COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and social contact patterns in Pakistan: results from a national cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is a key tool against COVID-19. However, in many settings it is not clear how acceptable COVID-19 vaccination is among the general population, or how hesitancy correlates with risk of disease acquisition. In this study we conducted a nationally representative survey in Pakistan to measure vaccination perceptions and social contacts in the context of COVID-19 control measures and vaccination programmes. METHODS: We conducted a vaccine perception and social contact survey with 3,658 respondents across five provinces in Pakistan, between 31 May and 29 June 2021. Respondents were asked a series of vaccine perceptions questions, to report all direct physical and non-physical contacts made the previous day, and a number of other questions regarding the social and economic impact of COVID-19 and control measures. We examined variation in perceptions and contact patterns by geographic and demographic factors. We describe knowledge, experiences and perceived risks of COVID-19. We explored variation in contact patterns by individual characteristics and vaccine hesitancy, and compared to patterns from non-pandemic periods. RESULTS: Self-reported adherence to self-isolation guidelines was poor, and 51% of respondents did not know where to access a COVID-19 test. Although 48.1% of participants agreed that they would get a vaccine if offered, vaccine hesitancy was higher than in previous surveys, and greatest in Sindh and Baluchistan provinces and among respondents of lower socioeconomic status. Participants reported a median of 5 contacts the previous day (IQR: 3-5, mean 14.0, 95%CI: 13.2, 14.9). There were no substantial differences in the number of contacts reported by individual characteristics, but contacts varied substantially among respondents reporting more or less vaccine hesitancy. Contacts were highly assortative, particularly outside the household where 97% of men's contacts were with other men. We estimate that social contacts were 9% lower than before the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Although the perceived risk of COVID-19 in Pakistan is low in the general population, around half of participants in this survey indicated they would get vaccinated if offered. Vaccine impact studies which do not account for correlation between social contacts and vaccine hesitancy may incorrectly estimate the impact of vaccines, for example, if unvaccinated people have more contacts.

What, how and who: Cost-effectiveness analyses of COVID-19 vaccination to inform key policies in Nigeria.

While safe and efficacious COVID-19 vaccines have achieved high coverage in high-income settings, roll-out remains slow in sub-Saharan Africa. By April 2022, Nigeria, a country of over 200 million people, had only distributed 34 million doses. To ensure the optimal use of health resources, cost-effectiveness analyses can inform key policy questions in the health technology assessment process. We carried out several cost-effectiveness analyses exploring different COVID-19 vaccination scenarios in Nigeria. In consultation with Nigerian stakeholders, we addressed three key questions: what vaccines to buy, how to deliver them and what age groups to target. We combined an epidemiological model of virus transmission parameterised with Nigeria specific data with a costing model that incorporated local resource use assumptions and prices, both for vaccine delivery as well as costs associated with care and treatment of COVID-19. Scenarios of vaccination were compared with no vaccination. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated in terms of costs per disability-adjusted life years averted and compared to commonly used cost-effectiveness ratios. Viral vector vaccines are cost-effective (or cost saving), particularly when targeting older adults. Despite higher efficacy, vaccines employing mRNA technologies are less cost-effective due to high current dose prices. The method of delivery of vaccines makes little difference to the cost-effectiveness of the vaccine. COVID-19 vaccines can be highly effective and cost-effective (as well as cost-saving), although an important determinant of the latter is the price per dose and the age groups prioritised for vaccination. From a health system perspective, viral vector vaccines may represent most cost-effective choices for Nigeria, although this may change with price negotiation.

Assessing the impacts of COVID-19 vaccination programme's timing and speed on health benefits, cost-effectiveness, and relative affordability in 27 African countries.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 vaccine supply shortage in 2021 constrained roll-out efforts in Africa while populations experienced waves of epidemics. As supply improves, a key question is whether vaccination remains an impactful and cost-effective strategy given changes in the timing of implementation. METHODS: We assessed the impact of vaccination programme timing using an epidemiological and economic model. We fitted an age-specific dynamic transmission model to reported COVID-19 deaths in 27 African countries to approximate existing immunity resulting from infection before substantial vaccine roll-out. We then projected health outcomes (from symptomatic cases to overall disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted) for different programme start dates (01 January to 01 December 2021, n = 12) and roll-out rates (slow, medium, fast; 275, 826, and 2066 doses/million population-day, respectively) for viral vector and mRNA vaccines by the end of 2022. Roll-out rates used were derived from observed uptake trajectories in this region. Vaccination programmes were assumed to prioritise those above 60 years before other adults. We collected data on vaccine delivery costs, calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) compared to no vaccine use, and compared these ICERs to GDP per capita. We additionally calculated a relative affordability measure of vaccination programmes to assess potential nonmarginal budget impacts. RESULTS: Vaccination programmes with early start dates yielded the most health benefits and lowest ICERs compared to those with late starts. While producing the most health benefits, fast vaccine roll-out did not always result in the lowest ICERs. The highest marginal effectiveness within vaccination programmes was found among older adults. High country income groups, high proportions of populations over 60 years or non-susceptible at the start of vaccination programmes are associated with low ICERs relative to GDP per capita. Most vaccination programmes with small ICERs relative to GDP per capita were also relatively affordable. CONCLUSION: Although ICERs increased significantly as vaccination programmes were delayed, programmes starting late in 2021 may still generate low ICERs and manageable affordability measures. Looking forward, lower vaccine purchasing costs and vaccines with improved efficacies can help increase the economic value of COVID-19 vaccination programmes.

Correction: COVID-19 vaccination in Sindh Province, Pakistan: A modelling study of health impact and cost-effectiveness.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003815.].

