HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) A correction has been published TRACK Comments: Submit a response TRACK Comments: View responses Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when TRACK Comments are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hueston, W. J. Articles by Benich, J. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hueston, W. J. Articles by Benich, J. J., III

A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Testing for Influenza A in High-Risk Adults

Department of Family Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: William J. Hueston, MD, Department of Family Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, 295 Calhoun Street, PO Box 250192, Charleston, SC 29425, huestowj{at}musc.edu

BACKGROUND Clinical diagnosis and empiric therapy have been strategies for treatment of suspected influenza in high-risk patients, but rapid tests for influenza have been introduced to help confirm cases. The aim of this study was to determine when rapid testing, empiric treatment, or no treatment is most cost-beneficial for high-risk adults with influenzalike respiratory tract illnesses.

METHODS We performed a cost-benefit analysis evaluating the comparative advantage of the strategies of empiric therapy, no treatment, or test and treat patients whose tests are positive. The analysis focused on a hypothetical population of patients who are at a high-risk for complications of influenza. Our main outcome was the cost of care for an episode of influenza taken from the human capital perspective.

RESULTS For older anti-influenza drugs (amantadine and rimantadine), rapid testing is not as cost-beneficial as empiric treatment, even when the prevalence of influenza is low. For the neuraminidase inhibitors, there is a narrow window of disease prevalence between 30% and 40% where testing is most cost-beneficial. When the disease likelihood is above this window, empiric treatment is preferred. Below this window, no treatment is more cost-beneficial. Even under the most favorable conditions, testing is preferred only for a small range of prevalence rates of influenza.

CONCLUSION When clinicians are planning to use the nonneuraminidase inhibitors to treat influenza, rapid testing is not the most cost-beneficial approach. Even when the more expensive neuraminidase inhibitors will be used, testing has a limited role in managing influenza in high-risk patients.

Key Words: Influenza • virus diseases • diagnostic techniques and procedures • cost-benefit analysis

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. C. Stange On TRACK Ann. Fam. Med, March 1, 2004; 2(2): 177 - 179. [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. C. Stange In this Issue: Multimethod Research Ann. Fam. Med, January 1, 2004; 2(1): 2 - 3. [Full Text] [PDF]

TRACK Comments: