Methods: For this study PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase electronic databases were used to search for eligible studies on the interface between novel coronavirus and vaccine design until December 31, 2020.
Results: We have included fourteen non-randomized and randomized controlled phase I-III trials. Implementation of a universal vaccination program with proven safety and efficacy through robust clinical evaluation is the long-term goal for preventing COVID-19. The immunization program must be cost-effective for mass production and accessibility. Despite pioneering techniques for the fast-track development of the vaccine in the current global emergency, mass production and availability of an effective COVID-19 vaccine could take some more time.
Conclusion: Our findings suggest a revisiting of the reported solicited and unsolicited systemic adverse events for COVID-19 candidate vaccines. Hence, it is alarming to judiciously expose thousands of participants to COVID-19 candidate vaccines at Phase-3 trials that have adverse events and insufficient evidence on safety and effectiveness that necessitates further justification.
METHODS: Systematic review and NMA of randomised controlled trials were performed, and the most suitable CPA was chosen based on efficacy and the most favourable risk-benefit profile. The economic benefits of CPA alone, 3 yearly SC alone, and a combination of CPA and SC were determined using the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) in the Malaysian health-care perspective. Outcomes were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2018 US Dollars ($) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and life-years (LYs) gained.
RESULTS: According to NMA, the risk-benefit profile favours the use of aspirin at very-low-dose (ASAVLD, ≤ 100 mg/day) for secondary prevention in individuals with previous ACAs. Celecoxib is the most effective CPA but the cardiovascular adverse events are of concern. According to CEA, the combination strategy (ASAVLD with 3-yearly SC) was cost-saving and dominates its competitors as the best buy option. The probability of being cost-effective for ASAVLD alone, 3-yearly SC alone, and combination strategy were 22%, 26%, and 53%, respectively. Extending the SC interval to five years in combination strategy was more cost-effective when compared to 3-yearly SC alone (ICER of $484/LY gain and $1875/QALY). However, extending to ten years in combination strategy was not cost-effective.
CONCLUSION: ASAVLD combined with 3-yearly SC in individuals with ACAs may be a cost-effective strategy for CRC prevention. An extension of SC intervals to five years can be considered in resource-limited countries.
METHODS: The algorithm was developed using data from 345 TDT patients. Spearman's rank correlation was used to evaluate the conceptual overlap between the instruments. Model specifications were chosen using a stepwise regression. Both direct and response mapping methods were attempted. Six mapping estimation methods ordinary least squares (OLS), a log-transformed response using OLS, generalized linear model (GLM), two-part model (TPM), Tobit and multinomial logistic regression (MLOGIT) were tested to determine the root mean squared error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE). Other criterion used were accuracy of the predicted utility score, proportions of absolute differences that was less than 0.03 and intraclass correlation coefficient. An in-sample, leave-one-out cross validation was conducted to test the generalizability of each model.
RESULTS: The best performing model was specified with three out of the four PedsQL GCS scales-the physical, emotional and social functioning score. The best performing estimation method for direct mapping was a GLM with a RMSE of 0.1273 and MAE of 0.1016, while the best estimation method for response mapping was the MLOGIT with a RMSE of 0.1597 and MAE of 0.0826.
CONCLUSION: The mapping algorithm developed using the GLM would facilitate the calculation of utility scores to inform economic evaluations for TDT patients when EQ-5D data is not available. However, caution should be exercised when using this algorithm in patients who have poor quality of life.