Cargando…

Was EU’s COVID-19 vaccine procurement strategy irrational? A re-analysis based on cost-effectiveness considerations

AIM: The European Union (EU) has received criticism for being slow to secure coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine contracts in 2020 before the approval of the first COVID-19 vaccine. This study aimed to retrospectively analyze the EU’s COVID-19 vaccine procurement strategy. To this end, the study...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Gandjour, Afschin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9694594/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36434631
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08726-4
_version_ 1784837839342534656
author Gandjour, Afschin
author_facet Gandjour, Afschin
author_sort Gandjour, Afschin
collection PubMed
description AIM: The European Union (EU) has received criticism for being slow to secure coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine contracts in 2020 before the approval of the first COVID-19 vaccine. This study aimed to retrospectively analyze the EU’s COVID-19 vaccine procurement strategy. To this end, the study retrospectively determined the minimum vaccine efficacy that made vaccination cost-effective from a societal perspective in Germany before clinical trial announcements in late 2020. The results were compared with the expected vaccine efficacy before the announcements. METHODS: Two strategies were analyzed: vaccination followed by the complete lifting of mitigation measures and a long-term mitigation strategy. A decision model was constructed using, for example, information on age-specific fatality rates, intensive care unit costs and outcomes, and herd protection thresholds. The base-case time horizon was 5 years. Cost-effectiveness of vaccination was determined in terms of the costs per life-year gained. The value of an additional life-year was borrowed from new, innovative oncological drugs, as cancer is a condition with a perceived threat similar to that of COVID-19. RESULTS: A vaccine with 50% efficacy against death due to COVID-19 was not clearly cost-effective compared with a long-term mitigation strategy if mitigation measures were planned to be lifted after vaccine rollout. The minimum vaccine efficacy required to achieve cost-effectiveness was 40% in the base case. The sensitivity analysis showed considerable variation around the minimum vaccine efficacy, extending above 50% for some of the input variables. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that vaccine efficacy levels expected before clinical trial announcements did not clearly justify lifting mitigation measures from a cost-effectiveness standpoint. Hence, the EU’s sluggish procurement strategy still appeared to be rational at the time of decision making. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08726-4.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9694594
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96945942022-11-26 Was EU’s COVID-19 vaccine procurement strategy irrational? A re-analysis based on cost-effectiveness considerations Gandjour, Afschin BMC Health Serv Res Research AIM: The European Union (EU) has received criticism for being slow to secure coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine contracts in 2020 before the approval of the first COVID-19 vaccine. This study aimed to retrospectively analyze the EU’s COVID-19 vaccine procurement strategy. To this end, the study retrospectively determined the minimum vaccine efficacy that made vaccination cost-effective from a societal perspective in Germany before clinical trial announcements in late 2020. The results were compared with the expected vaccine efficacy before the announcements. METHODS: Two strategies were analyzed: vaccination followed by the complete lifting of mitigation measures and a long-term mitigation strategy. A decision model was constructed using, for example, information on age-specific fatality rates, intensive care unit costs and outcomes, and herd protection thresholds. The base-case time horizon was 5 years. Cost-effectiveness of vaccination was determined in terms of the costs per life-year gained. The value of an additional life-year was borrowed from new, innovative oncological drugs, as cancer is a condition with a perceived threat similar to that of COVID-19. RESULTS: A vaccine with 50% efficacy against death due to COVID-19 was not clearly cost-effective compared with a long-term mitigation strategy if mitigation measures were planned to be lifted after vaccine rollout. The minimum vaccine efficacy required to achieve cost-effectiveness was 40% in the base case. The sensitivity analysis showed considerable variation around the minimum vaccine efficacy, extending above 50% for some of the input variables. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that vaccine efficacy levels expected before clinical trial announcements did not clearly justify lifting mitigation measures from a cost-effectiveness standpoint. Hence, the EU’s sluggish procurement strategy still appeared to be rational at the time of decision making. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08726-4. BioMed Central 2022-11-24 /pmc/articles/PMC9694594/ /pubmed/36434631 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08726-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Gandjour, Afschin
Was EU’s COVID-19 vaccine procurement strategy irrational? A re-analysis based on cost-effectiveness considerations
title Was EU’s COVID-19 vaccine procurement strategy irrational? A re-analysis based on cost-effectiveness considerations
title_full Was EU’s COVID-19 vaccine procurement strategy irrational? A re-analysis based on cost-effectiveness considerations
title_fullStr Was EU’s COVID-19 vaccine procurement strategy irrational? A re-analysis based on cost-effectiveness considerations
title_full_unstemmed Was EU’s COVID-19 vaccine procurement strategy irrational? A re-analysis based on cost-effectiveness considerations
title_short Was EU’s COVID-19 vaccine procurement strategy irrational? A re-analysis based on cost-effectiveness considerations
title_sort was eu’s covid-19 vaccine procurement strategy irrational? a re-analysis based on cost-effectiveness considerations
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9694594/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36434631
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08726-4
work_keys_str_mv AT gandjourafschin waseuscovid19vaccineprocurementstrategyirrationalareanalysisbasedoncosteffectivenessconsiderations