Clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in South Africa.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Reddy KP
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8132265 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Low- and middle-income countries are implementing COVID-19 vaccination strategies in light of varying vaccine efficacies and costs, supply shortages, and resource constraints. Here, we use a microsimulation model to evaluate clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of a COVID-19 vaccination program in South Africa. We varied vaccination coverage, pace, acceptance, effectiveness, and cost as well as epidemic dynamics. Providing vaccines to at least 40% of the population and prioritizing vaccine rollout prevented >9 million infections and >73,000 deaths and reduced costs due to fewer hospitalizations. Model results were most sensitive to assumptions about epidemic growth and prevalence of prior immunity to SARS-CoV-2, though the vaccination program still provided high value and decreased both deaths and health care costs across a wide range of assumptions. Vaccination program implementation factors, including prompt procurement, distribution, and rollout, are likely more influential than characteristics of the vaccine itself in maximizing public health benefits and economic efficiency.
| S-EPMC8556310 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Healthcare resource constraints in low and middle-income countries necessitate selection of cost-effective public health interventions to address COVID-19. Methods We developed a dynamic COVID-19 microsimulation model to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes and cost-effectiveness of epidemic control strategies in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Interventions assessed were Healthcare Testing (HT), where diagnostic testing is performed only for those presenting to healthcare centres; Contact Tracing (CT) in households of cases; Isolation Centres (IC), for cases not requiring hospitalisation; community health worker-led Mass Symptom Screening and diagnostic testing for symptomatic individuals (MS); and Quarantine Centres (QC), for contacts who test negative. Given uncertainties about epidemic dynamics in South Africa, we evaluated two main epidemic scenarios over 360 days, with effective reproduction numbers (R e ) of 1.5 and 1.2. We compared HT, HT+CT, HT+CT+IC, HT+CT+IC+MS, HT+CT+IC+QC, and HT+CT+IC+MS+QC, considering strategies with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) <US$1,290/year-of-life saved (YLS) to be cost-effective. Findings With R e 1.5, HT resulted in the most COVID-19 deaths and lowest costs over 360 days. Compared with HT, HT+CT+IC+MS reduced mortality by 76%, increased costs by 16%, and was cost-effective (ICER $350/YLS). HT+CT+IC+MS+QC provided the greatest reduction in mortality, but increased costs by 95% compared with HT+CT+IC+MS and was not cost-effective (ICER $8,000/YLS). With R e 1.2, HT+CT+IC+MS was the least costly strategy, and HT+CT+IC+MS+QC was not cost-effective (ICER $294,320/YLS). Interpretation In South Africa, a strategy of household contact tracing, isolation, and mass symptom screening would substantially reduce COVID-19 mortality and be cost-effective. Adding quarantine centres for COVID-19 contacts is not cost-effective.
| S-EPMC7340205 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMobile HIV screening may facilitate early HIV diagnosis. Our objective was to examine the cost-effectiveness of adding a mobile screening unit to current medical facility-based HIV testing in Cape Town, South Africa.Methods and findingsWe used the Cost Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications International (CEPAC-I) computer simulation model to evaluate two HIV screening strategies in Cape Town: 1) medical facility-based testing (the current standard of care) and 2) addition of a mobile HIV-testing unit intervention in the same community. Baseline input parameters were derived from a Cape Town-based mobile unit that tested 18,870 individuals over 2 years: prevalence of previously undiagnosed HIV (6.6%), mean CD4 count at diagnosis (males 423/µL, females 516/µL), CD4 count-dependent linkage to care rates (males 31%-58%, females 49%-58%), mobile unit intervention cost (includes acquisition, operation and HIV test costs, $29.30 per negative result and $31.30 per positive result). We conducted extensive sensitivity analyses to evaluate input uncertainty. Model outcomes included site of HIV diagnosis, life expectancy, medical costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the intervention compared to medical facility-based testing. We considered the intervention to be "very cost-effective" when the ICER was less than South Africa's annual per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ($8,200 in 2012). We projected that, with medical facility-based testing, the discounted (undiscounted) HIV-infected population life expectancy was 132.2 (197.7) months; this increased to 140.7 (211.7) months with the addition of the mobile unit. The ICER for the mobile unit was $2,400/year of life saved (YLS). Results were most sensitive to the previously undiagnosed HIV prevalence, linkage to care rates, and frequency of HIV testing at medical facilities.ConclusionThe addition of mobile HIV screening to current testing programs can improve survival and be very cost-effective in South Africa and other resource-limited settings, and should be a priority.
