The impact of universal health coverage and COVID-19 pandemic on out-of-pocket expenses in Thailand: an analysis of household survey from 1994 to 2021.

OBJECTIVES: After Thailand achieved Universal Health Coverage (UHC) in 2002, the extent of financial risk protection has not been assessed in the long term, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, this study aims to revisit the impact of UHC on out-of-pocket expenses (OOPE) for health and to descriptively explore the impact of COVID-19 on OOPE. METHODS: This study was a secondary data analysis and used data from the Socio-Economic Survey from 1994 to 2021 in Thailand. The effect of UHC on the percentage of OOPE in total health expenditures (THE) from 1994 to 2019 was investigated with an interrupted time-series analysis. Descriptive analyses of OOPE in absolute value during the COVID-19 were conducted. RESULTS: The percentage of OOPE in THE significantly decreased both before (ß -2.02%; 95% CI: -2.70% to - 1.33%) and during (ß 1.41%; 95% CI: 0.70% to 2.11%) the UHC period. During the pandemic, total household OOPE for medical equipment was found to have rapidly increased from 643 million THB in 2019 to 9.4 billion THB in 2020. CONCLUSIONS: The trend of providing financial risk protection (measured by OOPE/THE) in Thailand continues until 2019. Providing medical equipment in sufficient and equally accessible manners should be prioritized during the future pandemic.

Assessing the cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in a low incidence and low mortality setting: the case of Thailand at start of the pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, preferred COVID-19 vaccine profiles, and the preferred vaccination strategies in Thailand. METHODS: An age-structured transmission dynamic model was developed based on key local data to evaluate economic consequences, including cost and health outcome in terms of life-years (LYs) saved. We considered COVID-19 vaccines with different profiles and different vaccination strategies such as vaccinating elderly age groups (over 65s) or high-incidence groups, i.e. adults between 20 and 39 years old who have contributed to more than 60% of total COVID-19 cases in the country thus far. Analyses employed a societal perspective in a 1-year time horizon using a cost-effectiveness threshold of 160,000 THB per LY saved. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to identify and characterize uncertainty in the model. RESULTS: COVID-19 vaccines that block infection combined with social distancing were cost-saving regardless of the target population compared to social distancing alone (with no vaccination). For vaccines that block infection, the preferred (cost-effective) strategy was to vaccinate the high incidence group. Meanwhile, COVID-19 vaccines that reduces severity (including hospitalization and mortality) were cost-effective when the elderly were vaccinated, while vaccinating the high-incidence group was not cost-effective with this vaccine type. Regardless of vaccine type, higher vaccination coverage, higher efficacy, and longer protection duration were always preferred. More so, vaccination with social distancing measures was always preferred to strategies without social distancing. Quarantine-related costs were a major cost component affecting the cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 vaccines are good value for money even in a relatively low-incidence and low-mortality setting such as Thailand, if the appropriate groups are vaccinated. The preferred vaccination strategies depend on the type of vaccine efficacy. Social distancing measures should accompany a vaccination strategy.

Economic Analysis of Border Control Policies during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Modelling Study to Inform Cross-Border Travel Policy between Singapore and Thailand

With countries progressing towards high COVID-19 vaccination rates, strategies for border reopening are required. This study focuses on Thailand and Singapore, two countries that share significant tourism visitation, to illustrate a framework for optimizing COVID-19 testing and quarantine policies for bilateral travel with a focus on economic recovery. The timeframe is the month of October 2021, when Thailand and Singapore were preparing to reopen borders for bilateral travel. This study was conducted to provide evidence for the border reopening policy decisions. Incremental net benefit (INB) compared to the pre-opening period was quantified through a willingness-to-travel model, a micro-simulation COVID-19 transmission model and an economic model accounting for medical and non-medical costs/benefits. Multiple testing and quarantine policies were examined, and Pareto optimal (PO) policies and the most influential components were identified. The highest possible INB for Thailand is US $125.94 million, under a PO policy with no quarantine but with antigen rapid tests (ARTs) pre-departure and upon arrival to enter both countries. The highest possible INB for Singapore is US $29.78 million, under another PO policy with no quarantine on both sides, no testing to enter Thailand, and ARTs pre-departure and upon arrival to enter Singapore. Tourism receipts and costs/profits of testing and quarantine have greater economic impacts than that from COVID-19 transmission. Provided healthcare systems have sufficient capacity, great economic benefits can be gained for both countries by relaxing border control measures.

Economic Evaluation of Evusheld for Preexposure Prevention of COVID-19 in High-Risk Populations: Early Evidence from Thailand.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The introduction of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines urged all Thais to seek prevention of serious illness and death from COVID-19. However, immunocompromised individuals might not be able to achieve an efficient immune response from these vaccines. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of introducing Evusheld (tixagevimab plus cilgavimab) for three patient groups-organ transplant, autoimmune disease, and dialysis patients, from the Thai government perspective. METHODS: A Markov decision model was developed to compare the use of Evusheld plus COVID-19 vaccines versus COVID-19 vaccines alone. The methodology followed the National HTA Guidelines of Thailand. Model input parameters were collected locally from retrospective data and from a literature review. RESULTS: Evusheld helped prevent COVID-19 infection, severe infection, and death in all three patient groups. Using the Thai threshold of 160,000 Thai Baht (THB) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, the only scenario found to be cost-effective was that of dialysis patients with inadequate immune response, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 54,700 THB per QALY gained. To make a policy of Evusheld provision cost-effective in other groups, the price of Evusheld had to be lower (a reduction of 44-88% of its current price). The results of one-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the cost-effectiveness of Evusheld was sensitive to changes in the rate of infection, cost and efficacy of Evusheld, proportion of inadequate immune responses, and the probability of moving from a 'recovered' to 'susceptible' status. CONCLUSION: Among three COVID-19-vaccinated immunocompromised patient populations, this study concluded that Evusheld was cost-effective for dialysis patients with inadequate immune response to the COVID-19 vaccine.

Economic Analysis of Border Control Policies during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Modelling Study to Inform Cross-Border Travel Policy between Singapore and Thailand.

With countries progressing towards high COVID-19 vaccination rates, strategies for border reopening are required. This study focuses on Thailand and Singapore, two countries that share significant tourism visitation, to illustrate a framework for optimizing COVID-19 testing and quarantine policies for bilateral travel with a focus on economic recovery. The timeframe is the month of October 2021, when Thailand and Singapore were preparing to reopen borders for bilateral travel. This study was conducted to provide evidence for the border reopening policy decisions. Incremental net benefit (INB) compared to the pre-opening period was quantified through a willingness-to-travel model, a micro-simulation COVID-19 transmission model and an economic model accounting for medical and non-medical costs/benefits. Multiple testing and quarantine policies were examined, and Pareto optimal (PO) policies and the most influential components were identified. The highest possible INB for Thailand is US $125.94 million, under a PO policy with no quarantine but with antigen rapid tests (ARTs) pre-departure and upon arrival to enter both countries. The highest possible INB for Singapore is US $29.78 million, under another PO policy with no quarantine on both sides, no testing to enter Thailand, and ARTs pre-departure and upon arrival to enter Singapore. Tourism receipts and costs/profits of testing and quarantine have greater economic impacts than that from COVID-19 transmission. Provided healthcare systems have sufficient capacity, great economic benefits can be gained for both countries by relaxing border control measures.

Pattern of OPD utilisation during the COVID-19 pandemic under the Universal Coverage Scheme in Thailand: what can 850 million records tell us?

BACKGROUND: Out-patient department (OPD) is a crucial component of the healthcare systems in low- and middle-income countries including Thailand. A considerable impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and its control measures, especially the lockdown, on utilisation of OPD services was expected. This study thus aims to estimate the pattern of OPD utilisation during the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand including overall utilisation and within each sub-groups including diagnostic group, age group, and health region. METHODS: This study was a secondary data analysis of aggregated outpatient data from patients covered under the Universal Coverage Scheme (UCS) in Thailand over a 4-year period (2017-2020). Interrupted time series analyses and segmented Quasi-Poisson regression were used to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the overall OPD utilisation including the impact on each diagnostic group, age groups, health regions, and provinces. RESULTS: Analysis of 845,344,946 OPD visits in this study showed a seasonal pattern and increasing trend in monthly OPD visits before the COVID-19 pandemic. A 28% (rate ratio (RR) 0.718, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.631-0.819) and 11% (RR 0.890, 95% CI: 0.811-0.977) reduction in OPD visits was observed during the lockdown and post-lockdown periods, respectively, when compared to the pre-lockdown period. Diseases of respiratory system were most affected with a RR of 0.411 (95% CI: 0.320-0.527), while the number of visits for non-communicable diseases (ICD-10: E00-E90, I00-I99) and elderly (> 60 years) dropped slightly. The post-lockdown trend in monthly OPD visits gradually increased to the pre-pandemic levels in most groups. CONCLUSIONS: Thailand's OPD utilisation rate during the COVID-19 lockdown decreased in some diseases, but the service for certain group of patients appeared to remain available. After the COVID-19 lockdown, the rate returned to the pre-pandemic level in a timely manner. Equipped with a knowledge of OPD utilisation pattern during COVID-19 based on a national real-world database could aid with a better preparation of healthcare system for future pandemics.

