Skip to main content
. 2023 Mar 29;11(4):753. doi: 10.3390/vaccines11040753

Table 3.

Scenario analyses.

Scenario Description References
Scenario 1 Assumed lower vaccine coverage rates (47.6% for Denmark, 29.5% for Norway, and 50% for Sweden, average coverage from seasons 2014/15 to 2018/19) [64,65,77,78,79,80,81]
Scenario 2
(2.1 to 2.5)
Conducted separate analyses for seasons 2014/15 to 2018/19 (5 seasons before COVID-19 pandemic) with influenza strain circulation for each season [67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81]
Scenario 3 aQIV VE estimated using only effectiveness evidence from observational studies (using rVE for aTIV vs. SD-TIV from Coleman et al. [13.9%]) [41] [41]
Scenario 4
(4.1 to 4.2)
Used lower (36% for H1N1, −6% for H3N2, and 33% for subtype B) and upper (78% for H1N1, 45% for H3N2, and 79% for subtype B) bounds of the 95% CI for SD-QIV VE [39]
Scenario 5
(5.1 to 5.2)
Used lower and upper bounds of the 95% CI for rVE of HD-QIV vs. SD-QIV (9.7–36.5%) and aQIV vs. HD-QIV (−2.5–8.9%) [40,41]
Scenario 6
(6.1 to 6.2)
Varied the management costs of all IRCs (outpatient and hospitalizations) by ±30% NA
Scenario 7 Removed HF from the model NA

aQIV: Adjuvanted quadrivalent influenza vaccine; HD-QIV: High-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine; HF: Heath failure; IRC: Influenza-related complications; SD-QIV: Standard-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine; rVE: Relative vaccine effectiveness; VE: Vaccine effectiveness.