The potential public health and economic value of a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine in the United States: Use of cost-effectiveness modeling to inform vaccination prioritization

Modelling the Effect of COVID-19 Mass Vaccination on Acute Hospital Admissions

BACKGROUND

Managing high levels of acute COVID-19 bed occupancy can affect the quality of care provided to both affected patients and those requiring other hospital services. Mass vaccination has offered a route to reduce societal restrictions while protecting hospitals from being overwhelmed. Yet, early in the mass vaccination effort, the possible impact on future bed pressures remained subject to considerable uncertainty. The aim of this study was to model the effect of vaccination on projections of acute and intensive care bed demand within a one million resident healthcare system located in South West England.

METHODS

An age-structured epidemiological model of the Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered (SEIR) type was fitted to local data up to the time of the study, in early March 2021. Model parameters and vaccination scenarios were calibrated through a system-wide multi-disciplinary working group, comprising public health intelligence specialists, healthcare planners, epidemiologists, and academics. Scenarios assumed incremental relaxations to societal restrictions according to the envisaged UK Government timeline, with all restrictions to be removed by 21 June 2021.

RESULTS

Achieving 95% vaccine uptake in adults by 31 July 2021 would not avert a third wave in autumn 2021 but would produce a median peak bed requirement approximately 6% (IQR: 1% to 24%) of that experienced during the second wave (January 2021). A two-month delay in vaccine rollout would lead to significantly higher peak bed occupancy, at 66% (11% to 146%) of that of the second wave. If only 75% uptake was achieved (the amount typically associated with vaccination campaigns) then the second wave peak for acute and intensive care beds would be exceeded by 4% and 19% respectively, an amount which would seriously pressure hospital capacity.

CONCLUSION

Modelling influenced decision making among senior managers in setting COVID-19 bed capacity levels, as well as highlighting the importance of public health in promoting high vaccine uptake among the population. Forecast accuracy has since been supported by actual data collected following the analysis, with observed peak bed occupancy falling comfortably within the inter-quartile range of modelled projections.

Cost-utility-safety analysis of alternative intradermal versus classical intramuscular COVID-19 vaccination

COVID-19 immunization has been shown to be effective in the prevention of COVID-19. Traditionally, two vaccination doses given by intramuscular injection are required. Many scientists present ideas for an alternative administration of COVID-19 for reducing the cost and solving the problem of insufficient COVID-19 vaccine supply. Regarding the new alternative vaccine administration, the important consideration is on cost, utility and safety. Herein, we performed cost-utility-safety analysis of alternative intradermal versus classical intramuscular COVID-19 vaccination. From cost analysis, a 80% cost reduction was derived from using intradermal COVID-19 vaccine administration comparing to intramuscular vaccination. Additional, cost-utility and cost-safety analysis also show that the cost per utility and cost per safety values for intradermal vaccination are lower than those of intramuscular vaccination. According to current research, intradermal immunization is a viable alternative to traditional intramuscular COVID-19 vaccine and may even be superior.

Economic Value of Vaccines to Address the COVID-19 Pandemic in Hong Kong: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Objective The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has imposed significant costs on economies. Safe and effective vaccines are a key tool to control the pandemic; however, vaccination programs can be costly. Are the benefits they bestow worth the costs they incur? The relative value of COVID-19 vaccines has not been widely assessed. In this study, a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to provide evidence of the economic value of vaccines in Hong Kong. Method We developed a Markov model of COVID-19 infections using a susceptible–infected–recovered structure over a 1-year time horizon from a Hong Kong healthcare sector perspective to measure resource utilization, economic burden, and disease outcomes. The model consisted of two arms: do nothing and implement a vaccination program. We assessed effectiveness using units of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to measure the incremental cost-effectiveness at a HKD 1,000,000/QALY threshold. Results The vaccination program, which has reached approximately 72% of the population of Hong Kong with two vaccine doses, was found to have a cost of HKD 22,339,700 per QALY gained from February 2021 to February 2022. At a willingness-to-pay threshold, the vaccination program was not cost-effective in the context of the low prevalence of COVID-19 cases before the Omicron wave. However, the cost-effectiveness of a COVID-19 vaccine is sensitive to the infection rate. Hong Kong is now experiencing the fifth wave of the Omicron. It is estimated that the ICER of the vaccination program from February 2022 to February 2023 was HKD 310,094. The vaccination program in Hong Kong was cost-effective in the context of the Omicron. Conclusions Vaccination programs incur a large economic burden, and we therefore need to acknowledge their limitations in the short term. This will help relevant departments implement vaccination programs. From a longer-term perspective, the vaccination program will show great cost-effectiveness once infection rates are high in a regional outbreak. Compared with other age groups, it is suggested that the elderly population should be prioritized to improve the vaccine coverage rate.