Stark choices: exploring health sector costs of policy responses to COVID-19 in low-income and middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 has altered health sector capacity in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Cost data to inform evidence-based priority setting are urgently needed. Consequently, in this paper, we calculate the full economic health sector costs of COVID-19 clinical management in 79 LMICs under different epidemiological scenarios. METHODS: We used country-specific epidemiological projections from a dynamic transmission model to determine number of cases, hospitalisations and deaths over 1 year under four mitigation scenarios. We defined the health sector response for three base LMICs through guidelines and expert opinion. We calculated costs through local resource use and price data and extrapolated costs across 79 LMICs. Lastly, we compared cost estimates against gross domestic product (GDP) and total annual health expenditure in 76 LMICs. RESULTS: COVID-19 clinical management costs vary greatly by country, ranging between <0.1%-12% of GDP and 0.4%-223% of total annual health expenditure (excluding out-of-pocket payments). Without mitigation policies, COVID-19 clinical management costs per capita range from US$43.39 to US$75.57; in 22 of 76 LMICs, these costs would surpass total annual health expenditure. In a scenario of stringent social distancing, costs per capita fall to US$1.10-US$1.32. CONCLUSIONS: We present the first dataset of COVID-19 clinical management costs across LMICs. These costs can be used to inform decision-making on priority setting. Our results show that COVID-19 clinical management costs in LMICs are substantial, even in scenarios of moderate social distancing. Low-income countries are particularly vulnerable and some will struggle to cope with almost any epidemiological scenario. The choices facing LMICs are likely to remain stark and emergency financial support will be needed.

COVID-19 vaccination in Sindh Province, Pakistan: A modelling study of health impact and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Multiple Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines appear to be safe and efficacious, but only high-income countries have the resources to procure sufficient vaccine doses for most of their eligible populations. The World Health Organization has published guidelines for vaccine prioritisation, but most vaccine impact projections have focused on high-income countries, and few incorporate economic considerations. To address this evidence gap, we projected the health and economic impact of different vaccination scenarios in Sindh Province, Pakistan (population: 48 million). METHODS AND FINDINGS: We fitted a compartmental transmission model to COVID-19 cases and deaths in Sindh from 30 April to 15 September 2020. We then projected cases, deaths, and hospitalisation outcomes over 10 years under different vaccine scenarios. Finally, we combined these projections with a detailed economic model to estimate incremental costs (from healthcare and partial societal perspectives), disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for each scenario. We project that 1 year of vaccine distribution, at delivery rates consistent with COVAX projections, using an infection-blocking vaccine at $3/dose with 70% efficacy and 2.5-year duration of protection is likely to avert around 0.9 (95% credible interval (CrI): 0.9, 1.0) million cases, 10.1 (95% CrI: 10.1, 10.3) thousand deaths, and 70.1 (95% CrI: 69.9, 70.6) thousand DALYs, with an ICER of $27.9 per DALY averted from the health system perspective. Under a broad range of alternative scenarios, we find that initially prioritising the older (65+) population generally prevents more deaths. However, unprioritised distribution has almost the same cost-effectiveness when considering all outcomes, and both prioritised and unprioritised programmes can be cost-effective for low per-dose costs. High vaccine prices ($10/dose), however, may not be cost-effective, depending on the specifics of vaccine performance, distribution programme, and future pandemic trends. The principal drivers of the health outcomes are the fitted values for the overall transmission scaling parameter and disease natural history parameters from other studies, particularly age-specific probabilities of infection and symptomatic disease, as well as social contact rates. Other parameters are investigated in sensitivity analyses. This study is limited by model approximations, available data, and future uncertainty. Because the model is a single-population compartmental model, detailed impacts of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as household isolation cannot be practically represented or evaluated in combination with vaccine programmes. Similarly, the model cannot consider prioritising groups like healthcare or other essential workers. The model is only fitted to the reported case and death data, which are incomplete and not disaggregated by, e.g., age. Finally, because the future impact and implementation cost of NPIs are uncertain, how these would interact with vaccination remains an open question. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccination can have a considerable health impact and is likely to be cost-effective if more optimistic vaccine scenarios apply. Preventing severe disease is an important contributor to this impact. However, the advantage of prioritising older, high-risk populations is smaller in generally younger populations. This reduction is especially true in populations with more past transmission, and if the vaccine is likely to further impede transmission rather than just disease. Those conditions are typical of many low- and middle-income countries.

Exploring equity in health and poverty impacts of control measures for SARS-CoV-2 in six countries.

BACKGROUND: Policy makers need to be rapidly informed about the potential equity consequences of different COVID-19 strategies, alongside their broader health and economic impacts. While there are complex models to inform both potential health and macro-economic impact, there are few tools available to rapidly assess potential equity impacts of interventions. METHODS: We created an economic model to simulate the impact of lockdown measures in Pakistan, Georgia, Chile, UK, the Philippines and South Africa. We consider impact of lockdown in terms of ability to socially distance, and income loss during lockdown, and tested the impact of assumptions on social protection coverage in a scenario analysis. RESULTS: In all examined countries, socioeconomic status (SES) quintiles 1-3 were disproportionately more likely to experience income loss (70% of people) and inability to socially distance (68% of people) than higher SES quintiles. Improving social protection increased the percentage of the workforce able to socially distance from 48% (33%-60%) to 66% (44%-71%). We estimate the cost of this social protection would be equivalent to an average of 0.6% gross domestic product (0.1% Pakistan-1.1% Chile). CONCLUSIONS: We illustrate the potential for using publicly available data to rapidly assess the equity implications of social protection and non-pharmaceutical intervention policy. Social protection is likely to mitigate inequitable health and economic impacts of lockdown. Although social protection is usually targeted to the poorest, middle quintiles will likely also need support as they are most likely to suffer income losses and are disproportionately more exposed.