Back

Cost-effectiveness of the second COVID-19 booster vaccination in the United States

Li, R.; Lu, P.; Fairley, C. K.; Pagan, J. A.; Hu, W.; Yang, Q.; Zhuang, G.; Shen, M.; Li, Y.; Zhang, L.

2023-01-12 infectious diseases
10.1101/2022.12.28.22283986 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe United States (US) authorized the second COVID-19 booster for individuals aged 50+ years on March 29, 2022. To date, the cost-effectiveness of the second booster strategy remains unassessed. MethodsWe developed a decision-analytic SEIR-Markov model by five age groups (0-4yrs, 5-11yrs 12-17yrs, 18-49yrs, and 50+yrs) and calibrated the model by actual mortality in each age group in the US. We conducted fives scenarios to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the second booster strategy and incremental benefits if the strategy would expand to 18-49yrs and 12-17yrs, from a healthcare system perspective. FindingsImplementing the second booster strategy for those aged 50+yrs would cost $807 million but reduce direct medical costs by $1,128 million, corresponding to a benefit-cost ratio of 1.40. Moreover, the strategy would also result in a gain of 1,048 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) during the 180 days, indicating it was cost-saving. Further, vaccinating individuals aged 18-49yrs with the second booster would result in an additional gain of $1,566 million and 2,276 QALYs. Similarly, expanding vaccination to individuals aged 12-17yrs would result in an additional gain of $15 million and 89 QALYs. However, if social interaction between all age groups was severed, vaccination expansion to 18-49yrs and 12-17yrs would no longer be cost-effective. InterpretationThe second booster strategy was likely to be cost-effective in reducing the disease burden of the COVID-19 pandemic. Expanding the second booster strategy to 18-49yrs and 12-17yrs would remain cost-effective due to their social contacts with the older age group. FundingWorld Health Organization

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.