Dataset Information

Risk-based cost-benefit analysis of alternative vaccines against COVID-19 in Brazil: Coronavac vs. Astrazeneca vs. Pfizer.

ABSTRACT: We propose a probabilistic model to quantify the cost-benefit of mass Vaccination Scenarios (VSs) against COVID-19. Through this approach, we conduct a six-month simulation, from August 31st, 2021 to March 3rd, 2022, of nine VSs, i.e., the three primary vaccine brands in Brazil (CoronaVac, AstraZeneca and Pfizer), each with three different vaccination rates (2nd doses per week). Since each vaccine has different individual-level effectiveness, we measure the population-level benefit as the probability of reaching herd immunity (HI). We quantify and categorize the cost-benefit of VSs through risk graphs that show: (i) monetary cost vs. probability of reaching HI; and (ii) number of new deaths vs. probability of reaching HI. Results show that AstraZeneca has the best cost-benefit when prioritizing acquisition costs, while Pfizer is the most cost-beneficial when prioritizing the number of deaths. This work provides helpful information that can aid public health authorities in Brazil to better plan VSs. Furthermore, our approach is not restricted to Brazil, the COVID-19 pandemic, or the mentioned vaccine brands. Indeed, the method is flexible so that this study can be a valuable reference for future cost-benefit analyses in other countries and pandemics, especially in the early stages of vaccination, when data is scarce and uncertainty is high.

SUBMITTER: Siqueira PG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9117164 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Risk-based cost-benefit analysis of alternative vaccines against COVID-19 in Brazil: Coronavac vs. Astrazeneca vs. Pfizer.

Siqueira Paulo Gabriel PG Duarte Heitor Oliveira HO Moura Márcio das Chagas MDC

Vaccine 20220519 28

We propose a probabilistic model to quantify the cost-benefit of mass Vaccination Scenarios (VSs) against COVID-19. Through this approach, we conduct a six-month simulation, from August 31st, 2021 to March 3rd, 2022, of nine VSs, i.e., the three primary vaccine brands in Brazil (CoronaVac, AstraZeneca and Pfizer), each with three different vaccination rates (2nd doses per week). Since each vaccine has different individual-level effectiveness, we measure the population-level benefit as the probab ...[more]

PMID: 35610105

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesWe investigated determinants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) anti-spike IgG responses in healthcare workers (HCWs) following one or two doses of Pfizer-BioNTech or Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines.MethodsHCWs participating in regular SARS-CoV-2 PCR and antibody testing were invited for serological testing prior to first and second vaccination, and 4 weeks post-vaccination if receiving a 12-week dosing interval. Quantitative post-vaccination anti-spike antibody responses were measured using the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay (detection threshold: ≥50 AU/mL). We used multivariable logistic regression to identify predictors of seropositivity and generalized additive models to track antibody responses over time.Results3570/3610 HCWs (98.9%) were seropositive >14 days post first vaccination and prior to second vaccination: 2706/2720 (99.5%) were seropositive after the Pfizer-BioNTech and 864/890 (97.1%) following the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines. Previously infected and younger HCWs were more likely to test seropositive post first vaccination, with no evidence of differences by sex or ethnicity. All 470 HCWs tested >14 days after the second vaccination were seropositive. Quantitative antibody responses were higher after previous infection: median (IQR) >21 days post first Pfizer-BioNTech 14 604 (7644-22 291) AU/mL versus 1028 (564-1985) AU/mL without prior infection (p < 0.001). Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine recipients had lower readings post first dose than Pfizer-BioNTech recipients, with and without previous infection, 10 095 (5354-17 096) and 435 (203-962) AU/mL respectively (both p < 0.001 versus Pfizer-BioNTech). Antibody responses >21 days post second Pfizer vaccination in those not previously infected, 10 058 (6408-15 582) AU/mL, were similar to those after prior infection followed by one vaccine dose.ConclusionsSARS-CoV-2 vaccination leads to detectable anti-spike antibodies in nearly all adult HCWs. Whether differences in response impact vaccine efficacy needs further study.

Project description:BackgroundA single dose strategy may be adequate to confer population level immunity and protection against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, especially in low- and middle-income countries where vaccine supply remains limited. We compared the effectiveness of a single dose strategy of the Oxford-AstraZeneca or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection across all age groups and over an extended follow-up period.MethodsIndividuals vaccinated in North-West London, UK, with either the first dose of the Oxford-AstraZeneca or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines between January 12, 2021 and March 09, 2021, were matched to each other by demographic and clinical characteristics. Each vaccinated individual was additionally matched to an unvaccinated control. Study outcomes included SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity, COVID-19 hospitalisation, COVID-19 death, and all-cause mortality.FindingsAmongst matched individuals, 63,608 were in each of the vaccine groups and 127,216 were unvaccinated. Between 14 and 84 days of follow-up after matching, there were 534 SARS-CoV-2 infections, 65 COVID-19 hospitalisations, and 190 deaths, of which 29 were categorized as due to COVID-19. The incidence rate ratio (IRR) for SARS-CoV-2 infection was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 1.05) for Oxford-Astra-Zeneca, and 0.69 (0.55 to 0.86) for Pfizer-BioNTech. The IRR for both vaccines was the same at 0.25 (0.09 to 0.55) and 0.14 (0.02 to 0.58) for reducing COVID-19 hospitalization and COVID-19 mortality, respectively. The IRR for all-cause mortality was 0.25 (0.15 to 0.39) and 0.18 (0.10 to 0.30) for the Oxford-Astra-Zeneca and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, respectively. Age was an effect modifier of the association between vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity; lower hazard ratios for increasing age.InterpretationA single dose strategy, for both vaccines, was effective at reducing COVID-19 mortality and hospitalization rates. The magnitude of vaccine effectiveness was comparatively lower for SARS-CoV-2 infection, although this was variable across the age range, with higher effectiveness seen with older adults. Our results have important implications for health system planning -especially in low resource settings where vaccine supply remains constrained.

Project description:ObjectiveTo estimate the real world effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 and Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1-S vaccines against confirmed covid-19 symptoms (including the UK variant of concern B.1.1.7), admissions to hospital, and deaths.DesignTest negative case-control study.SettingCommunity testing for covid-19 in England.Participants156 930 adults aged 70 years and older who reported symptoms of covid-19 between 8 December 2020 and 19 February 2021 and were successfully linked to vaccination data in the National Immunisation Management System.InterventionsVaccination with BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1-S.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcomes were polymerase chain reaction confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections, admissions to hospital for covid-19, and deaths with covid-19.ResultsParticipants aged 80 years and older vaccinated with BNT162b2 before 4 January 2021 had a higher odds of testing positive for covid-19 in the first nine days after vaccination (odds ratio up to 1.48, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 1.77), indicating that those initially targeted had a higher underlying risk of infection. Vaccine effectiveness was therefore compared with the baseline post-vaccination period. Vaccine effects were noted 10 to 13 days after vaccination, reaching a vaccine effectiveness of 70% (95% confidence interval 59% to 78%), then plateauing. From 14 days after the second dose a vaccination effectiveness of 89% (85% to 93%) was found compared with the increased baseline risk. Participants aged 70 years and older vaccinated from 4 January (when ChAdOx1-S delivery commenced) had a similar underlying risk of covid-19 to unvaccinated individuals. With BNT162b2, vaccine effectiveness reached 61% (51% to 69%) from 28 to 34 days after vaccination, then plateaued. With ChAdOx1-S, effects were seen from 14 to 20 days after vaccination, reaching an effectiveness of 60% (41% to 73%) from 28 to 34 days, increasing to 73% (27% to 90%) from day 35 onwards. On top of the protection against symptomatic disease, a further 43% (33% to 52%) reduced risk of emergency hospital admission and 51% (37% to 62%) reduced risk of death was observed in those who had received one dose of BNT162b2. Participants who had received one dose of ChAdOx1-S had a further 37% (3% to 59%) reduced risk of emergency hospital admission. Follow-up was insufficient to assess the effect of ChAdOx1-S on mortality. Combined with the effect against symptomatic disease, a single dose of either vaccine was about 80% effective at preventing admission to hospital with covid-19 and a single dose of BNT162b2 was 85% effective at preventing death with covid-19.ConclusionVaccination with either one dose of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1-S was associated with a significant reduction in symptomatic covid-19 in older adults, and with further protection against severe disease. Both vaccines showed similar effects. Protection was maintained for the duration of follow-up (>6 weeks). A second dose of BNT162b2 was associated with further protection against symptomatic disease. A clear effect of the vaccines against the B.1.1.7 variant was found.

Dataset Information

Risk-based cost-benefit analysis of alternative vaccines against COVID-19 in Brazil: Coronavac vs. Astrazeneca vs. Pfizer.

Publications

Risk-based cost-benefit analysis of alternative vaccines against COVID-19 in Brazil: Coronavac vs. Astrazeneca vs. Pfizer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets