Dataset Information

Protocol for the economic evaluation of COVID-19 pandemic response policies.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Several treatment options are available for COVID-19 to date. However, the use of a combination of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) is necessary for jurisdictions to contain its spread. Although the implementation cost of NPIs may be low from the healthcare system perspective, it can be costly when considering the indirect costs from the societal perspective. COVID-19 vaccination campaigns have begun in several countries worldwide. Nonetheless, the quantity of vaccines available remain limited over the next 1 to 2 years. A tool for informing vaccine prioritisation that considers both cost and effectiveness will be highly useful. This study aims to identify the most cost-effective combination of COVID-19 response policies, using Singapore as an example.

Methods and analysis

An age-stratified Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered model will be used to generate the number of infections stratified by disease severity under different intervention scenarios. Polices of interest include test-trace-isolate, travel restriction, compulsory face mask and hygiene practices, social distancing, dexamethasone/remdesivir therapy and vaccination. The latest phase 3 trial results and the WHO Target Product Profiles for COVID-19 vaccines will be used to model vaccine characteristics. A cost (expected resource utilisation and productivity losses) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) will be attached to these outputs for a cost-utility analysis. The primary outcome measure will be the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio generated from the incremental cost of policy alternatives expressed as a ratio of the incremental benefits (QALYs gained). Efficacy of policy options will be gathered from literature review and from its observed impacts in Singapore. Cost data will be gathered from healthcare institutions, Ministry of Health and published data. Sensitivity analysis such as threshold analysis and scenario analysis will be conducted.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethics approval was not required for this study. The study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals.

SUBMITTER: Chua BWB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8441219 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn many countries, the worldwide spread of COVID-19 has led to a near total stop of non-urgent, elective surgeries across all specialties during the first wave's peak of the pandemic. For providers of aesthetic surgery procedures or minimal invasive cosmetic treatments, this led to a huge socio-economic impact worldwide. In order to evaluate valid clinical management strategies for future pandemic events and to overcome the challenges imposed by the current pandemic, it is paramount to analyse the socio-economic effects caused by the COVID-19 crisis.MethodsAn online survey comprising 18 questions was sent out five times by e-mail to all members of the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ISAPS) between June and August 2020. The data set was statistically analyzed and grouped into an overall group and into subgroups of countries with high (n = 251) vs. low (n = 440) gross domestic product per capita (GDP p.c.) and five defined world regions (Europe (n = 214); North America (NA; n = 97); South America (SA; n = 206); Asia and Oceania (Asia + OC; n = 99); Africa and Middle East (Africa + ME; n = 75)).ResultsA total of 691 recipients completed the survey. The majority of the participants experienced severe operating restrictions resulting in a major drop of income from surgical patients. Low GDP p.c. countries experienced a bigger negative economic impact with less aesthetic (non-) surgical procedures, whereas the high GDP p.c. subgroup was less affected by the COVID-19 crisis. Most of the survey participants had already adopted the ISAPS guidelines for patient (pre-) appointment screening and clinical/patient-flow management. For surgical and non-surgical aesthetic procedures, in the high GDP p.c. subgroup more basic-level PPE (surgical mask) was used, whereas the low GDP p.c. subgroup relied more on advanced-level PPE (N-95 respirator mask or higher). Comparing the different world regions, Europe and Africa used more basic-level PPE.ConclusionsMeasurable differences in the socio-economic impact and in the adaptation of safety protocols between high and low GDP p.c. subgroups and between different world regions were present. Since the COVID-19 pandemic is an international crisis, aligned, expedient and universal actions should be taken.Level of evidence vThis journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine Ratings, please refer to Table of Contents or online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .