Economic value of vaccines to address the COVID-19 pandemic: a U.S. cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis

Economic Evaluation of COVID-19 Immunization Strategies: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to systematically assess global economic evaluation studies on COVID-19 vaccination, offer valuable insights for future economic evaluations, and assist policymakers in making evidence-based decisions regarding the implementation of COVID-19 vaccination.

METHODS

Searches were performed from January 2020 to September 2023 across seven English databases (PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, EBSCO, KCL-Korean Journal Dataset, SciELO Citation Index, and Derwent Innovations Index) and three Chinese databases (Wanfang Data, China Science and Technology Journal, and CNKI). Rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Data were extracted from eligible studies using a standardized data collection form, with the reporting quality of these studies assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022).

RESULTS

Of the 40 studies included in the final review, the overall reporting quality was good, evidenced by a mean score of 22.6 (ranging from 10.5 to 28). Given the significant heterogeneity in fundamental aspects among the studies reviewed, a narrative synthesis was conducted. Most of these studies adopted a health system or societal perspective. They predominantly utilized a composite model, merging dynamic and static methods, within short to medium-term time horizons to simulate various vaccination strategies. The research strategies varied among studies, investigating different doses, dosages, brands, mechanisms, efficacies, vaccination coverage rates, deployment speeds, and priority target groups. Three pivotal parameters notably influenced the evaluation results: the vaccine's effectiveness, its cost, and the basic reproductive number (R0). Despite variations in model structures, baseline parameters, and assumptions utilized, all studies identified a general trend that COVID-19 vaccination is cost-effective compared to no vaccination or intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

The current review confirmed that COVID-19 vaccination is a cost-effective alternative in preventing and controlling COVID-19. In addition, it highlights the profound impact of variables such as dose size, target population, vaccine efficacy, speed of vaccination, and diversity of vaccine brands and mechanisms on cost effectiveness, and also proposes practical and effective strategies for improving COVID-19 vaccination campaigns from the perspective of economic evaluation.

COVID-19-related health utility values and changes in COVID-19 patients and the general population: a scoping review

PURPOSE

To summarise the diverse literature reporting the impact of COVID-19 on health utility in COVID-19 patients as well as in general populations being affected by COVID-19 control policies.

METHODS

A literature search up to April 2023 was conducted to identify papers reporting health utility in COVID-19 patients or in COVID-19-affected general populations. We present a narrative synthesis of the health utility values/losses of the retained studies to show the mean health utility values/losses with 95% confidence intervals. Mean utility values/losses for categories defined by medical attendance and data collection time were calculated using random-effects models.

RESULTS

In total, 98 studies-68 studies on COVID-19 patients and 30 studies on general populations-were retained for detailed review. Mean (95% CI) health utility values were 0.83 (0.81, 0.86), 0.78 (0.73, 0.83), 0.82 (0.78, 0.86) and 0.71 (0.65, 0.78) for general populations, non-hospitalised, hospitalised and ICU patients, respectively, irrespective of the data collection time. Mean utility losses in patients and general populations ranged from 0.03 to 0.34 and from 0.02 to 0.18, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review provides a summary of the health utility impact of COVID-19 and COVID-19 control policies. COVID-19-affected populations were reported to have poor health utility, while a high degree of heterogeneity was observed across studies. Population- and/or country-specific health utility is recommended for use in future economic evaluation on COVID-19-related interventions.

The second dose of COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitancy among health care workers in China: A multicenter cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 outbreak in China exposed health care workers (HCWs) to an increased risk of infection. The acquired immunity rapidly diminishes after the previous COVID-19 vaccination and the second booster vaccination has been recommended in several countries. HCWs are a priority group for vaccination because they are at increased risk of being infected, however, a certain amount of HCWs were hesitant.

METHODS

The survey was conducted among 5805 HCWs in China from January 5 to February 9, 2023. Questionnaire included sociodemographic information, COVID-19-related variables, psychological factors, and the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to assess the influencing factors of the second dose of COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitancy.

RESULTS

42.2% of HCWs self-reported having the second dose of COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitancy. Occupations, years of working, COVID-19 infection status were associated with less vaccine hesitancy. HCWs who had received 3 doses of COVID-19 vaccine were less likely to be hesitant compared to those had not received. HCWs with PTSD symptoms and anxiety symptoms were more likely to be hesitant. No relation was observed between COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitancy and age, marriage, salary, and perceived an increased risk of COVID-19 infection due to work (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable proportion of HCWs were hesitant to accept the second dose of the COVID-19 booster vaccine. Incorporating vaccine knowledge and new evidence into routine health educations and procedures to raise confidence and reduce complacency may be effective and feasible in promoting the vaccination and implementing future vaccination programs.

The age-specific impact of COVID-19 vaccination on medical expenditures and hospitalization duration after breakthrough infection: The Vaccine Effectiveness, Networking, and Universal Safety (VENUS) Study

OBJECTIVES

Although COVID-19 no longer constitutes a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, vaccination remains an important tool for reducing disease burden and mitigating future outbreaks. However, little is known about the impact of vaccination on medical expenditures and hospitalization duration after breakthrough infection. This study aimed to examine this impact during the Delta wave in Japan.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted using medical care claims data, vaccination records, and COVID-19-related information. COVID-19 cases in three municipalities were categorized into two age groups: 20-64 years and ≥65 years. For each group, we constructed linear regression models with a generalized estimating equation. We calculated the risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of COVID-19 vaccination for total medical expenditures and hospitalization duration after adjusting for sex, comorbidities, and municipality.

