Dataset Information

COVID-19 vaccination in Sindh Province, Pakistan: A modelling study of health impact and cost-effectiveness.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Multiple Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines appear to be safe and efficacious, but only high-income countries have the resources to procure sufficient vaccine doses for most of their eligible populations. The World Health Organization has published guidelines for vaccine prioritisation, but most vaccine impact projections have focused on high-income countries, and few incorporate economic considerations. To address this evidence gap, we projected the health and economic impact of different vaccination scenarios in Sindh Province, Pakistan (population: 48 million).

Methods and findings

We fitted a compartmental transmission model to COVID-19 cases and deaths in Sindh from 30 April to 15 September 2020. We then projected cases, deaths, and hospitalisation outcomes over 10 years under different vaccine scenarios. Finally, we combined these projections with a detailed economic model to estimate incremental costs (from healthcare and partial societal perspectives), disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for each scenario. We project that 1 year of vaccine distribution, at delivery rates consistent with COVAX projections, using an infection-blocking vaccine at $3/dose with 70% efficacy and 2.5-year duration of protection is likely to avert around 0.9 (95% credible interval (CrI): 0.9, 1.0) million cases, 10.1 (95% CrI: 10.1, 10.3) thousand deaths, and 70.1 (95% CrI: 69.9, 70.6) thousand DALYs, with an ICER of $27.9 per DALY averted from the health system perspective. Under a broad range of alternative scenarios, we find that initially prioritising the older (65+) population generally prevents more deaths. However, unprioritised distribution has almost the same cost-effectiveness when considering all outcomes, and both prioritised and unprioritised programmes can be cost-effective for low per-dose costs. High vaccine prices ($10/dose), however, may not be cost-effective, depending on the specifics of vaccine performance, distribution programme, and future pandemic trends. The principal drivers of the health outcomes are the fitted values for the overall transmission scaling parameter and disease natural history parameters from other studies, particularly age-specific probabilities of infection and symptomatic disease, as well as social contact rates. Other parameters are investigated in sensitivity analyses. This study is limited by model approximations, available data, and future uncertainty. Because the model is a single-population compartmental model, detailed impacts of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as household isolation cannot be practically represented or evaluated in combination with vaccine programmes. Similarly, the model cannot consider prioritising groups like healthcare or other essential workers. The model is only fitted to the reported case and death data, which are incomplete and not disaggregated by, e.g., age. Finally, because the future impact and implementation cost of NPIs are uncertain, how these would interact with vaccination remains an open question.

Conclusions

COVID-19 vaccination can have a considerable health impact and is likely to be cost-effective if more optimistic vaccine scenarios apply. Preventing severe disease is an important contributor to this impact. However, the advantage of prioritising older, high-risk populations is smaller in generally younger populations. This reduction is especially true in populations with more past transmission, and if the vaccine is likely to further impede transmission rather than just disease. Those conditions are typical of many low- and middle-income countries.

SUBMITTER: Pearson CAB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8523052 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Severe acute malnutrition (SAM) is a major global public health concern. Despite the cost-effectiveness of treatment, ministries of health are often unable to commit the required funds which limits service coverage. OBJECTIVE:A randomised controlled trial was conducted in Sindh Province, Pakistan, to assess whether adding a point of use water treatment to the treatment of SAM without complications improved its cost-effectiveness. Three treatment strategies - chlorine disinfection (Aquatabs); flocculent disinfection (Procter and Gamble Purifier of Water [P&G PoW]) and Ceramic Filters - were compared to a standard SAM treatment protocol. METHODS:An institutional perspective was adopted for costing, considering the direct and indirect costs incurred by the provider. Combining the cost of SAM treatment and water treatment, an average cost per child was calculated for the combined interventions for each arm. The costs of water treatment alone and the incremental cost-effectiveness of each water treatment intervention were also assessed. RESULTS:The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for Aquatabs was 24 US dollars (USD), making it the most cost-effective strategy. The P&G PoW arm was the next least expensive strategy, costing an additional 149 USD per additional child recovered, though it was also the least effective of the three intervention strategies. The Ceramic Filters intervention was the most costly strategy and achieved a recovery rate lower than the Aquatabs arm and marginally higher than the P&G PoW arm. CONCLUSIONS:This study found that the addition of a chlorine or flocculent disinfection point-of-use drinking water treatment intervention to the treatment of SAM without complications reduced the cost per child recovered compared to standard SAM treatment. To inform the feasibility of future implementation, further research is required to understand the costs of government implementation and the associated costs to the community and beneficiary household of receiving such an intervention in comparison with the existing SAM treatment protocol.

