IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v22y2024i1d10.1007_s40258-023-00844-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Effectiveness of the Second COVID-19 Booster Vaccination in the USA

Author

Listed:
  • Rui Li

    (Xi’an Jiaotong University Health Science Center
    Alfred Health
    Monash University)

  • Pengyi Lu

    (Xi’an Jiaotong University Health Science Center)

  • Christopher K. Fairley

    (Alfred Health
    Monash University)

  • José A. Pagán

    (New York University)

  • Wenyi Hu

    (Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital
    The University of Melbourne)

  • Qianqian Yang

    (Xi’an Jiaotong University Health Science Center)

  • Guihua Zhuang

    (Xi’an Jiaotong University Health Science Center
    Key Laboratory for Disease Prevention and Control and Health Promotion of Shaanxi Province)

  • Mingwang Shen

    (Xi’an Jiaotong University Health Science Center
    Key Laboratory for Disease Prevention and Control and Health Promotion of Shaanxi Province)

  • Yan Li

    (Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine
    Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai)

  • Lei Zhang

    (Xi’an Jiaotong University Health Science Center
    Alfred Health
    Monash University)

Abstract

Objective To assess the cost effectiveness of the second COVID-19 booster vaccination with different age groups. Methods We 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. Results Implementing 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. Conclusion The 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Rui Li & Pengyi Lu & Christopher K. Fairley & José A. Pagán & Wenyi Hu & Qianqian Yang & Guihua Zhuang & Mingwang Shen & Yan Li & Lei Zhang, 2024. "Cost-Effectiveness of the Second COVID-19 Booster Vaccination in the USA," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 85-95, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:22:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-023-00844-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-023-00844-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-023-00844-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-023-00844-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:22:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-023-00844-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.