Volume 15, Number 10—October 2009
Research
A Model-based Assessment of Oseltamivir Prophylaxis Strategies to Prevent Influenza in Nursing Homes
Table 1
Parameter values baseline scenario*
| Parameter | Value | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| No. beds | 30 | |
| No. HCWs | 30 | |
| Time step (= shift), h | 8 | (18) |
| Minimum duration of simulation, d | 80 | |
| Discharge/mortality rate, per d | 1/425 | (16,17) |
| Rate of becoming infectious after infection, per d | 1/1/4 | (20,21) |
| Infection recovery rate, per d | 1/1/4 | (20,21) |
| Prior immunity HCWs | 0.3 | (22) |
| Prior immunity patients | 0 | |
| Vaccine uptake patients | 75% | (25) |
| Vaccine uptake HCWs | 40% | (2) |
| Vaccine efficacy (against infection) | ||
| Patients | 25% | (28) |
| HCWs | 73% | (27) |
| Transmission probability per casual contact | 0.13 | (18) |
| Close/casual transmission probability ratio | 2 | |
| Mean visitor frequency/patient/d | 0.7 | (31) |
| Minimum duration of postexposure prophylaxis, d | 14 | (2) |
| Minimum duration of postexposure prophylaxis after last detected case, d |
8 |
(2) |
| Parameters in uncertainty analyses | ||
| Probability of disease developing after infection (range) | 0.5 (0.30–0.7) | (4) |
| Probability of disease developing after infection, during prophylaxis (range) | 0.2 (0.05–0.4) | (4) |
| Oseltamivir efficacy against infection (range) | 0.53 (0.2–0.8) | (4) |
| Oseltamivir reduction in infectiousness (range) | 0.2 (0–0.5) | (4) |
*HCW, healthcare worker.
