Dataset Information

Optimising health and economic impacts of COVID-19 vaccine prioritisation strategies in the WHO European Region: a mathematical modelling study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Countries in the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region differ in terms of the COVID-19 vaccine supply conditions. We evaluated the health and economic impact of different age-based vaccine prioritisation strategies across this demographically and socio-economically diverse region.

Methods

We fitted age-specific compartmental models to the reported daily COVID-19 mortality in 2020 to inform the immunity level before vaccine roll-out. Models capture country-specific differences in population structures, contact patterns, epidemic history, life expectancy, and GDP per capita.We examined four strategies that prioritise: all adults (V+), younger (20-59 year-olds) followed by older adults (60+) (V20), older followed by younger adults (V60), and the oldest adults (75+) (V75) followed by incrementally younger age groups. We explored four roll-out scenarios (R1-4) - the slowest scenario (R1) reached 30% coverage by December 2022 and the fastest (R4) 80% by December 2021. Five decision-making metrics were summarised over 2021-22: mortality, morbidity, and losses in comorbidity-adjusted life expectancy, comorbidity- and quality-adjusted life years, and human capital. Six vaccine profiles were tested - the highest performing vaccine has 95% efficacy against both infection and disease, and the lowest 50% against diseases and 0% against infection.

Findings

Of the 20 decision-making metrics and roll-out scenario combinations, the same optimal strategy applied to all countries in only one combination; V60 was more or similarly desirable than V75 in 19 combinations. Of the 38 countries with fitted models, 11-37 countries had variable optimal strategies by decision-making metrics or roll-out scenarios. There are greater benefits in prioritising older adults when roll-out is slow and when vaccine profiles are less favourable.

Interpretation

The optimal age-based vaccine prioritisation strategies were sensitive to country characteristics, decision-making metrics, and roll-out speeds. A prioritisation strategy involving more age-based stages (V75) does not necessarily lead to better health and economic outcomes than targeting broad age groups (V60). Countries expecting a slow vaccine roll-out may particularly benefit from prioritising older adults.

Funding

World Health Organization, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Medical Research Council (United Kingdom), the National Institute of Health Research (United Kingdom), the European Commission, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (United Kingdom), Wellcome Trust.

SUBMITTER: Liu Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8629724 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe development and widespread use of an effective SARS-CoV-2 vaccine could prevent substantial morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 and mitigate the secondary effects associated with non-pharmaceutical interventions.MethodsWe used an age-structured, expanded SEIR model with social contact matrices to assess age-specific vaccine allocation strategies in India. We used state-specific age structures and disease transmission coefficients estimated from confirmed incident cases of COVID-19 between 1 July and 31 August 2020. Simulations were used to investigate the relative reduction in mortality and morbidity of vaccine allocation strategies based on prioritizing different age groups, and the interactions of these strategies with concurrent non-pharmaceutical interventions. Given the uncertainty associated with COVID-19 vaccine development, we varied vaccine characteristics in the modelling simulations.ResultsPrioritizing COVID-19 vaccine allocation for older populations (i.e., >60 years) led to the greatest relative reduction in deaths, regardless of vaccine efficacy, control measures, rollout speed, or immunity dynamics. Preferential vaccination of this group often produced relatively higher total symptomatic infections and more pronounced estimates of peak incidence than other assessed strategies. Vaccine efficacy, immunity type, target coverage, and rollout speed significantly influenced overall strategy effectiveness, with the time taken to reach target coverage significantly affecting the relative mortality benefit comparative to no vaccination.ConclusionsOur findings support global recommendations to prioritize COVID-19 vaccine allocation for older age groups. Relative differences between allocation strategies were reduced as the speed of vaccine rollout was increased. Optimal vaccine allocation strategies will depend on vaccine characteristics, strength of concurrent non-pharmaceutical interventions, and region-specific goals.

