Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
Add filters

Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
medrxiv; 2023.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2023.01.11.23284137

ABSTRACT

In face of evidence of rapid waning of vaccine effectiveness against Omicron and its sub-lineages, a second booster with mRNA vaccines was recommended for the most vulnerable in France. We used a test negative design to estimate the effectiveness of the second booster relative to the first booster and the protection conferred by a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, against symptomatic Omicron BA.2 or BA.4/5. We included symptomatic ≥60 years old individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2 in March 21-October 30, 2022. Compared to a 181-210 days old first booster, a second booster restored protection with an effectiveness of 39% [95%CI: 38% - 41%], 7-30 days post-vaccination This gain in protection was lower than the one observed with the first booster, at equal time points since vaccination. High levels of protection were associated to previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, especially if the infection was recent and occurred when an antigenic-related variant was dominant.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
2.
medrxiv; 2022.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2022.11.09.22282113

ABSTRACT

Since the emergence of Omicron, reinfections with SARS-CoV-2 have been rising. We estimated the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection in the widely vaccinated French population, from January to August 2022. At nine weeks post-infection, the relative risk of reinfection, primary infection with pre-Delta variants being the reference group, was estimated at 0.43 [95%CI 0.40-0.47] if the primary infection was attributed to Delta, 0.21% [95%CI 0.19-0.24] with BA.1 and 0.17% [95% CI 0.15-0.18] with BA.2, and rapidly waned overtime. After a BA.1 primary infection the protection was similar against BA.2 or BA.4/5 reinfection.


Subject(s)
Infections
3.
researchsquare; 2020.
Preprint in English | PREPRINT-RESEARCHSQUARE | ID: ppzbmed-10.21203.rs.3.rs-113834.v1

ABSTRACT

Background: Amidst shortages of critical care capacity in the public sector during the COVID-19 pandemic, the South African government embarked on an initiative to purchase critical bed capacity from the private sector. To inform the decision, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of ICU management for admitted COVID-19 patients across the public and private health systems in South Africa . MethodsUsing a Markov modelling framework and health system perspective, costs and health outcomes of inpatient management of severe and critical COVID-19 patients in (1) general ward and intensive care (GW+ICU) and (2) general ward only were assessed. Disability adjusted life years (DALYs) were evaluated and the cost per admission in public and private sectors was determined. The models made use of four variables: mortality rates, utilisation of inpatient days for each management approach, disability weights associated to the severity of the disease, and the unit cost per general ward day and per ICU day in public and private hospitals. Unit costs were multiplied by utilisation estimates to determine the cost per admission. DALYs were calculated as the sum of years of life lost (YLL) and years lived with disability (YLD). An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) - representing the difference in costs and health outcomes of the two management strategies - was compared to a cost-effectiveness threshold to determine the value for money of ICU management.ResultsA cost per admission of ZAR 75,127 was estimated for inpatient management of severe and critical COVID-19 patients in general wards only as opposed to ZAR 103,030 in GW+ICU. DALYs were 1.48 and 1.10 in the general ward only and GW+ICU, respectively. The ratio of difference in costs and health outcomes between the two management strategies produced an ICER equal to ZAR 73,091 per DALY averted, a value above the cost-effectiveness threshold of ZAR 38,465.ConclusionsResults indicated that purchasing ICU capacity from the private sector may not be a cost-effective investment. The ‘real time’, rapid, pragmatic, and transparent nature of this analysis demonstrates an approach for evidence generation for decision making relating to the COVID-19 pandemic response and South Africa’s wider priority setting agenda.


Subject(s)
COVID-19
4.
medrxiv; 2020.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2020.10.30.20222802

ABSTRACT

BackgroundAmidst the shortages of critical care resources in the public sector resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the South African Government embarked on an initiative to purchase critical bed capacity from the private sector. Within an already under-funded public health sector, it is imperative that the costs and effects of potential interventions to care are assessed and weighed against the opportunity costs of their required investment. ObjectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of ICU management for admitted COVID-19 patients across the public and private health sector in South Africa. MethodsUsing a Markov modelling framework and a health system perspective, the costs and health outcomes of inpatient management of severe and critical COVID-19 patients in (1) general ward and intensive care (GW+ICU) and (2) general ward only were assessed. Disability adjusted life years (DALYs) were evaluated as health outcomes, and the cost per admission from public and private sectors was determined. The models made use of four variables: mortality rates, utilisation of inpatient days for each management approach, disability weights associated to the severity of the disease, and the unit cost per general ward day and per ICU day in public and private hospitals. The unit costs were multiplied by utilisation estimates to determine the cost per admission. DALYs were calculated as the sum of years of life lost (YLL) and years lived with disability (YLD). An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) representing the difference in costs and health outcomes of the two management strategies - was calculated and compared to a cost-effectiveness threshold to determine the value for money of ICU management. ResultsA cost per admission of ZAR 75,127 was estimated for inpatient management of severe and critical COVID-19 patients in general wards only as opposed to ZAR 103,030 in GW+ICU. DALYs were 1.48 and 1.10 in the general ward only and GW+ICU, respectively. The ratio of difference in costs and health outcomes between the two management strategies produced an ICER equal to ZAR 73 091 per DALY averted, a value above the cost-effectiveness threshold of ZAR 38 465. ConclusionsThis study indicated that purchasing additional ICU capacity from the private sector may not be a cost-effective use of limited health resources. The real time, rapid, pragmatic, and transparent nature of this analysis demonstrates a potential approach for further evidence generation for decision making relating to the COVID-19 pandemic response and South Africas wider priority setting agenda.


Subject(s)
COVID-19
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL