The influenza-related disease burden is highest among the elderly. We evaluated the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine (aTIV) compared to other egg-based influenza vaccines (high-dose trivalent (TIV-HD), quadrivalent (QIVe-SD), and standard-dose trivalent (TIVe-SD)) against influenza-related and cardio-respiratory events among subjects aged ≥65 years for the 2017–2018 influenza season. This retrospective cohort analysis used prescription claims, professional fee claims, and hospital charge master data. Influenza-related hospitalizations/ER visits and office visits and cardio-respiratory events were assessed post-vaccination. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and Poisson regression were used to evaluate the adjusted rVE of aTIV compared to other vaccines. In an economic analysis, annualized follow-up costs were compared between aTIV and TIV-HD. The study was composed of 234,313 aTIV, 1,269,855 TIV-HD, 212,287 QIVe-SD, and 106,491 TIVe-SD recipients. aTIV was more effective in reducing influenza-related office visits and other respiratory-related hospitalizations/ER visits compared to the other vaccines. For influenza-related hospitalizations/ER visits, aTIV was associated with a significantly higher rVE compared to QIVe-SD and TIVe-SD and was comparable to TIV-HD. aTIV was also associated with a significantly higher rVE compared to TIVe-SD against hospitalizations/ER visits related to pneumonia and asthma/COPD/bronchial events. aTIV and TIV-HD were associated with comparable annualized all-cause and influenza-related costs. Adjusted analyses demonstrated a significant benefit of aTIV against influenza- and respiratory-related events compared to the other egg-based vaccines.

To evaluate the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) against influenza-related hospitalizations/emergency room (ER) visits, influenza-related office visits, and cardio-respiratory disease (CRD)-related hospitalizations/ER visits and compare all-cause and influenza-related costs associated with two vaccines specifically indicated for older adults (≥65 years), adjuvanted (aTIV) and high-dose trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV-HD), for the 2018-19 influenza season. A retrospective analysis of older adults was conducted using claims and hospital data in the United States. For clinical evaluations, adjusted analyses were conducted following inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to control for selection bias. Poisson regression was used to estimate the adjusted rVE against influenza-related hospitalizations/ER visits, influenza-related office visits, and any CRD-related hospitalizations/ER visits. For the economic evaluation, treatment selection bias was adjusted through 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM). All-cause and influenza-related costs associated with hospitalizations/ER, physician office and pharmacy visits were adjusted using generalized estimating equation (GEE) models. After IPTW and Poisson regression, aTIV (n = 561,315) was slightly more effective in reducing influenza-related office visits compared to TIV-HD (n = 1,672,779) (6.6%; 95% CI: 2.8-10.3%). aTIV was statistically comparable to TIV-HD (2.0%; 95% CI: -3.7%-7.3%) in preventing influenza-related hospitalizations/ER visits but more effective in reducing hospitalizations/ER visits for any CRD (2.6%; 95% CI: 2.0-3.2%). In the PSM-adjusted cohorts (n = 561,243 pairs), following GEE adjustments, predicted mean annualized all-cause and influenza-related total costs per patient were statistically similar between aTIV and TIV-HD (US$9676 vs. US$9625 and US$18.74 vs. US$17.28, respectively; both p > 0.05). Finally, influenza-related pharmacy costs were slightly lower for aTIV as compared to TIV-HD ($1.75 vs $1.85; p < 0.0001). During the 2018-19 influenza season, influenza-related hospitalization/ER visits and associated costs among people aged ≥ 65 were comparable between aTIV and TIV-HD. aTIV was slightly more effective in preventing influenza-related office visits and any CRD event as compared to TIV-HD in this population.

Aim: To examine associations of opioid use and pain interference with activities (PIA), healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs, and wage loss in noninstitutionalized adults with osteoarthritis in the United States (US). Methods: Adults with osteoarthritis identified from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey for 2011/2013/2015 were stratified by no-opioid use with no/mild PIA, no-opioid use with moderate/severe PIA, opioid use with no/mild PIA, and opioid use with moderate/severe PIA. Outcomes included annualized total HRU, direct healthcare costs, and wage loss. Multivariable regression analyses were used for comparisons versus no-opioid use with no/mild PIA (referent). The counterfactual recycled prediction method estimated incremental costs. Results reflect weighted nationally representative data. Results: Of 4,921 participants (weighted N = 20,785,007), 46.5% had no-opioid use with no/mild PIA; 23.2% had no-opioid use with moderate/severe PIA; 9.6% had opioid use with no/mild PIA; and 20.7% had opioid use with moderate/severe PIA. Moderate/severe PIA and/or opioid use were associated with significantly higher HRU and associated costs, and wage loss. Relative to adults with no/mild PIA, opioid users with moderate/severe PIA were more likely to have hospitalizations, specialist visits, and emergency room visits (all p < .001). Relative to the referent, opioid use with no/mild PIA had higher per-patient incremental annual total healthcare costs ($11,672, 95% confidence interval [CI] = $11,435-$11,909)) and wage loss ($1,395, 95% CI = $1,376-$1,414) as did opioid use with moderate/severe PIA ($13,595, 95% CI = $13,319-$13,871; and $2,331, 95% CI = $2,298-$2,363) (all p < .001). Compared with the referent, estimated excess national total healthcare costs/lost wages were $23.3 billion/$1.3 billion for opioid use with no/mild PIA, and $58.5 billion/$2.2 billion for opioid use with moderate/severe PIA. Limitations: Unobservable/unmeasured factors that could not be accounted for. Conclusions: Opioid use with moderate/severe PIA had significantly higher HRU, costs, and wage loss; opioid use was more relevant than PIA to the economic burden. These results suggest unmet needs for alternative pain management strategies.