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:BackgroundComparative effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines across patient subgroups is poorly understood and essential to precisely targeting vaccination strategies.MethodsWe used the US Department of Veterans Affairs COVID-19 Shared Data Resource to identify veterans who utilize VA health care and had no documented severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection before December 11, 2020. Using a test-negative case-control design (TND), we used conditional logistic regression with adjustment for covariates to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) over time for veterans who received 2 doses of mRNA vaccines or 1 dose of Ad26.Cov2.S.ResultsWe identified 4.8 million veterans with a mean age of 64 years, of whom 58% had ≥1 chronic disease. Vaccine effectiveness for symptomatic infections, hospitalizations, and ICU admission or death declined over time and varied by the type of vaccine (P < 0.01). VE estimates against symptomatic infection during months 1 and 7 for mRNA-1273 compared with BNT162b2 were 89.7% (95% CI, 84.4%-93.0%) and 57.3% (95% CI, 48.4%-64.7%) vs 81.6% (95% CI, 75.9%-85.9%) and 22.5% (95% CI, 7.2%-35.2%) for individuals age <65 years and 78.4% (95% CI, 71.1%-83.9%) and 36.2% (95% CI, 27.7%-43.6%) vs 66.3% (95% CI, 55.7%-74.4%) and -23.3% (95% CI, -40.5% to -8.2%) in subjects age ≥65 years; against hospitalization 92.0% (95% CI, 76.1%-97.3%) and 83.1% (95% CI, 66.8%-91.4%) vs 85.6% (95% CI, 72.6%-92.4%) and 57.0% (95% CI, 31.2%-73.2%) in subjects age <65 years and 66.1% (95% CI, 45.3%-79.0%) and 64.7% (95% CI, 55.2%-72.3%) vs 61.0% (95% CI, 41.3%-74.2%) and 1.7% (95% CI, -22.0% to 20.8%) in those age ≥65 years; against ICU admission or death 89.2% (95% CI, 49.5%-97.7%) and 84.4% (95% CI, 59.0%-94.1%) vs 87.6% (95% CI, 61.0%-96.1%) and 66.4% (95% CI, 7.7%-87.8%) in subjects age <65 years and 75.4% (95% CI, 51.7%-87.5%) and 73.8 (95% CI, 62.9%-81.5%) vs 67.4% (95% CI, 32.6%-84.3%) and 29.3% (95% CI, 2.3%-48.9%) in subjects age ≥65 years, respectively (P interaction < .01 for all comparisons). Similarly, mRNA-1273 was more effective than BNT162b2 in veterans with >1 chronic disease.ConclusionsmRNA-1273 was more effective than BNT162b2 in older veterans and those with chronic diseases.

Project description:BackgroundThe increasing incidence of pediatric hospitalizations associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) caused by the B.1.617.2 (delta) variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the United States has offered an opportunity to assess the real-world effectiveness of the BNT162b2 messenger RNA vaccine in adolescents between 12 and 18 years of age.MethodsWe used a case-control, test-negative design to assess vaccine effectiveness against Covid-19 resulting in hospitalization, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), the use of life-supporting interventions (mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation), or death. Between July 1 and October 25, 2021, we screened admission logs for eligible case patients with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 at 31 hospitals in 23 states. We estimated vaccine effectiveness by comparing the odds of antecedent full vaccination (two doses of BNT162b2) in case patients as compared with two hospital-based control groups: patients who had Covid-19-like symptoms but negative results on testing for SARS-CoV-2 (test-negative) and patients who did not have Covid-19-like symptoms (syndrome-negative).ResultsA total of 445 case patients and 777 controls were enrolled. Overall, 17 case patients (4%) and 282 controls (36%) had been fully vaccinated. Of the case patients, 180 (40%) were admitted to the ICU, and 127 (29%) required life support; only 2 patients in the ICU had been fully vaccinated. The overall effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine against hospitalization for Covid-19 was 94% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90 to 96); the effectiveness was 95% (95% CI, 91 to 97) among test-negative controls and 94% (95% CI, 89 to 96) among syndrome-negative controls. The effectiveness was 98% against ICU admission and 98% against Covid-19 resulting in the receipt of life support. All 7 deaths occurred in patients who were unvaccinated.ConclusionsAmong hospitalized adolescent patients, two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine were highly effective against Covid-19-related hospitalization and ICU admission or the receipt of life support. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).