Source:Vaccine, Volume 35, Issue 45
Author(s): Sun-Young Kim, Chi Nguyen, Louise B. Russell, Sara Tomczyk, Fatimah Abdul-Hakeem, Stephanie J. Schrag, Jennifer R. Verani, Anushua Sinha
BackgroundIn the U.S., intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) for pregnant women colonized with group B streptococcus (GBS) has reduced GBS disease in the first week of life (early-onset/EOGBS). Nonetheless, GBS remains a leading cause of neonatal sepsis, including 1000 late-onset (LOGBS) cases annually. A maternal vaccine under development could prevent EOGBS and LOGBS.MethodsUsing a decision-analytic model, we compared the public health impact, costs, and cost-effectiveness of five strategies to prevent GBS disease in infants: (1) no prevention; (2) currently recommended screening/IAP; (3) maternal GBS immunization; (4) maternal immunization with IAP when indicated for unimmunized women; (5) maternal immunization plus screening/IAP for all women. We modeled a pentavalent vaccine covering serotypes 1a, 1b, II, III, and V, which cause almost all GBS disease.ResultsIn the base case, screening/IAP alone prevents 46% of EOGBS compared to no prevention, at a cost of $70,275 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) from a healthcare and $51,249/QALY from a societal perspective (2013 US$). At coverage rates typical of maternal vaccines in the U.S., a pentavalent vaccine alone would not prevent as much disease as screening/IAP until its efficacy approached 90%, but would cost less per QALY. At vaccine efficacy of ≥70%, maternal immunization together with IAP for unimmunized women would prevent more disease than screening/IAP, at a similar cost/QALY.ConclusionsGBS maternal immunization, with IAP as indicated for unvaccinated women, could be an attractive alternative to screening/IAP if a pentavalent vaccine is sufficiently effective. Coverage, typically low for maternal vaccines, is key to the vaccine's public health impact.
http://ift.tt/2i2ASeB
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου