ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2024
Cost-Effectiveness of the Second COVID-19 Booster Vaccination in the USA.
Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Estimating cumulative infection rate of COVID-19 after adjusting the dynamic zero-COVID policy in China.Infectious Disease Modelling · 2025Article
- Assessing the cost-effectiveness of annual COVID-19 booster vaccination in South Korea using a transmission dynamic model.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the cost effectiveness of the second COVID-19 booster vaccination with different age groups.
methodsWe developed a decision-analytic Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Recovered (SEIR)-Markov model by five age groups (0-4 years, 5-11 years 12-17 years, 18-49 years, and 50+ years) and calibrated the model by actual mortality in each age group in the USA. We conducted five scenarios to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the second booster strategy and incremental benefits if the strategy would expand to 18-49 years and 12-17 years, from a health care system perspective. The analysis was reported according to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 statement.
resultsImplementing the second booster strategy for those aged ≥ 50 years cost $823 million but reduced direct medical costs by $1166 million, corresponding to a benefit-cost ratio of 1.42. Moreover, the strategy also resulted in a gain of 2596 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) during the 180-day evaluation period, indicating it was dominant. Further, vaccinating individuals aged 18-49 years with the second booster would result in an additional gain of $1592 million and 8790 QALYs. Similarly, expanding the vaccination to individuals aged 12-17 years would result in an additional gain of $16 million and 403 QALYs. However, if social interaction between all age groups was severed, vaccination expansion to ages 18-49 and 12-17 years would no longer be dominant but cost effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $37,572 and $26,705/QALY gained, respectively.
conclusionThe second booster strategy was likely to be dominant in reducing the disease burden of the COVID-19 pandemic. Expanding the second booster strategy to ages 18-49 and 12-17 years would remain dominant due to their social contacts with the older age group.
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.