Dataset Information

Economic evaluation for mass vaccination against COVID-19.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Vaccine is supposed to be the most effective means to prevent COVID-19 as it may not only save lives but also reduce productivity loss due to resuming pre-pandemic activities. Providing the results of economic evaluation for mass vaccination is of paramount importance for all stakeholders worldwide.

Methods

We developed a Markov decision tree for the economic evaluation of mass vaccination against COVID-19. The effectiveness of reducing outcomes after the administration of three COVID-19 vaccines (BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), and AZD1222 (Oxford-AstraZeneca)) were modelled with empirical parameters obtained from literatures. The direct cost of vaccine and COVID-19 related medical cost, the indirect cost of productivity loss due to vaccine jabs and hospitalization, and the productivity loss were accumulated given different vaccination scenarios. We reported the incremental cost-utility ratio and benefit/cost (B/C) ratio of three vaccines compared to no vaccination with a probabilistic approach.

Results

Moderna and Pfizer vaccines won the greatest effectiveness among the three vaccines under consideration. After taking both direct and indirect costs into account, all of the three vaccines dominated no vaccination strategy. The results of B/C ratio show that one dollar invested in vaccine would have USD $13, USD $23, and USD $28 in return for Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca, respectively when health and education loss are considered. The corresponding figures taking value of the statistical life into account were USD $176, USD $300, and USD $443.

Conclusion

Mass vaccination against COVID-19 with three current available vaccines is cost-saving for gaining more lives and less cost incurred.

SUBMITTER: Wang WC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8148613 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has become a public health emergency and raised global concerns in about 213 countries without vaccines and with limited medical capacity to treat the disease. The COVID-19 has prompted an urgent search for effective interventions, and there is little information about the money value of treatments. The present study aimed to summarize economic evaluation evidence of preventing strategies, programs, and treatments of COVID-19.Material and methodsWe searched Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science Core Collection, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and specialized databases of economic evaluation from December 2019 to July 2020 to identify relevant literature to economic evaluation of programs against COVID-19. Two researchers screened titles and abstracts, extracted data from full-text articles, and did their quality assessment by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Then, quality synthesis of results was done.ResultsTwenty-six studies of economic evaluations met our inclusion criteria. The CHEERS scores for most studies (n = 9) were 85 or higher (excellent quality). Eight studies scored 70 to 85 (good quality), eight studies scored 55 to 70 (average quality), and one study < %55 (poor quality). The decision-analytic modeling was applied to twenty-three studies (88%) to evaluate their services. Most studies utilized the SIR model for outcomes. In studies with long-time horizons, social distancing was more cost-effective than quarantine, non-intervention, and herd immunity. Personal protective equipment was more cost-effective in the short-term than non-intervention. Screening tests were cost-effective in all studies.ConclusionThe results suggested screening tests and social distancing to be cost-effective alternatives in preventing and controlling COVID-19 on a long-time horizon. However, evidence is still insufficient and too heterogeneous to allow any definite conclusions regarding costs of interventions. Further research as are required in the future.