Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Add filters

Year range
BMJ Global Health ; 7:A35, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1968281


Objective The health systems costs of COVID-19 are high in many countries, including Pakistan. Without increases in fiscal space, COVID-19 interventions are likely to displace other activities within the health system. We reflect on the inclusion of COVID-19 interventions in Pakistan's Essential Package of Health Services (EPHS) and, from a financial optimisation perspective, propose which interventions should be displaced to ensure the highest possible overall health utility within budgetary constraints. Methods We estimated the costs of all 88 interventions currently included in the EPHS and collected published data on their cost-effectiveness. We also estimated total costs and costeffectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in Pakistan. We ranked all EPHS interventions and COVID-19 vaccination by costeffectiveness, determining which interventions are comparatively least cost-effective and, in the absence of additional funding, no longer affordable. Results The EPHS assumes a spending per capita of US $12.96, averting 40.36 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). From a financial optimisation perspective, and assuming no additional funds, the introduction of a COVID-19 vaccine (US$3 per dose) should displace 8 interventions out of the EPHS, making the EPHS more cost-effective by averting 40.62 million DALYs. A US$6 dose should displace a further intervention and avert 40.56 million DALYs. A US$10 dose would partially fall out of the package, displacing four additional interventions. If health spending per capita decreased to US$8, a US$3 dose would still be affordable, but not US$6 or US$10 doses. Discussion Cost-effectiveness is only one criterion considered when deciding which interventions are included in (or removed from) a health benefits package. While displacing certain interventions to create fiscal space for the COVID-19 vaccine may lead to a financially optimal scenario, doing so may be politically unfeasible or socially undesirable. We highlight the difficult trade-offs that health systems face in the era of COVID-19.

Embase; 2021.
Preprint in English | EMBASE | ID: ppcovidwho-335847


Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remain of high potential for hotspots for COVID-19 deaths and emerging variants given the inequality of vaccine distribution and their vulnerable healthcare systems. We aim to evaluate containment strategies that are sustainable and effective for LMICs. We constructed synthetic populations with varying contact and household structures to capture LMIC demographic characteristics that vary across communities. Using an agent-based model, we explored the optimal containment strategies for rural and urban communities by designing and simulating setting-specific strategies that deploy rapid diagnostic tests, symptom screening, contact tracing and physical distancing. In low-density rural communities, we found implementing either high quality (sensitivity > 50%) antigen rapid diagnostic tests or moderate physical distancing could contain the transmission. In urban communities, we demonstrated that both physical distancing and case finding are essential for containing COVID-19 (average infection rate < 10%). In high density communities that resemble slums and squatter settlements, physical distancing is less effective compared to rural and urban communities. Lastly, we demonstrated contact tracing is essential for effective containment. Our findings suggested that rapid diagnostic tests could be prioritised for control and monitor COVID-19 transmission and highlighted that contact survey data could guide strategy design to save resources for LMICs. An accompanying open source R package is available for simulating COVID-19 transmission based on contact network models.