The cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination program among age-groups children, adults, and elderly in Europe: A systematic review

IF 2.7 Q3 IMMUNOLOGY
T. Untung, R. Pandey, P. Johansson
{"title":"The cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination program among age-groups children, adults, and elderly in Europe: A systematic review","authors":"T. Untung,&nbsp;R. Pandey,&nbsp;P. Johansson","doi":"10.1016/j.jvacx.2024.100580","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To prepare for future epidemics, the experiences from the vaccination programs in the COVID-19 pandemic need to be collated. This systematic review synthesizes health economic evidence of COVID-19 vaccination programs in European countries comparing the target groups children, adults, and elderly, to study whether the Swedish vaccination strategy was justified on cost-effectiveness grounds.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>A literature search using the PICOS (Population, Intervention, Control, Outcomes, Study design) convention was conducted in the databases Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Tuft CEA Registry, Cochrane and INAHTA in February 2023. The inclusion criteria were economic evaluations (S) comparing COVID-19 vaccination (I) in age-groups children, adult, and elderly European residents (P) with non-vaccinated European residents (C) in terms of cost per QALY, cost differences, and net monetary benefit (O). Hand-search was done on selected websites and in reference lists of included reports. Title/abstract screening, full-text screening, and quality assessment with the Swedish HTA agency checklist were performed by two researchers. The reporting follows the PRISMA 2020 recommendations.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The database search resulted in 5,720 reports, title/abstract screening yielded 162 reports and after full-text screening, four reports remained. Two studies comparing vaccination of adults and elderly with high and moderate study quality were included. No study was found on the children population. The economic evidence indicated that COVID-19 vaccination of the elderly is cost-effective when compared with vaccination of the adult group, but the transferability to Swedish circumstances was inconclusive due to differences in outcome and cost data between Sweden and the included studies’ settings.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The common European COVID-19 vaccination policy that prioritized the elderly population was the cost-effective option in the reviewed studies. The lack of transferability to Sweden precludes a clear conclusion on the Swedish vaccination policy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":43021,"journal":{"name":"Vaccine: X","volume":"21 ","pages":"Article 100580"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vaccine: X","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590136224001530","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

To prepare for future epidemics, the experiences from the vaccination programs in the COVID-19 pandemic need to be collated. This systematic review synthesizes health economic evidence of COVID-19 vaccination programs in European countries comparing the target groups children, adults, and elderly, to study whether the Swedish vaccination strategy was justified on cost-effectiveness grounds.

Method

A literature search using the PICOS (Population, Intervention, Control, Outcomes, Study design) convention was conducted in the databases Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Tuft CEA Registry, Cochrane and INAHTA in February 2023. The inclusion criteria were economic evaluations (S) comparing COVID-19 vaccination (I) in age-groups children, adult, and elderly European residents (P) with non-vaccinated European residents (C) in terms of cost per QALY, cost differences, and net monetary benefit (O). Hand-search was done on selected websites and in reference lists of included reports. Title/abstract screening, full-text screening, and quality assessment with the Swedish HTA agency checklist were performed by two researchers. The reporting follows the PRISMA 2020 recommendations.

Results

The database search resulted in 5,720 reports, title/abstract screening yielded 162 reports and after full-text screening, four reports remained. Two studies comparing vaccination of adults and elderly with high and moderate study quality were included. No study was found on the children population. The economic evidence indicated that COVID-19 vaccination of the elderly is cost-effective when compared with vaccination of the adult group, but the transferability to Swedish circumstances was inconclusive due to differences in outcome and cost data between Sweden and the included studies’ settings.

Conclusion

The common European COVID-19 vaccination policy that prioritized the elderly population was the cost-effective option in the reviewed studies. The lack of transferability to Sweden precludes a clear conclusion on the Swedish vaccination policy.
欧洲各年龄组儿童、成人和老年人接种 COVID-19 疫苗计划的成本效益:系统回顾
目标为了应对未来的流行病,需要整理 COVID-19 大流行中疫苗接种计划的经验。本系统性综述综合了欧洲国家 COVID-19 疫苗接种计划的卫生经济学证据,对目标群体儿童、成人和老年人进行了比较,以研究瑞典的疫苗接种策略在成本效益方面是否合理。方法于 2023 年 2 月在 Medline、Embase、PsycInfo、CINAHL 和 Tuft CEA Registry、Cochrane 和 INAHTA 等数据库中使用 PICOS(人口、干预、控制、结果、研究设计)惯例进行了文献检索。纳入标准为经济评价 (S),从每 QALY 成本、成本差异和净货币效益 (O) 的角度,比较欧洲儿童、成人和老年居民 (P) 与未接种 COVID-19 疫苗的欧洲居民 (C)。在选定的网站和纳入报告的参考文献列表中进行人工搜索。标题/摘要筛选、全文筛选以及瑞典 HTA 机构核对表质量评估由两名研究人员完成。结果数据库检索到 5,720 篇报告,标题/摘要筛选出 162 篇报告,全文筛选后剩下 4 篇报告。其中包括两项比较成人和老年人疫苗接种情况的研究,研究质量分别为高和中等。没有发现关于儿童人群的研究。经济学证据表明,与成人组疫苗接种相比,老年人接种 COVID-19 疫苗具有成本效益,但由于瑞典与所纳入研究的环境在结果和成本数据方面存在差异,因此无法将其移植到瑞典的情况中。由于缺乏与瑞典的可比性,因此无法就瑞典的疫苗接种政策得出明确结论。
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
Vaccine: X
Vaccine: X Multiple-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
2.60%
发文量
102
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
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