The role of economic evaluations in advancing HIV multipurpose prevention technologies in early-stage development.

Product development is a high-risk undertaking, especially so when investments are prioritized for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where markets may be smaller, fragile, and resource-constrained. New HIV prevention technologies, such as the dapivirine vaginal ring (DVR) and long-acting injectable cabotegravir (CAB-LA), are being introduced to these markets with one indication, meeting different needs of groups such as adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) and female sex workers (FSWs) in settings with high HIV burden. However, limited supply and demand have made their uptake a challenge. Economic evaluations conducted before Phase III trials can help optimize the potential public health value proposition of products in early-stage research and development (R&D), targeting investments in the development pathway that result in products likely to be available and taken up. Public investors in the HIV prevention pipeline, in particular those focused on innovative presentations such as multipurpose prevention technologies (MPTs), can leverage early economic evaluations to understand the intrinsic uncertainty in market characterization. In this perspective piece, we reflect on the role of economic evaluations in early product development and on methodological considerations that are central to these analyses. We also discuss methods, in quantitative and qualitative research that can be deployed in early economic evaluations to address uncertainty, with examples applied to the development of future technologies for HIV prevention and MPTs.

Lessons learnt from daily oral PrEP delivery to inform national planning for PrEP ring introduction for women in low-income and middle-income countries: a qualitative inquiry of international stakeholders.

INTRODUCTION: Some African countries plan to introduce and scale-up new long-acting pre-exposure prophylaxis methods (LA-PrEP), like the monthly dapivirine vaginal ring (PrEP ring) and injectable cabotegravir. National costed implementation plans, roadmaps for successful product implementation, are often overlooked. International stakeholders engaged in oral PrEP planning, introduction and scale-up are an information resource of lessons learned to advise LA-PrEP planning. We consulted such international stakeholders and synthesised oral PrEP lessons to inform the development of a costed rollout plan template for LA-PrEP. METHODS: From selected global health organisations (five international nongovernmental, four donor, four university/research and two multilateral), we interviewed 27 representatives based in America, Europe, Asia and Africa about strategic content and approaches for LA-PrEP policy, programming and implementation. We conducted a thematic analysis of the interview data for implementation considerations. RESULTS: From the consultations, we identified six implementation themes for LA-PrEP introduction and scale-up: (1) ethically increasing choice and avoiding coercion; (2) de-stigmatising PrEP by focusing on preference rather than risk-based eligibility; (3) integrating LA-PrEP into services that are more woman-oriented, couple-oriented and family-oriented, and providing private spaces for LA-PrEP delivery; (4) de-medicalising delivery of relatively safe products (eg, PrEP ring); (5) constructing multilevel, nuanced communication strategies to address measured and perceived product efficacy and effectiveness; and (6) devising product-agnostic, modular approaches to service delivery. Despite the widespread emphasis on integration, few stakeholders offered empirical examples of successful integration approaches and frameworks. CONCLUSIONS: Lessons learnt from stakeholder participants suggest standardised and modular processes can improve efficiencies in LA-PrEP planning and implementation. Tiered communication strategies addressing product efficacy and effectiveness will improve clients' and providers' efficacy in making informed decisions. Integration is important for LA-PrEP delivery, but data on empirical integration approaches and frameworks is minimal: further research in this discipline is needed.

The Use of Evidence to Design an Essential Package of Health Services in Pakistan: A Review and Analysis of Prioritisation Decisions at Different Stages of the Appraisal Process.