RESULTS

We analyzed 618 cases aged 20-64 years (mean age: 38.4 years, women: 45.1%) and 208 cases aged ≥65 years (76.4 years, 53.8%). The RRs (95% CIs) of vaccination for total medical expenditures were 0.53 (0.44-0.64) in the 20-64 years age group and 0.51 (0.39-0.66) in the ≥65 years age group. Next, the RRs (95% CIs) of vaccination for hospitalization duration were 0.59 (0.42-0.83) in the 20-64 years age group and 0.69 (0.49-0.98) in the ≥65 years age group.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 vaccination was associated with lower total medical expenditures and hospitalization duration after breakthrough infection, with a more pronounced effect in older persons.

Benefit-Risk Assessment of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Children Aged 6 Months to 4 Years in the Omicron Era

BACKGROUND

There is no risk and benefit assessment of COVID-19 vaccination for children younger than 5 years using a single health outcomes scale. The objective of this study is to compare the expected risk and benefits of the mRNA primary series of COVID-19 vaccines for children aged 6 months to 4 years in the United States using a single health outcome scale in the Omicron era.

METHODS

The expected benefits and risks of the primary two-dose series of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for children aged 6 months to 4 years were stratified by sex, the presence of underlying medical conditions, the presence of infection-induced immunity, and the type of mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273). A scoping literature review was conducted to identify the indicators in the decision tree model. The benefit-risk ratio was the outcome of interest.

RESULTS

The benefit-risk ratios ranged from 200.4 in BNT162b2 for males aged 6-11 months with underlying medical conditions and without infection-induced immunity to 3.2 in mRNA-1273 for females aged 1-4 years without underlying medical conditions and with infection-induced immunity.

CONCLUSIONS

The expected benefit of receiving the primary series of mRNA vaccines outweighed the risk among children ages 6 months to 4 years regardless of sex, presence of underlying medical conditions, presence of infection-induced immunity, or type of mRNA vaccines. However, the continuous monitoring of the COVID-19 epidemiology as well as vaccine effectiveness and safety is important.

Relative effectiveness of bivalent COVID-19 vaccine: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

The rapid development of COVID-19 bivalent vaccines (BVs) has encompassed both the original virus strains and the variant strain. However, the effectiveness of BVs is largely unknown. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of BVs.

Methods

Literature research was conducted through PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science up until November 4, 2023. Both randomized control trials and observational studies were considered for inclusion. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random effects model. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the risk of bias in cohort and case-control studies.

Results

A total of 1,174 articles were reviewed and 22 eligible studies were included. All included studies were observational (15 cohort studies, 7 case-control studies). The total number of participants was 39,673,160, and the number of people vaccinated with BVs as an intervention group was 11,585,182. Two mRNA BVs were mainly involved, including the ancestral strain and the BA.1 or BA.4-5 variants. Meta-analysis results showed, compared with the monovalent vaccines (MVs), the relative effectiveness (rVE) of the BVs in COVID-19-associated infections/symptomatic infections, illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths was 30.90% [95% confidence interval (CI), 8.43-53.37], 39.83% (95% CI, 27.34-52.32), 59.70% (95% CI, 44.08-75.32), and 72.23% (95% CI, 62.08-82.38), respectively. For those aged 50 years and older, BVs provided an additional 49.69% (95% CI, 41.44-57.94) effective protection compared with MVs. During the dominance period of the omicron XBB variant strain, BVs provided an additional 47.63% (95% CI, 27.45-67.82) effective protection compared with MVs.

Conclusion

Our findings show that the rVE of BVs in preventing COVID-19-associated infections, symptomatic infections, illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths is higher compared to MVs. Particularly for people over 50 years of age and during the Omicron variant XBB dominance phase, BVs provided superior protection. Therefore, BVs may have a broader application in the prevention and control of coronaviruses variant.

Economic evaluation of vaccination against COVID-19: A systematic review

Background and Aims

Coronavirus has burdened considerable expenditures on the different health systems. Vaccination programs, the critical solution against pandemic diseases, are known as safe and effective interventions to prevent and control epidemics. We aimed to perform a systematic review to provide economic evidence of the value of different types of vaccines available to combat the Covid-19 to all health policymakers worldwide.

Methods

Electronic searches conducted on Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and other economic evaluation databases. Related and published articles searched up to March 2022 by using keywords such as "Vaccination," "Covid-19," "Cost-benefit," "Cost-utility," "Cost-effectiveness," "Economic Assessment," and "Economic evaluation." Followed by choosing the most suitable articles according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, data captured and the results extracted. The quality assessment of the articles performed by the checklist of CHEERS 2022. Finally, 13 articles included in the review.

Results

All messenger RNA vaccines were dominant with approximately 70% coverage against no vaccination in the primary vaccination program except in one study that looked at booster effects. From a payer's perspective, a dollar invested in a vaccine would be less profitable than from a societal perspective. Therefore, primary mass vaccination can be considered a cost-effective intervention in primary vaccination to save more lives and produce more positive externalities. However, the cost-benefit ratio for all vaccines increases when statistical lifetime value and global economic and educational disadvantages are considered.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 primary vaccination programs in regional outbreaks, from a long-term perspective, will demonstrate substantial cost-effectiveness. It is suggested that due to the positive externalities of vaccination, primary mass vaccination, with the help of COVAX-19TM, could be considered a reliable way to combat viral epidemics compared to the loss of individual lives and economic and educational disturbances around the world.

