Long-term survival after intensive care unit discharge in Thailand: a retrospective study

Introduction

Economic evaluations of interventions in the hospital setting often rely on the estimated long-term impact on patient survival. Estimates of mortality rates and long-term outcomes among patients discharged alive from the intensive care unit (ICU) are lacking from lower- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to assess the long-term survival and life expectancy (LE) amongst post-ICU patients in Thailand, a middle-income country.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, data from a regional tertiary hospital in northeast Thailand and the regional death registry were linked and used to assess patient survival time after ICU discharge. Adult ICU patients aged at least 15 years who had been discharged alive from an ICU between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2005 were included in the study, and the death registry was used to determine deaths occurring in this cohort up to 31^st December 2010. These data were used in conjunction with standard mortality life tables to estimate annual mortality and life expectancy.

Results

This analysis included 10,321 ICU patients. During ICU admission, 3,251 patients (31.5%) died. Of 7,070 patients discharged alive, 2,527 (35.7%) were known to have died within the five-year follow-up period, a mortality rate 2.5 times higher than that in the Thai general population (age and sex matched). The mean LE was estimated as 18.3 years compared with 25.2 years in the general population.

Conclusions

Post-ICU patients experienced much higher rates of mortality than members of the general population over the five-year follow-up period, particularly in the first year after discharge. Further work assessing Health Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) in both post-ICU patients and in the general population in developing countries is needed.     

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses for the prioritisation of the four available rotavirus vaccines in the national immunisation programme in Thailand

BackgroundRotavirus is a major cause of diarrhoea in children less than five years old in Thailand. Vaccination has been shown to be an effective intervention to prevent rotavirus infections but has yet to be enlisted in the national immunisation programme. This study aimed to assess the cost-utility of introducing rotavirus vaccines, taking all WHO-prequalified vaccines into consideration.MethodsA cost-utility analysis was performed using a transmission dynamic model to estimate, from a societal perspective, the costs and outcomes of four WHO-prequalified rotavirus vaccines: Rotarix®, RotaTeq®, ROTAVAC® and ROTASIIL®. The model was used to simulate the impact of introducing the vaccines among children aged < 1 year and compare this with no rotavirus vaccination. The vaccination programme was considered to be cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was less than a threshold of USD 5,110 per QALY gained.ResultsOverall, without the vaccine, the model predicted the average annual incidence of rotavirus to be 312,118 cases. With rotavirus vaccination at a coverage of more than 95%, the average number of rotavirus cases averted was estimated to be 144,299 per year. All rotavirus vaccines were cost-saving. ROTASIIL® was the most cost-saving option, followed by ROTAVAC®, Rotarix® and RotaTeq®, providing average cost-savings of USD 32, 31, 23 and 22 million per year, respectively, with 999 QALYs gained. All vaccines remained cost-saving with lower QALYs gained, even when ignoring indirect beneficial effects. The net saving to the healthcare system when implementing any one of these vaccines would be between USD 13 and 33 million per year.ConclusionRotavirus vaccines should be included in the national vaccination programme in Thailand. Implementing any one of these four WHO-prequalified vaccines would reduce government healthcare spending while yielding health benefits to the population.     

Assessing the cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in a low incidence and low mortality setting: the case of Thailand at start of the pandemic

Objective

This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, preferred COVID-19 vaccine profiles, and the preferred vaccination strategies in Thailand.

Methods

An age-structured transmission dynamic model was developed based on key local data to evaluate economic consequences, including cost and health outcome in terms of life-years (LYs) saved. We considered COVID-19 vaccines with different profiles and different vaccination strategies such as vaccinating elderly age groups (over 65s) or high-incidence groups, i.e. adults between 20 and 39 years old who have contributed to more than 60% of total COVID-19 cases in the country thus far. Analyses employed a societal perspective in a 1-year time horizon using a cost-effectiveness threshold of 160,000 THB per LY saved. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to identify and characterize uncertainty in the model.

Results

COVID-19 vaccines that block infection combined with social distancing were cost-saving regardless of the target population compared to social distancing alone (with no vaccination). For vaccines that block infection, the preferred (cost-effective) strategy was to vaccinate the high incidence group. Meanwhile, COVID-19 vaccines that reduces severity (including hospitalization and mortality) were cost-effective when the elderly were vaccinated, while vaccinating the high-incidence group was not cost-effective with this vaccine type. Regardless of vaccine type, higher vaccination coverage, higher efficacy, and longer protection duration were always preferred. More so, vaccination with social distancing measures was always preferred to strategies without social distancing. Quarantine-related costs were a major cost component affecting the cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.

Conclusion

COVID-19 vaccines are good value for money even in a relatively low-incidence and low-mortality setting such as Thailand, if the appropriate groups are vaccinated. The preferred vaccination strategies depend on the type of vaccine efficacy. Social distancing measures should accompany a vaccination strategy.