Cost-effectiveness analysis of universal maternal immunization with tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine in Brazil

Carregando...
Imagem de Miniatura
Citações na Scopus
20
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2016
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
ELSEVIER SCI LTD
Citação
VACCINE, v.34, n.13, p.1531-1539, 2016
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Background: Pertussis incidence has increased significantly in Brazil since 2011, despite high coverage of whole-cell pertussis containing vaccines in childhood. Infants <4 months are most affected. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of introducing universal maternal vaccination with tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap) into the National Immunization Program in Brazil. Methods: Economic evaluation using a decision tree model comparing two strategies: (1) universal vaccination with one dose of Tdap in the third trimester of pregnancy and (2) current practice (no pertussis maternal vaccination), from the perspective of the health system and society. An annual cohort of newborns representing the number of vaccinated pregnant women were followed for one year. Vaccine efficacy were based on literature review. Epidemiological, healthcare resource utilization and cost estimates were based on local data retrieved from Brazilian Health Information Systems. Costs of epidemiological investigation and treatment of contacts of cases were included in the analysis. No discount rate was applied to costs and benefits, as the temporal horizon was one year. Primary outcome was cost per life year saved (LYS). Univariate and best- and worst-case scenarios sensitivity analysis were performed. Results: Maternal vaccination of one annual cohort, with vaccine effectiveness of 78%, and vaccine cost of USD$12.39 per dose, would avoid 661 cases and 24 infant deaths of pertussis, save 1800 years of life and cost USD$28,942,808 and USD$29,002,947, respectively, from the health system and societal perspective. The universal immunization would result in ICERs of USD$15,608 and USD$15,590 per LYS, from the health system and societal perspective, respectively. In sensitivity analysis, the ICER was most sensitive to discounting of life years saved, variation in case-fatality, disease incidence, vaccine cost, and vaccine effectiveness. Conclusion: The results indicate that universal maternal immunization with Tdap is a cost-effective intervention for preventing pertussis cases and deaths in infants in Brazil.
Palavras-chave
Cost-benefit analysis, Cost-effectiveness analysis, Maternal immunization, Pertussis vaccine, Pertussis, Whooping cough, Pregnancy
Referências
  1. Amirthalingam G, 2014, LANCET, V384, P1521, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60686-3
  2. Husereau D, 2013, VALUE HEALTH, V16, P231, DOI 10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.002
  3. Edmunds WJ, 1999, STAT MED, V18, P3263, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19991215)18:23<3263::AID-SIM315>3.0.CO;2-3
  4. Lugner AK, 2013, VACCINE, V31, P5392, DOI 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.09.028
  5. Brisson M, 2003, MED DECIS MAKING, V23, P76, DOI 10.1177/0272989X02239651
  6. Terranella A, 2013, PEDIATRICS, V131, pE1748, DOI 10.1542/peds.2012-3144
  7. Westra TA, 2010, CLIN THER, V32, P1479, DOI 10.1016/j.clinthera.2010.07.017
  8. Sukumaran L, 2015, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V314, P1581, DOI 10.1001/jama.2015.12790
  9. Rank C, 2009, PEDIATR INFECT DIS J, V28, P152, DOI 10.1097/INF.0b013e318185608e
  10. Fernandez-Cano MI, 2015, VACCINE, V33, P2213, DOI 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.03.045
  11. Crowcroft NS, 2006, LANCET, V367, P1926, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68848-X
  12. Scuffham PA, 2004, VACCINE, V22, P2953, DOI 10.1016/j.vaccine.2003.11.057
  13. [Anonymous], 2010, WKLY EPIDEMIOL REC, V85, P385
  14. Shakib JH, 2013, J PEDIATR-US, V163, P1422, DOI 10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.06.021
  15. [Anonymous], 2014, WKLY EPIDEMIOL REC, V89, P337
  16. [Anonymous], 2013, MMWR MORB MORTAL WKL, V62, P131
  17. Munoz FM, 2014, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V311, P1760, DOI 10.1001/jama.2014.3633
  18. [Anonymous], 2008, PNAD PESQ NAC AM DOM
  19. Barbieri M, 2010, VALUE HEALTH, V13, P1028, DOI 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00771.x
  20. Jit M, 2015, VACCINE, V33, P3788, DOI 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.06.084
  21. Associacao Nacional de Transportes Publicos (ANTP), 2011, TAR CAP CID COM MAIS
  22. Chamberlain AT, 2015, PLOS CURR, V7
  23. Cherry JD, 2015, CLIN INFECT DIS, V61, P1645, DOI 10.1093/cid/civ700
  24. Commission on Macroeconomics and Health, 2001, MACR HLTH INV HLTH E
  25. Edwards KM, 2008, VACCINES
  26. Guimaraes LM, 2015, BMC INFECT DIS, V15, DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-1222-3
  27. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica - I.B.G.E, 2010, CENS DEM 2010 TRAB R
  28. Jackson DW, 2014, EPIDEMIOL INFECT, V142, P672, DOI 10.1017/S0950268812003093
  29. Keller-Stanislawski B, 2014, VACCINE, V32, P7057, DOI 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.09.052
  30. Kharbanda EO, 2014, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V312, P1897, DOI 10.1001/jama.2014.14825
  31. Ladhani SN, 2015, CLIN INFECT DIS, V61, P1637, DOI 10.1093/cid/civ695
  32. McGarry LJ, 2014, PLOS ONE, V9, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0072723
  33. Ministerio da Satude (Brasil), DATASUS INF SAUD TAB
  34. Ministerio da Saude/Secretaria de Vigilancia em Saude/Departamento de Vigilancia Epidemiologica/Coordenacao Geral do Programa Nacional de Imunizacoes, 2014, INF TECN IMPL VAC AD
  35. SIGTAP - Sistema de Gerenciamento da Tabela de Procedimentos, 2013, MED ORT PROT MAT ESP
  36. SIH/SUS, 2013, SIST INF HOSP SUS
  37. SI-PNI, 2011, CAMP NAC VAC GRIP CO
  38. Sistema de Informacoes de Agravos de Notificacao - SINAN, 2011, MEN
  39. Ultsch B, 2015, PHARMACOECONOMICS
  40. Viellas Elaine Fernandes, 2014, Cad Saude Publica, V30 Suppl 1, pS1
  41. Winter K, 2014, MMWR-MORBID MORTAL W, V63, P1129
  42. World Bank, 2008, DAT OFF EXCH RAT LCU