mRNA-based COVID-19 booster vaccination is highly effective and cost-effective in Australia

Li, Rui; Liu, Hanting; Fairley, Christopher K; Ong, Jason J.; Guo, Yuming; Lu, Pengyi; Zou, Zhuoru; Xie, Li; Zhuang, Guihua; Li, Yan; Shen, Mingwang; Zhang, Lei

doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.01.075

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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][60][61]. Previous studies have demonstrated that providing nirmatrelvir-ritonavir to high-risk adults would be cost-effective in high-income settings [36,62,63].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…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 [59][60][61]. Previous studies have demonstrated that providing nirmatrelvir-ritonavir to high-risk adults would be cost-effective in high-income settings [36,62,63].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

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

show abstract

“…Health economics evaluations in relation to ischaemic stroke have typically focused on a number of treatment regimens, therapeutic agents or diagnostic measures to evaluate their benefits or utility [ 26 , 27 , 28 ]. Cost-effectiveness analyses of COVID-19 vaccines were mostly limited to the prevention of infection, severe illness, and death [ 29 , 30 , 31 ]. The decision-analytic Markov model is the most prominent and commonly used model in the field of health economics to select the optimal solution path to maximize net benefits [ 30 , 31 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cost-effectiveness analyses of COVID-19 vaccines were mostly limited to the prevention of infection, severe illness, and death [ 29 , 30 , 31 ]. The decision-analytic Markov model is the most prominent and commonly used model in the field of health economics to select the optimal solution path to maximize net benefits [ 30 , 31 ]. Considering the wide spread of COVID-19 and the necessity for vaccination, linking the vaccination against COVID-19 with long-term symptoms or complications after SARS-CoV-2 infection may become an important direction for future research [ 32 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Qin

et al. 2023

Vaccines

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Cost-effectiveness analysis of COVID-19 booster vaccination with BNT162b2 in Japan

Nagano,

Kamei,

Matsuda

et al. 2024

Expert Review of Vaccines

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mRNA-based COVID-19 booster vaccination is highly effective and cost-effective in Australia

Cited by 4 publications

References 48 publications

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

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

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

Cost-effectiveness analysis of COVID-19 booster vaccination with BNT162b2 in Japan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About