Economic Evaluation and Budget Impact Analysis of Vaccination against Haemophilus influenzae Type b Infection in Thailand

How the Timing of Annual COVID-19 Vaccination of Nursing Home Residents and Staff Affects Its Value

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the epidemiologic, clinical, and economic value of an annual nursing home (NH) COVID-19 vaccine campaign and the impact of when vaccination starts.

DESIGN

Agent-based model representing a typical NH.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

NH residents and staff.

METHODS

We used the model representing an NH with 100 residents, its staff, their interactions, COVID-19 spread, and its health and economic outcomes to evaluate the epidemiologic, clinical, and economic value of varying schedules of annual COVID-19 vaccine campaigns.

RESULTS

Across a range of scenarios with a 60% vaccine efficacy that wanes starting 4 months after protection onset, vaccination was cost saving or cost-effective when initiated in the late summer or early fall. Annual vaccination averted 102 to 105 COVID-19 cases when 30-day vaccination campaigns began between July and October (varying with vaccination start), decreasing to 97 and 85 cases when starting in November and December, respectively. Starting vaccination between July and December saved $3340 to $4363 and $64,375 to $77,548 from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and societal perspectives, respectively (varying with vaccination start). Vaccination's value did not change when varying the COVID-19 peak between December and February. The ideal vaccine campaign timing was not affected by reducing COVID-19 levels in the community, or varying transmission probability, preexisting immunity, or COVID-19 severity. However, if vaccine efficacy wanes more quickly (over 1 month), earlier vaccination in July resulted in more cases compared with vaccinating later in October.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Annual vaccination of NH staff and residents averted the most cases when initiated in the late summer through early fall, at least 2 months before the COVID-19 winter peak but remained cost saving or cost-effective when it starts in the same month as the peak. This supports tethering COVID vaccination to seasonal influenza campaigns (typically in September-October) for providing protection against SARS-CoV-2 winter surges in NHs.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugated vaccine and the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine among Thai older adult

Introduction

This study aims to assess the economic impact of introducing the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) and 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) to Thai older adult aged ≥ 65  years who are healthy or with chronic health conditions and immunocompromised conditions from a societal perspective in order to introduce the vaccine to Thailand's National Immunization Program for the older adult.

Methods

A Markov model was adopted to simulate the natural history and economic outcomes of invasive pneumococcal diseases using updated published sources and Thai databases. We reported analyses as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) in USD per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. In addition, sensitivity analyses and budget impact analyses were conducted.

Results

The base-case analysis of all interventions (no vaccinations [current standard of care in Thailand], PPSV23, and PCV13) showed that PPSV23 was extendedly dominated by PCV13. Among healthy individuals or those with chronic health conditions, ICER for PCV13 was 233.63 USD/QALY; meanwhile, among individuals with immunocompromised conditions, ICER for PCV13 was 627.24 USD/QALY. PCV13 are economical vaccine for all older adult Thai individuals when compared to all interventions.

Conclusions

In the context of Thailand, PCV13 is recommended as the best buy and should be primarily prioritized when both costs and benefits are considered. Also, this model will be beneficial to the two-next generation pneumococcal vaccines implementation in Thailand.

Epidemiology and burden of Haemophilus influenzae disease in Thai children before implementation of the routine immunisation programme: A National Health Data Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To conduct the first pre-Haemophilus influenzae (Hi) type b (Hib) immunisation programme-based epidemiological study using national health data.

METHODS

We analysed National Health Security Office data, which cover 72% of the Thai population. The study population included children aged <18 years admitted for Hi disease from 2015 to 2019. Hi disease diagnosis and death were based on the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (10th revision) hospital discharge summary codes. We estimated the hospital cost per admission using diagnosis-related grouping with a global budget.

RESULTS

A total of 1125 children aged <18 years were admitted for Hi disease. During the 5-year-study, the annual incidence of Hi disease varied from 1.5 to 1.9 per 100,000 children, with an overall case fatality rate (CFR) of 2%. Pneumonia was the most common clinical form, followed by meningitis and sepsis. The incidence, clinical forms and severity of Hi disease were age specific. Infant CFR was higher than that of other age groups. The incidence of Hi disease in children aged <5 years was 4.9 per 100,000 (CFR = 2.0%). Sepsis was the primary cause of infant death, whereas pneumonia was the cause of death in children aged >5 years. The hospital cost ranged from 25,000 to 30,000 THB per admission.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis provided epidemiological data of Hi in Thai children before the Hib routine immunisation programme. The incidence of Hi disease was lower than that previously speculated. Our results could facilitate an assessment of the impact of Hib immunisation programme in Thailand.

The value of decreasing the duration of the infectious period of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection

Finding medications or vaccines that may decrease the infectious period of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) could potentially reduce transmission in the broader population. We developed a computational model of the U.S. simulating the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and the potential clinical and economic impact of reducing the infectious period duration. Simulation experiments found that reducing the average infectious period duration could avert a median of 442,852 [treating 25% of symptomatic cases, reducing by 0.5 days, reproductive number (R0) 3.5, and starting treatment when 15% of the population has been exposed] to 44.4 million SARS-CoV-2 cases (treating 75% of all infected cases, reducing by 3.5 days, R0 2.0). With R0 2.5, reducing the average infectious period duration by 0.5 days for 25% of symptomatic cases averted 1.4 million cases and 99,398 hospitalizations; increasing to 75% of symptomatic cases averted 2.8 million cases. At $500/person, treating 25% of symptomatic cases saved $209.5 billion (societal perspective). Further reducing the average infectious period duration by 3.5 days averted 7.4 million cases (treating 25% of symptomatic cases). Expanding treatment to 75% of all infected cases, including asymptomatic infections (R0 2.5), averted 35.9 million cases and 4 million hospitalizations, saving $48.8 billion (societal perspective and starting treatment after 5% of the population has been exposed). Our study quantifies the potential effects of reducing the SARS-CoV-2 infectious period duration.

How Efficacious Must a COVID-19 Coronavirus Vaccine be to Prevent or Stop an Epidemic by Itself

BACKGROUND

Given the continuing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and much of the U.S. implementing social distancing due to the lack of alternatives, there has been a push to develop a vaccine to eliminate the need for social distancing.

METHODS

In 2020, we developed a computational model of the U.S. simulating the spread of COVID-19 coronavirus and vaccination.

RESULTS

Simulation experiments revealed that when vaccine efficacy exceeded 70%, coverage exceeded 60%, and vaccination occurred on day 1, the attack rate dropped to 22% with daily cases not exceeding 3.2 million (reproductive rate, R0, 2.5). When R0 was 3.5, the attack rate dropped to 41% with daily cases not exceeding 14.4 million. Increasing coverage to 75% when vaccination occurred by day 90 resulted in 5% attack rate and daily cases not exceeding 258,029when R0 was 2.5 and a 26% attack rate and maximum daily cases of 22.6 million when R0 was 3.5. When vaccination did not occur until day 180, coverage (i.e., those vaccinated plus those otherwise immune) had to reach 100%. A vaccine with an efficacy between 40% and 70% could still obviate the need for other measures under certain circumstances such as much higher, and in some cases, potentially unachievable, vaccination coverages.

CONCLUSION

Our study found that to either prevent or largely extinguish an epidemic without any other measures (e.g., social distancing), the vaccine has to have an efficacy of at least 70%.