Vaccine · 2017
Cost-effectiveness of a potential group B streptococcal vaccine for pregnant women in the United States.
СтатьяПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kim Sun-Young, Nguyen Chi, Russell Louise B, Tomczyk Sara, Abdul-Hakeem Fatimah, Schrag Stephanie J, Verani Jennifer R, Sinha Anushua
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In 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.
METHODS: Using 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.
RESULTS: In 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.
CONCLUSIONS: GBS 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.
METHODS: Using 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.
RESULTS: In 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.
CONCLUSIONS: GBS 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.