Age priority in continuous coronavirus disease 2019 booster doses under China's new policy of free-will nucleic acid test: A dynamic model-based effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis

D. Zhou, T. Shao, Hanqiao Shao, Y. Tu, Mingye Zhao, Kejia Zhou, Kevin Wang, Xiangyan Tang, Zeyao Liu, Yilan Xing, D. Malone, Wenxi Tang
{"title":"Age priority in continuous coronavirus disease 2019 booster doses under China's new policy of free-will nucleic acid test: A dynamic model-based effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis","authors":"D. Zhou, T. Shao, Hanqiao Shao, Y. Tu, Mingye Zhao, Kejia Zhou, Kevin Wang, Xiangyan Tang, Zeyao Liu, Yilan Xing, D. Malone, Wenxi Tang","doi":"10.54844/hd.2022.0294","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The initial mass vaccination's effectiveness has diminished, necessitating accelerated immunization coverage scaling. China has shifted nucleic acid testing from large-scale to voluntary. This study assesses the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different booster vaccination strategies in China. Methods: A dynamic transmission model divided the population into three groups: 0-19, 20-59, and 60+ years. We evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three vaccination strategies based on previous studies and public databases. Three scenarios were modeled and compared to no-continuation-vaccination to calculate averted diseases, deaths, and net benefits. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis assessed findings' stability. Results: COVID-19 vaccination had significant health benefits compared to no continuing vaccination. Strategy II (prioritizing vaccinated 20-59-year-olds, then vaccinated 60+ individuals, and finally 0-19-year-olds) was the most cost-effective. Strategy I (prioritizing unvaccinated 60+ individuals, then 20-59, and finally 0-19) prevented the most deaths. Strategy II was the most cost-effective, with a total cost of 93,995,223,462 USD and the highest net benefit of 3,054,475,908,551,960 USD. Strategy II resulted in the highest number of avoided cases across categories, including infected, asymptomatic, mild/moderate, severe, and critical cases. Each strategy's effects on preventing new cases and critical illness were comparable. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the results' reliability. Conclusion: Prioritizing vaccinated 20-59-year-olds, then vaccinated 60+ individuals, and finally 0-19-year-olds was the most effective prevention strategy. The vaccination strategy should be tailored to the pandemic situation and available medical resources for maximum health gains.","PeriodicalId":430023,"journal":{"name":"Health Decision","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Decision","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54844/hd.2022.0294","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The initial mass vaccination's effectiveness has diminished, necessitating accelerated immunization coverage scaling. China has shifted nucleic acid testing from large-scale to voluntary. This study assesses the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different booster vaccination strategies in China. Methods: A dynamic transmission model divided the population into three groups: 0-19, 20-59, and 60+ years. We evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three vaccination strategies based on previous studies and public databases. Three scenarios were modeled and compared to no-continuation-vaccination to calculate averted diseases, deaths, and net benefits. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis assessed findings' stability. Results: COVID-19 vaccination had significant health benefits compared to no continuing vaccination. Strategy II (prioritizing vaccinated 20-59-year-olds, then vaccinated 60+ individuals, and finally 0-19-year-olds) was the most cost-effective. Strategy I (prioritizing unvaccinated 60+ individuals, then 20-59, and finally 0-19) prevented the most deaths. Strategy II was the most cost-effective, with a total cost of 93,995,223,462 USD and the highest net benefit of 3,054,475,908,551,960 USD. Strategy II resulted in the highest number of avoided cases across categories, including infected, asymptomatic, mild/moderate, severe, and critical cases. Each strategy's effects on preventing new cases and critical illness were comparable. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the results' reliability. Conclusion: Prioritizing vaccinated 20-59-year-olds, then vaccinated 60+ individuals, and finally 0-19-year-olds was the most effective prevention strategy. The vaccination strategy should be tailored to the pandemic situation and available medical resources for maximum health gains.
新冠病毒核酸检测政策下冠状病毒持续强化剂量的年龄优先性:基于动态模型的有效性和成本效益分析
背景:最初大规模疫苗接种的效果已经减弱,需要加快免疫覆盖规模。中国已将核酸检测从大规模转向自愿。本研究评估了中国不同强化疫苗接种策略的有效性和成本效益。方法:采用动态传播模型将种群分为0 ~ 19岁、20 ~ 59岁和60岁以上3组。我们根据以往的研究和公共数据库评估了三种疫苗接种策略的有效性和成本效益。模拟了三种情况,并与不继续接种疫苗进行了比较,以计算避免的疾病、死亡和净收益。单因素敏感性分析和概率敏感性分析评估结果的稳定性。结果:与不继续接种相比,COVID-19疫苗接种具有显着的健康益处。策略二(优先接种20-59岁人群,然后接种60岁以上人群,最后接种0-19岁人群)是最具成本效益的。策略一(优先考虑未接种疫苗的60人以上,然后是20-59人,最后是0-19人)预防了大多数死亡。战略二是最具成本效益的,总成本为93,995,223,462美元,净收益最高,为3,054,475,908,551,960美元。战略二的结果是所有类别中避免病例数量最多,包括感染、无症状、轻度/中度、严重和危重病例。每种策略在预防新病例和危重疾病方面的效果具有可比性。敏感性分析证实了结果的可靠性。结论:20 ~ 59岁人群优先接种,60岁以上人群优先接种,0 ~ 19岁人群预防效果最好。疫苗接种战略应根据大流行情况和现有医疗资源进行调整,以最大限度地提高卫生效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信