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

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.

Prevalence and Predictors of Intention to be Vaccinated Against COVID-19 in Thirteen Latin American and Caribbean Countries

The presence of a significant number of people who do not intend to be vaccinated could negatively impact efforts to control the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, this study sought to determine the prevalence of intention to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and associated sociodemographic and psychosocial factors in thirteen countries in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). A total of 5510 people from 13 LAC countries participated. Frequencies, percentages, bivariate analyses using chi-square tests, and Poisson regression analysis with robust variance were used. The countries with the highest prevalence of intention to be vaccinated were Brazil (96.94%), Cuba (89.59%), Chile (84.59%), and Mexico (78.33%). On the other hand, the countries with the lowest prevalence were El Salvador (54.01%), Paraguay (55.87%), and Uruguay (56.40%). Prevalence is also reported according to some sociodemographic and health variables. It was found that country, male sex, hours exposed to information about COVID-19, university education, living in an urban area, belief in the animal origin of the virus, perceived likelihood of contracting COVID-19, perceived severity of COVID-19, and concern about infecting others significantly predicted intention to be vaccinated in the 13 LAC countries. While most countries had a high prevalence of intention to be vaccinated, there are still subgroups that have levels of intention that may be insufficient to predict the presence of community immunity. In this sense, knowing the estimates of vaccination intention rates, as well as the associated sociodemographic and psychological factors, can be used to plan actions and interventions that will inform about the safety and benefits of vaccines, as well as strengthen trust in health authorities.

COVID-19 Induced Economic Slowdown and Mental Health Issues

The COVID-19 pandemic has pressed a pause button on global economic development, and induced significant mental health problems. In order to demonstrate the progressed relationship between the pandemic, economic slowdown, and mental health burden, we overviewed the global-level gross domestic product changes and mental problems variation since the outbreak of COVID-19, and reviewed comprehensively the specific sectors influenced by the pandemic, including international trade, worldwide travel, education system, healthcare system, and individual employment. We hope to provide timely evidence to help with the promotion of policymakers’ effective strategies in mitigating economic losses induced by the pandemic; we suggest different governments or policy makers in different countries to share information and experience in dealing with COVID-19-induced economic slowdown and promote COVID-19 vaccine popularization plan to protect every individual worldwide against the coronavirus essentially; and we appeal international information share and collaboration to minimize stigmatization related to adverse mental consequences of COVID-19 and to increase mental health wellbeings of people all over the world.

Death after the Administration of COVID-19 Vaccines Approved by EMA: Has a Causal Relationship Been Demonstrated?

More than eight billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered globally so far and 44.29% of people are fully vaccinated. Pre-authorization clinical trials were carried out and the safety of vaccines is still continuously monitored through post-commercialization surveillance. However, some people are afraid of vaccine side effects, claiming they could lead to death, and hesitate to get vaccinated. Herein, a literature review of COVID-19-vaccine-related deaths has been carried out according to the PRISMA standards to understand if there is a causal relationship between vaccination and death and to highlight the real extent of such events. There have been 55 cases of death after COVID-19 vaccination reported and a causal relationship has been excluded in 17 cases. In the remaining cases, the causal link between the vaccine and the death was not specified (8) or considered possible (15), probable (1), or very probable/demonstrated (14). The causes of deaths among these cases were: vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) (32), myocarditis (3), ADEM (1), myocardial infarction (1), and rhabdomyolysis (1). In such cases, the demonstration of a causal relationship is not obvious, and more studies, especially with post-mortem investigations, are needed to deepen understanding of the possible pathophysiological mechanisms of fatal vaccine side effects. In any event, given the scarcity of fatal cases, the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks and the scientific community needs to be cohesive in asserting that vaccination is fundamental to containing the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Cost-Effectiveness of the COVID-19 Test, Trace and Isolate Program in Colombia

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Test-Trace-Isolate (TTI) programs have been recommended as a risk mitigation strategy. However, many governments have hesitated to implement them due to their costs. This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of implementing a national TTI program to reduce the number of severe and fatal cases of COVID-19 in Colombia.

METHODS

We developed a Markov simulation model of COVID-19 infection combined with a Susceptible-Infected-Recovered structure. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness of a comprehensive TTI strategy compared to no intervention over a one-year horizon, from both the health system and the societal perspective. Hospitalization and mortality rates were retrieved from Colombian surveillance data. We included program costs of TTI intervention, health services utilization, PCR diagnosis test, productivity loss, and government social program costs. We used the number of deaths and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as health outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

FINDINGS

Compared with no intervention, the TTI strategy reduces COVID-19 mortality by 67%. In addition, the program saves an average of $1,045 and $850 per case when observed from the social and the health system perspective, respectively. These savings are equivalent to two times the current health expenditures in Colombia per year.

INTERPRETATION

The TTI program is a highly cost-effective public health intervention to reduce the burden of COVID-19 in Colombia. TTI programs depend on their successful and speedy implementation.

FUNDING

This study was supported by the Colombian Ministry of Health through award number PUJ-04519-20 received by EPQ AVO and SDS declined to receive any funding support for this study. The contents are the responsibility of all the individual authors.

Análisis de impacto presupuestal de la vacunación contra COVID-19 en América Latina

Objetivo.

Estimar el impacto presupuestal de la vacunación contra COVID-19 en seis países de América Latina: Argentina, Brasil, Chile, Colombia, México y Perú, durante el periodo 2021-2022.

Métodos.

Se evaluaron las vacunas de Sinopharm (BBIBP-CorV), Janssen (JNJ-78436735), Instituto de Gamaleya (Gam-COVID-Vac), Sinovac (CoronaVac), CanSino (Convidecia), AstraZeneca (Vaxzevria), Moderna (mRNA-1273) y Pfizer (BNT162b2), según disponibilidad para cada país. Se adoptó la perspectiva del sistema de salud, de manera que solo se incluyeron costos médicos directos. El horizonte temporal se adoptó teniendo en cuenta los tiempos de implementación de cada plan de vacunación, excluyendo menores de 16 años y gestantes. Se incluyeron los siguientes costos: costo de la vacunación y aplicación, costos de la hospitalización general aislamiento, cuidado intermedio e intensivo. Se compararon dos escenarios de vacunación: 1) Población que desea vacunarse (según las encuestas nacionales) y 2) Población que debería vacunarse (total susceptible de vacunación). Los costos agregados para cada escenario de vacunación se compararon con el escenario de no vacunación. Adicionalmente, se realizaron análisis de sensibilidad determinísticos y probabilísticos.

Resultados.

Los diferentes esquemas de vacunación contra COVID-19 disponibles en América Latina genera ahorros potenciales que oscilan entre USD 100 y USD 1 500 millones de dólares por país para el período 2021-2022, asumiendo que se logra implementar en su totalidad el plan de vacunación previsto en cada país.

Conclusiones.

La vacunación contra COVID-19 es una estrategia que además de reducir la morbilidad y mortalidad para Latinoamérica, genera ahorros potenciales para los sistemas de salud en la región.

Public health impact of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2) in the first year of rollout in the United States

BACKGROUND

As the body of evidence on COVID-19 and post-vaccination outcomes continues to expand, this analysis sought to evaluate the public health impact of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, BNT162b2, during the first year of its rollout in the US.

METHODS

A combined Markov decision tree model compared clinical and economic outcomes of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine (BNT162b2) versus no vaccination in individuals aged ≥12 years. Age-stratified epidemiological, clinical, economic, and humanistic parameters were derived from existing data and published literature. Scenario analysis explored the impact of using lower and upper bounds of parameters on the results. The health benefits were estimated as the number of COVID-19 symptomatic cases, hospitalizations and deaths averted, and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) saved. The economic benefits were estimated as the amount of healthcare and societal cost savings associated with the vaccine-preventable health outcomes.

RESULTS

It was estimated that, in 2021, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine (BNT162b2) contributed to averting almost 9 million symptomatic cases, close to 700,000 hospitalizations, and over 110,000 deaths, resulting in an estimated $30.4 billion direct healthcare cost savings, $43.7 billion indirect cost savings related to productivity loss, as well as discounted gains of 1.1 million QALYs. Scenario analyses showed that these results were robust; the use of alternative plausible ranges of parameters did not change the interpretation of the findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine (BNT162b2) contributed to generate substantial public health impact and vaccine-preventable cost savings in the first year of its rollout in the US. The vaccine was estimated to prevent millions of COVID-19 symptomatic cases and thousands of hospitalizations and deaths, and these averted outcomes translated into cost-savings in the billions of US dollars and thousands of QALYs saved. As only direct impacts of vaccination were considered, these estimates may be conservative.

Cost-Effectiveness of Combination of Baricitinib and Remdesivir in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 in the United States: A Modelling Study

INTRODUCTION

Baricitinib-remdesivir (BARI-REM) combination is superior to remdesivir (REM) in reducing recovery time and accelerating clinical improvement among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), specifically those receiving high-flow oxygen/noninvasive ventilation. Here we assessed the cost-effectiveness of BARI-REM versus REM in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the USA.

METHODS

A three-state model was developed addressing costs and patient utility associated with COVID-19 hospitalization, immediate post hospital care, and subsequent lifetime medical care. Analysis was performed from the perspective of a payer and a hospital. Both perspectives evaluated two subgroups: all patients and patients who required oxygen. The primary measures of benefit in the model were patient quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) accrued during and after hospitalization, cost per life years gained, cost per death avoided, and cost per use of mechanical ventilation avoided.

RESULTS

In the base-case payer perspective with a lifetime horizon, treatment with BARI-REM versus REM resulted in an incremental total cost of $7962, a gain of 0.446 life years and gain of 0.3565 QALYs over REM. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of using BARI-REM were estimated as $22,334 per QALY and $17,858 per life year. The base-case and sensitivity analyses showed that the total incremental cost per QALY falls within the reduced willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY applied under health emergencies. In all hospitalized patients, treatment with BARI-REM versus REM reduced total hospital expenditures per patient by $1778 and total reimbursement payments by $1526, resulting in a $252 reduction in net costs per patient; it also resulted in a net gain of 0.0018 QALYs and increased survival of COVID-19 hospitalizations by 2.7%.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that BARI-REM is cost-effective compared to using REM for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The base-case results of this cost-effectiveness model were most sensitive to average annual medical costs for recovered patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of COVID-19 vaccination in Poland

INTRODUCTION

The aim of our study was to assess the potential value of the Comirnaty vaccine (BNT162b2) in Poland. A model was used to estimate patient events, direct medical costs, utilities, and cost-effectiveness for 1 year with and without implementation of the vaccine.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The Markov model with 1-week cycles was used to estimate patient events, direct medical costs, utilities, and cost-effectiveness for 1 year with and without implementing the Comirnaty vaccine in Poland. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained vs. no vaccine was calculated for the general population and selected age-groups. All costs are reported in PLN (average exchange rate in 2020: 1 EUR = 4.44 PLN).

RESULTS

In the base case analysis the incremental cost per QALY gained associated with vaccinating the whole population is 6249 PLN. For individuals aged 60-69 years and > 80 years vaccination is less costly and more effective than no vaccination. The incremental cost per QALY gained when vaccinating individuals aged 40-49 and 30-39 years is 28,135 PLN and 67,823 PLN, respectively. In the general population and in younger subpopulations the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is most sensitive to the vaccine effectiveness, vaccine price, and SARS-CoV-2 infection rates.

CONCLUSIONS

When prioritization is required due to supply constraints, vaccination of the elderly is justified because it gives the highest number of QALY gained and generates savings for the health care system. Continual updates of the model concerning vaccine real-life effectiveness and epidemic course are required to refine the prioritisation scheme in the future.

A Cost-Benefit Analysis of COVID-19 Vaccination in Catalonia

(1) Background: In epidemiological terms, it has been possible to calculate the savings in health resources and the reduction in the health effects of COVID vaccines. Conducting an economic evaluation, some studies have estimated its cost-effectiveness; the vaccination shows highly favorable results, cost-saving in some cases. (2) Methods: Cost-benefit analysis of the vaccination campaign in the North Metropolitan Health Region (Catalonia). An epidemiological model based on observational data and before and after comparison is used. The information on the doses used and the assigned resources (conventional hospital beds, ICU, number of tests) was extracted from administrative data from the largest primary care provider in the region (Catalan Institute of Health). A distinction was made between the social perspective and the health system. (3) Results: the costs of vaccination are estimated at 137 million euros (€48.05/dose administered). This figure is significantly lower than the positive impacts of the vaccination campaign, which are estimated at 470 million euros (€164/dose administered). Of these, 18% corresponds to the reduction in ICU discharges, 16% to the reduction in conventional hospital discharges, 5% to the reduction in PCR tests and 1% to the reduction in RAT tests. The monetization of deaths and cases that avoid sequelae account for 53% and 5% of total savings, respectively. The benefit/cost ratio is estimated at 3.4 from a social perspective and 1.4 from a health system perspective. The social benefits of vaccination are estimated at €116.67 per vaccine dose (€19.93 from the perspective of the health system). (4) Conclusions: The mass vaccination campaign against COVID is cost-saving. From a social perspective, most of these savings come from the monetization of the reduction in mortality and cases with sequelae, although the intervention is equally widely cost-effective from the health system perspective thanks to the reduction in the use of resources. It is concluded that, from an economic perspective, the vaccination campaign has high social returns.

Monoclonal Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2: Potential Game-Changer Still Underused

Even several months after the start of a massive vaccination campaign against COVID-19, mortality and hospital admission are still high in many countries. Monoclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 are the ideal complement to vaccination in infected subjects who are at high risk for progression to severe disease. Based on data of the Italian Ministry of Health, in the period April-August 2021, monoclonal antibodies were prescribed to 6322 patients. In the same period, 70,022 patients over 70 years old became infected with SARS-CoV-2. Even considering that all monoclonal antibodies were prescribed to this category of patients, we calculated that only 9% of these subjects received the treatment. Moreover, using efficacy data provided by clinal trials, we estimated the potential benefit in terms of reduction of hospital admissions and deaths. Considering utilisation of monoclonal antibodies in half infected patients over 70 years, we estimated that hospital admissions and deaths might have been reduced by 7666 and 3507, respectively. Finally, we calculated the economic benefit of monoclonal use. In the same scenario (50% use of monoclonal antibodies to patients over 70), we estimated potential savings of USD 117,410,105. In conclusion, monoclonal antibodies were used in a small proportion of patients over 70 in Italy. A more extensive use might have resulted in a marked decrease in hospital admissions, deaths and in conspicuous saving for the health system.

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

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.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40261-021-01085-8.

Cost-Effectiveness of Baricitinib Compared With Standard of Care: A Modeling Study in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 in the United States

Purpose

In the Phase III COV-BARRIER (Efficacy and Safety of Baricitinib for the Treatment of Hospitalised Adults With COVID-19) trial, treatment with baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor, in addition to standard of care (SOC), was associated with significantly reduced mortality over 28 days in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease–2019 (COVID-19), with a safety profile similar to that of SOC alone. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib + SOC versus SOC alone (which included systemic corticosteroids and remdesivir) in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States.

Methods

An economic model was developed to simulate inpatients' stay, discharge to postacute care, and recovery. Costs modeled included payor costs, hospital costs, and indirect costs. Benefits modeled included life-years (LYs) gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, deaths avoided, and use of mechanical ventilation avoided. The primary analysis was performed from a payor perspective over a lifetime horizon; a secondary analysis was performed from a hospital perspective. The base-case analysis modeled the numeric differences in treatment effectiveness observed in the COV-BARRIER trial. Scenario analyses were also performed in which the clinical benefit of baricitinib was limited to the statistically significant reduction in mortality demonstrated in the trial.

Findings

In the base-case payor perspective model, an incremental total cost of 17,276 US dollars (USD), total QALYs gained of 0.6703, and total LYs gained of 0.837 were found with baricitinib + SOC compared with SOC alone. With the addition of baricitinib, survival was increased by 5.1% and the use of mechanical ventilation was reduced by 1.6%. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were 25,774 USD/QALY gained and 20,638 USD/LY gained; a “mortality-only” scenario analysis yielded similar results of 26,862 USD/QALY gained and 21,433 USD/LY gained. From the hospital perspective, combination treatment with baricitinib + SOC was more effective and less costly than was SOC alone in the base case, with an incremental cost of 38,964 USD per death avoided in the mortality-only scenario.

Implications

In hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States, the addition of baricitinib to SOC was cost-effective. Cost-effectiveness was demonstrated from both the payor and the hospital perspectives. These findings were robust to sensitivity analysis and to conservative assumptions limiting the clinical benefits of baricitinib to the statistically significant reduction in mortality demonstrated in the COV-BARRIER trial.

Challenges to COVID-19 vaccine supply chain: Implications for sustainable development goals

The COVID-19 outbreak has demonstrated the diverse challenges that supply chains face to significant disruptions. Vaccine supply chains are no exception. Therefore, it is elemental that challenges to the COVID-19 vaccine supply chain (VSC) are identified and prioritized to pave the way out of this pandemic. This study combines the decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) method with intuitionistic fuzzy sets (IFS) to explore the key challenges of the COVID-19 VSC. The IFS theory tackles the uncertainty of key challenges while DEMATEL addresses the interlaced causal relationships among crucial challenges to the COVID-19 VSC. This work identifies 15 challenges and reveals that 'Limited number of vaccine manufacturing companies', 'Inappropriate coordination with local organizations', 'Lack of vaccine monitoring bodies', 'Difficulties in monitoring and controlling vaccine temperature', and 'Vaccination cost and lack of financial support for vaccine purchase' are the most critical challenges. The causal interactions along with mutual relationships among these challenges are also scrutinized, and implications for sustainable development goals (SDGs) are drawn. The results offer practical guidelines for stakeholders and government policy makers around the world to develop an improved VSC for the COVID-19 virus.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Remdesivir Treatment in COVID-19 Patients Requiring Low-Flow Oxygen Therapy: Payer Perspective in Turkey

Introduction

This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir compared to other existing therapies (SoC) in Turkey to treat COVID-19 patients hospitalized with < 94% saturation and low-flow oxygen therapy (LFOT) requirement.

