Cost-utility analysis of COVID-19 vaccination strategies for endemic SARS-CoV-2 circulation in Canada
Miranda, R. N.; Simmons, A. E.; Li, M. W. Z.; Gebretekle, G. B.; Xi, M.; Salvadori, M. I.; Warshawsky, B.; Wong, E.; Ximenes, R.; Andrew, M. K.; Sander, B.; Singh, D.; Wilson, S.; Tunis, M.; Tuite, A. R.
Show abstract
BackgroundWith shifting epidemiology and changes in the vaccine funding landscape, resource use considerations for ongoing COVID-19 vaccination programs are increasingly important. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination programs, where eligibility is defined by combinations of age and chronic medical conditions, including a strategy similar to current Canadian recommendations, from the health system and societal perspectives. MethodsWe used a static, individual-based probabilistic model simulating medically attended COVID-19 in a population of 1 million people followed over a 15-month time period to estimate costs in 2023 Canadian dollars, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), discounted at 1.5%. COVID-19 epidemiology, vaccine characteristics, and costs were based on the most recently available data. ResultsAnnual vaccination for adults aged 65 years and older consistently emerged as a cost-effective intervention, with ICERs less than $50,000 per QALY compared to no vaccination for a range of model assumptions. Adding a second dose for adults aged 65 years and older or expanding programs to include vaccination for younger age groups, including those at higher risk of COVID-19 due to chronic medical conditions, generally resulted in ICERs of greater than $50,000 per QALY. Shifting timing of vaccination programs to better align with periods of high COVID-19 case occurrence could result in biannual vaccination for those aged 65 and older being a cost-effective strategy. ConclusionsCOVID-19 vaccination programs may be cost-effective when focused on groups at higher risk of disease. Optimal timing of vaccination could improve the cost-effectiveness of various strategies.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Public Health Impact of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2) in the first year of rollout in the United States 96%
- Modeling the Cost-Effectiveness of the COVID-19 mRNA-1273 vaccine in the United States 95%
- Modeling the Cost-Effectiveness of the Next-Generation COVID-19 mRNA-1283 Vaccine in the United States 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Averted mortality by COVID-19 vaccination in Belgium between 2021 and 2023 95%
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of 21-valent pneumococcal conjugated vaccine among adults in Canada 95%
- Real-world comparative effectiveness of a third dose of mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 among adults aged ≥65 years in the United States 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Health impact and cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in Sindh Province, Pakistan 94%
- Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related hospitalization with the Alpha, Delta and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants: a nationwide Danish cohort study 94%
- Evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine NVX-CoV2373 in Younger and Older Adults 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Respiratory syncytial virus vaccination strategies for older Canadian adults: a cost-utility analysis 96%
- Real-world effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use for COVID-19: A population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada 90%
- Progressive Increase in Virulence of Novel SARS-CoV-2 Variants in Ontario, Canada 88%
Similar papers in this journal
- The potential economic impact of the updated COVID-19 mRNA fall 2023 vaccines in Japan 95%
- Comparative Effectiveness of the Bivalent (Original/Omicron BA.4/BA.5) mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines mRNA-1273.222 and BNT162b2 Bivalent in Adults With Underlying Medical Conditions in the United States 94%
- COVID-19 vaccine uptake and effectiveness by time since vaccination in the Western Cape province, South Africa: An observational cohort study during 2020-2022 93%
"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.