National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia.
PLoS One. 2024 Sep 30;19(9):e0294091. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294091. eCollection 2024.
Decision-makers in middle-income countries need evidence on the cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 booster doses and oral antivirals to appropriately prioritise these healthcare interventions.
We used a dynamic transmission model to assess the cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 booster doses and oral antivirals in Fiji, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and Timor-Leste. We conducted cost-effectiveness analysis from both healthcare and societal perspectives using data collated from publicly available sources. We developed an interactive R Shiny which allows the user to vary key model assumptions, such as the choice of discounting rate, and view how these assumptions affect model results.
Booster doses were cost saving and therefore cost-effective in all four middle-income settings from both healthcare and societal perspectives using 3% discounting. Providing oral antivirals was cost-effective from a healthcare perspective if procured at a low generic price (US$25) or middle-income reference price (US$250); however, their cost-effectiveness was strongly influenced by rates of wastage or misuse, and the ongoing costs of care for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. The cost or wastage of rapid antigen tests did not appear strongly influential over the cost-effectiveness of oral antivirals in any of the four study settings.
Our results support that COVID-19 booster programs are cost-effective in middle-income settings. Oral antivirals demonstrate the potential to be cost-effective if procured at or below a middle-income reference price of US$250 per schedule. Further research should quantify the rates of wastage or misuse of oral COVID-19 antivirals in middle-income settings.
中等收入国家的决策者需要有关 COVID-19 加强针和口服抗病毒药物成本效益的证据,以便适当地确定这些医疗干预措施的优先级。
我们使用动态传播模型来评估 COVID-19 加强针和口服抗病毒药物在斐济、印度尼西亚、巴布亚新几内亚和东帝汶的成本效益。我们从医疗保健和社会两个角度使用从公开来源收集的数据进行成本效益分析。我们开发了一个交互式 R Shiny,允许用户改变关键模型假设,例如贴现率的选择,并查看这些假设如何影响模型结果。
在所有四个中等收入国家,从医疗保健和社会两个角度来看,使用 3%的贴现率,加强针都是节省成本的,因此具有成本效益。如果以低价(25 美元)或中等收入参考价(250 美元)采购口服抗病毒药物,那么从医疗保健的角度来看,口服抗病毒药物是具有成本效益的;然而,它们的成本效益受到浪费或误用的比率以及住院 COVID-19 患者的持续护理成本的强烈影响。在这四个研究环境中,快速抗原检测的成本或浪费似乎并没有强烈影响口服抗病毒药物的成本效益。
我们的结果支持 COVID-19 加强计划在中等收入国家具有成本效益。如果以中等收入参考价格(250 美元)或以下采购口服 COVID-19 抗病毒药物,则具有成本效益的潜力。应进一步研究在中等收入国家量化口服 COVID-19 抗病毒药物的浪费或误用率。