Methods

We compared remdesivir as the treatment for COVID-19 with the treatments in the Turkish treatment guidelines. Analyses were performed using data from 78 hospitalized COVID-19 patients with SpO₂ < 94% who received LFOT in a tertiary healthcare facility. COVID-19 episode costs were calculated for 78 patients considering the cost of modeled remdesivir treatment in the same group from the payer’s perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was calculated for remdesivir versus the SoC for the population identified. For Turkey, a reimbursement threshold value between USD 8599 (1 × per capita gross domestic product—GDP) and USD 25.797 (3 × GDP) per QALY was used.

Results

In the remdesivir arm, the length of hospital stay (LOS) was 3 days shorter than the SOC. The low ventilator requirement in the remdesivir arm was one factor that decreased the QALY disutility value. In patients who were transferred to intensive care unit (ICU) from the ward, the mean LOS was 17.3 days (SD 13.6), and the mean cost of stay was USD 155.3/day (SD 168.0), while in patients who were admitted to ICU at baseline, the mean LOS was 13.1 days (SD 13.7), and the mean cost of stay was USD 207.9/day (SD 133.6). The mean cost of episode per patient was USD 3461.1 (SD 2259.8) in the remdesivir arm and USD 3538.9 (SD 3296.0) in the SOC arm. Incremental QALYs were estimated at 0.174. Remdesivir treatment was determined to be cost saving vs. SoC.

Conclusions

Remdesivir, which results in shorter LOS and lower rates of intubation requirements in ICU patients than existing therapies, is associated with higher QALYs and lower costs, dominating SoC in patients with SpO₂ < 94% who require oxygen support.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01874-9.

A systematic review of economic evaluations of vaccines in Middle East and North Africa countries: is existing evidence good enough to support policy decision-making?

INTRODUCTION

A vaccine introduction process should be systematic and transparent and take into account many factors, including cost-effectiveness evidence. This study aimed to assess quantity, characteristic, and quality of economic evaluation (EE) studies on vaccines performed in Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries.

AREAS COVERED

PubMed and Scopus electronic databases were searched since inception to December 2019 to identify published EE studies of vaccines, which were conducted in the 26 MENA countries. Methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

EXPERT OPINION

Of the 616 studies identified, 46 were included in the review. Most studies (65%) were conducted in Iran, Israel, and Turkey. The most commonly evaluated vaccines were rotavirus vaccine (n = 15; 33%), human Papillomavirus vaccine (n = 8; 17%), and pneumococcal vaccine (n = 7; 15%). We classified 5 (11%), 27 (59%), 12 (26%), and 2 (4%) studies as excellent, good, moderate, and poor quality, respectively. There were limited cost-effectiveness evidences in the region. It is imperative to have local guidelines on good practice and reporting, availability of local data, and funding sources to improve quantity and quality of EE studies of vaccines in the region, thereby, facilitating transparent and consistent decision-making processes.

Modelling Voluntary General Population Vaccination Strategies during COVID-19 Outbreak: Influence of Disease Prevalence

A novel statistical model based on a two-layer, contact and information, graph is suggested in order to study the influence of disease prevalence on voluntary general population vaccination during the COVID-19 outbreak. Details about the structure and number of susceptible, infectious, and recovered/vaccinated individuals from the contact layer are simultaneously transferred to the information layer. The ever-growing wealth of information that is becoming available about the COVID virus was modelled at each individual level by a simplified proxy predictor of the amount of disease spread. Each informed individual, a node in a heterogeneous graph, makes a decision about vaccination “motivated” by their benefit. The obtained results showed that disease information type, global or local, has a significant impact on an individual vaccination decision. A number of different scenarios were investigated. The scenarios showed that in the case of the stronger impact of globally broadcasted disease information, individuals tend to vaccinate in larger numbers at the same time when the infection has already spread within the population. If individuals make vaccination decisions based on locally available information, the vaccination rate is uniformly spread during infection outbreak duration. Prioritising elderly population vaccination leads to an increased number of infected cases and a higher reduction in mortality. The developed model accuracy allows the precise targeting of vaccination order depending on the individuals’ number of social contacts. Precisely targeted vaccination, combined with pre-existing immunity, and public health measures can limit the infection to isolated hotspots inside the population, as well as significantly delay and lower the infection peak.