Predictive models for health outcomes due to SARS-CoV-2, including the effect of vaccination: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The interaction between modelers and policymakers is becoming more common due to the increase in computing speed seen in recent decades. The recent pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus was no exception. Thus, this study aims to identify and assess epidemiological mathematical models of SARS-CoV-2 applied to real-world data, including immunization for coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODOLOGY

PubMed, JSTOR, medRxiv, LILACS, EconLit, and other databases were searched for studies employing epidemiological mathematical models of SARS-CoV-2 applied to real-world data. We summarized the information qualitatively, and each article included was assessed for bias risk using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and PROBAST checklist tool. The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42022344542.

FINDINGS

In total, 5646 articles were retrieved, of which 411 were included. Most of the information was published in 2021. The countries with the highest number of studies were the United States, Canada, China, and the United Kingdom; no studies were found in low-income countries. The SEIR model (susceptible, exposed, infectious, and recovered) was the most frequently used approach, followed by agent-based modeling. Moreover, the most commonly used software were R, Matlab, and Python, with the most recurring health outcomes being death and recovery. According to the JBI assessment, 61.4% of articles were considered to have a low risk of bias.

INTERPRETATION

The utilization of mathematical models increased following the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Stakeholders have begun to incorporate these analytical tools more extensively into public policy, enabling the construction of various scenarios for public health. This contribution adds value to informed decision-making. Therefore, understanding their advancements, strengths, and limitations is essential.

Going Forward: Potential Impact of Protein-Based COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage on Population Outcomes and Costs in the United States

Policymakers in the United States (US) recommend coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination with a monovalent 2023-2024 vaccine formulation based on the Omicron XBB.1.5 variant. We estimated the potential US population-level health and economic impacts of increased COVID-19 vaccine coverage that might be expected with the availability of a protein-based vaccine with simpler storage requirements in addition to messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines. A Markov model was developed to estimate 1-year COVID-19-related costs, cases, hospitalizations, and deaths with and without the availability of a protein-based vaccine option. The model population was stratified by age and risk status. Model inputs were sourced from published literature or derived from publicly available data. Our model estimated that a five-percentage-point increase in coverage due to the availability of a protein-based vaccine option would prevent over 500,000 cases, 66,000 hospitalizations, and 3000 COVID-19-related deaths. These clinical outcomes translated to 42,000 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD 16,141/QALY from a third-party payer perspective. In sensitivity analyses, outcomes were most sensitive to COVID-19 incidence and severity across age groups. The availability of a protein-based vaccine option in the US could reduce hospitalizations and deaths and is predicted to be cost-effective.

Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of the updated COVID-19 mRNA Autumn 2023 vaccines in Germany

OBJECTIVES

To assess the potential clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines updated for Autumn 2023 in adults aged ≥60 years and high-risk persons aged 30-59 years in Germany over a 1-year analytic time horizon (September 2023-August 2024).

METHODS

A compartmental Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Recovered model was updated and adapted to the German market. Numbers of symptomatic infections, a number of COVID-19 related hospitalizations and deaths, costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were calculated using a decision tree model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of an Autumn 2023 Moderna updated COVID-19 (mRNA-1273.815) vaccine was compared to no additional vaccination. Potential differences between the mRNA-1273.815 and the Autumn Pfizer-BioNTech updated COVID-19 (XBB.1.5 BNT162b2) vaccines, as well as societal return on investment for the mRNA-1273.815 vaccine relative to no vaccination, were also examined.

RESULTS

Compared to no autumn vaccination, the mRNA-1273.815 campaign is predicted to prevent approximately 1,697,900 symptomatic infections, 85,400 hospitalizations, and 4,100 deaths. Compared to an XBB.1.5 BNT162b2 campaign, the mRNA-1273.815 campaign is also predicted to prevent approximately 90,100 symptomatic infections, 3,500 hospitalizations, and 160 deaths. Across both analyses we found the mRNA-1273.815 campaign to be dominant.

CONCLUSIONS

The mRNA-1273.815 vaccine can be considered cost-effective relative to the XBB.1.5 BNT162b2 vaccine and highly likely to provide more benefits and save costs compared to no vaccine in Germany, and to offer high societal return on investment.

Optimal vaccination strategies for a heterogeneous population using multiple objectives: The case of L1- and L2-formulations

The choice of the objective functional in optimization problems coming from biomedical and epidemiological applications plays a key role in optimal control outcomes. In this study, we investigate the role of the objective functional on the structure of the optimal control solution for an epidemic model for sexually transmitted infections that includes a core group with higher sexual activity levels than the rest of the population. An optimal control problem is formulated to find a targeted vaccination program able to control the spread of the infection with minimum vaccine deployment. Both L1- and L2-objectives are considered as an attempt to explore the trade-offs between control dynamics and the functional form characterizing optimality. The results show that the optimal vaccination policies for both the L1- and the L2-formulation share one important qualitative property, that is, immunization of the core group should be prioritized by policymakers to achieve a fast reduction of the epidemic. However, quantitative aspects of this result can be significantly affected depending on the choice of the control weights between formulations. Overall, the results suggest that with appropriate weight constants, the optimal control outcomes are reasonably robust with respect to the L1- or L2-formulation. This is particularly true when the monetary cost of the control policy is substantially lower than the cost associated with the disease burden. Under these conditions, even if the L1-formulation is more realistic from a modeling perspective, the L2-formulation can be used as an approximation and yield qualitatively comparable outcomes.

