PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Keeling, Matt J.
AU  - Hill, Edward M.
AU  - Petrou, Stavros
AU  - Bich Tran, Phuong
AU  - Png, May Ee
AU  - Staniszewska, Sophie
AU  - Clark, Corinna
AU  - Hassel, Katie
AU  - Stowe, Julia
AU  - Andrews, Nick
TI  - Cost-effectiveness of routine COVID-19 adult vaccination programmes in England
AID  - 10.1101/2024.11.08.24316972
DP  - 2024 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2024.11.08.24316972
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/12/2024.11.08.24316972.1.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/12/2024.11.08.24316972.1.full
AB  - Background 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.Methods 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. We partition the population into sixteen 5-year age-groups and three risk groups (no-risk, at-risk and immunosuppressed) and calculate the health savings, in terms of costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs), per vaccine dose. We adopt three different methodological approaches to estimate the level of vaccine protection leading to five different estimates of efficacy.Findings Willingness to pay thresholds vary from less than £1 for younger age-groups without 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 efficacy, there is considerable qualitative agreement on the willingness to pay threshold, and therefore which ages it is cost-effective to vaccinate. For pre-purchased vaccine, where the only cost is administration (≈£10), a twice-yearly universal booster offer to all those aged 70 and over is cost-effective (the benefits outweigh the administration costs), while for the at-risk group this could be extended to those over 65. When the vaccine cost is included, the cost-effective ages reduce, such that at a total cost of £30 (for vaccine and administration) universal vaccine is only cost-effective for those over 75; while at £60 universal vaccine is only cost-effective for those over 80.Interpretation 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.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis 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 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: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.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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesThe raw study data are protected and are not available due to data privacy laws. This work is carried out under Regulation 3 of The Health Service (Control of Patient Information) (Secretary of State for Health, 2002) (3) using patient identification information without individual patient consent. 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.