Cost-effectiveness of preventive COVID-19 interventions: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of comparative economic evaluation studies based on real-world data.

IF 4.5 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Xiaoyu Tang, Sun Sun, Mevludin Memedi, Ayako Hiyoshi, Scott Montgomery, Yang Cao
{"title":"Cost-effectiveness of preventive COVID-19 interventions: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of comparative economic evaluation studies based on real-world data.","authors":"Xiaoyu Tang, Sun Sun, Mevludin Memedi, Ayako Hiyoshi, Scott Montgomery, Yang Cao","doi":"10.7189/jogh.15.04017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness and utility of various preventive interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of various COVID-19 preventive interventions, including non-medical interventions (NMIs) and vaccination programs, using real-world data across different demographic and socioeconomic contexts worldwide.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection from December 2019 to March 2024. We identified 75 studies which compared 34 COVID-19 preventive interventions. We conducted a network meta-analysis to assess the incremental net benefits (INB) of these interventions from both societal and health care system perspectives. We adjusted purchasing power parity (PPP) and standardised willingness to pay (WTP) to enhance the comparability of cost-effectiveness across different economic levels. We performed sensitivity and subgroup analyses to examine the robustness of the results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Movement restrictions and expanding testing emerged as the most cost-effective strategies from a societal perspective, with WTP-standardised INB values of USD 21 050 and USD 11 144. In contrast, combinations of NMIs with vaccination were less cost-effective, particularly in high-income regions. From a health care system perspective, vaccination plus distancing and test, trace, and isolate strategy were highly cost-effective, while masking requirements were less economically viable. The effectiveness of interventions varied significantly across different economic contexts, underlining the necessity for region-specific strategies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this study, we highlight significant variations in the cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 preventive interventions. Tailoring strategies to specific regional economic and infrastructural conditions is crucial. Continuous evaluation and adaptation of these strategies are essential for effective management of ongoing and future public health threats.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>PROSPERO: CRD42023385169.</p>","PeriodicalId":48734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Health","volume":"15 ","pages":"04017"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11842005/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.15.04017","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There is a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness and utility of various preventive interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of various COVID-19 preventive interventions, including non-medical interventions (NMIs) and vaccination programs, using real-world data across different demographic and socioeconomic contexts worldwide.

Methods: We searched Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection from December 2019 to March 2024. We identified 75 studies which compared 34 COVID-19 preventive interventions. We conducted a network meta-analysis to assess the incremental net benefits (INB) of these interventions from both societal and health care system perspectives. We adjusted purchasing power parity (PPP) and standardised willingness to pay (WTP) to enhance the comparability of cost-effectiveness across different economic levels. We performed sensitivity and subgroup analyses to examine the robustness of the results.

Results: Movement restrictions and expanding testing emerged as the most cost-effective strategies from a societal perspective, with WTP-standardised INB values of USD 21 050 and USD 11 144. In contrast, combinations of NMIs with vaccination were less cost-effective, particularly in high-income regions. From a health care system perspective, vaccination plus distancing and test, trace, and isolate strategy were highly cost-effective, while masking requirements were less economically viable. The effectiveness of interventions varied significantly across different economic contexts, underlining the necessity for region-specific strategies.

Conclusions: In this study, we highlight significant variations in the cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 preventive interventions. Tailoring strategies to specific regional economic and infrastructural conditions is crucial. Continuous evaluation and adaptation of these strategies are essential for effective management of ongoing and future public health threats.

Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42023385169.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Global Health
Journal of Global Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH -
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.80%
发文量
240
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Global Health is a peer-reviewed journal published by the Edinburgh University Global Health Society, a not-for-profit organization registered in the UK. We publish editorials, news, viewpoints, original research and review articles in two issues per year.
×
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