Economic evaluation for mass vaccination against COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Vaccine is supposed to be the most effective means to prevent COVID-19 as it may not only save lives but also reduce productivity loss due to resuming pre-pandemic activities. Providing the results of economic evaluation for mass vaccination is of paramount importance for all stakeholders worldwide.

METHODS

We developed a Markov decision tree for the economic evaluation of mass vaccination against COVID-19. The effectiveness of reducing outcomes after the administration of three COVID-19 vaccines (BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), and AZD1222 (Oxford-AstraZeneca)) were modelled with empirical parameters obtained from literatures. The direct cost of vaccine and COVID-19 related medical cost, the indirect cost of productivity loss due to vaccine jabs and hospitalization, and the productivity loss were accumulated given different vaccination scenarios. We reported the incremental cost-utility ratio and benefit/cost (B/C) ratio of three vaccines compared to no vaccination with a probabilistic approach.

RESULTS

Moderna and Pfizer vaccines won the greatest effectiveness among the three vaccines under consideration. After taking both direct and indirect costs into account, all of the three vaccines dominated no vaccination strategy. The results of B/C ratio show that one dollar invested in vaccine would have USD $13, USD $23, and USD $28 in return for Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca, respectively when health and education loss are considered. The corresponding figures taking value of the statistical life into account were USD $176, USD $300, and USD $443.

CONCLUSION

Mass vaccination against COVID-19 with three current available vaccines is cost-saving for gaining more lives and less cost incurred.

Queue questions: Ethics of COVID-19 vaccine prioritization

The rapid development of vaccines against COVID-19 represents a huge achievement, and offers hope of ending the global pandemic. At least three COVID-19 vaccines have been approved or are about to be approved for distribution in many countries. However, with very limited initial availability, only a minority of the population will be able to receive vaccines this winter. Urgent decisions will have to be made about who should receive priority for access. Current policy in the UK appears to take the view that those who are most vulnerable to COVID-19 should get the vaccine first. While this is intuitively attractive, we argue that there are other possible values and criteria that need to be considered. These include both intrinsic and instrumental values. The former are numbers of lives saved, years of life saved, quality of the lives saved, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and possibly others including age. Instrumental values include protecting healthcare systems and other broader societal interests, which might require prioritizing key worker status and having dependants. The challenge from an ethical point of view is to strike the right balance among these values. It also depends on effectiveness of different vaccines on different population groups and on modelling around cost-effectiveness of different strategies. It is a mistake to simply assume that prioritizing the most vulnerable is the best strategy. Although that could end up being the best approach, whether it is or not requires careful ethical and empirical analysis.

COVID-19 Vaccination Scenarios: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Turkey

As of March 2021, COVID-19 has claimed the lives of more than 2.7 million people worldwide. Vaccination has started in most countries around the world. In this study, we estimated the cost-effectiveness of strategies for COVID-19 vaccination for Turkey compared to a baseline in the absence of vaccination and imposed measures by using an enhanced SIRD (Susceptible, Infectious, Recovered, Death) model and various scenarios for the first year after vaccination. The results showed that vaccination is cost-effective from a health care perspective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 511 USD/QALY and 1045 USD/QALY if vaccine effectiveness on transmission is equal or reduced to only 50% of effectiveness on disease, respectively, at the 90% baseline effectiveness of the vaccine. From a societal perspective, cost savings were estimated for both scenarios. Other results further showed that the minimum required vaccine uptake to be cost-effective would be at least 30%. Sensitivity and scenario analyses, as well as the iso-ICER curves, showed that the results were quite robust and that major changes in cost-effectiveness outcomes cannot be expected. We can conclude that COVID-19 vaccination in Turkey is highly cost-effective or even cost-saving.