BACKGROUND: Pakistan embarked on a process of designing an essential package of health services (EPHS) as a pathway towards universal health coverage (UHC). The EPHS design followed an evidence-informed deliberative process; evidence on 170 interventions was introduced along multiple stages of appraisal engaging different stakeholders tasked with prioritising interventions for inclusion. We report on the composition of the package at different stages, analyse trends of prioritised and deprioritised interventions and reflect on the trade-offs made. METHODS: Quantitative evidence on cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and avoidable burden of disease was presented to stakeholders in stages. We recorded which interventions were prioritised and deprioritised at each stage and carried out three analyses: (1) a review of total number of interventions prioritised at each stage, along with associated costs per capita and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted, to understand changes in affordability and efficiency in the package, (2) an analysis of interventions broken down by decision criteria and intervention characteristics to analyse prioritisation trends across different stages, and (3) a description of the trajectory of interventions broken down by current coverage and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Value for money generally increased throughout the process, although not uniformly. Stakeholders largely prioritised interventions with low budget impact and those preventing a high burden of disease. Highly cost-effective interventions were also prioritised, but less consistently throughout the stages of the process. Interventions with high current coverage were overwhelmingly prioritised for inclusion. CONCLUSION: Evidence-informed deliberative processes can produce actionable and affordable health benefit packages. While cost-effective interventions are generally preferred, other factors play a role and limit efficiency.

Costing Interventions for Developing an Essential Package of Health Services: Application of a Rapid Method and Results From Pakistan.

BACKGROUND: The Federal Ministry of National Health Services, Regulations and Coordination (MNHSR&C) in Pakistan has committed to progress towards universal health coverage (UHC) by 2030 by providing an Essential Package of Health Services (EPHS). Starting in 2019, the Disease Control Priorities 3rd edition (DCP3) evidence framework was used to guide the development of Pakistan's EPHS. In this paper, we describe the methods and results of a rapid costing approach used to inform the EPHS design process. METHODS: A total of 167 unit costs were calculated through a context-specific, normative, ingredients-based, and bottom-up economic costing approach. Costs were constructed by determining resource use from descriptions provided by MNHSR&C and validated by technical experts. Price data from publicly available sources were used. Deterministic univariate sensitivity analyses were carried out. RESULTS: Unit costs ranged from 2019 US$ 0.27 to 2019 US$ 1478. Interventions in the cancer package of services had the highest average cost (2019 US$ 837) while interventions in the environmental package of services had the lowest (2019 US$ 0.68). Cost drivers varied by platform; the two largest drivers were drug regimens and surgery-related costs. Sensitivity analyses suggest our results are not sensitive to changes in staff salary but are sensitive to changes in medicine pricing. CONCLUSION: We estimated a large number of context-specific unit costs, over a six-month period, demonstrating a rapid costing method suitable for EPHS design.

The epidemiological and economic burden of diabetes in Ghana: A scoping review to inform health technology assessment.

Diabetes remains one of the four major causes of morbidity and mortality globally among non-communicable diseases (NCDs. It is predicted to increase in sub-Saharan Africa by over 50% by 2045. The aim of this study is to identify, map and estimate the burden of diabetes in Ghana, which is essential for optimising NCD country policy and understanding existing knowledge gaps to guide future research in this area. We followed the Arksey and O'Malley framework for scoping reviews. We searched electronic databases including Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane and African Index Medicus following a systematic search strategy. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews was followed when reporting the results. A total of 36 studies were found to fulfil the inclusion criteria. The reported prevalence of diabetes at national level in Ghana ranged between 2.80%- 3.95%. At the regional level, the Western region reported the highest prevalence of diabetes: 39.80%, followed by Ashanti region (25.20%) and Central region at 24.60%. The prevalence of diabetes was generally higher in women in comparison to men. Urban areas were found to have a higher prevalence of diabetes than rural areas. The mean annual financial cost of managing one diabetic case at the outpatient clinic was estimated at GHS 540.35 (2021 US $194.09). There was a paucity of evidence on the overall economic burden and the regional prevalence burden. Ghana is faced with a considerable burden of diabetes which varies by region and setting (urban/rural). There is an urgent need for effective and efficient interventions to prevent the anticipated elevation in burden of disease through the utilisation of existing evidence and proven priority-setting tools like Health Technology Assessment (HTA).

