RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Optimising health and economic impacts of COVID-19 vaccine prioritisation strategies in the WHO European Region
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.07.09.21260272
DO 10.1101/2021.07.09.21260272
A1 Liu, Yang
A1 Sandmann, Frank G.
A1 Barnard, Rosanna C.
A1 Pearson, Carl A.B.
A1 ,
A1 Pastore, Roberta
A1 Pebody, Richard
A1 Flasche, Stefan
A1 Jit, Mark
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/07/14/2021.07.09.21260272.abstract
AB Background Countries in the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region differ in terms of the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out speed. We evaluated the health and economic impact of different age-based vaccine prioritisation strategies across this demographically and socio-economically diverse region.Methods We fitted country-specific age-stratified compartmental transmission models to reported COVID-19 mortality in the WHO European Region to inform the immunity level before vaccine roll-out. Building upon broad recommendations from the WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunisation (SAGE), we examined four strategies that prioritise: all adults (V+), younger (20-59 year-olds) followed by older adults (60+) (V20), older followed by younger adults (V60), and the oldest adults (75+) (V75) followed by incremental expansion to successively younger five-year age groups. We explored four roll-out scenarios based on projections or recent observations (R1-4) - the slowest scenario (R1) covers 30% of the total population by December 2022 and the fastest (R4) 80% by December 2021. Five decision-making metrics were summarised over 2021-22: mortality, morbidity, and losses in comorbidity-adjusted life expectancy (cLE), comorbidity- and quality-adjusted life years (cQALY), and the value of human capital (HC). Six sets of infection-blocking and disease-reducing vaccine efficacies were considered.Findings The optimal age-based vaccine prioritisation strategies were sensitive to country characteristics, decision-making metrics and roll-out speeds. Overall, V60 consistently performed better than or comparably to V75. There were greater benefits in prioritising older adults when roll-out is slow and when VE is low. Under faster roll-out, V+ was the most desirable option.Interpretation A prioritisation strategy involving more age-based stages (V75) does not necessarily lead to better health and economic outcomes than targeting broad age groups (V60). Countries expecting a slow vaccine roll-out may particularly benefit from prioritising older adults.Funding World Health Organization, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Medical Research Council (United Kingdom), the National Institute of Health Research (United Kingdom), the European Commission, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (United Kingdom), Wellcome TrustEvidence before this study We searched PubMed and medRxiv for articles published in English from inception to 9 Jun 2021, with the search terms: (“COVID-19” OR “SARS-CoV-2”) AND (“priorit*) AND (“model*”) AND (“vaccin*”) and identified 66 studies on vaccine prioritization strategies. Of the 25 studies that compared two or more age-based prioritisation strategies, 12 found that targeting younger adults minimised infections while targeting older adults minimised mortality; an additional handful of studies found similar outcomes between different age-based prioritisation strategies where large outbreaks had already occurred. However, only two studies have explored age-based vaccine prioritisation using models calibrated to observed outbreaks in more than one country, and no study has explored the effectiveness of vaccine prioritisation strategies across settings with different population structures, contact patterns, and outbreak history.Added-value of this study We evaluated various age-based vaccine prioritisation strategies for 38 countries in the WHO European Region using various health and economic outcomes for decision-making, by parameterising models using observed outbreak history, known epidemiologic and vaccine characteristics, and a range of realistic vaccine roll-out scenarios. We showed that while targeting older adults was generally advantageous, broadly targeting everyone above 60 years might perform better than or comparably to a more detailed strategy that targeted the oldest age group above 75 years followed by those in the next younger five-year age band. Rapid vaccine roll-out has only been observed in a small number of countries. If vaccine coverage can reach 80% by the end of 2021, prioritising older adults may not be optimal in terms of health and economic impact. Lower vaccine efficacy was associated with greater relative benefits only under relatively slow roll-out scenarios considered.Implication of all the available evidence COVID-19 vaccine prioritization strategies that require more precise targeting of individuals of a specific and narrow age range may not necessarily lead to better outcomes compared to strategies that prioritise populations across broader age ranges. In the WHO European Region, prioritising all adults equally or younger adults first will only optimise health and economic impact when roll-out is rapid, which may raise between-country equity issues given the global demand for COVID-19 vaccines.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementWe graciously thank the following agencies for their support to this work: World Health Organization (202604060), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-003174, OPP1184344), European Commission (101003688), Medical Research Council (MC_PC_19065), National Institute of Health Research (200929), Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (UK)/ Wellcome Trust (221303/Z/20/Z), Wellcome Trust (208812/Z/17/Z). FGS and MJ were supported by the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Modelling and Health Economics, a partnership between Public Health England (PHE), Imperial College London, and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM; grant code NIHR200908). MJ was supported by the NIHR HPRU in Immunisation at LSHTM in partnership with PHE (grant reference code NIHR200929). We are grateful for the support, comments, and feedback from the members and organizers of WHO Regional Working Group on COVID-19 vaccination and development in the European Region, Focus Group 2 Immunization Strategy and decision making. We thank Dr Nicholas G Davies for his valuable feedback and for his work on CovidM - much of what this analysis has been built upon.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study only uses publically available data, does not involve human subjects or interventions.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesWe used publicly available data in this study, cited in the reference list or in the appendix. The CovidM modelling framework used has been published previously and is available on the CMMID COVID-19 GtiHub page. All code used and country-specific intermediate results have been archived via zenodo. An R shiny application is available at https://cmmid-lshtm.shinyapps.io/demo/ to enable users to explore additional sets of parameters not covered in this study.