Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33743846›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Infectious diseases2021

The potential health and economic value of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination alongside physical distancing in the UK: a transmission model-based future scenario analysis and economic evaluation.

Frank G Sandmann, Nicholas G Davies, Anna Vassall, W John Edmunds, Mark Jit, Centre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases COVID-19 working group

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 103 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
103citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
15.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

103 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 191 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

43 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Frank G SandmannCentre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Statistics, Modelling and Economics Department, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK. Electronic address: frank.sandmann@phe.gov.uk.
Nicholas G DaviesCentre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Anna VassallCentre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
W John EdmundsCentre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Mark JitCentre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; School of Public Health, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.
Centre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases COVID-19 working group
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBPublic Health England · GBUniversity of Hong Kong · HK

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_19065Medical Research Council MR/P014658/1Wellcome Trust 208812/Z/17/ZWellcome Trust 210758/Z/18/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK first adopted physical distancing measures in March, 2020. Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 became available in December, 2020. We explored the health and economic value of introducing SARS-CoV-2 immunisation alongside physical distancing in the UK to gain insights about possible future scenarios in a post-vaccination era.

methodsWe used an age-structured dynamic transmission and economic model to explore different scenarios of UK mass immunisation programmes over 10 years. We compared vaccinating 75% of individuals aged 15 years or older (and annually revaccinating 50% of individuals aged 15-64 years and 75% of individuals aged 65 years or older) to no vaccination. We assumed either 50% vaccine efficacy against disease and 45-week protection (worst-case scenario) or 95% vaccine efficacy against infection and 3-year protection (best-case scenario). Natural immunity was assumed to wane within 45 weeks. We also explored the additional impact of physical distancing on vaccination by assuming either an initial lockdown followed by voluntary physical distancing, or an initial lockdown followed by increased physical distancing mandated above a certain threshold of incident daily infections. We considered benefits in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs, both to the health-care payer and the national economy. We discounted future costs and QALYs at 3·5% annually and assumed a monetary value per QALY of £20 000 and a conservative long-run cost per vaccine dose of £15. We explored and varied these parameters in sensitivity analyses. We expressed the health and economic benefits of each scenario with the net monetary value: QALYs × (monetary value per QALY) - costs.

findingsWithout the initial lockdown, vaccination, and increased physical distancing, we estimated 148·0 million (95% uncertainty interval 48·5-198·8) COVID-19 cases and 3·1 million (0·84-4·5) deaths would occur in the UK over 10 years. In the best-case scenario, vaccination minimises community transmission without future periods of increased physical distancing, whereas SARS-CoV-2 becomes endemic with biannual epidemics in the worst-case scenario. Ongoing transmission is also expected in intermediate scenarios with vaccine efficacy similar to published clinical trial data. From a health-care perspective, introducing vaccination leads to incremental net monetary values ranging from £12·0 billion to £334·7 billion in the best-case scenario and from -£1·1 billion to £56·9 billion in the worst-case scenario. Incremental net monetary values of increased physical distancing might be negative from a societal perspective if national economy losses are persistent and large.

interpretationOur model findings highlight the substantial health and economic value of introducing SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Smaller outbreaks could continue even with vaccines, but population-wide implementation of increased physical distancing might no longer be justifiable. Our study provides early insights about possible future post-vaccination scenarios from an economic and epidemiological perspective.

fundingNational Institute for Health Research, European Commission, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Indexed as

Physical DistancingAdolescentAdultAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisCOVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesHumansMiddle AgedModels, BiologicalModels, EconomicPandemicsPatient AdmissionQuality-Adjusted Life YearsSARS-CoV-2United KingdomCOVID-19 Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID33743846
PMCPMC7972313
OpenAlexW3088660694

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.