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

Fu, Yaqun; Zhao, Jingyu; Han, Peien; Zhang, Jiawei; Wang, Quan; Wang, Qingbo; Wei, Xia; Yang, Li; Ren, Tao; Zhan, Siyan; Li, Liming

doi:10.1111/jebm.12525

Cited by 13 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, we have demonstrated that vaccination with the Moderna updated COVID-19 vaccine represents a cost-saving measure from both a healthcare payer and a societal perspective compared with no vaccination. This finding is consistent with systematic literature reviews of economic evaluations of COVID-19 vaccination strategies, which provide evidence that COVID-19 vaccination strategies are economically favourable [49][50][51].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

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

Joshi,

Scholz,

Maschio

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo 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).MethodsA compartmental Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Recovered model was updated and adapted to the German market. Numbers of symptomatic infections, number of COVID-19 related hospitalisations 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.ResultsCompared to no Autumn vaccination, the mRNA-1273.815 campaign is predicted to prevent approximately 1,697,900 symptomatic infections, 85,400 hospitalisations, 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 hospitalisations, and 160 deaths. Across both analyses we found the mRNA-1273.815 campaign to be dominant.ConclusionsThe 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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

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

Joshi,

Scholz,

Maschio

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our results are comparable to similar studies, although there have been a limited number of studies published on the cost-effectiveness of oral antivirals or booster doses in low- and middle-income countries. A recent systematic review on the cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines noted a gap in published literature on the cost-effectiveness of booster doses [58] (June 2023). Our results align with available studies which demonstrate that booster doses appear cost saving in middle and high-income settings [59–61].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-effectiveness analysis of COVID-19 booster doses and oral antivirals in the Indo-Pacific

Bilgin,

Munira,

Lokuge

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Decision-makers in middle-income countries need evidence on the cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 booster doses and oral antivirals to appropriately prioritise these healthcare interventions. Methods: We used a dynamic transmission model to assess the cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 booster doses and oral antivirals in Fiji, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and Timor-Leste. We conducted cost-effectiveness analysis from both healthcare and societal perspectives using 3% discounting for ongoing costs and health benefits. We developed an interactive R Shiny which allows the user to vary key model assumptions, such as the choice of discounting rate, and view how these assumptions affect model results. Findings: Booster doses were cost saving and therefore cost-effective in all four middle-income settings from both healthcare and societal perspectives using 3% discounting. Providing oral antivirals was cost-effective from a healthcare perspective if procured at a low generic ($25 United States Dollars) or middle-income reference price ($250 United States Dollars); however, their cost-effectiveness was strongly influenced by rates of wastage or misuse, and the ongoing costs of care for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Interestingly, the cost or wastage of rapid antigen tests did not appear strongly influential over the cost-effectiveness of oral antivirals in any of the four study settings. Conclusions: Our results support that government funded COVID-19 booster programs continue to be cost-effective in middle-income settings. Oral antivirals demonstrate the potential to be cost-effective if procured at or below a middle-income reference price of $250 USD per schedule. Further research should quantify the rates of wastage or misuse of oral COVID-19 antivirals in middle-income settings.

show abstract

“…21 Similarly, vaccination against COVID-19 has been shown to be cost effective and reduce burden to the health care system. 22 Ensuring sufficient vaccine coverage for both COVID-19 and influenza is a crucial driver to reduce the burden to health care system of significant respiratory illnesses. Improvement in vaccination coverage and likelihood of completing all recommended vaccinations through use of a multi-component, combination vaccine was previously demonstrated in pediatric space.…”

Section: Ethics Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of healthcare resource use and cost between influenza and COVID-19 vaccine coadministration and influenza vaccination only

Mehta,

Sun,

Wang

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo compare healthcare recourse utilizations (HCRU) and all-cause medical costs among individuals 50 years or older who received both influenza and COVID-19 vaccines on the same day and those that received influenza vaccine onlyMethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study leveraging Optum’s de-identified Clinformatics® DataMart from 8/31/2021 to 7/31/2023. Individuals 50 years or older continuously enrolled in health plans for one year prior and until 7/31/2023 were included in the study. Subjects were categorized into 2 cohorts based on their vaccination status between 8/31/2022 and 1/31/2023: receiving influenza and COVID-19 vaccine on same day (co-admin cohort) and receiving influenza vaccine only (influenza cohort). The association between vaccination status and all-cause, influenza-related, COVID-related, pneumonia-related, and cardiorespiratory-related hospitalization, as well as outpatient or emergency room visits and all-cause medical costs was estimated by weighted generalized linear models, adjusting for confounding by stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting.Results613,156 (mean age: 71) and 1,340,011 (mean age: 72) individuals were included in the co-admin and influenza cohort respectively. After weighting, the baseline characteristics were balanced between cohorts. The co-admin cohort was at statistically significant lower risk of all-cause (RR: 0.95, 95%CI: 0.93-0.96), COVID-19-related (RR: 0.59, 95%CI: 0.56-0.63), cardiorespiratory-related (RR: 0.94, 95%CI: 0.93-0.96) and pneumonia-related (RR: 0.86, 95%CI: 0.83-0.90) hospitalization but not influenza-related hospitalizations (RR: 0.91, 95%CI: 0.81, 1.04) compared to influenza cohort. Co-administration was associated with 3% lower all-cause medical cost (cost ratio: 0.974, 95% CI: 0.968, 0.979) during the follow-up period compared to receiving influenza vaccine only.ConclusionReceiving both COVID-19 and influenza vaccines on the same day in comparison to receipt of influenza vaccine only was associated with reduced risk of HCRU, especially COVID-19 related hospitalization and all-cause medical costs. Interventions that increase vaccine coverage, particularly for COVID-19 might have public health and economic benefits.

show abstract

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

Cited by 13 publications

References 47 publications

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

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

Cost-effectiveness analysis of COVID-19 booster doses and oral antivirals in the Indo-Pacific

Comparison of healthcare resource use and cost between influenza and COVID-19 vaccine coadministration and influenza vaccination only

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About