Potential Cost-Effectiveness of Maternal Influenza Immunisation in Low-Income Countries: An Explorative Modelling Study and Value of Information Analysis to Guide Future Clinical Research.

Maternal influenza immunisation (MII) is recommended for protecting pregnant women and infants under six months of age from severe disease related to influenza. However, few low-income countries have introduced this vaccine. Existing cost-effectiveness studies do not consider potential vaccine non-specific effects (NSE) observed in some settings, such as reductions in preterm birth. A decision tree model was built to examine the potential cost-effectiveness of MII in a hypothetical low-income country compared to no vaccination, considering possible values for NSE on preterm birth in addition to vaccine-specific effects on influenza. We synthesized epidemiological and cost data from low-income countries. All costs were adjusted to 2021 United States dollars (USD). We considered cost-effectiveness thresholds that reflect opportunity costs (USD 188 per disability-adjusted life year averted; range: USD 28-538). Results suggest that even a small (5%) NSE on preterm birth may make MII a cost-effective strategy in these settings. A value of information analysis indicated that acquiring more information on the presence and possible size of NSE of MII could greatly reduce the uncertainty in decision-making on MII. Further clinical research investigating NSE in low-income countries may be of high value to optimise immunisation policy.

An evaluation of strategies to achieve greater than 90% coverage of maternal influenza and pertussis vaccines including an economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Maternal immunisation is an essential public health intervention aimed at improving the health outcomes for pregnant women and providing protection to the newborn. Despite international recommendations, safety and efficacy data for the intervention, and often a fully funded program, uptake of vaccines in pregnancy remain suboptimal. One possible explanation for this includes limited access to vaccination services at the point of antenatal care. The aim of this study is to evaluate the change in vaccine coverage among pregnant women following implementation of a modified model of delivery aimed at improving access at the point of antenatal care, including an economic evaluation. METHODS: This prospective multi-centre study, using action research design, across six maternity services in Victoria, Australia, evaluated the implementation of a co-designed vaccine delivery model (either a pharmacy led model, midwife led model or primary care led model) supported by provider education. The main outcome measure was influenza and pertussis vaccine uptake during pregnancy and the incremental cost of the new model (compared to existing models) and the cost-effectiveness of the new model at each participating health service. RESULTS: Influenza vaccine coverage in 2019 increased between 50 and 196% from baseline. All services reduced their average cost per immunisation under the new platforms due to efficiencies achieved in the delivery of maternal immunisations. This cost saving ranged from $9 to $71. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that there is no 'one size fits all' model of vaccine delivery. Future successful strategies to improve maternal vaccine coverage at other maternity services should be site specific, multifaceted, targeted at the existing barriers to maternal vaccine uptake, and heavily involve local stakeholders in the design and implementation of these strategies. The cost-effectiveness analysis indicates that an increase in maternal influenza immunisation uptake can be achieved at a relatively modest cost through amendment of maternal immunisation platforms.

Widespread implementation of a low-cost telehealth service in the delivery of antenatal care during the COVID-19 pandemic: an interrupted time-series analysis.

BACKGROUND: Little evidence is available on the use of telehealth for antenatal care. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we developed and implemented a new antenatal care schedule integrating telehealth across all models of pregnancy care. To inform this clinical initiative, we aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of telehealth in antenatal care. METHODS: We analysed routinely collected health data on all women giving birth at Monash Health, a large health service in Victoria (Australia), using an interrupted time-series design. We assessed the impact of telehealth integration into antenatal care from March 23, 2020, across low-risk and high-risk care models. Allowing a 1-month implementation period from March 23, 2020, we compared the first 3 months of telehealth integrated care delivered between April 20 and July 26, 2020, with conventional care delivered between Jan 1, 2018, and March 22, 2020. The primary outcomes were detection and outcomes of fetal growth restriction, pre-eclampsia, and gestational diabetes. Secondary outcomes were stillbirth, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and preterm birth (birth before 37 weeks' gestation). FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2018, and March 22, 2020, 20 031 women gave birth at Monash Health during the conventional care period and 2292 women gave birth during the telehealth integrated care period. Of 20 154 antenatal consultations provided in the integrated care period, 10 731 (53%) were delivered via telehealth. Overall, compared with the conventional care period, no significant differences were identified in the integrated care period with regard to the number of babies with fetal growth restriction (birthweight below the 3rd percentile; 2% in the integrated care period vs 2% in the conventional care period, p=0·72, for low-risk care models; 5% in the integrated care period vs 5% in the conventional care period, p=0·50 for high-risk care models), number of stillbirths (1% vs 1%, p=0·79; 2% vs 2%, p=0·70), or pregnancies complicated by pre-eclampsia (3% vs 3%, p=0·70; 9% vs 7%, p=0·15), or gestational diabetes (22% vs 22%, p=0·89; 30% vs 26%, p=0·06). Interrupted time-series analysis showed a significant reduction in preterm birth among women in high-risk models (-0·68% change in incidence per week [95% CI -1·37 to -0·002]; p=0·049), but no significant differences were identified in other outcome measures for low-risk or high-risk care models after telehealth integration compared with conventional care. INTERPRETATION: Telehealth integrated antenatal care enabled the reduction of in-person consultations by 50% without compromising pregnancy outcomes. This care model can help to minimise in-person interactions during the COVID-19 pandemic, but should also be considered in post-pandemic health-care models. FUNDING: None.

Understanding the barriers to uptake of antenatal vaccination by women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds: A cross-sectional study.

The role of maternal vaccination in reducing neonatal morbidity and mortality is expanding but uptake remains suboptimal. While the barriers to uptake have been well described, women from minority groups have not been well represented in previous studies. In this study we examine the facilitators and barriers to uptake of antenatal vaccination by women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds in Melbourne, Australia. 537 women attending antenatal care completed a survey; 69% were born overseas. 63% had or intended to receive pertussis vaccine and 57% had or intended to receive influenza vaccine during their pregnancy. On multivariable analysis, predictors of uptake of pertussis vaccine were healthcare provider recommendation (OR 10, 95% CI 5-21, p < 0.001) and belief maternal pertussis vaccination is safe (OR 36, 95% CI 18-70, p < 0.001). For influenza vaccine, predictors of uptake were previous receipt of influenza vaccine (OR 8, 95% CI 5-15, p < 0.001) and healthcare provider recommendation (OR 30, 95% CI 16-56, p < 0.001). Lack of healthcare provider recommendation was the main reason for non-vaccination (17/46, 37%). While most women were aware of and intended to receive recommended vaccinations, recently arrived migrant women (resident in Australia for less than two years) were less likely to be aware of pertussis vaccine (15/22, 68% vs 452/513, 88%, p = 0.01) and less likely to believe it to be safe during pregnancy (4/22, 18% vs 299/514, 58%, p < 0.001). This highlights the important role of healthcare providers in recommending and educating women, particularly newly arrived migrant women, in their decisions about vaccination during pregnancy.