Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Pharmacoecon Open ; 6(5): 631-635, 2022 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2277403

ABSTRACT

Publicly funded immunization programs have grown in both complexity and scope, resulting in increased costs and more complex programmatic decision making. Economic evaluations can provide crucial information to support informed decision making. While very few countries have National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups that analyze economic information, many have started to develop processes for this purpose. Since these guidelines are being developed at the national level, we propose that regional jurisdictions, especially those responsible for healthcare (e.g., provinces, territories, states), need clear processes for incorporating this information into their immunization decision making and program implementation. We interviewed Canadian vaccine experts involved in provincial vaccine policy decision making to identify current practices, perceptions, and recommendations around incorporating economic analysis into that process. Based on these interviews, we make five recommendations: (1) economic evidence should be routinely incorporated into the decision making process; (2) economic experts should sit on, or be available to, regional advisory committees; (3) efforts should be made to build on regional expertise by increasing educational opportunities on economic evaluation; (4) processes should include guidelines for when economic analysis is not required; and (5) clarification on the role of regional advisory groups in economic analysis is needed in relation to national expertise. The information presented here provides a starting point for regional health policy experts and decision makers to work collaboratively with national partners to create transparent and effective approaches to incorporating economic analysis into vaccine decision making.

2.
BMC Med ; 20(1): 452, 2022 Nov 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2139290

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic testing has been pivotal in detecting SARS-CoV-2 infections and reducing transmission through the isolation of positive cases. We quantified the value of implementing frequent, rapid antigen (RA) testing in the workplace to identify screening programs that are cost-effective. METHODS: To project the number of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths under alternative screening programs, we adapted an agent-based model of COVID-19 transmission and parameterized it with the demographics of Ontario, Canada, incorporating vaccination and waning of immunity. Taking into account healthcare costs and productivity losses associated with each program, we calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with quality-adjusted life year (QALY) as the measure of effect. Considering RT-PCR testing of only severe cases as the baseline scenario, we estimated the incremental net monetary benefits (iNMB) of the screening programs with varying durations and initiation times, as well as different booster coverages of working adults. RESULTS: Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of CDN$30,000 per QALY loss averted, twice weekly workplace screening was cost-effective only if the program started early during a surge. In most scenarios, the iNMB of RA screening without a confirmatory RT-PCR or RA test was comparable or higher than the iNMB for programs with a confirmatory test for RA-positive cases. When the program started early with a duration of at least 16 weeks and no confirmatory testing, the iNMB exceeded CDN$1.1 million per 100,000 population. Increasing booster coverage of working adults improved the iNMB of RA screening. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that frequent RA testing starting very early in a surge, without a confirmatory test, is a preferred screening program for the detection of asymptomatic infections in workplaces.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Workplace , Adult , Humans , Cost-Benefit Analysis , COVID-19/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Ontario
3.
Hum Vaccin Immunother ; 18(1): 2007707, 2022 12 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1585259

ABSTRACT

Response measures to mitigate the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic impacted access to routine vaccination services. We evaluate the impact of the pandemic on routine infant vaccination uptake by comparing vaccination coverage, vaccine delays and doses administered in 2019 and 2020, in Quebec, Canada. Using a population-based vaccination registry, we compared vaccination coverage at 3, 5, 13 and 19 months of age between 2019 and 2020 cohorts each month from January to November. For vaccine delays, we measured the cumulative proportion vaccinated in each targeted cohort monthly. We also compared the measles-containing vaccines administered before 24 months of age between the same period in 2019 and 2020. A decline in vaccination coverage and children vaccinated on time was observed in all cohorts during the first months of the pandemic. The greatest impact was observed for the 18-month vaccination visit with a difference in vaccination coverage between both cohorts of 30.9% in May. Measles-containing doses administered during the first months of the pandemic were lower in 2020 compared with 2019: -21.1% in March (95%CI-21.6;-20.4), and -39.2% in April (95%CI-40.0;-38.2). After May, the coverage increased for all cohorts to reach pre-pandemic levels after a few months for most target ages. Routine childhood vaccinations were affected during the first months of the pandemic, but catch-up occurred thereafter and vaccination coverage in affected cohorts were very close to levels of 2019 after a few months of follow-up. Real-time monitoring of childhood vaccination is essential but also for other vaccination programs, severely affected by the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Child , Humans , Immunization Programs , Infant , Measles Vaccine , Pandemics , Quebec/epidemiology , Vaccination , Vaccination Coverage
4.
BMJ Open ; 11(6): e050667, 2021 06 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1282102

