Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness analysis of BNT162b2 COVID-19 booster vaccination in the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a booster strategy in the United States.

Methods

We developed a decision-analytic Markov model of COVID-19 to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a booster strategy of the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 (administered 6 months after the second dose) among older adults from a healthcare system perspective.

Results

Compared with 2 doses of BNT162b2 without a booster, the booster strategy in a 100,000 cohort of older adults would incur an additional cost of $3.4 million in vaccination cost but save $6.7 million in direct medical cost and gain 3.7 quality-adjusted life-years in 180 days. This corresponds to a benefit-cost ratio of 1.95 and a net monetary benefit of $3.4 million. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicates that a booster strategy has a high chance (67%) of being cost-effective. Notably, the cost-effectiveness of the booster strategy is highly sensitive to the population incidence of COVID-19, with a cost-effectiveness threshold of 8.1/100,000 person-day. If vaccine efficacies reduce by 10%, 30%, and 50%, this threshold will increase to 9.7/100,000, 13.9/100,000, and 21.9/100,000 person-day, respectively.

Conclusion

Offering the BNT162b2 booster to older adults aged ≥65 years in the United States is likely to be cost-effective. Less efficacious vaccines and boosters may still be cost-effective in settings of high SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

SUBMITTER: Li R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8938315 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic is a global crisis impacting population health and the economy. We describe a cost-effectiveness framework for evaluating acute treatments for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, considering a broad spectrum of potential treatment profiles and perspectives within the US healthcare system to ensure incorporation of the most relevant clinical parameters, given evidence currently available.MethodsA lifetime model, with a short-term acute care decision tree followed by a post-discharge three-state Markov cohort model, was developed to estimate the impact of a potential treatment relative to best supportive care (BSC) for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The model included information on costs and resources across inpatient levels of care, use of mechanical ventilation, post-discharge morbidity from ventilation, and lifetime healthcare and societal costs. Published literature informed clinical and treatment inputs, healthcare resource use, unit costs, and utilities. The potential health impacts and cost-effectiveness outcomes were assessed from US health payer, societal, and fee-for-service (FFS) payment model perspectives.ResultsViewing results in aggregate, treatments that conferred at least a mortality benefit were likely to be cost-effective, as all deterministic and sensitivity analyses results fell far below willingness-to-pay thresholds using both a US health payer and FFS payment perspective, with and without societal costs included. In the base case, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) ranged from $22,933 from a health payer perspective using bundled payments to $8028 from a societal perspective using a FFS payment model. Even with conservative assumptions on societal impact, inclusion of societal costs consistently produced ICERs 40-60% lower than ICERs for the payer perspective.ConclusionEffective COVID-19 treatments for hospitalized patients may not only reduce disease burden but also represent good value for the health system and society. Though data limitations remain, this cost-effectiveness framework expands beyond current models to include societal costs and post-discharge ventilation morbidity effects of potential COVID-19 treatments.

Project description:BackgroundPandemic influenza A(H1N1) (pH1N1) was first identified in North America in April 2009. Vaccination against pH1N1 commenced in the U.S. in October 2009 and continued through January 2010. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pH1N1 vaccination.MethodologyA computer simulation model was developed to predict costs and health outcomes for a pH1N1 vaccination program using inactivated vaccine compared to no vaccination. Probabilities, costs and quality-of-life weights were derived from emerging primary data on pH1N1 infections in the US, published and unpublished data for seasonal and pH1N1 illnesses, supplemented by expert opinion. The modeled target population included hypothetical cohorts of persons aged 6 months and older stratified by age and risk. The analysis used a one-year time horizon for most endpoints but also includes longer-term costs and consequences of long-term sequelae deaths. A societal perspective was used. Indirect effects (i.e., herd effects) were not included in the primary analysis. The main endpoint was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in dollars per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.ResultsFor vaccination initiated prior to the outbreak, pH1N1 vaccination was cost-saving for persons 6 months to 64 years under many assumptions. For those without high risk conditions, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from $8,000-$52,000/QALY depending on age and risk status. Results were sensitive to the number of vaccine doses needed, costs of vaccination, illness rates, and timing of vaccine delivery.ConclusionsVaccination for pH1N1 for children and working-age adults is cost-effective compared to other preventive health interventions under a wide range of scenarios. The economic evidence was consistent with target recommendations that were in place for pH1N1 vaccination. We also found that the delays in vaccine availability had a substantial impact on the cost-effectiveness of vaccination.