Is adding maternal vaccination to prevent whooping cough cost-effective in Australia?

Pertussis or whooping cough, a highly infectious respiratory infection, causes significant morbidity and mortality in infants. In adolescents and adults, pertussis presents with atypical symptoms often resulting in under-diagnosis and under-reporting, increasing the risk of transmission to more vulnerable groups. Maternal vaccination against pertussis protects mothers and newborns. This evaluation assessed the cost-effectiveness of adding maternal dTpa (reduced antigen diphtheria, Tetanus, acellular pertussis) vaccination to the 2016 nationally-funded pertussis program (DTPa [Diphtheria, Tetanus, acellular Pertussis] at 2, 4, 6, 18 months, 4 years and dTpa at 12-13 years) in Australia. A static cross-sectional population model was developed using a one-year period at steady-state. The model considered the total Australian population, stratified by age. Vaccine effectiveness against pertussis infection was assumed to be 92% in mothers and 91% in newborns, based on observational and case-control studies. The model included conservative assumptions around unreported cases. With 70% coverage, adding maternal vaccination to the existing pertussis program would prevent 8,847 pertussis cases, 422 outpatient cases, 146 hospitalizations and 0.54 deaths per year at the population level. With a 5% discount rate, 138.5 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) would be gained at an extra cost of AUS$ 4.44 million and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of AUS$ 32,065 per QALY gained. Sensitivity and scenario analyses demonstrated that outcomes were most sensitive to assumptions around vaccine effectiveness, duration of protection in mothers, and disutility of unreported cases. In conclusion, dTpa vaccination in the third trimester of pregnancy is likely to be cost-effective from a healthcare payer perspective in Australia.

A patient preference study that evaluated fluticasone furoate and mometasone furoate nasal sprays for allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroid nasal sprays are the mainstay of treatment for allergic rhinitis. These sprays have sensory attributes such as scent and/or odor, taste and aftertaste, and run down the throat and/or the nose, which, when unpleasant, can affect patient preference for, and compliance with, treatment. OBJECTIVE: This study examined patient preference for fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) or mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) based on their sensory attributes after administration in patients with allergic rhinitis. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over study. Patient preferences were determined by using three questionnaires (Overall Preference, Immediate Attributes, and Delayed Attributes). RESULTS: Overall, 56% of patients stated a preference for FFNS versus 32% for MFNS (p < 0.001); the remaining 12% stated no preference. More patients stated a preference for FFNS versus MFNS for the attributes of "less drip down the throat" (p < 0.001), "less run out of the nose" (p < 0.05), "more soothing" (p < 0.05), and "less irritating" (p < 0.001). More patients responded in favor of FFNS versus MFNS for the immediate attributes, "run down the throat" (p < 0.001), and "run out of the nose" (p < 0.001), and, in the delayed attributes, "run down the throat" (p < 0.001), "run out of the nose" (p < 0.01), "presence of aftertaste" (p < 0.01), and "no nasal irritation" (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients with allergic rhinitis preferred FFNS versus MFNS overall and based on a number of individual attributes, including "less drip down the throat," "less run out of the nose," and "less irritating." Greater preference may improve patient adherence and thereby improve symptom management of the patient's allergic rhinitis.