Darvin S. Smith , Maarten Postma , David Fisman , Joaquin Mould-Quevedo
{"title":"Cost-effectiveness models assessing COVID-19 booster vaccines across eight countries: A review of methods and data inputs","authors":"Darvin S. Smith , Maarten Postma , David Fisman , Joaquin Mould-Quevedo","doi":"10.1016/j.vaccine.2025.126879","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to cause serious health consequences globally. Policy makers now assess cost effectiveness (CE) when evaluating COVID-19 vaccines. A targeted literature review was performed to examine recent CE evidence for COVID-19 vaccines, as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transitions from pandemic to endemic, to identify best practices. Data were from large EU countries (UK, Spain, Germany, France, and Italy), US, Canada, and Australia. Nine CE studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies evaluated booster vaccination, and mainly considered mRNA vaccines. CE studies reported that COVID-19 vaccines provided health benefits and were cost-effective or showed cost-savings. Benefits were more pronounced in older and high-risk populations based on higher rates of COVID-19 hospitalization and death. CE findings were most sensitive to estimates of incidence of COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmissibility, vaccine effectiveness, waning/duration of vaccine protection, and hospitalization costs. Most data inputs were sourced from real-world evidence (RWE). Lack of inclusion of some parameters, such as transmission modeling, productivity losses, and the impact of long COVID may undervalue COVID-19 vaccines. As SARS-CoV-2 evolves and COVID-19 vaccines are updated, continuous generation of RWE is needed to demonstrate the CE of COVID-19 vaccines in an ongoing manner.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23491,"journal":{"name":"Vaccine","volume":"51 ","pages":"Article 126879"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vaccine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X25001768","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to cause serious health consequences globally. Policy makers now assess cost effectiveness (CE) when evaluating COVID-19 vaccines. A targeted literature review was performed to examine recent CE evidence for COVID-19 vaccines, as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transitions from pandemic to endemic, to identify best practices. Data were from large EU countries (UK, Spain, Germany, France, and Italy), US, Canada, and Australia. Nine CE studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies evaluated booster vaccination, and mainly considered mRNA vaccines. CE studies reported that COVID-19 vaccines provided health benefits and were cost-effective or showed cost-savings. Benefits were more pronounced in older and high-risk populations based on higher rates of COVID-19 hospitalization and death. CE findings were most sensitive to estimates of incidence of COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmissibility, vaccine effectiveness, waning/duration of vaccine protection, and hospitalization costs. Most data inputs were sourced from real-world evidence (RWE). Lack of inclusion of some parameters, such as transmission modeling, productivity losses, and the impact of long COVID may undervalue COVID-19 vaccines. As SARS-CoV-2 evolves and COVID-19 vaccines are updated, continuous generation of RWE is needed to demonstrate the CE of COVID-19 vaccines in an ongoing manner.
期刊介绍:
Vaccine is unique in publishing the highest quality science across all disciplines relevant to the field of vaccinology - all original article submissions across basic and clinical research, vaccine manufacturing, history, public policy, behavioral science and ethics, social sciences, safety, and many other related areas are welcomed. The submission categories as given in the Guide for Authors indicate where we receive the most papers. Papers outside these major areas are also welcome and authors are encouraged to contact us with specific questions.