ObjectiveThis 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.MethodsThrough 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionInactivated 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.

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.

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.

IntroductionQuality variation has been widely witnessed and discussed in China. However, limited evidence reveals quality gaps by the medical institute level, especially between hospitals and primary care institutes. This systematic review will synthesise the available evidence on quality variation between medical institutes at different levels in China. By adopting a quality framework, we will also explore the detailed domains (structure, process and outcomes) and dimensions (safety, effectiveness, timeliness, patient-centredness, efficiency, integration and equity) of quality gaps.Methods and analysisAn extensive literature search will be conducted on eight key electronic databases: MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, EMBASE, ProQuest, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and WANFANG database. The Grey Matter Checklist will be used to screen relevant grey literature. The publication time limit should be before 31 December 2022 when we plan to conduct a literature search. All kinds of studies that revealed the quality difference between medical institutes at different levels will be included, no matter if quality improvement intervention is involved. All quality measures and indicators will be recorded and sorted into appropriate domains and dimensions. For those studies that took the completion rate of standard operations to assess the quality, we will also record the name of the clinical pathways, guidelines or checklists used. Two reviewers will independently perform the study selection, data extraction and quality assessment process. A narrative or quantitative synthesis will be performed based on the available data.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not applicable. The results of this study will be submitted to a widely accepted peer-review journal. The findings will also be used to inform administration about quality gaps by different medical institute levels and, therefore, help them to design policies that will minimise the quality variation.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42022345933.