Suppr超能文献

65岁时应否单次接种成人破伤风疫苗?一项成本效益分析。

Should adult tetanus immunization be given as a single vaccination at age 65? A cost-effectiveness analysis.

作者信息

Balestra D J, Littenberg B

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Veterans Affairs Medical and Regional Office Center, White River Junction, VT 05009.

出版信息

J Gen Intern Med. 1993 Aug;8(8):405-12. doi: 10.1007/BF02599616.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare three vaccination strategies for the prevention of adult tetanus. Each strategy includes childhood primary immunization and wound prophylaxis, and one of the following: 1) the currently recommended booster every ten years; 2) a single booster at 65 years of age; or 3) no intervention after age 6 except for wound prophylaxis.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness analysis was used to compare the three different strategies. A Markov model, cycled annually from age 5 through age 85, was applied to each strategy to predict the incidence and costs of tetanus for the U.S. adult population.

RESULTS

The three strategies have very similar effects on life expectancy but different costs. Expressed incremental to no intervention after childhood primary immunization, the decennial booster strategy is least cost-effective, with a discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $143,138 per year of life saved compared with $4,527 for the single-booster strategy. Sensitivity analysis demonstrates that the decennial strategy is more effective but more costly over a wide range of model assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

The current policy of recommending tetanus booster vaccinations every ten years is effective but much more costly than a more easily implemented policy that also provides considerable protection against tetanus. The authors recommend forsaking decennial boosters in favor of a policy of including a single booster at age 65 along with other recommended health maintenance maneuvers reserved for that age.

摘要

目的

比较三种预防成人破伤风的疫苗接种策略。每种策略都包括儿童期基础免疫和伤口预防,以及以下之一:1)目前推荐的每十年一次加强免疫;2)65岁时单次加强免疫;或3)6岁后除伤口预防外不进行干预。

方法

采用成本效益分析来比较这三种不同策略。将一个从5岁到85岁每年循环一次的马尔可夫模型应用于每种策略,以预测美国成年人群破伤风的发病率和成本。

结果

这三种策略对预期寿命的影响非常相似,但成本不同。与儿童期基础免疫后不进行干预相比,以增量表示,十年一次加强免疫策略的成本效益最低,每挽救一年生命的贴现增量成本效益比为143,138美元,而单次加强免疫策略为4,527美元。敏感性分析表明,在广泛的模型假设范围内,十年一次加强免疫策略更有效但成本更高。

结论

目前每十年推荐一次破伤风加强疫苗接种的政策是有效的,但比一种更易于实施且同样能提供相当程度破伤风防护的政策成本高得多。作者建议放弃十年一次的加强免疫,转而采用在65岁时单次加强免疫并结合该年龄段其他推荐的健康维护措施的政策。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验