A Scoping Review and Taxonomy of Epidemiological-Macroeconomic Models of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic placed significant strain on many health systems and economies. Mitigation policies decreased health impacts but had major macroeconomic impact. This article reviews models combining epidemiological and macroeconomic projections to enable policy makers to consider both macroeconomic and health objectives. METHODS: A scoping review of epidemiological-macroeconomic models of COVID-19 was conducted, covering preprints, working articles, and journal publications. We assessed model methodologies, scope, and application to empirical data. RESULTS: We found 80 articles modeling both the epidemiological and macroeconomic outcomes of COVID-19. Model scope is often limited to the impact of lockdown on health and total gross domestic product or aggregate consumption and to high-income countries. Just 14% of models assess disparities or poverty. Most models fall under 4 categories: compartmental-utility-maximization models, epidemiological models with stylized macroeconomic projections, epidemiological models linked to computable general equilibrium or input-output models, and epidemiological-economic agent-based models. We propose a taxonomy comparing these approaches to guide future model development. CONCLUSIONS: The epidemiological-macroeconomic models of COVID-19 identified have varying complexity and meet different modeling needs. Priorities for future modeling include increasing developing country applications, assessing disparities and poverty, and estimating of long-run impacts. This may require better integration between epidemiologists and economists.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and social contact patterns in Pakistan: results from a national cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is a key tool against COVID-19. However, in many settings it is not clear how acceptable COVID-19 vaccination is among the general population, or how hesitancy correlates with risk of disease acquisition. In this study we conducted a nationally representative survey in Pakistan to measure vaccination perceptions and social contacts in the context of COVID-19 control measures and vaccination programmes. METHODS: We conducted a vaccine perception and social contact survey with 3,658 respondents across five provinces in Pakistan, between 31 May and 29 June 2021. Respondents were asked a series of vaccine perceptions questions, to report all direct physical and non-physical contacts made the previous day, and a number of other questions regarding the social and economic impact of COVID-19 and control measures. We examined variation in perceptions and contact patterns by geographic and demographic factors. We describe knowledge, experiences and perceived risks of COVID-19. We explored variation in contact patterns by individual characteristics and vaccine hesitancy, and compared to patterns from non-pandemic periods. RESULTS: Self-reported adherence to self-isolation guidelines was poor, and 51% of respondents did not know where to access a COVID-19 test. Although 48.1% of participants agreed that they would get a vaccine if offered, vaccine hesitancy was higher than in previous surveys, and greatest in Sindh and Baluchistan provinces and among respondents of lower socioeconomic status. Participants reported a median of 5 contacts the previous day (IQR: 3-5, mean 14.0, 95%CI: 13.2, 14.9). There were no substantial differences in the number of contacts reported by individual characteristics, but contacts varied substantially among respondents reporting more or less vaccine hesitancy. Contacts were highly assortative, particularly outside the household where 97% of men's contacts were with other men. We estimate that social contacts were 9% lower than before the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Although the perceived risk of COVID-19 in Pakistan is low in the general population, around half of participants in this survey indicated they would get vaccinated if offered. Vaccine impact studies which do not account for correlation between social contacts and vaccine hesitancy may incorrectly estimate the impact of vaccines, for example, if unvaccinated people have more contacts.

The stated preferences of community-based volunteers for roles in the prevention of violence against women and girls in Ghana: A discrete choice analysis.

