ArticleBMC health services research2022
Was EU's COVID-19 vaccine procurement strategy irrational? A re-analysis based on cost-effectiveness considerations.
Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe 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.
methodsTwo 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.
resultsA 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.
conclusionsThis 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.