| S-EPMC3898963 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealth-care resource constraints in low-income and middle-income countries necessitate the identification of cost-effective public health interventions to address COVID-19. We aimed to develop a dynamic COVID-19 microsimulation model to assess clinical and economic outcomes and cost-effectiveness of epidemic control strategies in KwaZulu-Natal province, South Africa.MethodsWe compared different combinations of five public health interventions: health-care testing alone, where diagnostic testing is done only for individuals presenting to health-care centres; contact tracing in households of cases; isolation centres, for cases not requiring hospital admission; mass symptom screening and molecular testing for symptomatic individuals by community health-care workers; and quarantine centres, for household contacts who test negative. We calibrated infection transmission rates to match effective reproduction number (Re) estimates reported in South Africa. We assessed two main epidemic scenarios for a period of 360 days, with an Re of 1·5 and 1·2. Strategies with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of less than US$3250 per year of life saved were considered cost-effective. We also did sensitivity analyses by varying key parameters (Re values, molecular testing sensitivity, and efficacies and costs of interventions) to determine the effect on clinical and cost projections.FindingsWhen Re was 1·5, health-care testing alone resulted in the highest number of COVID-19 deaths during the 360-day period. Compared with health-care testing alone, a combination of health-care testing, contact tracing, use of isolation centres, mass symptom screening, and use of quarantine centres reduced mortality by 94%, increased health-care costs by 33%, and was cost-effective (ICER $340 per year of life saved). In settings where quarantine centres were not feasible, a combination of health-care testing, contact tracing, use of isolation centres, and mass symptom screening was cost-effective compared with health-care testing alone (ICER $590 per year of life saved). When Re was 1·2, health-care testing, contact tracing, use of isolation centres, and use of quarantine centres was the least costly strategy, and no other strategies were cost-effective. In sensitivity analyses, a combination of health-care testing, contact tracing, use of isolation centres, mass symptom screening, and use of quarantine centres was generally cost-effective, with the exception of scenarios in which Re was 2·6 and when efficacies of isolation centres and quarantine centres for transmission reduction were reduced.InterpretationIn South Africa, strategies involving household contact tracing, isolation, mass symptom screening, and quarantining household contacts who test negative would substantially reduce COVID-19 mortality and would be cost-effective. The optimal combination of interventions depends on epidemic growth characteristics and practical implementation considerations.FundingUS National Institutes of Health, Royal Society, Wellcome Trust.
| S-EPMC7834260 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To inform national healthcare authorities whether quadrivalent influenza vaccines (QIVs) provide better value for money than trivalent influenza vaccines (TIVs), we assessed the cost-effectiveness of TIV and QIV in low-and-middle income communities based in South Africa and Vietnam and contrasted these findings with those from a high-income community in Australia.Individual based dynamic simulation models were interfaced with a health economic analysis model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of vaccinating 15% of the population with QIV or TIV in each community over the period 2003-2013. Vaccination was prioritized for HIV-infected individuals, before elderly aged 65+ years and young children. Country or region-specific data on influenza-strain circulation, clinical outcomes and costs were obtained from published sources. The societal perspective was used and outcomes were expressed in International$ (I$) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.When compared with TIV, we found that QIV would provide a greater reduction in influenza-related morbidity in communities in South Africa and Vietnam as compared with Australia. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of QIV versus TIV was estimated at I$4183/QALY in South Africa, I$1505/QALY in Vietnam and I$80,966/QALY in Australia.The cost-effectiveness of QIV varied between communities due to differences in influenza epidemiology, comorbidities, and unit costs. Whether TIV or QIV is the most cost-effective alternative heavily depends on influenza B burden among subpopulations targeted forvaccination in addition to country-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds and budgetary impact.
| S-EPMC5805858 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a booster strategy in the United States.MethodsWe developed a decision-analytic Markov model of COVID-19 to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a booster strategy of the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 (administered 6 months after the second dose) among older adults from a healthcare system perspective.ResultsCompared with 2 doses of BNT162b2 without a booster, the booster strategy in a 100,000 cohort of older adults would incur an additional cost of $3.4 million in vaccination cost but save $6.7 million in direct medical cost and gain 3.7 quality-adjusted life-years in 180 days. This corresponds to a benefit-cost ratio of 1.95 and a net monetary benefit of $3.4 million. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicates that a booster strategy has a high chance (67%) of being cost-effective. Notably, the cost-effectiveness of the booster strategy is highly sensitive to the population incidence of COVID-19, with a cost-effectiveness threshold of 8.1/100,000 person-day. If vaccine efficacies reduce by 10%, 30%, and 50%, this threshold will increase to 9.7/100,000, 13.9/100,000, and 21.9/100,000 person-day, respectively.ConclusionOffering the BNT162b2 booster to older adults aged ≥65 years in the United States is likely to be cost-effective. Less efficacious vaccines and boosters may still be cost-effective in settings of high SARS-CoV-2 transmission.