How can health technology assessment support our response to public health emergencies?

Public health emergencies (PHEs), such as the COVID-19 crisis, are threats to global health and public order. We recommend that countries bolster their PHE responses by investing in health technology assessment (HTA), defined as a systematic process of gathering pertinent information on and evaluating health technologies from a medical, economic, social and ethical standpoint. We present examples of how HTA organizations in low- and middle-income countries have adapted to supporting PHE-related decisions during COVID-19 and describe the ways HTA can help the response to a PHE. In turn, we advocate for HTA capacity to be further developed globally and for increased institutional acceptance of these methods as a building block for preparedness and response to future PHEs. Finally, the long-term potential of HTA in strengthening health systems and embedding confidence and transparency into scientific policy should be recognized.

Estimating the potential overdiagnosis and overtreatment of acute appendicitis in Thailand using a secondary data analysis of service utilization before, during and after the COVID-19 lockdown policy.

INTRODUCTION: Acute appendicitis is one of the most common surgical emergencies; however, optimal diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis remains challenging. We used the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lockdown policy as a natural experiment to explore potential overdiagnosis and overtreatment of acute appendicitis in Thailand. The aim of this study was to estimate the potential overdiagnosis and overtreatment of acute appendicitis in Thailand by examining service utilization before, during, and after the COVID-19 lockdown policy. METHODS: A secondary data analysis of patients admitted with acute appendicitis under the Universal Coverage Scheme (UCS) in Thailand over a 6-year period between 2016 and 2021 was conducted. The trend of acute appendicitis was plotted using a 14-day rolling average of daily cases. Patient characteristics, clinical management, and outcomes were descriptively presented and compared among three study periods, namely pre-pandemic, lockdown, and post-lockdown. RESULTS: The number of overall acute appendicitis cases decreased from 25,407 during pre-pandemic to 22,006 during lockdown (13.4% reduction) and 21,245 during post-lockdown (16.4% reduction). This reduction was mostly due to a lower incidence of uncomplicated acute appendicitis, whereas cases of generalized peritonitis were scarcely affected by the pandemic. There was an increasing trend towards the usage of diagnostic computerized tomography for acute appendicitis but no significant difference in treatment modalities and complication rates. CONCLUSION: The stable rates of generalized peritonitis and complications during the COVID-19 lockdown, despite fewer admissions overall, suggest that there may have been overdiagnosis and overtreatment of acute appendicitis in Thailand. Policy makers could use these findings to improve clinical practice for acute appendicitis in Thailand and support the efficient utilization of surgical services in the future, especially during pandemics.

The physical activity at work (PAW) study: a cluster randomised trial of a multicomponent short-break intervention to reduce sitting time and increase physical activity among office workers in Thailand.

Background: Sedentary behaviour increases the risks of non-communicable diseases. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the effect of the Physical Activity at Work multicomponent intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour in Thai office workers. Methods: Offices under the Ministry of Public Health Thailand, were randomly allocated to the intervention and control group in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by office size. The intervention included individual (pedometer and lottery-based financial incentives), social (group movement breaks), environmental (posters), and organisational (leader encouragement) components. At baseline and 6-month follow-up, participants wore ActiGraphTM on the waist for ten days. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in sedentary time at 6-month, analysed using a linear mixed-effects model. Other outcomes were physical activity, biomarkers, productivity, and musculoskeletal health. Trial registration: The PAW study was registered at the Thai Clinical Trials Registry (ID TCTR20200604007) on 02 June 2020. Findings: 282 office workers were recruited and randomly allocated to the control group (142 participants, nine offices) and the intervention group (140 participants, nine offices). The mean age was 38.6 years (SD = 10.4), and 81% were women. There was no evidence of intervention effects on sedentary time during waking hours (-26.8; 95% CI = -69.2 to 15.7 min), physical activity levels, or biomarkers between groups at 6-month. In the adjusted analysis, increases in time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (5.45; 95% CI = -0.15 to 11.1 min) and step count (718; 95% CI = -45 to 1481 steps) during waking hours were observed, although there was no evidence of a difference between groups. Interpretation: The intervention did not significantly reduce sedentary time in Thai office workers. Suboptimal intervention uptake due to Covid-19 pandemic restrictions and loss of statistical power associated with recruitment constraints may explain this result. Further investigations are needed to evaluate the processes of the trial. Funding: The Thai Health Promotion Foundation and the International Decision Support Initiative (iDSI).

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Among Health Care Workers in Thailand: The Comparative Results of Two Cross-Sectional Online Surveys Before and After Vaccine Availability

Introduction The arrival of COVID-19 vaccines in Thailand has supported the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. This study examined COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among health care workers (HCWs) in Thailand before and after vaccines' availability and investigated factors (both enablers and barriers) affecting their decisions. Methods Two online self-administered questionnaires were distributed to HCWs in two time-periods: (1) the pre-vaccine arrival period (prior to COVID-19 vaccines' arrival in Thailand, January 28 to February 16, 2021);and (2) the post-vaccine arrival period (April 21 to May 9, 2021). Descriptive analyses and multinomial logistic regression were conducted to examine factors associated with vaccine hesitancy. Results There were 55,068 respondents in the pre-vaccine arrival period and 27,319 respondents in the post-vaccine arrival period. In the pre-vaccine arrival period, 55.0% of respondents were willing to accept the vaccines, 35.4% were uncertain, and 9.6% declined. In the post-vaccine arrival period, ~16% already received two doses of either the Sinovac or AstraZeneca vaccine, and 43% were administered one dose. Approximately 12% of those who had received the first dose were uncertain or not willing to accept the second dose. Demographic and socio-demographic factors of participants, including their sex, place of residence, and whether they were frontline COVID-19 workers, were found to be the significant factors explaining vaccination hesitancy. Moreover, when comparing the pre-vaccine arrival and post-vaccine arrival periods, it was found that older HCWs were more likely to decline a COVID-19 vaccine in the pre-vaccine arrival period;on the other hand, older HCWs were less likely to decline or be uncertain to receive a COVID-19 vaccine in the post-vaccine arrival period. Conclusion Information on HCWs' acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines, including who is more likely to accept the vaccines, could assist in planning vaccine allocation to both HCWs and the general public, who often believe HCWs' recommendations. This study's findings set out how policies can be addressed to reduce vaccine hesitancy. This study also highlights HCWs' characteristics (including gender, work region, occupation, and history of receiving influenza vaccination) and the reasons they cited for their vaccine acceptance or hesitance.

A Data-Driven Analysis of the Economic Cost of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions: A Cross-Country Comparison of Kenya, Singapore, and Thailand.

Objective: To estimate the economic impact of border closure and social distancing by estimating the decline of gross domestic product (GDP) in Kenya, Singapore and Thailand. Methods: We analysed secondary data retrospectively. To calculate impact of NPIs on GDP, the relationship between GDP and stock market index was examined using ordinary least squares (OLS). Then, autoregressive and moving averages (ARMA) model was used to examine the impact of NPI on stock market index. The change in GDP due to NPIs was derived by multiplying coefficients of OLS and ARMA models. Results: An increase in stock market index correlated with an increase in GDP, while both social distancing and border closure negatively correlated with stock market index. Implementation of NPIs correlated with the decline in GDP. Thai border closure had a greater decline in GDP than social distancing; Kenya exhibited the same trends; Singapore had the opposite trend. Conclusion: We quantified the magnitude of economic impact of NPIs in terms of GDP decline by linking stock market index and GDP. This approach may be applicable in other settings.

What Can We Learn From Others to Develop a Regional Centre for Infectious Diseases in ASEAN? Comment on "Operationalising Regional Cooperation for Infectious Disease Control: A Scoping Review of Regional Disease Control Bodies and Networks".

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has brought the need for regional collaboration on disease prevention and control to the fore. The review by Durrance-Bagale et al offers insights on the enablers, barriers and lessons learned from the experience of various regional initiatives. Translating these lessons into action, however, remains a challenge. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) planned to establish a regional centre for disease control; however, many factors have slowed the realisation of these efforts. Going forward, regional initiatives should be able to address the complexity of emerging infectious diseases through a One Health approach, assess the social and economic impact of diseases on the region and study the real-world effectiveness of regional collaborations. The initiatives should seek to be inclusive of stakeholders including those from the private sector and should identify innovative measures for financing. This advancement will enable regions such as ASEAN to effectively prepare for the next pandemic.

