Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Strategies of COVID-19 Vaccination in Colombia: Comparison of High-Risk Prioritization and No Prioritization Strategies With the Absence of a Vaccination Plan

Morales-Zamora, Gilberto; Espinosa, Óscar; Puertas, Edwin; Fernandez, Juan Carlos Aneiros; Hernández, José; Zakzuk, Verónica; Cepeda, M. Soledad; Alvis‐Guzmán, Nelson; Castañeda-Orjuela, Carlos; Paternina-Caicedo, Ángel

doi:10.1016/j.vhri.2022.04.004

Cited by 14 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The two remaining studies were conducted in multiple countries; the first one comprised four analyses from LMICs and two analyses from HICs [ 36 ], while the other study comprised 12 analyses in LMICs [ 42 ]. Sixteen studies were conducted in 2021 [ 21 - 28 , 30 - 33 , 35 - 37 , 41 ], while nine studies were conducted in 2022 [ 29 , 34 , 38 - 40 , 42 - 45 ]. Most of the included studies (21/25) aimed to estimating the economic evaluation of different vaccination strategies [ 21 - 30 , 32 , 33 , 35 - 38 , 40 , 42 - 45 ], while two studies were conducted with the goal of estimating the economic evaluation of vaccination vs no vaccination [ 34 , 41 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sixteen studies were conducted in 2021 [ 21 - 28 , 30 - 33 , 35 - 37 , 41 ], while nine studies were conducted in 2022 [ 29 , 34 , 38 - 40 , 42 - 45 ]. Most of the included studies (21/25) aimed to estimating the economic evaluation of different vaccination strategies [ 21 - 30 , 32 , 33 , 35 - 38 , 40 , 42 - 45 ], while two studies were conducted with the goal of estimating the economic evaluation of vaccination vs no vaccination [ 34 , 41 ]. Only one study assessed the economic impact of booster vaccination [ 31 ], while another compared the intradermal vaccine with the intramuscular vaccine [ 39 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, three studies presented a range of two to three categories of vaccination coverage each [ 25 , 32 , 42 ]. Eight studies, however, did not report on vaccination coverage [ 23 , 24 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 38 , 39 , 43 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regarding the possibilities of uncertainty, five studies did not conduct sensitivity analyses [ 24 , 27 , 28 , 39 , 43 ]. Those that did commonly used deterministic sensitivity analyses, particularly one-way sensitivity analyses [ 22 , 23 , 25 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 35 , 37 , 38 , 40 - 42 ]. Four studies performed probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) [ 26 , 29 , 31 , 34 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Each analysis used a different evaluation to determine whether the use of vaccinations was considered cost-effective, e.g. by considering the procurement of the vaccine program compared with the absence of a vaccination program [ 21 , 26 , 33 , 36 , 39 , 41 , 45 , 48 , 50 ], the coverage of the vaccine used [ 37 , 40 , 42 , 49 ], the existence of priority vaccines for specific populations [ 25 , 30 , 33 , 34 , 38 , 41 ], the efficacy of many vaccines on the market [ 23 , 24 , 29 , 35 , 41 , 43 ], and the provision of boosters following vaccination [ 34 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Economic evaluation of COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Economic evaluation of COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Analyzing the emerging patterns of SARS‐CoV‐2 Omicron subvariants for the development of next‐gen vaccine: An observational study

Mohapatra,

Mishra,

Kandi

et al. 2023

Health Science Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and AimUnderstanding the prevalence and impact of SARS‐CoV‐2 variants has assumed paramount importance. This study statistically analyzed to effectively track the emergence and spread of the variants and highlights the importance of such investigations in developing potential next‐gen vaccine to combat the continuously emerging Omicron subvariants.MethodsTransmission fitness advantage and effective reproductive number (Re) of epidemiologically relevant SARS‐CoV‐2 sublineages through time during the study period based on the GISAID data were estimated.ResultsThe analyses covered the period from January to June 2023 around an array of sequenced samples. The dominance of the XBB variant strain, accounting for approximately 57.63% of the cases, was identified during the timeframe. XBB.1.5 exhibited 37.95% prevalence rate from March to June 2023. Multiple variants showed considerable global influence throughout the study, as sporadically documented. Notably, the XBB variant demonstrated an estimated relative 28% weekly growth advantage compared with others. Numerous variants were resistant to the over‐the‐counter vaccines and breakthrough infections were reported. Similarly, the efficacy of mAB‐based therapy appeared limited. However, it's important to underscore the perceived benefits of these preventive and therapeutic measures were restricted to specific variants.ConclusionGiven the observed trends, a comprehensive next‐gen vaccine coupled with an advanced vaccination strategy could be a potential panacea in the fight against the pandemic. The findings suggest that targeted vaccine development could be an effective strategy to prevent infections. The study also highlights the need of global collaborations to rapidly develop and distribute the vaccines to ensure global human health.

show abstract