Violence against women and girls (VAWG) is a human rights violation with substantial health-related consequences. Interventions to prevent VAWG, often implemented at the community level by volunteers, have been proven effective and cost-effective. One such intervention is the Rural Response System in Ghana, a volunteer-run program which hires community based action teams (COMBATs) to sensitise the community about VAWG and to provide counselling services in rural areas. To increase programmatic impact and maximise the retention of these volunteers, it is important to understand their preferences for incentives. We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) among 107 COMBAT volunteers, in two Ghanaian districts in 2018, to examine their stated preferences for financial and non-financial incentives that could be offered in their roles. Each respondent answered 12 choice tasks, and each task comprised four hypothetical volunteering positions. The first three positions included different levels of five role attributes. The fourth option was to cease volunteering as a COMBAT volunteer (opt-out). We found that, overall, COMBAT volunteers cared most for receiving training in volunteering skills and three-monthly supervisions. These results were consistent between multinomial logit, and mixed multinomial logit models. A three-class latent class model fitted our data best, identifying subgroups of COMBAT workers with distinct preferences for incentives: The younger 'go getters'; older 'veterans', and the 'balanced bunch' encompassing the majority of the sample. The opt-out was chosen only 4 (0.3%) times. Only one other study quantitatively examined the preferences for incentives of VAWG-prevention volunteers using a DCE (Kasteng et al., 2016). Understanding preferences and how they vary between sub-groups can be leveraged by programme managers to improve volunteer motivation and retention. As effective VAWG-prevention programmes are scaled up from small pilots to the national level, data on volunteer preferences may be useful in improving volunteer retention.

Assessing the impacts of COVID-19 vaccination programme's timing and speed on health benefits, cost-effectiveness, and relative affordability in 27 African countries.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 vaccine supply shortage in 2021 constrained roll-out efforts in Africa while populations experienced waves of epidemics. As supply improves, a key question is whether vaccination remains an impactful and cost-effective strategy given changes in the timing of implementation. METHODS: We assessed the impact of vaccination programme timing using an epidemiological and economic model. We fitted an age-specific dynamic transmission model to reported COVID-19 deaths in 27 African countries to approximate existing immunity resulting from infection before substantial vaccine roll-out. We then projected health outcomes (from symptomatic cases to overall disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted) for different programme start dates (01 January to 01 December 2021, n = 12) and roll-out rates (slow, medium, fast; 275, 826, and 2066 doses/million population-day, respectively) for viral vector and mRNA vaccines by the end of 2022. Roll-out rates used were derived from observed uptake trajectories in this region. Vaccination programmes were assumed to prioritise those above 60 years before other adults. We collected data on vaccine delivery costs, calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) compared to no vaccine use, and compared these ICERs to GDP per capita. We additionally calculated a relative affordability measure of vaccination programmes to assess potential nonmarginal budget impacts. RESULTS: Vaccination programmes with early start dates yielded the most health benefits and lowest ICERs compared to those with late starts. While producing the most health benefits, fast vaccine roll-out did not always result in the lowest ICERs. The highest marginal effectiveness within vaccination programmes was found among older adults. High country income groups, high proportions of populations over 60 years or non-susceptible at the start of vaccination programmes are associated with low ICERs relative to GDP per capita. Most vaccination programmes with small ICERs relative to GDP per capita were also relatively affordable. CONCLUSION: Although ICERs increased significantly as vaccination programmes were delayed, programmes starting late in 2021 may still generate low ICERs and manageable affordability measures. Looking forward, lower vaccine purchasing costs and vaccines with improved efficacies can help increase the economic value of COVID-19 vaccination programmes.