Factors associated with the opposition to COVID-19 vaccination certificates: A multi-country observational study from Asia.

BACKGROUND: There are ongoing calls to harmonise and increase the use of COVID-19 vaccination certificates (CVCs) in Asia. Identifying groups in Asian societies who oppose CVCs and understanding their reasons can help formulate an effective CVCs policy in the region. However, no formal studies have explored this issue in Asia. METHOD: The COVID-19 Vaccination Policy Research and Decision-Support Initiative in Asia (CORESIA) was established to address policy questions related to CVCs. An online cross-sectional survey was conducted from June to October 2021 in nine Asian countries. Multivariable logistical regression analyses were performed to identify potential opposers of CVCs. RESULTS: Six groups were identified as potential opposers of CVCs: (i) unvaccinated (Odd Ratio (OR): 2.01, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.65-2.46); vaccine hesitant and those without access to COVID-19 vaccines; (ii) those not wanting existing NPIs to continue (OR: 2.97, 95% CI: 2.51-3.53); (iii) those with low level of trust in governments (OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.02-2.52); (iv) those without travel plans (OR: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.31-1.90); (v) those expecting no financial gains from CVCs (OR: 2.35, 95% CI: 1.98-2.78); and (vi) those disagreeing to use CVCs for employment, education, events, hospitality, and domestic travel. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing recurring public health bottlenecks such as vaccine hesitancy and equitable access, adherence to policies, public trust, and changing the narrative from 'societal-benefit' to 'personal-benefit' may be necessary and may help increase wider adoption of CVCs in Asia.

Protocol for the economic evaluation of COVID-19 pandemic response policies

IntroductionSeveral treatment options are available for COVID-19 to date. However, the use of a combination of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) is necessary for jurisdictions to contain its spread. Although the implementation cost of NPIs may be low from the healthcare system perspective, it can be costly when considering the indirect costs from the societal perspective. COVID-19 vaccination campaigns have begun in several countries worldwide. Nonetheless, the quantity of vaccines available remain limited over the next 1 to 2 years. A tool for informing vaccine prioritisation that considers both cost and effectiveness will be highly useful. This study aims to identify the most cost-effective combination of COVID-19 response policies, using Singapore as an example.Methods and analysisAn age-stratified Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered model will be used to generate the number of infections stratified by disease severity under different intervention scenarios. Polices of interest include test-trace-isolate, travel restriction, compulsory face mask and hygiene practices, social distancing, dexamethasone/remdesivir therapy and vaccination. The latest phase 3 trial results and the WHO Target Product Profiles for COVID-19 vaccines will be used to model vaccine characteristics. A cost (expected resource utilisation and productivity losses) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) will be attached to these outputs for a cost-utility analysis. The primary outcome measure will be the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio generated from the incremental cost of policy alternatives expressed as a ratio of the incremental benefits (QALYs gained). Efficacy of policy options will be gathered from literature review and from its observed impacts in Singapore. Cost data will be gathered from healthcare institutions, Ministry of Health and published data. Sensitivity analysis such as threshold analysis and scenario analysis will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was not required for this study. The study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals.

Recalibrating the notion of modelling for policymaking during pandemics.

COVID-19 disease models have aided policymakers in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) with many critical decisions. Many challenges remain surrounding their use, from inappropriate model selection and adoption, inadequate and untimely reporting of evidence, to the lack of iterative stakeholder engagement in policy formulation and deliberation. These issues can contribute to the misuse of models and hinder effective policy implementation. Without guidance on how to address such challenges, the true potential of such models may not be realised. The COVID-19 Multi-Model Comparison Collaboration (CMCC) was formed to address this gap. CMCC is a global collaboration between decision-makers from LMICs, modellers and researchers, and development partners. To understand the limitations of existing COVID-19 disease models (primarily from high income countries) and how they could be adequately support decision-making in LMICs, a desk review of modelling experience during the COVID-19 and past disease outbreaks, two online surveys, and regular online consultations were held among the collaborators. Three key recommendations from CMCC include: A 'fitness-for-purpose' flowchart, a tool that concurrently walks policymakers (or their advisors) and modellers through a model selection and development process. The flowchart is organised around the following: policy aims, modelling feasibility, model implementation, model reporting commitment. Holmdahl and Buckee (2020) A 'reporting standards trajectory', which includes three gradually increasing standard of reports, 'minimum', 'acceptable', and 'ideal', and seeks collaboration from funders, modellers, and decision-makers to enhance the quality of reports over time and accountability of researchers. Malla et al. (2018) A framework for "collaborative modelling for effective policy implementation and evaluation" which extends the definition of stakeholders to funders, ground-level implementers, public, and other researchers, and outlines how each can contribute to modelling. We advocate for standardisation of modelling processes and adoption of country-owned model through iterative stakeholder participation and discuss how they can enhance trust, accountability, and public ownership to decisions.

Multi-country collaboration in responding to global infectious disease threats: lessons for Europe from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Since 2005, the world has faced several public health emergencies of international concern arising from infectious disease outbreaks. Of these, the COVID-19 pandemic has had by far the greatest health and economic consequences. During these emergencies, responses taken by one country often have an impact on other countries. The implication is that coordination between countries is likely to achieve better outcomes, individually and collectively, than each country independently pursuing its own self-interest. During the COVID-19 pandemic, gaps in multilateral cooperation on research and information sharing, vaccine development and deployment, and travel policies have hampered the speed and equity of global recovery. In this Health Policy article, we explore how multilateral collaboration between countries is crucial to successful responses to public health emergencies linked to infectious disease outbreaks. Responding to future global infectious disease threats and other health emergencies will require the creation of stronger mechanisms for multilateral collaboration before they arise. A change to the governance of multilateral institutions is a logical next step, with a focus on providing equal ownership and leadership opportunities to all member countries. Europe can be an example and advocate for stronger and better governed multilateral institutions.

A protocol for a systematic literature review of economic evaluation studies of interventions to address antimicrobial resistance.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is accelerated by the widespread and often indiscriminate use of antimicrobials in humans, animals, and the environment. In 2015, the World Health Organization recognised AMR as one of the top ten global health threats, due to its potential to neutralise humanity's advancements in western medicine by enabling the emergence of new strains of existing pathogens, many of which have no available treatments. Over the past decade, several countries, including those in low- and middle-income contexts, have started implementing interventions to tackle AMR. However, economic evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of these interventions remains weak. To address this evidence gap, we will conduct a systematic literature review to provide a comprehensive summary on the value for money of different AMR interventions. METHODS: We aim to conduct a systematic literature review of all available economic evaluations on interventions addressing AMR and will provide a narrative synthesis of our findings. Systematic searches for relevant studies will be performed across all suitable databases as well as in grey literature sources such as unpublished studies, reports, and other relevant documents. All economic evaluation studies will be included as long as they report an economic outcome and have stated that the analysed intervention will reduce antimicrobial resistance or antimicrobial use in the abstract. Those studies reporting clinical endpoints alone will be excluded. Selection for final inclusion and data extraction will be performed by two independent reviewers. DISCUSSION: The review will be one of the first of its kind, and the most recent, to systematically review literature on the cost-effectiveness of AMR interventions, an important evidence gap in the economics of AMR. The findings will enable policy and decision-makers, particularly in resource-constrained settings, to better use available resources when selecting interventions to address AMR burdens, SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020190310.

Avoiding Trouble Ahead: Lessons Learned and Suggestions for Economic Evaluations of COVID-19 Vaccines.

With vaccines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) being introduced in countries across the world, policy makers are facing many practical considerations about how best to implement a vaccination programme. The supply of vaccines is insufficient for the global population, so decisions must be made as to which groups are prioritised for any vaccination and when. Furthermore, the aims of vaccination programmes will differ between countries, with some prioritising economic benefits that could stem from the relaxation of non-pharmaceutical interventions and others seeking simply to reduce the number of COVID-19 cases or deaths. This paper aims to share the experiences and lessons learned from conducting economic evaluations in Singapore and Thailand on hypothetical COVID-19 vaccines to provide a basis for other countries to develop their own contextualised economic evaluations, with particular focus on the key uncertainties, technical challenges, and characteristics that modellers should consider in partnership with key stakeholders. Which vaccines, vaccination strategies, and policy responses are most economically beneficial remains uncertain. It is therefore important for all governments to conduct their own analyses to inform local policy responses to COVID-19, including the implementation of COVID-19 vaccines in both the short and the long run. It is essential that such studies are designed, and ideally conducted, before vaccines are introduced so that policy decisions and implementation procedures are not delayed.