Back

Impact of Differential Vaccine Effectiveness on COVID-19 Hospitalization Cases: Projections for 10 Developed Countries where Booster Vaccines were Recommended

Maschio, M.; Fust, K.; Lee, A.; Van de Velde, N.; Buck, P. O.; Kohli, M.

2022-09-27 health economics
10.1101/2022.09.26.22280377 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background & ObjectivesIn a previous analysis, a decision-analytic model was used to analyze the clinical and economic impact of the differences in effectiveness between the two licensed mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccines, mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2, in 2022 for adults aged 18 years and older in the United States (US). In this analysis, the same model was used to estimate the impact that administering first booster doses with mRNA-1273 could have had on COVID-related hospitalizations and costs over a 6-month period in 10 developed countries (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, United Kingdom [UK], and US), considering updated effectiveness data. MethodsThe model was used to estimate number of hospitalizations and related costs using the actual vaccine distribution for the first COVID-19 booster from each country. These estimates were compared to a scenario where 100% of doses for that 6-month period was assumed to be mRNA-1273. The effectiveness of mRNA-1273 compared to BNT162b2 was estimated from real world data from the UK. ResultsThe total number of doses switched to the mRNA-1273 booster would range from 4.3 million in Spain to 39.4 million in Japan. The number of hospitalizations and associated hospitalization costs would be expected to fall in all countries, with the proportional decrease ranging from 1.1% (16,800 fewer) in Germany to 8.8% (25,100 fewer) in Australia. ConclusionsReal-world effectiveness data suggest that a booster dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine may be more effective compared to other vaccines used for booster doses. Given this difference in effectiveness, results of this analysis demonstrate that switching to 100% mRNA-1273 boosters would have reduced the number of hospitalizations and associated costs in each country during the first 6 months of the omicron period.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Vaccine
189 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
33.5%
2
Journal of Medical Economics
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.8%
50% of probability mass above
3
Vaccines
196 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.5%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 31%
4.9%
5
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 5%
3.7%
6
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
7
Vaccine: X
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
8
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
9
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
10
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
11
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
12
npj Vaccines
62 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
13
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
14
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.5%
15
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.2%
16
The Lancet Healthy Longevity
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.9%
17
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
18
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
19
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
20
Public Health Nutrition
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
21
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
22
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
23
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 80%
0.5%
24
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%