Vaccine rollout strategies: The case for vaccinating essential workers early

In vaccination campaigns against COVID-19, many jurisdictions are using age-based rollout strategies, reflecting the much higher risk of severe outcomes of infection in older groups. In the wake of growing evidence that approved vaccines are effective at preventing not only adverse outcomes, but also infection, we show that such strategies are less effective than strategies that prioritize essential workers. This conclusion holds across numerous outcomes, including cases, hospitalizations, Long COVID (cases with symptoms lasting longer than 28 days), deaths and net monetary benefit. Our analysis holds in regions where the vaccine supply is limited, and rollout is prolonged for several months. In such a setting with a population of 5M, we estimate that vaccinating essential workers sooner prevents over 200,000 infections, over 600 deaths, and produces a net monetary benefit of over $500M.

Cost-Effectiveness of Hepatitis B Mass Screening and Management in High-Prevalent Rural China: A Model Study From 2020 to 2049

Background: Chronic hepatitis B is highly prevalent among adults in rural China and better management of those populations is of vital importance for viral hepatitis elimination. Adult immunization has been the subject of much controversy in previous studies. This study estimates the cost-effectiveness of population-based hepatitis B screening, treatment, and immunization strategy (comprehensive strategy) in rural areas with high prevalence under the national policy of sharp-drop drug prices. Methods: We constructed a Markov model comparing 4 strategies in a 30-year horizon from the healthcare payer perspective: (1) the conventional pattern; (2) screening and treating infected (treatment); (3) screening and immunizing susceptible individuals (immunization); and (4) the comprehensive strategy. Screening intensity ranged from 50% to 100%. Outcomes were measured by costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and clinical outcomes. Results: The costs for the conventional pattern, treatment strategy, immunization strategy, and comprehensive strategy were US$ 341, 351, 318, and 323, respectively. In addition, effects were 17.45, 17.57, 17.46, and 17.58 QALYs, respectively. The ICER of the comprehensive strategy was 35 US$/QALY gained at 50% screening intensity and 420 US$/QALY gained at 100%. The net monetary benefit increased with increasing screening intensity and declined after 90%, with the highest value of US$ 40693. All new infections and 52.5% mortality could be avoided from 2020 to 2049 if all patients were properly treated and all susceptible individuals were immunized. The results were stable within a wide range of parameters. Conclusions: It was cost-effective to implement the mass hepatitis B screening, treatment, and immunization strategy in areas of rural China with high prevalence, and the strategy gained the most net monetary benefit at a screening intensity of 90%. Although it was impractical to fulfill 100% coverage, efforts should be made to obtain more people screened.

Cost-effectiveness of treatment optimisation with biomarkers for immunotherapy in solid tumours: a systematic review protocol

IntroductionThe combination of biomarkers and drugs is the subject of growing interest both from regulators, physicians and companies. This study protocol of a systematic review is aimed to describe available literature evidences about the cost-effectiveness, cost-utility or net-monetary benefit of the use of biomarkers in solid tumour as tools for customising immunotherapy to identify what further research needs.Methods and analysisA systematic review of the literature will be carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines. PubMed and Embase will be queried from June 2010 to June 2021. The PICOS model will be applied: target population (P) will be patients with solid tumours treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); the interventions (I) will be test of the immune checkpoint predictive biomarkers; the comparator (C) will be any other targeted or non-targeted therapy; outcomes (O) evaluated will be health economic and clinical implications assessed in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, net health benefit, net monetary benefit, life years gained, quality of life, etc; study (S) considered will be economic evaluations reporting cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, net-monetary benefit. The quality of the evidence will be graded according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will assess the cost-effectiveness implications of using biomarkers in the immunotherapy with ICIs, which may help to understand whether this approach is widespread in real clinical practice. This research is exempt from ethics approval because the work is carried out on published documents. We will disseminate this protocol in a related peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020201549.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nonoperative management versus open and laparoscopic surgery for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in Colombia

Background Traditionally, uncomplicated acute appendicitis (AA) has been treated with appendectomy. However, the surgical alternatives might carry out significant complications, impaired quality of life, and higher costs than nonoperative treatment. Consequently, it is necessary to evaluate the different therapeutic alternatives' cost-effectiveness in patients diagnosed with uncomplicated appendicitis. Methods We performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing nonoperative management (NOM) with open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in patients otherwise healthy adults aged 18–60 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated AA from the payer´s perspective at the secondary and tertiary health care level. The time horizon was 5 years. A discount rate of 5% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were identified, quantified, and valorized from a payer perspective; therefore, only direct health costs were included. An incremental analysis was estimated to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated for each alternative using a willingness to pay lower than one gross domestic product. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. Methods We performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing nonoperative management (NOM) with open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in patients otherwise healthy adults aged 18–60 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated AA from the payer’s perspective at the secondary and tertiary health care level. The time horizon was five years. A discount rate of 5% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were identified, quantified, and valorized from a payer perspective; therefore, only direct health costs were included. An incremental analysis was estimated to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated for each alternative using a willingness to pay lower than one gross domestic product. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. Results LA presents a lower cost ($363 ± 35) than OA ($384 ± 41) and NOM ($392 ± 44). NOM exhibited higher QALYs (3.3332 ± 0.0276) in contrast with LA (3.3310 ± 0.057) and OA (3.3261 ± 0.0707). LA dominated the OA. The ICER between LA and NOM was $24,000/QALY. LA has a 52% probability of generating the highest NMB versus its counterparts, followed by NOM (30%) and OA (18%). There is a probability of 0.69 that laparoscopy generates more significant benefit than medical management. The mean value of that incremental NMB would be $93.7 per patient. Conclusions LA is a cost-effectiveness alternative in the management of patients with uncomplicated AA. Besides, LA has a high probability of producing more significant monetary benefits than NOM and OA from the payer’s perspective in the Colombian health system.

Modelling of hypothetical SARS-CoV-2 point of care tests for routine testing in residential care homes: rapid cost-effectiveness analysis

Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which at the time of writing (January 2021) was responsible for more than 2.25 million deaths worldwide and over 100,000 deaths in the UK. SARS-CoV-2 appears to be highly transmissible and could rapidly spread in residential care homes. Objective The work undertaken aimed to estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of viral detection point-of-care tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 compared with laboratory-based tests in the setting of a hypothetical care home facility for elderly residents. Perspective/setting The perspective was that of the NHS in 2020. The setting was a hypothetical care home facility for elderly residents. Care homes with en suite rooms and with shared facilities were modelled separately. Methods A discrete event simulation model was constructed to model individual residents and simulate the spread of SARS-CoV-2 once it had entered the residential care facility. The numbers of COVID-19-related deaths and critical cases were recorded in addition to the number of days spent in isolation. Thirteen strategies involving different hypothetical SARS-CoV-2 tests were modelled. Recently published desirable and acceptable target product profiles for SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests and for hospital-based SARS-CoV-2 tests were modelled. Scenario analyses modelled early release from isolation based on receipt of a negative SARS-CoV-2 test result and the impact of vaccination. Incremental analyses were undertaken using both incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and net monetary benefits. Results Cost-effectiveness results depended on the proportion of residential care facilities penetrated by SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests with desirable target product profiles appear to have high net monetary benefit values. In contrast, SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests with acceptable target product profiles had low net monetary benefit values because of unnecessary isolations. The benefit of allowing early release from isolation depended on whether or not the facility had en suite rooms. The greater the assumed efficacy of vaccination, the lower the net monetary benefit values associated with SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests, when assuming that a vaccine lowers the risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2. Limitations There is considerable uncertainty in the values for key parameters within the model, although calibration was undertaken in an attempt to mitigate this. Some degree of Monte Carlo sampling error persists because of the timelines of the project. The example care home simulated will also not match those of decision-makers deciding on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of introducing SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests. Given these limitations, the results should be taken as indicative rather than definitive, particularly the cost-effectiveness results when the relative cost per SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care test is uncertain. Conclusions SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests have considerable potential for benefit for use in residential care facilities, but whether or not this materialises depends on the diagnostic accuracy and costs of forthcoming SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests. Future work More accurate results would be obtained when there is more certainty on the diagnostic accuracy of and the reduction in time to test result associated with SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests when used in the context of residential care facilities, the proportion of care home penetrated by SARS-CoV-2 and the levels of immunity once vaccination is administered. These parameters are currently uncertain. Funding This report was commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme as project number 132154. This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost-effectiveness of whole area testing of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in Merthyr Tydfil, 2020: A Modelling and economic analysis

