The cost of the COVID-19 pandemic vs the cost-effectiveness of mitigation strategies in the EU/UK/EEA and OECD countries: a systematic review
Vardavas, C.; Zisis, K.; Nikitara, K.; Lagou, I.; Aslanoglou, K.; Athanasakis, K.; Phalkey, R.; Leonardi-Bee, J.; Fernandez, E.; Condell, O.; Lamb, F.; Sandmann, F.; Pharris, A.; Deogan, C.; Suk, J. E.
Show abstract
ObjectivesCOVID-19 poses a threat of loss of life, economic instability, and social disruption. We conducted a systematic review of published economic analyses to assess the direct and indirect costs of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, and to contrast these with the costs and the cost-benefit of public health surveillance, preparedness, and response measures in averting and/or responding to SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. SettingA systematic literature review was conducted to identify peer-reviewed articles estimating the cost of the COVID-19 pandemic and the cost-effectiveness of pharmaceutical or non-pharmaceutical interventions in EU/EEA/UK and OECD countries, published from the 1st of January 2020 through 22nd April 2021 in Ovid Medline and EMBASE. The cost-effectiveness of interventions was assessed through a dominance ranking matrix approach. All cost data were adjusted to the 2021 Euro, with interventions compared with the null. Primary and secondary outcome measuresDirect and indirect costs for SARS-CoV-2 and preparedness and/or response or cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness were measured. ResultsWe included data from 41 economic studies. Ten studies evaluated the cost of COVID-19 pandemic, while 31 assessed the cost-benefit of public health surveillance, preparedness, and response measures. Overall, the economic burden of SARS-CoV-2 was found to be substantial for both the general population and within specific population subgroups. Community screening, bed provision policies, investing in personal protective equipment and vaccination strategies were cost-effective, in most cases due to the representative economic value of below acceptable cost-effectiveness thresholds. Physical distancing measures were associated with health benefits; however, their cost-effectiveness was dependent on the duration, compliance and the phase of the epidemic in which it was implemented. ConclusionsSARS-CoV-2 is associated with substantial economic costs to healthcare systems, payers, and societies, both short term and long term, while interventions including testing and screening policies, vaccination and physical distancing policies were identified as those presenting cost-effective options to deal with the pandemic, dependent on population vaccination and the Re at the stage of the pandemic.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Health Economic Burden of COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia 93%
- Nowcasting and Forecasting the Spread of COVID-19 and Healthcare Demand In Turkey, A Modelling Study 91%
- Determinants of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Engagement in Algeria: A Population-based Study with Systematic Review of Studies from Arab Countries of the MENA Region 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Cost-effectiveness of intensive care for hospitalized Covid-19 patients: experience from South Africa 94%
- Cost-effectiveness of whole area testing of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in Merthyr Tydfil, 2020: A Modelling and economic analysis 94%
- ‘Leading from the front’ implementation strategies increase the success of influenza vaccination drives among healthcare workers: A reanalysis of Systematic Review evidence using Intervention Component Analysis (ICA) and Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) 92%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Cost-effectiveness of quadrivalent versus trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines for the Portuguese elderly population 95%
- The Societal Value of Vaccines: Expert-Based Conceptual Framework and Methods Using COVID-19 Vaccines as A Case Study 94%
- The potential economic impact of the updated COVID-19 mRNA fall 2023 vaccines in Japan 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.