Factors Associated with COVID-19 Vaccination Promptness after Eligibility in a North Carolina Longitudinal Cohort Study

Many studies identified factors associated with vaccination intention and hesitancy, but factors associated with vaccination promptness and the effect of vaccination intention on vaccination promptness are unknown. This study identified factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination promptness and evaluated the role of vaccination intention on vaccination promptness in 1223 participants in a community-based longitudinal cohort study (June 2020 to December 2021). Participants answered questions regarding COVID-19 vaccination intention, vaccination status, and reasons for not receiving a vaccine. The association of baseline vaccine hesitancy with vaccination was assessed by the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Follow-up analyses tested the importance of other variables predicting vaccination using the Cox proportional hazards model. Older age was associated with shorter time to vaccination (HR = 1.76 [1.37-2.25] 85-year-old versus 65-year-old). Lower education levels (HR = 0.80 [0.69-0.92]), household incomes (HR = 0.84 [0.72-0.98]), and baseline vaccination intention of 'No' (HR = 0.16 [0.11-0.23]) were associated with longer times to vaccination. The most common reasons for not being vaccinated (N = 58) were vaccine safety concerns (n = 33), side effects (n = 28), and vaccine effectiveness (n = 25). Vaccination campaigns that target populations prone to hesitancy and address vaccine safety and effectiveness could be helpful in future vaccination rollouts.

Contributions of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) to influenza vaccination policy for older adults in Europe

This review describes the importance of economic evaluations and real-world evidence (RWE) for the assessment of enhanced influenza vaccines for older adults in Europe. Individuals ≥65 years of age are at increased risk of severe influenza outcomes and many countries in Europe recommend enhanced vaccines for this population to mitigate immunosenescence. Some National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) may preferentially recommend a specific enhanced vaccine, necessitating comparative economic evaluation and estimation of relative vaccine effectiveness between enhanced vaccine options in the absence of direct head-to-head efficacy data. Distinct approaches to economic modeling and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) guide national vaccination policies in Europe, including how underlying data, such as RWE, are used in these models. RWE is an important evidence source for input into CEA models based on disease factors (e.g., antigenic shift and seasonal variation) and practical factors (e.g., limitations of performing multiple randomized clinical trials to capture seasonal variation; the need to obtain relevant patient-oriented, real-world endpoints, such as hospitalizations). CEA is considered crucial to vaccine assessment among certain countries in Europe, but further harmonization of economic evaluations, including the use of RWE, across NITAGs in Europe may be of benefit, alongside standardized approaches for vaccine appraisal. In the future, more countries may use RWE as an input in CEA models to support NITAG recommendations for enhanced influenza vaccines in older populations, especially considering the value of RWE for the assessment of influenza epidemiology and vaccine effectiveness as stated by the World Health Organization, and the availability of a broad RWE base for certain enhanced vaccines.

Risk and Benefit of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines for the Omicron Variant by Age, Sex, and Presence of Comorbidity: A Quality-Adjusted Life Years Analysis

The development of the mutant omicron variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic raised the importance of reevaluating the risk and benefit of COVID-19 vaccines. With a decision tree model, we calculated the benefit-risk ratio and the benefit-risk difference of receiving monovalent messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccine (primary 2 doses, a third dose, and a fourth dose) in the 4-5 months after vaccination using quality-adjusted life years. The analysis was stratified by age, sex, and the presence of comorbidity. Evidence from peer-reviewed publications and gray literature was reviewed on September 16, 2022, to inform the study. Benefit-risk ratios for receipt of the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) ranged from 6.8 for males aged 12-17 years without comorbidity for the primary doses to 221.3 for females aged ≥65 years with comorbidity for the third dose. The benefit-risk ratios for receipt of the mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna) ranged from 7.2 for males aged 18-29 years without comorbidity for the primary doses to 101.4 for females aged ≥65 years with comorbidity for the third dose. In all scenarios of the one-way sensitivity analysis, the benefit-risk ratios were more than 1, irrespective of age, sex, comorbidity status, and type of vaccine, for both primary and booster doses. The benefits of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in protecting against the omicron variant outweigh the risks, irrespective of age, sex, and comorbidity.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of COVID-19 Inactivated Vaccines in Reducing the Economic Burden of Ischaemic Stroke after SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Due to significant economic burden and disability from ischaemic stroke and the relationship between ischaemic stroke and SARS-CoV-2 infection, we aimed to explore the cost-effectiveness of the two-dose inactivated COVID-19 vaccination program in reducing the economic burden of ischaemic stroke after SARS-CoV-2 infection. We constructed a decision-analytic Markov model to compare the two-dose inactivated COVID-19 vaccination strategy to the no vaccination strategy using cohort simulation. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and used number of the ischaemic stroke cases after SARS-CoV-2 infection and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) to assess effects. Both one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to assess the robustness of the results. We found that the two-dose inactivated vaccination strategy reduced ischaemic stroke cases after SARS-CoV-2 infection by 80.89% (127/157) with a USD 1.09 million as vaccination program cost, saved USD 3675.69 million as direct health care costs and gained 26.56 million QALYs compared with no vaccination strategy among 100,000 COVID-19 patients (ICER < 0 per QALY gained). ICERs remained robust in sensitivity analysis. The proportion of older patients and the proportion of two-dose inactivated vaccination among older people were the critical factors that affected ICER. This study suggests the importance of COVID-19 vaccination is not only in preventing the spread of infectious diseases, but also in considering its long-term value in reducing the economic burden of non-communicable diseases such as ischaemic stroke after SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19 vaccination strategy has been widely used to protect population health worldwide. This study aims to summarize the cost-effectiveness evidence of economic evaluation of COVID-19 vaccination strategies to provide evidence supporting the usage of COVID-19 vaccination, especially where the supply of COVID-19 vaccine is limited.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed by searching both English and Chinese databases, including PubMed, Embase, Science Direct, Web of Science, Medline, Scopus, and CNKI. Articles published from January 1, 2020 to August 1, 2022 (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022355442).