Project description:For infectious disease prevention, policy-makers are typically required to base policy decisions in light of operational and monetary restrictions, prohibiting implementation of all candidate interventions. To inform the evidence-base underpinning policy decision making, mathematical and health economic modelling can be a valuable constituent. Applied to England, this study aims to identify the optimal target age groups when extending a seasonal influenza vaccination programme of at-risk individuals to those individuals at low risk of developing complications following infection. To perform this analysis, we utilise an age- and strain-structured transmission model that includes immunity propagation mechanisms which link prior season epidemiological outcomes to immunity at the beginning of the following season. Making use of surveillance data from the past decade in conjunction with our dynamic model, we simulate transmission dynamics of seasonal influenza in England from 2012 to 2018. We infer that modified susceptibility due to natural infection in the previous influenza season is the only immunity propagation mechanism to deliver a non-negligible impact on the transmission dynamics. Further, we discerned case ascertainment to be higher for young infants compared to adults under 65 years old, and uncovered a decrease in case ascertainment as age increased from 65 to 85 years of age. Our health economic appraisal sweeps vaccination age space to determine threshold vaccine dose prices achieving cost-effectiveness under differing paired strategies. In particular, we model offering vaccination to all those low-risk individuals younger than a given age (but no younger than two years old) and all low-risk individuals older than a given age, while maintaining vaccination of at-risk individuals of any age. All posited strategies were deemed cost-effective. In general, the addition of low-risk vaccination programmes whose coverage encompassed children and young adults (aged 20 and below) were highly cost-effective. The inclusion of elder age-groups to the low-risk programme typically lessened the cost-effectiveness. Notably, elderly-centric programmes vaccinating from 65-75 years and above had the least permitted expense per vaccine.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Increasing the number of vaccine doses may potentially improve overall efficacy. Decision-makers need information about choosing the most efficient dose schedule to maximise the total health gain of a population when operating under a constrained budget. The objective of this study is to identify the most efficient vaccine dosing schedule within a fixed vaccination budget from a healthcare payer perspective. METHODS:An optimisation model is developed in which maximizing the disease reduction is the functional objective and the constraint is the vaccination budget. The model allows variation in vaccination dosing numbers, in cost difference per dose, in vaccine coverage rate, and in vaccine efficacy. We apply the model using the monovalent rotavirus vaccine as an example. RESULTS:With a fixed budget, a 2-dose schedule for vaccination against rotavirus infection with the monovalent vaccine results in a larger reduction in disease episodes than a 3-dose scheme with the same vaccine under most circumstances. A 3-dose schedule would only be better under certain conditions: a cost reduction of >26% per dose, combined with vaccine efficacy improvement of ?5% and a target coverage rate of 75%. Substantial interaction is observed between cost reduction per dose, vaccine coverage rate, and increased vaccine efficacy. Sensitivity analysis shows that the conditions required for a 3-dose strategy to be better than a 2-dose strategy may seldom occur when the budget is fixed. The model does not consider vaccine herd effect, precise timing for additional doses, or the effect of natural immunity development. CONCLUSIONS:Under budget constraint, optimisation modelling is a helpful tool for a decision-maker selecting the most efficient vaccination dosing schedule. The low dosing scheme could be the optimal option to consider under the many scenarios tested. The model can be applied under many different circumstances of changing dosing schemes with single or multiple vaccines.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate whether a single optimal vaccination strategy exists across countries to deal with a future influenza pandemic by comparing the cost effectiveness of different strategies in various pandemic scenarios for three European countries.DesignEconomic and epidemic modelling study.SettingsGeneral populations in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.Data sourcesCountry specific patterns of social contact and demographic data.ModelAn age structured susceptible-exposed-infected-recovered transmission model that describes how an influenza A virus will spread in the populations of Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.InterventionsComparison of four vaccination strategies: no vaccination, blanket vaccination, vaccination of elderly people (≥ 65 years), and vaccination of high transmitters (5-19 years). The four strategies were evaluated for scenarios in which a vaccine became available early or at the peak of the pandemic, and in which either everyone was initially susceptible or older age groups had pre-existing immunity.Main outcome measureCost per quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained.ResultsAll vaccination strategies were cost effective (incremental cost per QALY gained, comparing intervention with non-intervention). In scenarios where the vaccine became available at the peak of the pandemic and there was pre-existing immunity among elderly people the incremental cost effectiveness ratios for vaccinating high transmitters were €7325 (£5815; $10,470) per QALY gained for Germany, €10,216 per QALY gained for the Netherlands, and €7280 per QALY gained for the United Kingdom. The most cost effective strategy not only differed across the pandemic scenarios but also between countries. Specifically, when the vaccine was available early in the pandemic and there was no pre-existing immunity, in Germany it would be most cost effective to vaccinate elderly people ( €940 per QALY gained), whereas it would be most cost effective to vaccinate high transmitters in both the Netherlands (€525 per QALY gained) and the United Kingdom (€163 per QALY gained). This difference in optimal strategies was due to differences in the demographic characteristics of the countries: Germany has a significantly higher proportion of elderly people compared with the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.ConclusionsNo single vaccination strategy was most cost effective across countries. With aging populations, pre-existing immunity in particular could be of crucial importance for the cost effectiveness of options to mitigate a future influenza pandemic.