Clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in South Africa.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Reddy KP
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8132265 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in South Africa.
Reddy Krishna P KP Fitzmaurice Kieran P KP Scott Justine A JA Harling Guy G Lessells Richard J RJ Panella Christopher C Shebl Fatma M FM Freedberg Kenneth A KA Siedner Mark J MJ
medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences 20211113
Low- and middle-income countries are implementing COVID-19 vaccination strategies in light of varying vaccine efficacies and costs, supply shortages, and resource constraints. Here, we use a microsimulation model to evaluate clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of a COVID-19 vaccination program in South Africa. We varied vaccination coverage, pace, acceptance, effectiveness, and cost as well as epidemic dynamics. Providing vaccines to at least 40% of the population and prioritizing vaccine r ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Low- and middle-income countries are implementing COVID-19 vaccination strategies in light of varying vaccine efficacies and costs, supply shortages, and resource constraints. Here, we use a microsimulation model to evaluate clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of a COVID-19 vaccination program in South Africa. We varied vaccination coverage, pace, acceptance, effectiveness, and cost as well as epidemic dynamics. Providing vaccines to at least 40% of the population and prioritizing vaccine rollout prevented >9 million infections and >73,000 deaths and reduced costs due to fewer hospitalizations. Model results were most sensitive to assumptions about epidemic growth and prevalence of prior immunity to SARS-CoV-2, though the vaccination program still provided high value and decreased both deaths and health care costs across a wide range of assumptions. Vaccination program implementation factors, including prompt procurement, distribution, and rollout, are likely more influential than characteristics of the vaccine itself in maximizing public health benefits and economic efficiency.
| S-EPMC8556310 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDexamethasone and remdesivir have the potential to reduce coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID)-related mortality or recovery time, but their cost-effectiveness in countries with limited intensive care resources is unknown.MethodsWe projected intensive care unit (ICU) needs and capacity from August 2020 to January 2021 using the South African National COVID-19 Epi Model. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of (1) administration of dexamethasone to ventilated patients and remdesivir to nonventilated patients, (2) dexamethasone alone to both nonventilated and ventilated patients, (3) remdesivir to nonventilated patients only, and (4) dexamethasone to ventilated patients only, all relative to a scenario of standard care. We estimated costs from the health care system perspective in 2020 US dollars, deaths averted, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of each scenario.ResultsRemdesivir for nonventilated patients and dexamethasone for ventilated patients was estimated to result in 408 (uncertainty range, 229-1891) deaths averted (assuming no efficacy [uncertainty range, 0%-70%] of remdesivir) compared with standard care and to save $15 million. This result was driven by the efficacy of dexamethasone and the reduction of ICU-time required for patients treated with remdesivir. The scenario of dexamethasone alone for nonventilated and ventilated patients requires an additional $159 000 and averts 689 [uncertainty range, 330-1118] deaths, resulting in $231 per death averted, relative to standard care.ConclusionsThe use of remdesivir for nonventilated patients and dexamethasone for ventilated patients is likely to be cost-saving compared with standard care by reducing ICU days. Further efforts to improve recovery time with remdesivir and dexamethasone in ICUs could save lives and costs in South Africa.
| S-EPMC7928624 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesIn South Africa, the prevalence of human papillomavirus (HPV) and associated diseases, such as cervical cancer and genital warts, is among the highest in the world. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of bivalent, quadrivalent, and nonavalent HPV vaccination for 9- to 14-year-old girls from the South African healthcare system perspective.MethodsA Markov model portraying the natural HPV disease progression from high-risk infection to cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) I, CIN II/III, or cervical cancer and from low-risk infection to genital warts was built. Transition probability, utility, and efficacy data were sourced from peer-reviewed literature. Vaccination costs were calculated based on the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. The model was populated with a cohort of 520,000 9-year-old girls to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) in South African Rand (R) per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained for each vaccination strategy.ResultsAll HPV vaccination strategies dominate the no vaccine strategy. Compared with the bivalent vaccine, the nonavalent strategy increases QALYs by 0.14 and costs by R1793 (ICER: R13,013 per QALY) per person, while the quadrivalent vaccination provides -0.02 incremental QALYs and R1748 costs (ICER: -R116,397 per QALY). Consequently, at the South African willingness-to-pay threshold of R23,630 per QALY, nonavalent vaccination is the preferred strategy, with a probability of 90.2%. Scenario analysis demonstrated that results are influenced by vaccine coverage, efficacy, and duration of efficacy.ConclusionsThe introduction of nonavalent for bivalent HPV vaccination is a cost-effective intervention in South Africa. HPV vaccination should be part of a multifaceted public health strategy entailing screening, condoms, and education of all stakeholders to reduce the significant burden of sexual transmitted diseases in South Africa. Sex-neutral and catch-up vaccinations are subjects for further research.