RESULTS

Of the 1035 papers identified, a total of 28 English studies that met the preset criteria were included. COVID-19 vaccination and booster vaccination were cost-effective or cost-saving regardless of the vaccine type; vaccine efficacy, vaccine price, vaccine supply or prioritization, and vaccination pace were the influential factors of cost-effectiveness among different population groups. When supply is adequate, mass vaccination should be encouraged, while when supply is inadequate, prioritizing the high risk and the elderly is more cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 vaccination strategies are economically favorable in a wide range of countries and population groups, and further research on suitable strategies for booster COVID-19 vaccination is needed.

The effect of vaccination during the COVID-19 for the restaurant industry

The purpose of the study is to determine whether vaccination rates and the use of franchising have an impact on the volatility of stock returns in the restaurant industry. Based on the agency and resource scarcity theories, this study first examines the effect of vaccinations against COVID-19 on a restaurant firm's stock return volatilities caused by uncertainty during a crisis. The study further investigates whether firm-specific vaccination rates more greatly reduce stock return volatilities as the degree of franchising increases. With a two-way fixed-effects model, the study finds that the firm-specific vaccination rate reduces volatilities of the firm's stock returns. However, the study also finds an opposite direction to the moderating effect of franchising in that the more a restaurant firm franchises, the further the risk-reduction effect of its vaccination rate diminishes. Theoretical and practical implications along with limitations are discussed.

Economic evaluation of strategies against coronavirus: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 outbreak was defined as a pandemic on 11 March 2020 by the World Health Organization. After that, COVID-19 has enormously influenced health systems around the world, and it has claimed more than 4.2 million deaths until July 2021. The pandemic has led to global health, social and economic costs. This situation has prompted a crucial search for beneficial interventions and treatments, but little is known about their monetary value. This study is aimed at systematically reviewing the articles conducted on the economic evaluation of preventive, control and treatment strategies against COVID-19.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar from December 2019 to October 2021 to find applicable literature to the economic evaluation of strategies against COVID-19. Two researchers screened potentially eligible titles and abstracts. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to quality assessment of studies.

RESULTS

Thirty-six studies were included in this review, and the average CHEERS score was 72. Cost-effectiveness analysis was the most common type of economic evaluation, used in 21 studies. And the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was the main outcome applied to measure the effectiveness of interventions, which was used in 19 studies. In addition, articles were reported a wide range of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and the lowest cost per QALY ($321.14) was related to the use of vaccines.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of this systematic review, it seems that all strategies are likely to be more cost-effective against COVID-19 than no intervention and vaccination was the most cost-effective strategy. This research provides insight for decision makers in choosing optimal interventions against the next waves of the current pandemic and possible future pandemics.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of vaccination against COVID-19 in China

Introduction

Since 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.

Methods

In 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.

Results

Our 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.

Conclusion

Compared 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.

Incremental Net Benefit and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio of COVID-19 Vaccination Campaigns: Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Evidence

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination has been the most effective tool to prevent COVID-19, significantly reducing deaths and hospitalizations worldwide. Vaccination has played a huge role in bringing the COVID-19 pandemic under control, even as the inequitable distribution of vaccines still leaves several countries vulnerable. Therefore, organizing a mass vaccination campaign on a global scale is a priority to contain the virus spread. The aim of this systematic review was to assess whether COVID-19 vaccination campaigns are cost-effective with respect to no vaccination. A systematic literature search was conducted in the WHO COVID-19 Global literature database, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus from 2020 to 2022. Studies assessing the COVID-19 vaccination campaign cost-effectiveness over no vaccination were deemed eligible. The "Drummond's checklist" was adopted for quality assessment. A synthesis of the studies was performed through the "dominance ranking matrix tool". Overall, 10 studies were considered. COVID-19 vaccination was deemed cost-effective in each of them, and vaccination campaigns were found to be sustainable public health approaches to fight the health emergency. Providing economic evaluation data for mass vaccination is needed to support decision makers to make value-based and evidence-based decisions to ensure equitable access to vaccination and reduce the COVID-19 burden worldwide.

Economic evaluation of COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review

Background

Safe and effective vaccination is considered to be the most critical strategy to fight coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), leading to individual and herd immunity protection. We aimed to systematically review the economic evaluation of COVID-19 vaccination globally.

Methods

We performed a systematic search to identify relevant studies in two major databases (MEDLINE/PubMed and EBSCO) published until September 8, 2022. After deduplication, two researchers independently screened the study titles and abstracts according to pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The remaining full-text studies were assessed for eligibility. We assessed their quality of reporting using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklist and summarized and narratively presented the results.

Results

We identified 25 studies that assessed the economic evaluation of COVID-19 vaccination worldwide by considering several input parameters, including vaccine cost, vaccine efficacy, utility value, and the size of the targeted population. All studies suggested that COVID-19 vaccination was a cost-effective or cost-saving intervention for mitigating coronavirus transmission and its effect in many countries within certain conditions. Most studies reported vaccine efficacy values ranging from 65% to 75%.

Conclusions

Given the favorable cost-effectiveness profile of COVID-19 vaccines and disparities in affordability across countries, considering prioritization has become paramount. This review provides comprehensive insights into the economic evaluation of COVID-19 vaccination that will be useful to policymakers, particularly in highlighting preventive measures and preparedness plans for the next possible pandemic.

