MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by examining online databases (Scopus, MEDLINE and Science Direct) to identify health economic evaluation studies of COVID-19 vaccines. Critical appraisal of studies was conducted using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS).
RESULTS: A total of nine studies were selected for analysis. Results show two strategies that were cost-effective compared to its comparators: mass vaccination program compared to no vaccination and universal vaccination approach compared to a risk-stratified vaccination approach. Several other strategies were found to increase the cost-consequences in the COVID-19 vaccination program: higher vaccine effectiveness, higher vaccination pace, increased vaccination coverage, and vaccine prioritisation for an at-risk population. The study findings were restricted to analysis based on the current available data.
CONCLUSION: COVID-19 vaccination policies should aim for increased vaccine production as well as a rapid and extensive vaccine delivery system to ensure the maximal value of vaccination strategies. These results can aid policymakers in opting for the most efficient approach to vaccinating the population during this COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemic.
METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to find the eligible studies and perform a comprehensive data analysis.
RESULTS: Based on the findings, cost-effectiveness analysis, economic loss assessment, modeling, or mapping, as well as behavioral economic analysis were used as the economic evaluation approaches/methods.
CONCLUSIONS: Applying economic evaluation approaches to illustrate the economic costs of disasters is highly recommended. Managing competing priorities and optimizing resources allocations to the most cost-effective interventions can be achieved by cost-effectiveness analysis. The results of economic loss assessment can be used as the basis of disaster preparedness and response planning. Economic modeling can be applied to compare different interventions and anticipate socio-economic effects of disasters. A behavioral economic approach can be effective for decision-making in the field of disaster health management. Further research is needed to identify the advantages and limitations of each economic evaluation method/approach in the field of health in disasters. Such research can preferably be designed as the systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODOLOGY: Using a decision analytic model with input parameters from published literature, local data, and expert opinion, we projected the impact of "full access" (100%) to antivenom, compared to "current access" in five most impacted ASEAN countries, including Indonesia (10%), Philippines (26%), Vietnam (37%), Lao PDR (4%), and Myanmar (64%), from a societal perspective with a lifetime time horizon. Sensitivity analyses were performed.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In base-case analyses, full access compared to current access to snake antivenom in the five countries resulted in a total of 9,362 deaths averted (-59%), 230,075 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted (-59%), and cost savings of 1.3 billion USD (-53%). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of improving access to antivenom found higher outcomes but lower costs in all countries. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses of 1,000 iterations found that 98.1-100% of ICERs were cost-saving.
CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Improving access to snake antivenom will result in cost-saving for ASEAN countries. Our findings emphasized the importance of further strengthening regional cooperation, investment, and funding to improve the situation of snakebite victims in ASEAN countries.
METHODS: We will conduct a scoping review to identify and map evidence on how health equity is considered in economic evaluations of health interventions. We will search relevant electronic, gray literature and key journals. We developed a search strategy using text words and Medical Subject Headings terms related to health equity and economic evaluations of health interventions. Articles retrieved will be uploaded to reference manager software for screening and data extraction. Two reviewers will independently screen the articles based on their titles and abstracts for inclusion, and then will independently screen a full text to ascertain final inclusion. A simple numerical count will be used to quantify the data and a content analysis will be conducted to present the narrative; that is, a thematic summary of the data collected.
DISCUSSION: The results of this scoping review will provide a comprehensive overview of the current evidence on how health equity is considered in economic evaluations of health interventions and its research gaps. It will also provide key information to decision-makers and policy-makers to understand ways to include health equity into the prioritization of health interventions when aiming for a more equitable distribution of health resources.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol was registered with Open Science Framework (OSF) Registry on August 14, 2019 (https://osf.io/9my2z/registrations).
Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Econlit for articles published from inception to 31 July 2019. Original articles reporting costs or full economic evaluation related with snakebites were included. The methods and reporting quality were assessed. Costs were presented in US dollars (US$) in 2018.
Results: Twenty-three cost of illness studies and three economic evaluation studies related to snakebites were included. Majority of studies (18/23, 78.26%) were conducted in Low- and Middle-income countries. Most cost of illness studies (82.61%) were done using hospital-based data of snakebite patients. While, four studies (17.39%) estimated costs of snakebites in communities. Five studies (21.74%) used societal perspective estimating both direct and indirect costs. Only one study (4.35%) undertook incidence-based approach to estimate lifetime costs. Only three studies (13.04%) estimated annual national economic burdens of snakebite which varied drastically from US$126 319 in Burkina Faso to US$13 802 550 in Sri Lanka. Quality of the cost of illness studies were varied and substantially under-reported. All three economic evaluation studies were cost-effectiveness analysis using decision tree model. Two of them assessed cost-effectiveness of having full access to antivenom and reported cost-effective findings.
Conclusions: Economic burdens of snakebite were underestimated and not extensively studied. To accurately capture the economic burdens of snakebites at both the global and local level, hospital data should be collected along with community survey and economic burdens of snakebites should be estimated both in short-term and long-term period to incorporate the lifetime costs and productivity loss due to premature death, disability, and consequences of snakebites.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, EconLit, Embase (Ovid), the Cochrane Library, and the gray literature. Using a predefined checklist, we extracted the key features of economic evaluation and the general characteristics of EEGs. We conducted a comparative analysis, including a summary of similarities and differences across EEGs.
RESULTS: Thirteen EEGs were identified, three pertaining to lower-middle-income countries (Bhutan, Egypt, and Indonesia), nine to upper-middle-income countries (Brazil, China, Colombia, Cuba, Malaysia, Mexico, Russian Federation, South Africa, and Thailand), in addition to Mercosur, and none to low-income countries. The majority (n = 12) considered cost-utility analysis and health-related quality-of-life outcome. Half of the EEGs recommended the societal perspective, whereas the other half recommended the healthcare perspective. Equity considerations were required in ten EEGs. Most EEGs (n = 11) required the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and recommended sensitivity analysis, as well as the presentation of a budget impact analysis (n = 10). Seven of the identified EEGs were mandatory for pharmacoeconomics submission. Methodological gaps, contradictions, and heterogeneity in terminologies used were identified within the guidelines.
CONCLUSION: As the importance of health technology assessment is increasing in LMICs, this systematic review could help researchers explore key aspects of existing EEGs in LMICs and explore differences among them. It could also support international organizations in guiding LMICs to develop their own EEGs and improve the methodological framework of existing ones.