Dataset Information

The Cost-Effectiveness of a COVID-19 Vaccine in a Danish Context.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

Covid-19 vaccines approved by the EU, UK and USA have been found to be safe and effective. The cost effectiveness of these vaccines depends upon a number of factors. The aim of this paper is to explore the cost effectiveness of a COVID-19 vaccine and to analyse how the price of the vaccine and the cost of administrating it influence its cost effectiveness.

Methods

We considered an epidemiological model developed by an expert group within 'Statens Serum Institut', which is a unit under the auspices of the Danish Ministry of Health. The model allowed us to differentiate between two population groups, those aged ≥60 years and those aged <60 years. We used the model to consider four scenarios: (i) vaccination of 25% of the total population (corresponding to approximately 1.5 million persons) but targeting vaccines towards the population aged ≥60 years, (ii) vaccination of 25% of the total population, targeting vaccines only towards the population aged <60 years, (iii) vaccination of 40% of the total population where 15% are aged <60 years and 25% are aged ≥60 years (corresponding approximately to the full Danish population aged >60 years), and (iv) 40% of the total population is vaccinated but vaccines are targeted solely towards those aged <60 years. The time horizon of the analysis was six months, and the perspective was that of the Danish healthcare sector.

Results

The results show that inclusion of the elderly population aged ≥60 years was more cost effective than a vaccination strategy that targeted a population aged <60 years old only, when productivity losses were not included. Furthermore, the results show that an extension of the target group from the elderly population only, to also include the younger population comes with an increasing cost per life-year gained. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio depends on the price of the vaccine, hereunder also the administration costs, and the discount rate used for the estimation of life-years or quality-adjusted life-years gained from a vaccine. Furthermore, inclusion of productivity losses in the analyses influenced the cost effectiveness of vaccination of the population aged <60 years of age.

Conclusion

The cost effectiveness of a COVID-19 vaccine is sensitive to whether or not productivity losses are included in the analyses. Without productivity losses, the elderly population should always be part of the target group for a COVID-19 vaccination programme. Taking productivity losses into account, at least in the case of low vaccine prices, vaccinating the younger population first can actually be cost effective.

SUBMITTER: Debrabant K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8498982 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:In the last two years, the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been a scientific and social challenge worldwide. Vaccines have been the most effective intervention for reducing virus transmission and disease severity. However, virus genetic variants are still circulating among vaccinated individuals with different symptomatology disease cases. Understanding the protective or disease associated mechanisms in vaccinated individuals is relevant to advance in vaccine development and implementation. To address this objective, serum protein profiles were characterized by quantitative proteomics and data analysis algorithms in four cohorts of vaccinated individuals uninfected and SARS-CoV-2 infected with asymptomatic, nonsevere and severe disease symptomatology. The results showed that immunoglobulins were the most overrepresented proteins in infected cohorts when compared to PCR-negative individuals. The immunoglobulin profile varied between different infected cohorts and correlated with protective or disease associated capacity. Overrepresented immunoglobulins in PCR-positive individuals correlated with protective response against SARS-CoV-2, other viruses, and thrombosis in asymptomatic cases. In nonsevere cases, correlates of protection against SARS-CoV-2 and HBV together with risk of myasthenia gravis and allergy and autoantibodies were observed. Patients with severe symptoms presented risk for allergy, chronic idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, and autoantibodies. The analysis of underrepresented immunoglobulins in PCR-positive compared to PCR-negative individuals identified vaccine-induced protective epitopes in various coronavirus proteins including the Spike receptor-binding domain RBD. Non-immunoglobulin proteins were associated with COVID-19 symptoms and biological processes. These results evidence host-associated differences in response to vaccination and the possibility of improving vaccine efficacy against SARS-CoV-2.

Project description:Aim The European Union (EU) has received criticism for being slow to secure coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine contracts in 2020 before the approval of the first COVID-19 vaccine. This study aimed to retrospectively analyze the EU’s COVID-19 vaccine procurement strategy. To this end, the study retrospectively determined the minimum vaccine efficacy that made vaccination cost-effective from a societal perspective in Germany before clinical trial announcements in late 2020. The results were compared with the expected vaccine efficacy before the announcements. Methods Two strategies were analyzed: vaccination followed by the complete lifting of mitigation measures and a long-term mitigation strategy. A decision model was constructed using, for example, information on age-specific fatality rates, intensive care unit costs and outcomes, and herd protection thresholds. The base-case time horizon was 5 years. Cost-effectiveness of vaccination was determined in terms of the costs per life-year gained. The value of an additional life-year was borrowed from new, innovative oncological drugs, as cancer is a condition with a perceived threat similar to that of COVID-19. Results A vaccine with 50% efficacy against death due to COVID-19 was not clearly cost-effective compared with a long-term mitigation strategy if mitigation measures were planned to be lifted after vaccine rollout. The minimum vaccine efficacy required to achieve cost-effectiveness was 40% in the base case. The sensitivity analysis showed considerable variation around the minimum vaccine efficacy, extending above 50% for some of the input variables. Conclusions This study showed that vaccine efficacy levels expected before clinical trial announcements did not clearly justify lifting mitigation measures from a cost-effectiveness standpoint. Hence, the EU’s sluggish procurement strategy still appeared to be rational at the time of decision making. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08726-4.

Project description:IntroductionSince September 2020, Chinese populations aged > 3 years have been encouraged to receive a two-dose inoculation with vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the current vaccination strategy amongst the general population in mainland China from a societal perspective.MethodsIn this study, we construct a decision tree with Markov models to compare the economic and health consequences of the current vaccination strategy versus a no-vaccination scenario, over a time horizon of one year and an annual discount rate of 5%. Transition probabilities, health utilities, healthcare costs, and productivity losses are estimated from literature. Outcome measures include infection rates, death rates, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is then calculated to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the current vaccination strategy, and both one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) are applied to assess the impact of uncertainties on results.ResultsOur simulation indicates that compared with a no-vaccination scenario, vaccination amongst the general population in mainland China would reduce the infection rate from 100% to 45.3% and decrease the death rate from 6.8% to 3.1%. Consequently, the strategy will lead to a saving of 37,664.77 CNY (US$5,256.70) and a gain of 0.50 QALYs per person per year on average (lifetime QALY and productivity loss due to immature death are included). The cost-saving for each QALY gain is 74,895.69 CNY (US$10,452.85). Result of the PSA indicates that vaccination is the dominating strategy with a probability of 97.9%, and the strategy is cost-effective with a probability of 98.5% when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) is 72,000 CNY (US$10,048.71) per QALY.ConclusionCompared with a no-vaccination scenario, vaccination among the general population in mainland China is the dominating strategy from a societal perspective. The conclusion is considered robust in the sensitivity analyses.