TY - JOUR
T1 - Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Strategies of COVID-19 Vaccination in Colombia
T2 - Comparison of High-Risk Prioritization and No Prioritization Strategies With the Absence of a Vaccination Plan
AU - Morales-Zamora, Gilberto
AU - Espinosa, Oscar
AU - Puertas, Edwin
AU - Fernández, Juan Carlos
AU - Hernández, José
AU - Zakzuk, Verónica
AU - Cepeda, Magda
AU - Alvis-Gúzman, Nelson
AU - Castañeda-Orjuela, Carlos
AU - Paternina-Caicedo, Angel
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 International Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research
PY - 2022/9
Y1 - 2022/9
N2 - Objectives: Our study compares two national COVID-19 vaccination plan strategies—high-risk prioritization and no prioritization—and estimates their cost-effectiveness compared with no vaccination, to generate possible recommendations for future vaccination plans. Methods: We developed a Markov discrete-time, compartmental, deterministic model stratified by Colombian departments, healthcare workers, comorbidities, and age groups and calibrated to seroprevalence, cases, and deaths. The model simulates three scenarios: no vaccination, no prioritization of vaccination, and prioritization of high-risk population. The study presents the perspective of the health system of Colombia, including the direct health costs financed by the government and the direct health outcomes related to the infection. We measured symptomatic cases, deaths, and costs for each of the three scenarios from the start of the vaccination rollout to February 20, 2023. Results: Both for the base-case and across multiple sensitivity analyses, the high-risk prioritization proves to be the most cost-effective of the considered strategies. An increment of US$255 million results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$3339 per disability-adjusted life-year avoided. The simulations show that prioritization of high-risk population reduces symptomatic cases by 3.4% and deaths by 20.1% compared with no vaccination. The no-prioritization strategy is still cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$5223.66, but the sensitivity analysis the show potential risks of losing cost-effectiveness under the cost-effectiveness threshold (one gross domestic product per averted disability-adjusted life-year). Conclusions: The high-risk prioritization strategy is consistently more cost-effective than the no-prioritization strategy across multiple scenarios. High-risk prioritization is the recommended strategy in low-resource settings to reduce the burden of disease.
AB - Objectives: Our study compares two national COVID-19 vaccination plan strategies—high-risk prioritization and no prioritization—and estimates their cost-effectiveness compared with no vaccination, to generate possible recommendations for future vaccination plans. Methods: We developed a Markov discrete-time, compartmental, deterministic model stratified by Colombian departments, healthcare workers, comorbidities, and age groups and calibrated to seroprevalence, cases, and deaths. The model simulates three scenarios: no vaccination, no prioritization of vaccination, and prioritization of high-risk population. The study presents the perspective of the health system of Colombia, including the direct health costs financed by the government and the direct health outcomes related to the infection. We measured symptomatic cases, deaths, and costs for each of the three scenarios from the start of the vaccination rollout to February 20, 2023. Results: Both for the base-case and across multiple sensitivity analyses, the high-risk prioritization proves to be the most cost-effective of the considered strategies. An increment of US$255 million results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$3339 per disability-adjusted life-year avoided. The simulations show that prioritization of high-risk population reduces symptomatic cases by 3.4% and deaths by 20.1% compared with no vaccination. The no-prioritization strategy is still cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$5223.66, but the sensitivity analysis the show potential risks of losing cost-effectiveness under the cost-effectiveness threshold (one gross domestic product per averted disability-adjusted life-year). Conclusions: The high-risk prioritization strategy is consistently more cost-effective than the no-prioritization strategy across multiple scenarios. High-risk prioritization is the recommended strategy in low-resource settings to reduce the burden of disease.
KW - Colombia
KW - cost-effectiveness
KW - modeling
KW - severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
KW - vaccination
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85131077038&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.vhri.2022.04.004
DO - 10.1016/j.vhri.2022.04.004
M3 - Article
C2 - 35640462
AN - SCOPUS:85131077038
SN - 2212-1099
VL - 31
SP - 101
EP - 110
JO - Value in Health Regional Issues
JF - Value in Health Regional Issues
ER -