Suppr超能文献

2023 年泰国针对 COVID-19 疫情的不同加强针接种间隔的疫苗接种政策成本效益分析

Cost effectiveness analysis comparing varying booster intervals of vaccination policies to address COVID-19 situation in Thailand, 2023.

机构信息

Division of Epidemiology, Department of Disease Control, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.

International Health Policy Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2024 Sep 17;19(9):e0310427. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0310427. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

The COVID-19 booster immunization policy is cost-effective, but evidence on additional booster doses and appropriate strategies is scarce. This research compared the cost-effectiveness of annual, twice-a-year, and biennial booster dose policies. We performed stochastic modeling using compartmental susceptible-exposed-infectious-recovered models and a system dynamic model. We evaluated four policy scenarios: (1) hypothetical no-booster immunization policy; (2) twice-a-year vaccination policy; (3) annual vaccination policy; and (4) biennial vaccination policy. In addition, we conducted a one-way sensitivity analysis by adjusting R0 from 1.8 to 3.0 in all scenarios (epidemic stage) and by decreasing the vaccination cost by 50% at the end of the first year to reflect the current policy direction to enhance domestic vaccine production. Compared to non-booster policies, all three booster strategies reduced the number of cases, hospital admissions, and severe infections remarkably. Without a booster, total cases would reach 16,220,615 (95% confidence interval [CI] 6,726,550-29,661,112) by day 1,460, whereas, with a twice-a-year booster, the total cases would reach 597,901 (95% CI 526,230-694,458) in the same period. Even though the no booster scenario exhibited the lowest cost by approximately the first 500 days, by day 1,460 the biennial booster scenario demonstrated the lowest cost at 72.0 billion baht (95% CI 68.6-79.4 billion). The most cost-saving policy was the biennial booster scenario. The annual booster scenario also stood as a cost-effective option for most outcomes. In the epidemic stage and in an assumption where the vaccination costs dropped, all booster policies became more cost-effective or cost-saving compared with the main assumption. This study underscores the significance of the COVID-19 vaccine booster policy. Implementing policies should take into consideration cost-effectiveness, feasibility, and public communication.

摘要

新冠病毒疫苗加强免疫接种政策具有成本效益,但关于额外加强针剂量和适当策略的证据仍然有限。本研究比较了每年、每半年和每两年加强针接种政策的成本效益。我们使用房室易感性-暴露-感染-恢复模型和系统动力学模型进行了随机建模。我们评估了以下四个政策方案:(1)假设没有加强针免疫接种政策;(2)每半年接种政策;(3)每年接种政策;(4)每两年接种政策。此外,我们还进行了单向敏感性分析,即在所有方案(流行阶段)中通过将 R0 从 1.8 调整到 3.0,以及在第一年结束时将疫苗接种成本降低 50%,以反映当前加强国内疫苗生产的政策方向。与不加强针的政策相比,所有三种加强针策略都显著减少了病例、住院和严重感染的数量。如果没有加强针,到第 1,460 天,总病例数将达到 16220615 例(95%置信区间[CI]为 6726550-29661112),而每半年接种一次加强针,同期总病例数将达到 597901 例(95%CI 为 526230-694458)。尽管无加强针方案在最初的 500 天左右显示出最低的成本,但到第 1,460 天,每两年接种一次加强针方案的成本最低,为 720 亿泰铢(95%CI 为 686-794 亿)。最节省成本的政策是每两年接种一次加强针。对于大多数结果,每年接种一次加强针方案也是一种具有成本效益的选择。在流行阶段和假设疫苗接种成本下降的情况下,与主要假设相比,所有加强针政策在成本效益方面都变得更加有效或节省成本。本研究强调了新冠病毒疫苗加强免疫接种政策的重要性。实施政策时应考虑成本效益、可行性和公众沟通。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3e6c/11407652/ce69fdb0fe90/pone.0310427.g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验