Treatment cost assessment for COVID-19 inpatients in Shenzhen, China 2020-2021: facts and suggestions

Background

Knowledge regarding the treatment cost of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the real world is vital for disease burden forecasts and health resources planning. However, it is greatly hindered by obtaining reliable cost data from actual patients. To address this knowledge gap, this study aims to estimate the treatment cost and specific cost components for COVID-19 inpatients in Shenzhen city, China in 2020-2021.

Methods

It is a 2 years' cross-sectional study. The de-identified discharge claims were collected from the hospital information system (HIS) of COVID-19 designated hospital in Shenzhen, China. One thousand three hundred ninety-eight inpatients with a discharge diagnosis for COVID-19 from January 10, 2020 (the first COVID-19 case admitted in the hospital in Shenzhen) to December 31, 2021. A comparison was made of treatment cost and cost components of COVID-19 inpatients among seven COVID-19 clinical classifications (asymptomatic, mild, moderate, severe, critical, convalescent and re-positive cases) and three admission stages (divided by the implementation of different treatment guidelines). The multi-variable linear regression models were used to conduct the analysis.

Results

The treatment cost for included COVID-19 inpatients was USD 3,328.8. The number of convalescent cases accounted for the largest proportion of all COVID-19 inpatients (42.7%). The severe and critical cases incurred more than 40% of treatment cost on western medicine, while the other five COVID-19 clinical classifications spent the largest proportion (32%-51%) on lab testing. Compared with asymptomatic cases, significant increases of treatment cost were observed in mild cases (by 30.0%), moderate cases (by 49.2%), severe cases (by 228.7%) and critical cases (by 680.7%), while reductions were shown in re-positive cases (by 43.1%) and convalescent cases (by 38.6%). The decreasing trend of treatment cost was observed during the latter two stages by 7.6 and 17.9%, respectively.

Conclusions

Our findings identified the difference of inpatient treatment cost across seven COVID-19 clinical classifications and the changes at three admission stages. It is highly suggestive to inform the financial burden experienced by the health insurance fund and the Government, to emphasize the rational use of lab tests and western medicine in the COVID-19 treatment guideline, and to design suitable treatment and control policy for convalescent cases.

Parental attitudes towards vaccination against COVID-19 of children 5-11 years old in Greece

RATIONALE

Vaccinating children against COVID-19 is critical to contain the ongoing pandemic.

AIMS/OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to assess parents' and caregivers' intention to vaccinate their 5-11 years old children against COVID-19 and to estimate the association between vaccination intention and sociodemographic, clinical and contextual factors.

METHOD

We conducted a questionnaire-based survey on a convenience sample of parents in Patras, Western Greece.

RESULTS

Out of 366 study participants, around 48% reported their intention to vaccinate their child. The main factors associated with positive attitudes were paediatrician recommendation, parental vaccination, and reliance on the healthcare providers for decision making. Of note, 80% of the 190 parents who did not intend to vaccinate their children would vaccinate them if the paediatrician recommended it.

CONCLUSION

Interventions to further train healthcare professionals to establish rapport with parents, and to provide adequate information about vaccinations are crucial to address concerns related to COVID-19 vaccine benefits for children.

The Value of Vaccines: A Tale of Two Parts

Vaccines are essential to ensuring a nation's health, wellbeing and prosperity. After the coronavirus pandemic commenced, the Australian Government introduced social restrictions to constrain virus transmission, seeing significant economic impacts. Reflecting the extraordinary circumstances, subsequent vaccination rollout forwent usual health technology assessment (HTA) processes, facilitating restrictions removal and leading to societal and economic recovery. However, in 'usual' circumstances, HTA may not consider such broader effects of vaccines, making it challenging for them to achieve timely funding. We used detailed modelling to compare economic impacts under continued lockdowns against population-wide vaccination rollout between January 2020 and June 2023 and examined global HTA vaccine evaluation methodologies and efforts to develop broader valuation approaches. Australian gross domestic product reduces by approximately AUD 395 billion with lockdowns. With vaccination rollout, this effect is approximately AUD 214bn, a positive incremental impact of AUD 181bn. Vaccination contributes to large estimated positive effects for tourism (AUD 28bn) and education (AUD 26bn) exports, employment (142,000 jobs) and government finances (AUD 259bn). Conversely, global HTA methods generally only consider direct patient health outcomes and healthcare system-related costs, with broader effects usually not impacting funding decisions. Our results suggest that recent efforts to propose broader HTA valuation frameworks warrant further policy consideration.

Cost-Effectiveness of COVID-19 Sequential Vaccination Strategies in Inactivated Vaccinated Individuals in China

To effectively prevent and control the COVID-19 pandemic, countries have adopted a booster vaccination strategy. This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of sequential booster COVID-19 vaccination compared to two-dose inactivated vaccination in China from a societal perspective. A Markov model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of sequential vaccination, including two doses of an inactivated vaccine followed by a booster shot of an inactivated vaccine, adenovirus vectored vaccine, protein subunit vaccine, or mRNA vaccine. The incremental effects of a booster shot with an inactivated vaccine, protein subunit vaccine, adenovirus vectored vaccine, and mRNA vaccine were 0.0075, 0.0110, 0.0208, and 0.0249 QALYs and saved costs of US$163.96, US$261.73, US$583.21, and US$724.49, respectively. Under the Omicron virus pandemic, the sequential vaccination among adults and the elderly (aged 60-69, 70-79, over 80) was consistently cost-saving, and a booster shot of the mRNA vaccine was more cost-saving. The results indicate that the sequential vaccination strategy is cost-effective in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic, and improving vaccination coverage among the elderly is of great importance in avoiding severe cases and deaths.

