Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31575494›Full record

ArticleVaccine2019

A cost-effectiveness analysis of antenatal influenza vaccination among HIV-infected and HIV-uninfected pregnant women in South Africa.

Matthew Biggerstaff, Cheryl Cohen, Carrie Reed, Stefano Tempia, Meredith L McMorrow, Sibongile Walaza, Jocelyn Moyes, Florette K Treurnicht, Adam L Cohen, Paul Hutchinson and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Maternal vaccination: A narrative review.Southern African journal of infectious diseases · 2022
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 3 institutions in 5 countries.

Matthew BiggerstaffInfluenza Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. Electronic address: mbiggerstaff@cdc.gov.
Cheryl CohenCentre for Respiratory Diseases and Meningitis, National Institute for Communicable Diseases of the National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg, South Africa; School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Carrie ReedInfluenza Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Stefano TempiaInfluenza Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA; Centre for Respiratory Diseases and Meningitis, National Institute for Communicable Diseases of the National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg, South Africa; Influenza Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Pretoria, South Africa; MassGenics, Duluth, GA, USA.
Meredith L McMorrowInfluenza Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA; Influenza Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Pretoria, South Africa; US Public Health Service, Rockville, MD, USA.
Sibongile WalazaCentre for Respiratory Diseases and Meningitis, National Institute for Communicable Diseases of the National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg, South Africa; School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Jocelyn MoyesCentre for Respiratory Diseases and Meningitis, National Institute for Communicable Diseases of the National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg, South Africa; School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Florette K TreurnichtCentre for Respiratory Diseases and Meningitis, National Institute for Communicable Diseases of the National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg, South Africa; School of Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Adam L CohenInfluenza Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA; Influenza Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Pretoria, South Africa; US Public Health Service, Rockville, MD, USA; Expanded Programme on Immunization, Department of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Paul HutchinsonGlobal Community Health and Behavioral Sciences, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Charles StoeckerDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Joni SteinbergDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA.
National Health Laboratory Service · ZACenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USTulane University · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPregnant women and infants are at increased risk of severe disease from influenza. Antenatal influenza vaccination is safe and can reduce the risk of illness for women and their infants. We evaluated for South Africa the health effects of antenatal influenza vaccination among pregnant women and their infants aged <6 months old and assessed its cost-effectiveness.

methodsWe constructed a decision tree model to simulate the population of pregnant women and infants aged <6 months in South Africa using TreeAge Pro Suite 2015. The model evaluated the change in societal costs and outcomes associated with a vaccination campaign that prioritized HIV-infected over HIV-uninfected pregnant women compared with no vaccination. We also examined the impacts of a campaign without prioritization. Upper and lower 90% uncertainty intervals (90% UI) were generated using probabilistic sensitivity analysis on 10000 Monte Carlo simulations. The cost-effectiveness threshold was set to the 2015 per capita gross domestic product of South Africa, US$5724.

resultsAntenatal vaccination with prioritization averted 9070 (90% UI: 7407-11217) total cases of influenza among pregnant women and infants, including 411 (90% UI: 305-546) hospitalizations and 30 (90% UI: 22-40) deaths. This corresponds to an averted fraction of 13.5% (90% UI: 9.0-20.5%). Vaccinating without prioritization averted 7801 (90% UI: 6465-9527) cases of influenza, including 335 (90% UI: 254-440) hospitalizations and 24 (90% UI: 18-31) deaths. This corresponds to an averted fraction of 11.6% (90% UI: 7.8-17.4%). Vaccinating the cohort of pregnant women with prioritization had societal cost of $4689 (90% UI: $3128-$7294) per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gained while vaccinating without prioritization had a cost of $5924 (90% UI: $3992-$9056) per QALY.

conclusionsAntenatal influenza vaccination campaigns in South Africa would reduce the impact of influenza and could be cost-effective.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansInfant, NewbornInfluenza, HumanMonte Carlo MethodPregnancySouth AfricaVaccinationCost effectivenessInfantInfluenzaMaternalPregnantVaccine

Identifiers

PMID31575494
PMCPMC8939109
OpenAlexW2975359601

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.