Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
Eur J Health Econ ; 2022 Aug 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1990666

ABSTRACT

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.

2.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-315903

ABSTRACT

Thailand is facing the dilemma of which groups to prioritise for the limited first tranche of vaccinations in 2021. A mathematical modelling analysis was performed to compare the potential short-term impact of allocating the available doses to either the high-risk group (over 65-year-olds) or the high incidence group (aged 20-39). Vaccinating the high incidence group with a vaccine with sufficiently high protection against infection (more than 50%) could provide enough herd effects to delay the expected epidemic peak, resulting in fewer deaths within the 12-month time horizon compared to vaccinating the same number of the high-risk group. After 12 months, if no further vaccination or other interventions were deployed, this strategy would lead to more deaths. With the right vaccine efficacy profile, targeting the high incidence groups could be a viable short-term component of the Thai vaccination strategy. These results and emerging evidence on vaccines and susceptibility suggest prioritisation guidelines should be more nuanced.

3.
Infect Dis Ther ; 11(1): 231-248, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1682185

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Many immunomodulators have been studied in clinical trials for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, data identifying the most effective and safest treatment are lacking. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to rank immunomodulators in the treatment of COVID-19 according to their efficacy and safety. METHODS: Published and peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of immunomodulators in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were searched up to June 30, 2021. Direct and network meta-analyses were applied to assess the outcomes. The probability of efficacy and safety was estimated, and the drugs were awarded a numerical ranking. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were eligible. Compared with standard of care, dexamethasone and tocilizumab had significantly lower mortality rates with pooled risk ratios (RRs) of 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-0.99) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.82-0.96), respectively. Meanwhile, the most effective corticosteroid, interleukin-6 antagonist, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor were hydrocortisone, sarilumab, and ruxolitinib, respectively. However, when superimposed infection was considered, ruxolitinib was the best treatment followed by baricitinib. Moreover, methylprednisolone had the worst combined efficacy and safety among the examined treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, immunomodulators were more effective than standard of care. Important differences exist among immunomodulators regarding both efficacy and safety in favor of ruxolitinib and baricitinib. Further well-conducted randomized controlled trials should focus on JAK inhibitors. Methylprednisolone use should be discouraged because of its poor efficacy and high risk of superimposed infection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration identifier CRD 42021257421.

6.
Appl Health Econ Health Policy ; 19(4): 463-472, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1300549

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/economics , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Policy/economics , Immunization Programs/economics , Immunization Programs/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination/economics , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Singapore , Thailand
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL