Public's perspective on COVID-19 adenovirus vector vaccines after thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) reports and associated regulatory actions - A cross-sectional study in six EU member states.

OBJECTIVE: In 2021, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) was confirmed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) as a rare side effect of the COVID-19 adenovirus vector vaccines Vaxzevria® and Jcovden®. This study aimed to describe the public's knowledge of TTS and how it affected the willingness to be vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines and other vaccines in six European countries. METHODS: From June to October of 2022, a multi-country cross-sectional online survey was conducted in Denmark, Greece, Latvia, Netherlands, Portugal, and Slovenia. The minimum target of participants to be recruited was based on the size of the country's population. The results were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: In total, 3794 respondents were included in the analysis; across the six countries, 33.3 %-68.3 % reported being familiar with signs and symptoms of TTS, although 3.1-61.4 % of those were able to identify the symptoms correctly. The reported changes in willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and with other vaccines varied per country. The largest reported change in the willingness to be vaccinated with Vaxzevria® and Jcovden® was observed in Denmark (61.2 %), while the willingness to be vaccinated with other COVID-19 vaccines changed most in Slovenia (30.4 %). The smallest decrease in willingness towards future vaccination against COVID-19 was reported in the Netherlands (20.9 %) contrasting with the largest decrease observed in Latvia (69.1 %). CONCLUSION: Knowledge about TTS seemed to have influenced the public's opinion in Europe resulting in less willingness to be vaccinated with Vaxzevria® and Jcovden®. Willingness for vaccination against COVID-19 with other vaccines and widespread use of vaccines to prevent other diseases also differed and seemed to be determined by the approaches taken by national health authorities when reacting to and communicating about COVID-19 vaccination risks. Further investigation of optimal risk communication strategies is warranted.

Should Commercial Diagnostic Testing Be Stimulated or Discouraged? Analyzing Willingness-to-Pay and Market Externalities of Three Commercial Diagnostic Tests in The Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: Consumers may purchase commercial diagnostic tests (CDT) without prior doctor consultation. This paper analyzes three CDT markets-commercial cholesterol tests (CCT), direct-to-consumer genetic health tests (DGT) and total body scans (TBS)-in the context of the universal, collectively financed health care system of the Netherlands. METHODS: An online willingness-to-pay (WTP) questionnaire was sent to a representative sample of 1500 Dutch consumers. Using contingent valuation (CV) methodology, an array of bids for three self-tests were presented to the respondents. The results were extrapolated to the Dutch population and compared to current prices and follow-up medical utilization, allowing analysis from a societal perspective. RESULTS: Overall, 880 of 1500 respondents completed the questionnaire (response rate 59%). Of the respondents, 26-44% were willing to pay a positive amount for the CDT. Willingness-to-pay was correlated to age and household income, but not to health status or prior experience with these tests. At mean current prices of €29 for CCT, €229 for DGT and €1,650 for TBS, 3.3%, 2.5%, and 1.1%, were willing to purchase a CCT, DGT, and TBS, respectively. All three CDT resulted in net costs to the health system, estimated at €5, €16, and €44 per test, respectively. Reducing volumes by 90,000 CCTs (19%), 19,000 DGTs (5%) and 4,000 TBSs (2.5%) in 2019 would optimize welfare. CONCLUSION: Most respondents were unwilling to consume CDT at any price or only if the CDT were provided for free. However, for a small group of consumers, societal costs exceed private benefits. Therefore, CDT regulation could provide small welfare gains.

Physical and mental health outcomes of COVID-19 induced delay in oncological care: A systematic review.

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic cancer patients might have experienced delays in screening, diagnosis and/or treatment. A systematic review was conducted to give an overview of the effects of COVID-19 induced delays in oncological care on the physical and mental health outcomes of cancer patients. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for articles on the effects of COVID-19 induced delays on physical and mental health outcomes. Results: Out of 1333 papers, eighteen observational, and twelve modelling studies were included. In approximately half of the studies, tumor stage distribution differed during the pandemic compared to before the pandemic. Modelling studies predicted that the estimated increase in the number of deaths ranged from -0.04 to 30%, and the estimated reduction in survival ranged from 0.4 to 35%. Varying results on the impact on mental health, e.g. anxiety and depression, were seen. Conclusions: Due to large methodological discrepancies between the studies and the varying results, the effect of COVID-19 induced delays on the physical and mental health outcomes of cancer patients remains uncertain. While modelling studies estimated an increase in mortality, observational studies suggest that mortality might not increase to a large extent. More longitudinal observational data from the pandemic period is needed for more conclusive results.

Estimating the health impact of delayed elective care during the COVID -19 pandemic in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic had a major impact on the continuity of healthcare provision. Appointments, treatments and surgeries for non-COVID patients were often delayed, with associated health losses for patients involved. OBJECTIVE: To develop a method to quantify the health impact of delayed elective care for non-COVID patients. METHODS: A model was developed that estimated the backlog of surgical procedures in 2020 and 2021 using hospital registry data. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were obtained from the literature to estimate the non-generated QALYs related to the backlog. In sensitivity analyses QALY values were varied by type of patient prioritization. Scenario analyses for future increased surgical capacity were performed. RESULTS: In 2020 and 2021 an estimated total of 305,374 elective surgeries were delayed. These delays corresponded with 319,483 non-generated QALYs. In sensitivity analyses where QALYs varied by type of patient prioritization, non-generated QALYs amounted to 150,973 and 488,195 QALYs respectively. In scenario analyses for future increased surgical capacity in 2022-2026, the non-generated QALYs decreased to 311,220 (2% future capacity increase per year) and 300,710 (5% future capacity increase per year). Large differences exist in the extent to which different treatments contributed to the total health losses. CONCLUSIONS: The method sheds light on the indirect harm related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The results can be used for policy evaluations of COVID-19 responses, in preparations for future waves or other pandemics and in prioritizing the allocation of resources for capacity increases.

Efficacy, cost-minimization, and budget impact of a personalized discharge letter for basal cell carcinoma patients to reduce low-value follow-up care.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of keratinocyte carcinomas is high and rapidly growing. Approximately 80% of keratinocyte carcinomas consist of basal cell carcinomas (BCC) with 50% of these being considered as low-risk tumors. Nevertheless, 83% of the low-risk BCC patients were found to receive more follow-up care than recommended according to the Dutch BCC guideline, which is one visit post-treatment for this group. More efficient management could reduce unnecessary follow-up care and related costs. OBJECTIVES: To study the efficacy, cost-utility, and budget impact of a personalized discharge letter for low-risk BCC patients compared with usual care (no personalized letter). METHODS: In a multi-center intervention study, a personalized discharge letter in addition to usual care was compared to usual care in first-time BCC patients. Model-based cost-utility and budget impact analyses were conducted, using individual patient data gathered via surveys. The outcome measures were number of follow-up visits, costs and quality adjusted life years (QALY) per patient. RESULTS: A total of 473 first-time BCC patients were recruited. The personalized discharge letter decreased the number of follow-up visits by 14.8% in the first year. The incremental costs after five years were -€24.45 per patient. The QALYs were 4.12 after five years and very similar in both groups. The national budget impact was -€2,7 million after five years. CONCLUSIONS: The distribution of a personalized discharge letter decreases the number of unnecessary follow-up visits and implementing the intervention in a large eligible population would results in substantial cost savings, contributing to restraining the growing BCC costs.