Objectives: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of an asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 whole area testing pilot. Design: Epidemiological modelling and cost effectiveness analysis. Setting: The community of Merthyr Tydfil County Borough between20 Nov and 21 Dec 2020. Participants: A total of 33,822 people tested as part of the pilot in Merthyr Tydfil County Borough, 712 of whom tested positive by lateral flow test and reported being asymptomatic. Main outcome measures: Estimated number of cases, hospitalisations, ICU admissions and deaths prevented, and associated costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and monitory cost to the healthcare system. Results: An initial conservative estimate of 360 (95% CI: 311 - 418) cases were prevented by the mass testing, representing a would-be reduction of 11% of all cases diagnosed in Merthyr Tydfil residents during the same period. Modelling healthcare burden estimates that 24 (16 - 36) hospitalizations, 5 (3 - 6) ICU admissions and 15 (11 - 20) deaths were prevented, representing 6.37%, 11.1% and 8.19%, respectively of the actual counts during the same period. A less conservative, best-case scenario predicts a much higher number of cases prevented of 2328 (1761 - 3107), representing 80% reduction in would-be cases. Cost effectiveness analysis indicates 108 (80 - 143) QALYs gained, an incremental cost ratio of &#163 2,143 (&#163 860-&#163 4,175) per QALY gained and net monetary benefit of &#163 6.2m (&#163 4.5m-&#163 8.4m). In the less conservative scenario, the net monetary benefit increases to &#163 15.9m (&#163 12.3m-&#163 20.5m). Conclusions: A significant number of cases, hospitalisations and deaths were prevented by the mass testing pilot. Considering QALYs lost and healthcare costs avoided, the pilot was cost-effective. These findings suggest mass testing with LFDs in areas of high prevalence (>2%) is likely to provide significant public health benefit. It is not yet clear whether similar benefits will be obtained in low prevalence settings.

Net benefit separation and the determination curve: A probabilistic framework for cost-effectiveness estimation

Considerations regarding clinical effectiveness and cost are essential in comparing the overall value of two treatments. There has been growing interest in methodology to integrate cost and effectiveness measures in order to inform policy and promote adequate resource allocation. The net monetary benefit aggregates information on differences in mean cost and clinical outcomes; the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve was developed to characterize the extent to which the strength of evidence regarding net monetary benefit changes with fluctuations in the willingness-to-pay threshold. Methods to derive insights from characteristics of the cost/clinical outcomes besides mean differences remain undeveloped but may also be informative. We propose a novel probabilistic measure of cost-effectiveness based on the stochastic ordering of the individual net benefit distribution under each treatment. Our approach is able to accommodate features frequently encountered in observational data including confounding and censoring, and complements the net monetary benefit in the insights it provides. We conduct a range of simulations to evaluate finite-sample performance and illustrate our proposed approach using simulated data based on a study of endometrial cancer patients.

Vaccine Rollout Strategies: The Case for Vaccinating Essential Workers Early

In planning for upcoming mass vaccinations against COVID-19, many jurisdictions have proposed using primarily age-based rollout strategies, where the oldest are vaccinated first and the youngest last. In the wake of growing evidence that approved vaccines are effective at preventing not only adverse outcomes, but also infection (and hence transmission of SARS-CoV-2), we propose that such age-based rollouts are both less equitable and less effective than strategies that prioritize essential workers. We demonstrate that strategies that target essential workers earlier consistently outperform those that do not, and that prioritizing essential work-ers provides a significant level of indirect protection for older adults. This conclusion holds across numerous outcomes, including cases, hospitalizations, Long COVID, deaths and net monetary benefit, and over a range of possible values for the efficacy of vaccination against infection. Our analysis focuses on regimes where the pandemic continues to be controlled with distancing and other measures as vaccination proceeds, and where the vaccination strategy is expected to last for over the coming 6-8 months — for example British Columbia, Canada. In such a setting with a total population of 5M, vaccinating essential workers sooner is expected to prevent over 200,000 infections, over 600 deaths, and to produce a net monetary benefit of over $500M.