| S-EPMC8989937 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNon-communicable diseases (NCDs) are responsible for 51% of total mortality in South Africa, with a rising burden of hypertension (HTN) and diabetes mellitus (DM). Incorporating NCDs and COVID-19 screening into mass activities such as COVID-19 vaccination programs could offer significant long-term benefits for early detection interventions. However, there is limited knowledge of the associated costs and resources required. We evaluated the cost of integrating NCD screening and COVID-19 antigen rapid diagnostic testing (Ag-RDT) into a COVID-19 vaccination program.MethodsWe conducted a prospective cost analysis at three public sector primary healthcare clinics and one academic hospital in Johannesburg, South Africa, conducting vaccinations. Participants were assessed for eligibility and recruited during May-Dec 2022. Costs were estimated from the provider perspective using a bottom-up micro-costing approach and reported in 2022 USD.ResultsOf the 1,376 enrolled participants, 240 opted in to undergo a COVID-19 Ag-RDT, and none tested positive for COVID-19. 138 (10.1%) had elevated blood pressure, with 96 (70%) having no prior HTN diagnosis. 22 (1.6%) were screen-positive for DM, with 12 (55%) having no prior diagnosis. The median cost per person screened for NCDs was $1.70 (IQR: $1.38-$2.49), respectively. The average provider cost per person found to have elevated blood glucose levels and blood pressure was $157.99 and $25.19, respectively. Finding a potentially new case of DM and HTN was $289.65 and $36.21, respectively. For DM and DM + HTN screen-positive participants, diagnostic tests were the main cost driver, while staff costs were the main cost driver for DM- and HTN screen-negative and HTN screen-positive participants. The median cost per Ag-RDT was $5.95 (IQR: $5.55-$6.25), with costs driven mainly by test kit costs.ConclusionsWe show the cost of finding potentially new cases of DM and HTN in a vaccine queue, which is an essential first step in understanding the feasibility and resource requirements for such initiatives. However, there is a need for comparative economic analyses that include linkage to care and retention data to fully understand this cost and determine whether opportunistic screening should be added to general mass health activities.
| S-EPMC11251297 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMobile HIV screening may facilitate early HIV diagnosis. Our objective was to examine the cost-effectiveness of adding a mobile screening unit to current medical facility-based HIV testing in Cape Town, South Africa.Methods and findingsWe used the Cost Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications International (CEPAC-I) computer simulation model to evaluate two HIV screening strategies in Cape Town: 1) medical facility-based testing (the current standard of care) and 2) addition of a mobile HIV-testing unit intervention in the same community. Baseline input parameters were derived from a Cape Town-based mobile unit that tested 18,870 individuals over 2 years: prevalence of previously undiagnosed HIV (6.6%), mean CD4 count at diagnosis (males 423/µL, females 516/µL), CD4 count-dependent linkage to care rates (males 31%-58%, females 49%-58%), mobile unit intervention cost (includes acquisition, operation and HIV test costs, $29.30 per negative result and $31.30 per positive result). We conducted extensive sensitivity analyses to evaluate input uncertainty. Model outcomes included site of HIV diagnosis, life expectancy, medical costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the intervention compared to medical facility-based testing. We considered the intervention to be "very cost-effective" when the ICER was less than South Africa's annual per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ($8,200 in 2012). We projected that, with medical facility-based testing, the discounted (undiscounted) HIV-infected population life expectancy was 132.2 (197.7) months; this increased to 140.7 (211.7) months with the addition of the mobile unit. The ICER for the mobile unit was $2,400/year of life saved (YLS). Results were most sensitive to the previously undiagnosed HIV prevalence, linkage to care rates, and frequency of HIV testing at medical facilities.ConclusionThe addition of mobile HIV screening to current testing programs can improve survival and be very cost-effective in South Africa and other resource-limited settings, and should be a priority.
| S-EPMC3898963 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSince September 2020, Chinese populations aged > 3 years have been encouraged to receive a two-dose inoculation with vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the current vaccination strategy amongst the general population in mainland China from a societal perspective.MethodsIn this study, we construct a decision tree with Markov models to compare the economic and health consequences of the current vaccination strategy versus a no-vaccination scenario, over a time horizon of one year and an annual discount rate of 5%. Transition probabilities, health utilities, healthcare costs, and productivity losses are estimated from literature. Outcome measures include infection rates, death rates, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is then calculated to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the current vaccination strategy, and both one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) are applied to assess the impact of uncertainties on results.ResultsOur simulation indicates that compared with a no-vaccination scenario, vaccination amongst the general population in mainland China would reduce the infection rate from 100% to 45.3% and decrease the death rate from 6.8% to 3.1%. Consequently, the strategy will lead to a saving of 37,664.77 CNY (US$5,256.70) and a gain of 0.50 QALYs per person per year on average (lifetime QALY and productivity loss due to immature death are included). The cost-saving for each QALY gain is 74,895.69 CNY (US$10,452.85). Result of the PSA indicates that vaccination is the dominating strategy with a probability of 97.9%, and the strategy is cost-effective with a probability of 98.5% when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) is 72,000 CNY (US$10,048.71) per QALY.ConclusionCompared with a no-vaccination scenario, vaccination among the general population in mainland China is the dominating strategy from a societal perspective. The conclusion is considered robust in the sensitivity analyses.
| S-EPMC10027744 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Healthcare resource constraints in low and middle-income countries necessitate selection of cost-effective public health interventions to address COVID-19. We developed a dynamic COVID-19 microsimulation model to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes and cost-effectiveness of epidemic control strategies in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Interventions assessed were Healthcare Testing (HT), where diagnostic testing is performed only for those presenting to healthcare centres; Contact Tracing (CT) in households of cases; Isolation Centres (IC), for cases not requiring hospitalisation; community health worker-led Mass Symptom Screening and molecular testing for symptomatic individuals (MS); and Quarantine Centres (QC), for household contacts who test negative. Given uncertainties about epidemic dynamics in South Africa, we evaluated two main epidemic scenarios over 360 days, with effective reproduction numbers (Re) of 1·5 and 1·2. We compared HT, HT+CT, HT+CT+IC, HT+CT+IC+MS, HT+CT+IC+QC, and HT+CT+IC+MS+QC, considering strategies with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) <US$3,250/year-of-life saved (YLS) cost-effective. In sensitivity analyses, we varied Re, molecular testing sensitivity, and efficacies and costs of interventions. With Re 1·5, HT resulted in the most COVID-19 deaths over 360 days. Compared with HT, HT+CT+IC+MS+QC reduced mortality by 94%, increased costs by 33%, and was cost-effective (ICER $340/YLS). In settings where quarantine centres cannot be implemented, HT+CT+IC+MS was cost-effective compared with HT (ICER $590/YLS). With Re 1·2, HT+CT+IC+QC was the least costly strategy, and no other strategy was cost-effective. HT+CT+IC+MS+QC was cost-effective in many sensitivity analyses; notable exceptions were when Re was 2·6 and when efficacies of ICs and QCs for transmission reduction were reduced. In South Africa, strategies involving household contact tracing, isolation, mass symptom screening, and quarantining household contacts who test negative would substantially reduce COVID-19 mortality and be cost-effective. The optimal combination of interventions depends on epidemic growth characteristics and practical implementation considerations.
| S-EPMC7340205 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealth-care resource constraints in low-income and middle-income countries necessitate the identification of cost-effective public health interventions to address COVID-19. We aimed to develop a dynamic COVID-19 microsimulation model to assess clinical and economic outcomes and cost-effectiveness of epidemic control strategies in KwaZulu-Natal province, South Africa.MethodsWe compared different combinations of five public health interventions: health-care testing alone, where diagnostic testing is done only for individuals presenting to health-care centres; contact tracing in households of cases; isolation centres, for cases not requiring hospital admission; mass symptom screening and molecular testing for symptomatic individuals by community health-care workers; and quarantine centres, for household contacts who test negative. We calibrated infection transmission rates to match effective reproduction number (Re) estimates reported in South Africa. We assessed two main epidemic scenarios for a period of 360 days, with an Re of 1·5 and 1·2. Strategies with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of less than US$3250 per year of life saved were considered cost-effective. We also did sensitivity analyses by varying key parameters (Re values, molecular testing sensitivity, and efficacies and costs of interventions) to determine the effect on clinical and cost projections.FindingsWhen Re was 1·5, health-care testing alone resulted in the highest number of COVID-19 deaths during the 360-day period. Compared with health-care testing alone, a combination of health-care testing, contact tracing, use of isolation centres, mass symptom screening, and use of quarantine centres reduced mortality by 94%, increased health-care costs by 33%, and was cost-effective (ICER $340 per year of life saved). In settings where quarantine centres were not feasible, a combination of health-care testing, contact tracing, use of isolation centres, and mass symptom screening was cost-effective compared with health-care testing alone (ICER $590 per year of life saved). When Re was 1·2, health-care testing, contact tracing, use of isolation centres, and use of quarantine centres was the least costly strategy, and no other strategies were cost-effective. In sensitivity analyses, a combination of health-care testing, contact tracing, use of isolation centres, mass symptom screening, and use of quarantine centres was generally cost-effective, with the exception of scenarios in which Re was 2·6 and when efficacies of isolation centres and quarantine centres for transmission reduction were reduced.InterpretationIn South Africa, strategies involving household contact tracing, isolation, mass symptom screening, and quarantining household contacts who test negative would substantially reduce COVID-19 mortality and would be cost-effective. The optimal combination of interventions depends on epidemic growth characteristics and practical implementation considerations.FundingUS National Institutes of Health, Royal Society, Wellcome Trust.
| S-EPMC7834260 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionWe evaluated the cost-effectiveness of South Korea's planned annual coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) booster campaign scheduled for October 2023.Materials and methodsAn age-structured mathematical model was used to analyze the public impacts and cost-effectiveness of vaccination across three vaccination strategies: uniform allocation and prioritizing those over 65 or those over 50 years old. We calculated the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) from both healthcare and societal perspectives. The maximum vaccine cost for cost-effectiveness was also identified.ResultsOur analysis highlights the cost-effectiveness of South Korea's annual COVID-19 vaccination program in mitigating health and economic impacts. The most cost-effective strategy is uniform vaccine allocation, offering the lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at US$ 25,787/QALY. However, with a relatively high attack rate, the strategy prioritizing individuals over 65 years emerges as more cost-effective, lowering the ICER to US$ 13,785/QALY. Prioritizing those over 50 was less cost-effective. All strategies were cost-saving from a societal perspective, with cost-effectiveness being more sensitive to vaccine price than to its effectiveness.DiscussionOur results imply a potential strategy shift in current vaccination plan, with uniform vaccine distribution being more cost-effective than prioritizing older adults. Early estimation of viral transmissibility and vaccine effectiveness is crucial in determining the most cost-effective vaccine allocation approach.
| S-EPMC10701673 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Early trials of novel vaccines against tuberculosis (TB) in adults have suggested substantial protection against TB. However, little is known about the feasibility and affordability of rolling out such vaccines in practice. We conducted expert interviews to identify plausible vaccination implementation strategies for the novel M72/AS01E vaccine candidate. The strategies were defined in terms of target population, coverage, vaccination schedule and delivery mode. We modelled these strategies to estimate long-term resource requirements and health benefits arising from vaccination over 2025-2050. We presented these to experts who excluded strategies that were deemed infeasible, and estimated cost-effectiveness and budget impact for each remaining strategy. The four strategies modelled combined target populations: either everyone aged 18-50, or all adults living with HIV, with delivery strategies: either a mass campaign followed by routine vaccination of 18-year olds, or two mass campaigns 10 years apart. Delivering two mass campaigns to all 18-50-year olds was found to be the most cost-effective strategy conferring the greatest net health benefit of 1.2 million DALYs averted having a probability of being cost-effective of 65-70%. This strategy required 38 million vaccine courses to be delivered at a cost of USD 507 million, reducing TB-related costs by USD 184 million while increasing ART costs by USD 79 million. A suitably designed adult TB vaccination programme built around novel TB vaccines is likely to be cost-effective and affordable given the resource and budget constraints in South Africa.
| S-EPMC9640704 | biostudies-literature