ABSTRACT
Background Following widespread exposure to Omicron variants, COVID-19 has transitioned to endemic circulation. Populations now have diverse infection and vaccination histories, resulting in heterogeneous immune landscapes. Careful consideration of vaccination is required through the post-Omicron phase of COVID-19 management to minimise disease burden. We assess the impact and cost-effectiveness of targeted COVID-19 vaccination strategies to support global vaccination recommendations.
Methods We integrated immunological, transmission, clinical and cost-effectiveness models, and simulated populations with different characteristics and immune landscapes. We calculated the expected number of infections, hospitalisations and deaths for different vaccine scenarios. Costs (from a healthcare perspective) were estimated for exemplar country income level groupings in the Western Pacific Region. Results are reported as incremental costs and disability-adjusted life years averted compared to no additional vaccination. Parameter and stochastic uncertainty were captured through scenario and sensitivity analysis.
Findings Across different population demographics and income levels, we consistently found that annual elder-targeted boosting strategies are most likely to be cost-effective or cost-saving, while paediatric programs are unlikely to be cost-effective. Results remained consistent while accounting for uncertainties in the epidemiological and economic models. Half-yearly boosting may only be cost-effective in higher income settings with older population demographics and higher cost-effectiveness thresholds.
Interpretation The seresults demonstrate the value of continued booster vaccinations to protect against severe COVID-19 disease outcomes across high and middle-income settings and show that the biggest health gains relative to vaccine costs are achieved by targeting older age-groups.
Funding Funded by the World Health Organization.
Research in context
Evidence before this study
Evidence before this study With COVID-19 now globally endemic, populations exhibit varying levels of natural and vaccine-acquired immunity to SARS-CoV-2. With widespread, if variable, immunity resulting in reduced severity of COVID-19 disease, re-evaluation of the ongoing value of vaccination is required. COVID-19 vaccination strategies must consider the cost-effectiveness of gains from vaccination given prior immunity, and in the context of income and health system capacity to manage COVID-19 alongside other pressing concerns.
Few articles examine cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination strategies in populations with diverse characteristics and waning hybrid immunity, though there is a large body of literature that considers some combination of these elements or focus on one particular country. Consensus is that allocating vaccine doses to older age groups and those at higher risk of severe disease is most beneficial, albeit assuming either only past natural immunity or no waning immunity. These studies have either not included a cost-effectiveness analysis or, where present, have typically assumed a base case zero-vaccination scenario.
Added value of this study
Added value of this study We consider the contemporary situation where populations have varying degrees of hybrid immunity resulting from both prior infection and vaccination, and where the relevant cost-effectiveness analysis considers only future primary and booster doses in the population. We describe multiple demographics, using exemplar ‘older’ and ‘younger’ populations, in conjunction with low to high past vaccination coverage, low to high past natural infection incidence, and low to high income levels. Under these settings, we determine the cost-effectiveness of a range of targeted boosting strategies (who, when, what).
Implications of all the available evidence
Implications of all the available evidence Our study highlights how future COVID-19 booster doses targeted towards older age groups at risk of severe outcomes can be cost-effective or cost-saving in high-income settings with populations that have a higher proportion of individuals at risk. In younger, lower-resourced settings, annual boosting of older age groups may still be cost-effective or cost-saving in some scenarios. We consistently find that pediatric vaccination is not cost-effective. Given the benefits of vaccination, especially to reduce severe disease, we show the importance of ongoing global efforts to provide and equitably distribute vaccines and strengthen adult immunisation programs.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the World Health Organization. In addition, we would like to acknowledge the support from the Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Indo-Pacific Centre for Health Security (Supporting Preparedness in the Asia-Pacific Region through Knowledge) and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) SPECTRUM CRE (GNT1170960). ABH and IM are funded by NHMRC Investigator Grants (2021/GNT2009278 and 2022/GNT2016726 respectively). IM is also supported by NHMRC Principal Research Fellowship (GNT1155075).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
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
Footnotes
↵† N. Carvalho and J. McVernon should be considered joint senior author.
✉ tk.le{at}unimelb.edu.au (T.P. Le); natalie.carvalho{at}unimelb.edu.au, (N. Carvalho); j.mcvernon{at}unimelb.edu.au (J. McVernon)
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors. Code is available in the following GitHub repositories: https://github.com/goldingn/neuts2efficacy/ for the immunological model; https://github.com/spectrum-spark/covid_singlestrain_scenarios/tree/singlestrain-paper for the population transmission and clinical pathway models; and https://github.com/spectrum-spark/covid-CEA/ for the cost-effectiveness analysis.
https://github.com/goldingn/neuts2efficacy/
https://github.com/spectrum-spark/covid_singlestrain_scenarios/tree/singlestrain-paper
