, Lees A, Waugh N, et al. Population based cost utility study of interferon beta-1b in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. BMJ 1999; 319: 1529–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Netten A, Dennett J, Knight J. Unit costs of health and social care 1999. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, 1999Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Authors compilation of data from Medical Data Index, IMS Health Incorporated, Westport (CT), USAGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    British National Formulary. 38th ed. London: British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, 1999Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Briggs AH, Wonderling DE, Mooney CZ. Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ 1997; 6 (4): 327–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Van Hout BA, Al MJ, Gordon GS, et al. Costs, effects and C/E-ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ 1994; 3 (5): 309–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Cost effectiveness analysis of improved blood pressure control in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 40. BMJ 1998; 317: 720–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Löthgren M, Zethraeus N. Definition, interpretation and calculation of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ 2000; 9: 623–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stinnet AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 1998; 18 (2 Suppl.): S65–S80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, et al. Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ 1998; 316: 736–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bala MV, Zarkin GA. Are QALYs an appropriate measure for valuing morbidity in acute diseases? Health Econ 2000; 9: 177–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Briggs AH, Gray AM. Handling uncertainty when performing economic evaluation of healthcare interventions. Health Technol Assess 1999; 3 (2): 1–134PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adrian D. Griffin
    • 1
  • Andrew S. Perry
    • 1
  • Douglas M. Fleming
    • 2
  1. 1.GlaxoWellcome R&DGreenford, MiddlesexUK
  2. 2.Northfield Health CentreBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations