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

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.