The economic impact of COVID-19 interventions: A mathematical modeling approach

Prior to vaccination or drug treatment, non-pharmaceutical interventions were almost the only way to control the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic. After vaccines were developed, effective vaccination strategies became important. The prolonged COVID-19 pandemic has caused enormous economic losses worldwide. As such, it is necessary to estimate the economic effects of control policies, including non-pharmaceutical interventions and vaccination strategies. We estimated the costs associated with COVID-19 according to different vaccination rollout speeds and social distancing levels and investigated effective control strategies for cost minimization. Age-structured mathematical models were developed and used to study disease transmission epidemiology. Using these models, we estimated the actual costs due to COVID-19, considering costs associated with medical care, lost wages, death, vaccination, and gross domestic product (GDP) losses due to social distancing. The lower the social distancing (SD) level, the more important the vaccination rollout speed. SD level 1 was cost-effective under fast rollout speeds, but SD level 2 was more effective for slow rollout speeds. If the vaccine rollout rate is fast enough, even implementing SD level 1 will be cost effective and can control the number of critically ill patients and deaths. If social distancing is maintained at level 2 at the beginning and then relaxed when sufficient vaccinations have been administered, economic costs can be reduced while maintaining the number of patients with severe symptoms below the intensive care unit (ICU) capacity. Korea has wellequipped medical facilities and infrastructure for rapid vaccination, and the public's desire for vaccination is high. In this case, the speed of vaccine supply is an important factor in controlling the COVID-19 epidemic. If the speed of vaccination is fast, it is possible to maintain a low level of social distancing without a significant increase in the number of deaths and hospitalized patients with severe symptoms, and the corresponding costs can be reduced.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Inactivated Vaccine to Address COVID-19 Pandemic in China: Evidence From Randomized Control Trials and Real-World Studies

Objective

This study aimed to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines (CoronaVac and BBIBP-CorV) in China using existing international clinical trials and real-world evidence.

Methods

Through a search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CNKI, studies investigating the effectiveness of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines were identified, and a meta-analysis was undertaken to synthesize the vaccine efficacy and effectiveness data. Moreover, a decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of inactivated vaccines for combating the COVID-19 pandemic in the Chinese context from a societal perspective. Results of the meta-analysis, along with cost data from official websites and works of literature were used to populate the model. Sensitivity analysis was performed to test the robustness of the model results.

Results

A total of 24 studies were included in the meta-analysis. In comparison to no immunization, the effectiveness of inactivated vaccine against COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, ICU admission and death were 65.18% (95% CI 62.62, 67.75), 79.10% (95% CI 71.69, 86.51), 90.46% (95% CI 89.42, 91.50), and 86.69% (95% CI 85.68, 87.70); and the efficacy against COVID-19 infection and hospitalization were 70.56% (95% CI 57.87, 83.24) and 100% (95% CI 61.72, 100). Inactivated vaccine vaccination prevented more infections, hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths with lower total costs, thus was cost-saving from a societal perspective in China. Base-case analysis results were robust in the one-way sensitivity analysis, and the percentage of ICU admission or death and direct medical cost ranked the top influential factors in our models. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, vaccination had a 100% probability of being cost-effective.

Conclusion

Inactivated vaccine is effective in preventing COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, ICU admission and avoiding COVID-19 related death, and COVID-19 vaccination program is cost-saving from societal perspective in China.

Booster doses of COVID-19 vaccines for patients with haematological and solid cancer: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis

Importance

Patients with cancer have an increased risk of severe disease and mortality from COVID-19, as the disease and antineoplastic therapy cause reduced vaccine immunogenicity. Booster doses have been proposed to enhance protection, and efficacy data are emerging from several studies.

Objective

To evaluate the proportion of COVID-19 primary vaccination non-responders with cancer who seroconvert after a booster dose.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL and medRxiv were searched from 1st January 2021 to 10th March 2022. Quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal checklist.

Results

After the eligibility assessment, 22 studies were included in this systematic review and 17 for meta-analysis of seroconversion in non-responders, pooling a total of 849 patients with haematological cancer and 82 patients with solid cancer. Haematological cancer non-responders exhibited lower seroconversion at 44% (95% CI 36–53%) than solid cancer at 80% (95% CI 69–87%). Individual patient data meta-analysis found the odds of having a meaningful rise in antibody titres to be significantly associated with increased duration between the second and third dose (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00–1.03, P ≤ 0.05), age of patient (OR 0.960, 95% CI 0.934–0.987, P ≤ 0.05) and cancer type. With patients with haematological cancer as a reference, patients with lung cancer had 16.8 times the odds of achieving a meaningful increase in antibody titres (OR 16.8, 95% CI 2.95–318, P ≤ 0.05) and gastrointestinal cancer patients had 25.4 times the odds of achieving a meaningful increase in antibody titres (OR 25.4, 95% CI 5.26–492.21, P ≤ 0.05).

Conclusions

administration of a COVID-19 vaccine booster dose is effective in improving seroconversion and antibody levels. Patients with haematological cancer consistently demonstrate poorer response to booster vaccines than patients with solid cancer.

Economic Considerations in COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Refusal: A Survey of the Literature

The COVID-19 global pandemic has triggered one of the greatest economic shocks in a century. Effective COVID-19 vaccines have been developed, but a proportion of people either are hesitant or refuse to be vaccinated, facilitated by a global misinformation campaign. If 'herd immunity' cannot be achieved, there is potential not only for ongoing surges in infection, but also for development of new strains of the virus that could evade vaccines and precipitate further health and economic crises. We review the economics of vaccination and of vaccine hesitancy and refusal, and their potential effects on the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Diagnostics and Treatments of COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

OBJECTIVES

As healthcare systems continue to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, cost-effectiveness evidence will be needed to identify which tests and treatments for COVID-19 offer value for money. We sought to review economic evaluations of diagnostic tests and treatments for COVID-19, critically appraising the methodological approaches used and reporting cost-effectiveness estimates, using a "living" systematic review approach.

