Cost-effectiveness of routine COVID-19 adult vaccination programmes in England

Abstract

In England, and many other countries, immunity to SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease is highly heterogeneous. Immunity has been acquired through natural infection, primary and booster vaccination, while protection has been lost through waning immunity and viral mutation. During the height of the pandemic in England, the main aim was to rapidly protect the population and large supplies of vaccine were pre-purchased, eliminating the need for cost-effective calculations. As we move to an era where for the majority of the population SARS-CoV-2 infections cause relatively mild disease, and vaccine stocks need to be re-purchased, it is important we consider the cost-effectiveness and economic value of COVID-19 vaccination programmes. Here using data from 2023 and 2024 in England on COVID-19 hospital admissions, ICU admissions and deaths, coupled with bespoke health economic costs, we consider the willingness to pay threshold for COVID-19 vaccines in different age and risk groups.

Willingness to pay thresholds vary from less than £1 for younger age-groups with- out any risk factors, to over £100 for older age-groups with comorbidities that place them at risk. This extreme non-linear dependence on age, means that despite the different method of estimating vaccine effectiveness, there is considerable qualitative agreement on the willingness to pay threshold, and therefore which ages it is cost-effective to vaccinate.

The historic offer of COVID-19 vaccination to those 65 and over for the autumn 2023 programme and those over 75 for the spring 2023 programme, aligns with our cost- effective threshold for pre-purchased vaccine when the only cost was administration. However, for future programmes, when vaccine costs are included, the age-thresholds slowly increase thereby demonstrating the continued importance of protecting the eldest and most vulnerable in the population.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Evidence before this study We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and medRxiv for articles published in English from inception to Nov 19, 2024, with the following search terms: “COVID-19” AND “vaccin*” AND “cost-effective*”. A total of 1287 articles were identified, of which 47 considered the cost-effectiveness of vaccination against COVID-19; of these only 12 considered booster vaccination against Omicron, and only 6 considered regular vaccination. These studies focused on USA (× 2), South Korea, Thailand, Germany and the UK.

Added value of this study This study provides the first independent assessment of the cost-effectiveness of the spring and autumn COVID-19 vaccination programme in the UK, and the first to consider vaccination across the spectrum of ages. It uses UK data from the Spring and Autumn boosters 2023 on severe health outcomes (hospital admission and deaths) partitioned by age, risk group and vaccine status to estimate the impact of immunisation programmes. This is combined with health economic estimates to determine the willingness-to-pay for the costs of immunisation (vaccine plus administration costs) in each age and risk group.

Implications of all the available evidence Which ages and risk groups it is cost-effective to vaccinate depends on the price paid for the vaccine, although the increase in risk of severe illness with age dominates the results.

Vaccination of individuals under 65 years old without additional risk factors is unlikely to be cost-effective at any vaccine price. However, universal vaccination (in both Spring and Autumn for all risk groups) for older adults is likely to be cost-effective if the vaccine can be secured for a sufficiently low price.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This research (MJK, EMH, SP, PT, SS and CC) is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme (MEMVIE 3, NIHR204667). In addition: MJK was supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council through the MathSys CDT [grant number EP/S022244/1] and by the Medical Research Council through the JUNIPER partnership award [grant number MR/X018598/1]. SP receives support as an NIHR senior investigator (NF-SI-0616-10103) and from the UK NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley. The PANORAMIC study was funded by the NIHR (NIHR135366). EMH is affiliated to the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Gastrointestinal Infections at University of Liverpool (PB-PG-NIHR-200910), in partnership with the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), in collaboration with the University of Warwick. EMH was funded by The Pandemic Institute, formed of seven founding partners: The University of Liverpool, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool City Council, Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, Liverpool University Hospital Foundation Trust, and Knowledge Quarter Liverpool (EMH is based at The University of Liverpool). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the Department of Health and Social Care, the UK Health Security Agency or The Pandemic Institute. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The raw study data are protected and are not available due to data privacy laws. UKHSA has legal permission, provided by Regulation 3 of The Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002, to process patient confidential information for national surveillance of communicable diseases and as such, individual patient consent is not required. Data cannot be made publicly available for ethical and legal reasons, i.e. public availability would compromise patient confidentiality as data tables list single counts of individuals rather than aggregated data. The UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the South Central - Berkshire Research Ethics Committee of the Health Research Authority approved the PANORAMIC trial (reference: 21/SC/0393).

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes