Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36828507›Full record

ArticleTropical medicine and infectious disease2023

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Dose in the Thai Setting during the Period of Omicron Variant Predominance.

Kanchanok Sirison, Natthaprang Nittayasoot, Ranida Techasuwanna, Nisachol Cetthakrikul, Rapeepong Suphanchaimat

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tropical medicine and infectious disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Vaccine hesitancy in patients with COVID-19 who have back pain.Osong public health and research perspectives · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kanchanok SirisonHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi 11000, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0001-6591-336X
Natthaprang NittayasootDivision of Epidemiology, Department of Disease Control, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi 11000, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-0807-9281
Ranida TechasuwannaDivision of Epidemiology, Department of Disease Control, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi 11000, Thailand.
Nisachol CetthakrikulInternational Health Policy Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi 11000, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0001-9238-9583
Rapeepong SuphanchaimatDivision of Epidemiology, Department of Disease Control, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi 11000, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-3664-9050
Ministry of Public Health · TH

Funding

Health Policy and Systems Research program (HPSR Fellowship) under cooperation between the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Co-operatives (BAAC), National Health Security Office (NHSO) and International Health Policy Program Foundation (IHPF).
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Thai government implemented COVID-19 booster vaccines to prevent morbidity and mortality during the spreading of the Omicron variant. However, little is known about which types of vaccine should be invested in as the booster dose for the Thai population. This study aims to investigate the most cost-effective COVID-19 vaccine for a booster shot as empirical evidence for Thai policymakers. This study applied a stochastic simulation based on a compartmental susceptible-exposed-infectious-recovered model and included system dynamics in the model. We evaluated three scenarios: (1) No booster, (2) A viral vector vaccine as the booster dose, (3) An mRNA vaccine as the booster dose. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated based on provider perspectives. We found the number of cases in scenarios with viral vector and mRNA booster doses to be lower than in the non-booster group. Likewise, the number of deaths in the viral vector and the mRNA booster scenarios was threefold lower than in the no-booster scenario. Moreover, the estimated grand cost for the no-booster scenario was over 100 billion baht, while viral vector and mRNA scenario costs were 70 and 64.7 billion baht, respectively. ICER shows that viral vector and mRNA scenarios are more cost-effective than the no-booster scenario. Viral vector booster shot appeared to be slightly more cost-effective than mRNA booster shot in terms of death aversion. However, being boosted by an mRNA vaccine seemed slightly more cost-effective than a viral vector vaccine concerning case aversion. In conclusion, policies to promote COVID-19 booster shots in the Thai population by either mRNA or viral vector vaccines are likely to be worthwhile for both economic and public health reasons.

Indexed as

booster dosecost-effectivenessCOVID-19COVID-19 vaccinesSARS-CoV-2Thailand

Identifiers

PMID36828507
PMCPMC9959539
OpenAlexW4318499157

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.