IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0119271.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pertussis Post-Exposure Prophylaxis among Household Contacts: A Cost-Utility Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Nisha Thampi
  • Ipek Gurol-Urganci
  • Natasha S Crowcroft
  • Beate Sander

Abstract

Background: Recent pertussis outbreaks have prompted re-examination of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) strategies, when immunization is not immediately protective. Chemoprophylaxis is recommended to household contacts; however there are concerns of clinical failure and significant adverse events, especially with erythromycin among infants who have the highest disease burden. Newer macrolides offer fewer side effects at higher drug costs. We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of PEP strategies from the health care payer perspective. Methods: A Markov model was constructed to examine 4 mutually exclusive strategies: erythromycin, azithromycin, clarithromycin, or no intervention, stratified by age group of contacts (“infant”, “child”, and “adult”). Transition probabilities, costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were derived from the literature. Chronic neurologic sequelae were modeled over a lifetime, with costs and QALYs discounted at 5%. Associated health outcomes and costs were compared, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated in 2012 Canadian dollars. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the degree of uncertainty in the results. Findings: Azithromycin offered the highest QALYs in all scenarios. While this was the dominant strategy among infants, it produced an ICER of $16,963 per QALY among children and $2,415 per QALY among adults. Total QALYs with azithromycin were 19.7 for a 5-kg infant, 19.4 for a 10-year-old child, and 18.8 for a 30-year-old adult. The costs of azithromycin PEP among infants, children and adults were $1,976, $132 and $90, respectively. While results were sensitive to changes in PEP effectiveness (11% to 87%), disease transmission (variable among age groups) and hospitalization costs ($379 to $59,644), the choice of strategy remained unchanged. Interpretation: Pertussis PEP is a cost-effective strategy compared with no intervention and plays an important role in contact management, potentially in outbreak situations. From a healthcare payer perspective, azithromycin is the optimal strategy among all contact groups.

Suggested Citation

  • Nisha Thampi & Ipek Gurol-Urganci & Natasha S Crowcroft & Beate Sander, 2015. "Pertussis Post-Exposure Prophylaxis among Household Contacts: A Cost-Utility Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-17, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0119271
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119271
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0119271
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0119271&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0119271?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0119271. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.