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.

Project description:Rotavirus gastroenteritis places a significant health and economic burden on Pakistan. To determine the public health impact of a national rotavirus vaccination program, we performed a cost-effectiveness study from the perspective of the health care system.A decision tree model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of a national vaccination program in Pakistan. Disease and cost burden with the program were compared to the current state. Disease parameters, vaccine-related costs, and medical treatment costs were based on published epidemiological and economic data, which were specific to Pakistan when possible. An annual birth cohort of children was followed for 5 years to model the public health impact of vaccination on health-related events and costs. The cost-effectiveness was assessed and quantified in cost (2012 US$) per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted and cost per death averted. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).The base case results showed vaccination prevented 1.2 million cases of rotavirus gastroenteritis, 93,000 outpatient visits, 43,000 hospitalizations, and 6700 deaths by 5 years of age for an annual birth cohort scaled from 6% current coverage to DPT3 levels (85%). The medical cost savings would be US$1.4 million from hospitalizations and US$200,000 from outpatient visit costs. The vaccination program would cost US$35 million at a vaccine price of US$5.00. The ICER was US$149.50 per DALY averted or US$4972 per death averted. Sensitivity analyses showed changes in case-fatality ratio, vaccine efficacy, and vaccine cost exerted the greatest influence on the ICER.Across a range of sensitivity analyses, a national rotavirus vaccination program was predicted to decrease health and economic burden due to rotavirus gastroenteritis in Pakistan by ~40%. Vaccination was highly cost-effective in this context. As discussions of implementing the intervention intensify, future studies should address affordability, efficiency, and equity of vaccination introduction.

Project description:BackgroundDue to the limited evidence of the cost-effectiveness of Community Health Workers (CHW) delivering treatment for severe acute malnutrition (SAM), there is a need to better understand the costs incurred by both implementing institutions and beneficiary households. This study assessed the costs and cost-effectiveness of treatment for cases of SAM without complications delivered by government-employed Lady Health Workers (LHWs) and complemented with non-governmental organisation (NGO) delivered outpatient facility-based care compared with NGO delivered outpatient facility-based care only alongside a two-arm randomised controlled trial conducted in Sindh Province, Pakistan.MethodsAn activity-based cost model was used, employing a societal perspective to include costs incurred by beneficiaries and the wider community. Costs were estimated through accounting records, interviews and informal group discussions. Cost-effectiveness was assessed for each arm relative to no intervention, and incrementally between the two interventions, providing information on both absolute and relative costs and effects.ResultsThe cost per child recovered in outpatient facility-based care was similar to LHW-delivered care, at 363 USD and 382 USD respectively. An additional 146 USD was spent per additional child recovered by outpatient facilities compared to LHWs. Results of sensitivity analyses indicated considerable uncertainty in which strategy was most cost-effective due to small differences in cost and recovery rates between arms. The cost to the beneficiary household of outpatient facility-based care was double that of LHW-delivered care.ConclusionsOutpatient facility-based care was found to be slightly more cost-effective compared to LHW-delivered care, despite the potential for cost-effectiveness of CHWs managing SAM being demonstrated in other settings. The similarity of cost-effectiveness outcomes between the two models resulted in uncertainty as to which strategy was the most cost-effective. Similarity of costs and effectiveness between models suggests that whether it is appropriate to engage LHWs in substituting or complementing outpatient facilities may depend on population needs, including coverage and accessibility of existing services, rather than be purely a consideration of cost. Future research should assess the cost-effectiveness of LHW-delivered care when delivered solely by the government.Trial registrationNCT03043352 , ClinicalTrials.gov. Retrospectively registered.