Search

Background With coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination no longer mandated by many businesses/organizations, it is now up to individuals to decide whether to get any new boosters/updated vaccines going forward. Methods We developed a Markov model representing the potential clinical/economic outcomes from an individual perspective in the United States of getting versus not getting an annual COVID-19 vaccine. Results For an 18–49 year old, getting vaccinated at its current price ($60) can save the individual on average $ 30–$603 if the individual is uninsured and $4–$437 if the individual has private insurance, as long as the starting vaccine efficacy against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is ≥50% and the weekly risk of getting infected is ≥0.2%, corresponding to an individual interacting with 9 other people in a day under Winter 2023–2024 Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant conditions with an average infection prevalence of 10%. For a 50–64 year old, these cost-savings increase to $111–$1278 and $119–$1706 for someone without and with insurance, respectively. The risk threshold increases to ≥0.4% (interacting with 19 people/day), when the individual has 13.4% preexisting protection against infection (eg, vaccinated 9 months earlier). Conclusions There is both clinical and economic incentive for the individual to continue to get vaccinated against COVID-19 each year. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: With multiple COVID-19 vaccines available, understanding the epidemiologic, clinical, and economic value of increasing coverage levels and expediting vaccination is important.Methods: We developed a computational model (transmission and age-stratified clinical and economics outcome model) representing the US population, COVID-19 coronavirus spread (02/2020-12/2022), and vaccination to determine the impact of increasing coverage and expediting time to achieve coverage.Results: When achieving a given vaccination coverage in 270 days (70% vaccine efficacy), every 1% increase in coverage can avert an average of 876,800 (217,000-2,398,000) cases, varying with the number of people already vaccinated. For example, each 1% increase between 40%-50% coverage can prevent 1.5million cases, 56,240 hospitalizations, 6,660 deaths, gain 77,590 QALYs, save $602.8 million in direct medical costs and $1.3 billion in productivity losses . Expediting to 180 days could save an additional 5.8 million cases, 215,790 hospitalizations, 26,370 deaths, 206,520 QALYs, $3.5 billion in direct medical costs, and $4.3 billion in productivity losses.Conclusion: Our study quantifies the potential value of decreasing vaccine hesitancy and increasing vaccination coverage and how this value may decrease with time it takes to achieve coverage, emphasizing the need to reach high coverage levels as soon as possible, especially before the Fall/Winter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although norovirus outbreaks periodically make headlines, it is unclear how much attention norovirus may receive otherwise. A better understanding of the burden could help determine how to prioritize norovirus prevention and control.Methods: We developed a computational simulation model to quantify the clinical and economic burden of norovirus in the United States.Results: A symptomatic case generated $48 in direct medical costs, $416 in productivity losses ($464 total). The median yearly cost of outbreaks was $7.6 million (range across years, $7.5-$8.2 million) in direct medical costs, and $165.3 million ($161.1-$176.4 million) in productivity losses ($173.5 million total). Sporadic illnesses in the community (incidence, 10-150/1000 population) resulted in 14 118-211 705 hospitalizations, 8.2-122.9 million missed school/work days, $0.2-$2.3 billion in direct medical costs, and $1.4-$20.7 billion in productivity losses ($1.5-$23.1 billion total). The total cost was $10.6 billion based on the current incidence estimate (68.9/1000).Conclusion: Our study quantified norovirus' burden. Of the total burden, sporadic cases constituted >90% (thus, annual burden may vary depending on incidence) and productivity losses represented 89%. More than half the economic burden is in adults ≥45, more than half occurs in winter months, and >90% of outbreak costs are due to person-to-person transmission, offering insights into where and when prevention/control efforts may yield returns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The protection that an influenza vaccine offers can vary significantly from person to person due to differences in immune systems, body types, and other factors. The question, then, is what is the value of efforts to reduce this variability such as making vaccines more personalized and tailored to individuals.Methods: We developed a compartment model of the United States to simulate different influenza seasons and the impact of reducing the variability in responses to the influenza vaccine across the population.Results: Going from a vaccine that varied in efficacy (0-30%) to one that had a uniform 30% efficacy for everyone averted 16.0-31.2 million cases, $1.9-$3.6 billion in direct medical costs, and $16.1-$42.7 billion in productivity losses. Going from 0-50% in efficacy to just 50% for everyone averted 27.7-38.6 million cases, $3.3-$4.6 billion in direct medical costs, and $28.8-$57.4 billion in productivity losses. Going from 0-70% to 70% averted 33.6-54.1 million cases, $4.0-$6.5 billion in direct medical costs, and $44.8-$64.7 billion in productivity losses.Conclusions: This study quantifies for policy makers, funders, and vaccine developers and manufacturers the potential impact of efforts to reduce variability in the protection that influenza vaccines offer (eg, developing vaccines that are more personalized to different individual factors). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]