METHODS

Key databases (including MEDLINE, EconLit, Embase) were last searched on July 12, 2021. Gray literature and model repositories were also searched. Only full economic evaluations published in English were included. Studies were quality assessed and data were extracted into standard tables. Results were narratively summarized. The review was completed by 2 reviewers independently, with disagreements resolved through discussion with a senior reviewer.

RESULTS

Overall, 3540 records were identified, with 13 meeting the inclusion criteria. After quality assessment, 6 were excluded because of very severe limitations. Of the 7 studies included, 5 were cost-utility analyses and 2 were cost-effectiveness analyses. All were model-based analyses. A total of 5 evaluated treatments (dexamethasone, remdesivir, hypothetical) and 2 evaluated hypothetical testing strategies. Cost-effectiveness estimates were sensitive to the treatment effect on survival and hospitalization, testing speed and accuracy, disease severity, and price.

CONCLUSIONS

Presently, there are few economic evaluations for COVID-19 tests and treatments. They suggest treatments that confer a survival benefit and fast diagnostic tests may be cost effective. Nevertheless, studies are subject to major evidence gaps and take inconsistent analytical approaches. The evidence may improve for planned updates of this "living" review.

Value-based pricing of a COVID-19 vaccine

AIM

The purpose of this study is to determine the value-based price of a COVID-19 vaccine from a societal perspective in Germany.

METHODS

A decision model was constructed using, e.g., information on age-specific fatality rates, intensive care unit (ICU) costs and outcomes, and the full vaccination rate. Three strategies were analysed: vaccination (with 95 % and 50 % efficacy against death), a mitigation strategy, and no intervention. The base-case time horizon was 5 years. The value of a vaccine includes savings from avoiding COVID-19 mitigation measures and productivity loss, as well as health benefits from preventing COVID-19 related mortality. The value of an additional life year was borrowed from new, innovative oncological drugs, as cancer reflects a condition with a similar morbidity and mortality burden in the general population in the short term as COVID-19.

RESULTS

A vaccine with a 95 % efficacy dominates the mitigation strategy strictly. The value-based price (€6,431) is thus determined by the comparison between vaccination and no intervention. The price is particularly sensitive to the full vaccination rate and the duration of vaccine protection. In contrast, the value of a vaccine with 50 % efficacy is more ambiguous.

CONCLUSION

This study yields a value-based price for a COVID-19 vaccine with 95 % efficacy, which is considerably greater than the purchasing price.

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.

Cardiovascular Complications of COVID-19 Vaccines

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global public health catastrophe. Vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is proven to be the most effective measure to suppress the pandemic. With the widespread application of the four vaccines, namely, ChAdOx1, Ad26.COV2.S, BNT162b2, and mRNA-1273.2, several adverse effects have been reported. The most serious type of complication is cardiovascularly related, including myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), cerebral sinus venous thrombosis, among others. All these adverse events undermine the health of the vaccinees and affect the administration of the vaccines. As the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines is surrounded by suspicion and rumors, it is essential to provide the public with accurate reports from trusted experts and journals. Monitoring the safety of COVID-19 vaccines is an important and ongoing process that is also urgent. Thus, we summarized the cardiovascular complications of the major types of COVID-19 vaccines, including mRNA vaccines, which are now generally considered to be innovative vaccines, and the future for vaccination against COVID-19, in addition to the underlying pathogenesis and potential therapeutics.

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.

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.

Economic and clinical impact of a novel, light-based, at-home antiviral treatment on mild-to-moderate COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

Antiviral treatments for early intervention in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 are needed as a complement to vaccination. We sought to estimate the impact on COVID-19 cases, deaths, and direct healthcare costs over 12 months following introduction of a novel, antiviral treatment, RD-X19, a light-based, at-home intervention designed for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infection.

METHODS

A time-dependent, state transition (semi-Markov) cohort model was developed to simulate infection progression in individuals with COVID-19 in 3 US states with varying levels of vaccine uptake (Alabama, North Carolina, and Massachusetts) and at the national level between 1 June 2020 and 31 May 2021. The hypothetical cohort of patients entering the model progressed through subsequent health states after infection. Costs were assigned to each health state. Number of infections/vaccinations per day were incorporated into the model. Simulations were run to estimate outcomes (cases by severity, deaths, and direct healthcare costs) at various levels of adoption of RD-X19 (5%, 10%, 25%) in eligible infected individuals at the state and national levels and across three levels of clinical benefit based on the results from an early feasibility study of RD-X19. The clinical benefit reflects a decline in the duration of symptomatic disease by 1.2, 2.4 (base case), and 3.6 days.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis with 10% adoption, simulated infections/deaths/direct healthcare costs were reduced by 10,059/275/$69 million in Alabama, 21,092/545/$135 million in North Carolina, and 16,670/415/$102 million in Massachusetts over 12 months. At the national level, 10% adoption reduced total infections/deaths/direct healthcare costs by 686,722/17,748/$4.41 billion.

CONCLUSION

At-home, antiviral treatment with RD-X19 or other interventions with similar efficacy that decrease both symptomatic days and transmission probabilities can be used in concert with vaccines to reduce COVID-19 cases, deaths, and direct healthcare costs.

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.