| S-EPMC8938315 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Dog rabies annually causes 24,000-70,000 deaths globally. We built a spreadsheet tool, RabiesEcon, to aid public health officials to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dog rabies vaccination programs in East Africa.RabiesEcon uses a mathematical model of dog-dog and dog-human rabies transmission to estimate dog rabies cases averted, the cost per human rabies death averted and cost per year of life gained (YLG) due to dog vaccination programs (US 2015 dollars). We used an East African human population of 1 million (approximately 2/3 living in urban setting, 1/3 rural). We considered, using data from the literature, three vaccination options; no vaccination, annual vaccination of 50% of dogs and 20% of dogs vaccinated semi-annually. We assessed 2 transmission scenarios: low (1.2 dogs infected per infectious dog) and high (1.7 dogs infected). We also examined the impact of annually vaccinating 70% of all dogs (World Health Organization recommendation for dog rabies elimination).Without dog vaccination, over 10 years there would a total of be approximately 44,000-65,000 rabid dogs and 2,100-2,900 human deaths. Annually vaccinating 50% of dogs results in 10-year reductions of 97% and 75% in rabid dogs (low and high transmissions scenarios, respectively), approximately 2,000-1,600 human deaths averted, and an undiscounted cost-effectiveness of $451-$385 per life saved. Semi-annual vaccination of 20% of dogs results in in 10-year reductions of 94% and 78% in rabid dogs, and approximately 2,000-1,900 human deaths averted, and cost $404-$305 per life saved. In the low transmission scenario, vaccinating either 50% or 70% of dogs eliminated dog rabies. Results were most sensitive to dog birth rate and the initial rate of dog-to-dog transmission (Ro).Dog rabies vaccination programs can control, and potentially eliminate, dog rabies. The frequency and coverage of vaccination programs, along with the level of dog rabies transmission, can affect the cost-effectiveness of such programs. RabiesEcon can aid both the planning and assessment of dog rabies vaccination programs.
| S-EPMC5988334 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThough South Africa has high contraceptive use, unintended pregnancies are still widespread. The SILCS diaphragm could reduce the number of women with unmet need by introducing a discreet, woman-initiated, non-hormonal barrier method to the contraceptive method mix.MethodsA decision model was built to estimate the impact and cost-effectiveness of the introduction of the SILCS diaphragm in Gauteng among women with unmet need for contraception in terms of unintended and mistimed pregnancies averted, assuming that the available contraceptives on the market were not a satisfying option for those women. Full costs were estimated both from a provider's and user's perspective, which also accounts for women's travel and opportunity cost of time, assuming a 5% uptake among women with unmet contraceptive need. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is computed at five and 10 years after introduction to allow for a distribution of fixed costs over time. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to incorporate decision uncertainty.ResultsThe introduction of the SILCS diaphragm in Gauteng could prevent an estimated 8,365 unintended pregnancies and 2,117 abortions over five years, at an annual estimated cost of US$55 per woman. This comes to a cost per pregnancy averted of US$153 and US$171 from a user's and provider's perspectives, respectively, with slightly lower unit costs at 10 years. Major cost drivers will be the price of the SILCS diaphragm and the contraceptive gel, given their large contribution to total costs (around 60%).ConclusionsThe introduction of the SILCS diaphragm in the public sector is likely to provide protection for some women for whom current contraceptive technologies are not an option. However to realize its potential, targeting will be needed to reach women with unmet need and those with likely high adherence. Further analyses are needed among potential users to optimize the introduction strategy.
| S-EPMC4546642 | biostudies-literature
Project description:GoalWe aimed to assess the incidence rate of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in vaccinated versus unvaccinated solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR) at our center.MethodsWe abstracted the following clinical data from our transplant registry from 1/1/2021 to 6/2/2021: demographics, details of COVID-19 vaccination, incidence of COVID-19, and related mortality. We calculated incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 per 1000/person days at risk and incidence rate ratio (IRR).ResultsAmong 2151 SOTRs, 912 were fully vaccinated, and 1239 were controls (1151 unvaccinated, 88 partially vaccinated). Almost 70% of vaccinated subjects received the mRNA-1273 vaccine. There were 65 cases of COVID-19 that occurred during the study period - four occurred among fully vaccinated individuals and 61 among controls (including two in partially vaccinated individuals). Incidence rate for COVID-19 was 0.065 (95% CI 0.024-0.17) per 1000 person days in vaccinated versus 0.34 (95% CI 0.26-0.44) per 1000/person days in the control group; IRR was 0.19 (95% CI 0.049 -0.503, p < 0.005). There were no COVID-19 related deaths in the four breakthrough infections and two of 61 (3.3%) among controls.ConclusionWe demonstrate real world clinical effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in SOTRs with an almost 80% reduction in the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 versus unvaccinated SOTRs during the same time.
| S-EPMC8420394 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To effectively prevent and control the COVID-19 pandemic, countries have adopted a booster vaccination strategy. This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of sequential booster COVID-19 vaccination compared to two-dose inactivated vaccination in China from a societal perspective. A Markov model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of sequential vaccination, including two doses of an inactivated vaccine followed by a booster shot of an inactivated vaccine, adenovirus vectored vaccine, protein subunit vaccine, or mRNA vaccine. The incremental effects of a booster shot with an inactivated vaccine, protein subunit vaccine, adenovirus vectored vaccine, and mRNA vaccine were 0.0075, 0.0110, 0.0208, and 0.0249 QALYs and saved costs of US$163.96, US$261.73, US$583.21, and US$724.49, respectively. Under the Omicron virus pandemic, the sequential vaccination among adults and the elderly (aged 60-69, 70-79, over 80) was consistently cost-saving, and a booster shot of the mRNA vaccine was more cost-saving. The results indicate that the sequential vaccination strategy is cost-effective in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic, and improving vaccination coverage among the elderly is of great importance in avoiding severe cases and deaths.
| S-EPMC9610874 | biostudies-literature