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: This report estimates the risk of COVID-19 importation and secondary transmission associated with a modified quarantine programme in Canada. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective analysis of international asymptomatic travellers entering Alberta, Canada. INTERVENTIONS: All participants were required to receive a PCR COVID-19 test on arrival. If negative, participants could leave quarantine but were required to have a second test 6 or 7 days after arrival. If the arrival test was positive, participants were required to remain in quarantine for 14 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion and rate of participants testing positive for COVID-19; number of cases of secondary transmission. RESULTS: The analysis included 9535 international travellers entering Alberta by air (N=8398) or land (N=1137) that voluntarily enrolled in the Alberta Border Testing Pilot Programme (a subset of all travellers); most (83.1%) were Canadian citizens. Among the 9310 participants who received at least one test, 200 (21.5 per 1000, 95% CI 18.6 to 24.6) tested positive. Sixty-nine per cent (138/200) of positive tests were detected on arrival (14.8 per 1000 travellers, 95% CI 12.5 to 17.5). 62 cases (6.7 per 1000 travellers, 95% CI 5.1 to 8.5; 31.0% of positive cases) were identified among participants that had been released from quarantine following a negative test result on arrival. Of 192 participants who developed symptoms, 51 (26.6%) tested positive after arrival. Among participants with positive tests, four (2.0%) were hospitalised for COVID-19; none required critical care or died. Contact tracing among participants who tested positive identified 200 contacts; of 88 contacts tested, 22 were cases of secondary transmission (14 from those testing positive on arrival and 8 from those testing positive thereafter). SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 lineage was not detected in any of the 200 positive cases. CONCLUSIONS: 21.5 per 1000 international travellers tested positive for COVID-19. Most (69%) tested positive on arrival and 31% tested positive during follow-up. These findings suggest the need for ongoing vigilance in travellers testing negative on arrival and highlight the value of follow-up testing and contact tracing to monitor and limit secondary transmission where possible.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Travel , Alberta/epidemiology , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Testing , Humans , Internationality , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Pharmacoeconomics ; 39(9): 1059-1073, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1275009

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to implement a model-based approach to identify the optimal allocation of a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine in the province of Alberta, Canada. METHODS: We developed an epidemiologic model to evaluate allocation strategies defined by age and risk target groups, coverage, effectiveness and cost of vaccine. The model simulated hypothetical immunisation scenarios within a dynamic context, capturing concurrent public health strategies and population behavioural changes. RESULTS: In a scenario with 80% vaccine effectiveness, 40% population coverage and prioritisation of those over the age of 60 years at high risk of poor outcomes, active cases are reduced by 17% and net monetary benefit increased by $263 million dollars, relative to no vaccine. Concurrent implementation of policies such as school closure and senior contact reductions have similar impacts on incremental net monetary benefit ($352 vs $292 million, respectively) when there is no prioritisation given to any age or risk group. When older age groups are given priority, the relative benefit of school closures is much larger ($214 vs $118 million). Results demonstrate that the rank ordering of different prioritisation options varies by prioritisation criteria, vaccine effectiveness and coverage, and concurrently implemented policies. CONCLUSIONS: Our results have three implications: (i) optimal vaccine allocation will depend on the public health policies in place at the time of allocation and the impact of those policies on population behaviour; (ii) outcomes of vaccine allocation policies can be greatly supported with interventions targeting contact reduction in critical sub-populations; and (iii) identification of the optimal strategy depends on which outcomes are prioritised.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/supply & distribution , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Vaccination/trends , Aged , Alberta/epidemiology , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19 Vaccines/economics , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Humans , Middle Aged , Public Health , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL