IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v41y2023i1d10.1007_s40273-022-01207-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Utility Analysis of Universal Maternal Pertussis Immunisation in Thailand: A Comparison of Two Model Structures

Author

Listed:
  • Siobhan Botwright

    (Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program)

  • Ei Mon Win

    (Silpakorn University)

  • Nattiya Kapol

    (Silpakorn University)

  • Sirikanlaya Benjawan

    (Siam University)

  • Yot Teerawattananon

    (Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program
    National University of Singapore)

Abstract

Objectives This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of introducing universal maternal pertussis immunisation under the national vaccine programme in Thailand. Methods We conducted a cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective to compare maternal vaccination with (1) TdaP vaccine, (2) Td vaccine and aP vaccine, and (3) Td vaccine only. We constructed two decision-tree models with Markov elements, each following a different clinical pathway, to allow us to examine structural uncertainty. Costs were converted to 2021 Thai Baht (THB) and a discount rate of 3% was applied to health and cost outcomes, with sensitivity analysis at 0% and 6%. Parameter uncertainty was investigated through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis, with expected value of perfect information analysis. Results Maternal pertussis vaccination would avert 27 cases and up to one death per year. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for adding aP to the maternal immunisation schedule is 2,184,025 THB/QALY and the ICER for replacing maternal Td vaccination with TdaP is 3,198,101 THB/QALY. Maternal pertussis vaccination only becomes favourable in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis at cost-effectiveness thresholds above 6,000,000 THB/QALY, far above the Thai threshold of 160,000 THB/QALY. If incidence is less than 397 cases per 100,000, maternal pertussis vaccination will not be cost-effective in Thailand, within the plausible range for vaccine effectiveness and probability of hospitalisation. Budget impact is dominated by vaccination costs, which represent 12% and 18% of the 2021 national vaccine programme budget for introducing aP vaccine or for switching Td with TdaP vaccine, respectively. Conclusions We have found that maternal pertussis immunisation is not cost-effective in Thailand. Although there may be substantial under-reporting of pertussis cases, comparison with hospital data suggests that most under-reported cases are not hospitalised and therefore have negligible impact on our results. However, considerations such as affordability and local manufacturing may also be important for national immunisation programme decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Siobhan Botwright & Ei Mon Win & Nattiya Kapol & Sirikanlaya Benjawan & Yot Teerawattananon, 2023. "Cost-Utility Analysis of Universal Maternal Pertussis Immunisation in Thailand: A Comparison of Two Model Structures," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 77-91, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:41:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-022-01207-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-022-01207-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-022-01207-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-022-01207-w?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:spr:pharme:v:41:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-022-01207-w. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.