Health Economics Research on Non-surgical Biomedical HIV Prevention: Identifying Gaps and Proposing a Way Forward.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Although HIV prevention science has advanced over the last four decades, evidence suggests that prevention technologies do not always reach their full potential. Critical health economics evidence at appropriate decision-making junctures, particularly early in the development process, could help identify and address potential barriers to the eventual uptake of future HIV prevention products. This paper aims to identify key evidence gaps and propose health economics research priorities for the field of HIV non-surgical biomedical prevention. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods approach with three distinct components: (i) three systematic literature reviews (costs and cost effectiveness, HIV transmission modelling and quantitative preference elicitation) to understand health economics evidence and gaps in the peer-reviewed literature; (ii) an online survey with researchers working in this field to capture gaps in yet-to-be published research (recently completed, ongoing and future); and (iii) a stakeholder meeting with key global and national players in HIV prevention, including experts in product development, health economics research and policy uptake, to uncover further gaps, as well as to elicit views on priorities and recommendations based on (i) and (ii). RESULTS: Gaps in the scope of available health economics evidence were identified. Little research has been carried out on certain key populations (e.g. transgender people and people who inject drugs) and other vulnerable groups (e.g. pregnant people and people who breastfeed). Research is also lacking on preferences of community actors who often influence or enable access to health services among priority populations. Oral pre-exposure prophylaxis, which has been rolled out in many settings, has been studied in depth. However, research on newer promising technologies, such as long-acting pre-exposure prophylaxis formulations, broadly neutralising antibodies and multipurpose prevention technologies, is lacking. Interventions focussing on reducing intravenous and vertical transmission are also understudied. A disproportionate amount of evidence on low- and middle-income countries comes from two countries (South Africa and Kenya); evidence from other countries in sub-Saharan Africa as well as other low- and middle-income countries is needed. Further, data are needed on non-facility-based service delivery modalities, integrated service delivery and ancillary services. Key methodological gaps were also identified. An emphasis on equity and representation of heterogeneous populations was lacking. Research rarely acknowledged the complex and dynamic use of prevention technologies over time. Greater efforts are needed to collect primary data, quantify uncertainty, systematically compare the full range of prevention options available, and validate pilot and modelling data once interventions are scaled up. Clarity on appropriate cost-effectiveness outcome measures and thresholds is also lacking. Lastly, research often fails to reflect policy-relevant questions and approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a large body of health economics evidence on non-surgical biomedical HIV prevention technologies, important gaps in the scope of evidence and methodology remain. To ensure that high-quality research influences key decision-making junctures and facilitates the delivery of prevention products in a way that maximises impact, we make five broad recommendations related to: improved study design, an increased focus on service delivery, greater community and stakeholder engagement, the fostering of an active network of partners across sectors and an enhanced application of research.

Infectious Disease Modelling of HIV Prevention Interventions: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis of Compartmental Models.

BACKGROUND: The HIV epidemic remains a major public health problem. Critical to transmission control are HIV prevention strategies with new interventions continuing to be developed. Mathematical models are important for understanding the potential impact of these interventions and supporting policy decisions. This systematic review aims to answer the following question: when a new HIV prevention intervention is being considered or designed, what information regarding it is necessary to include in a compartmental model to provide useful insights to policy makers? The primary objective of this review is therefore to assess suitability of current compartmental HIV prevention models for informing policy development. METHODS: Articles published in EMBASE, Medline, Econlit, and Global Health were screened. Included studies were identified using permutations of (i) HIV, (ii) pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), circumcision (both voluntary male circumcision [VMMC] and early-infant male circumcision [EIMC]), and vaccination, and (iii) modelling. Data extraction focused on study design, model structure, and intervention incorporation into models. Article quality was assessed using the TRACE (TRAnsparent and Comprehensive Ecological modelling documentation) criteria for mathematical models. RESULTS: Of 837 articles screened, 48 articles were included in the review, with 32 unique mathematical models identified. The substantial majority of studies included PrEP (83%), whilst fewer modelled circumcision (54%), and only a few focussed on vaccination (10%). Data evaluation, implementation verification, and model output corroboration were identified as areas of poorer model quality. Parameters commonly included in the mathematical models were intervention uptake and effectiveness, with additional intervention-specific common parameters identified. We identified key modelling gaps; critically, models insufficiently incorporate multiple interventions acting simultaneously. Additionally, population subgroups were generally poorly represented-with future models requiring improved incorporation of ethnicity and sexual risk group stratification-and many models contained inappropriate data in parameterisation which will affect output accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified gaps in compartmental models to date and suggests areas of improvement for models focusing on new prevention interventions. Resolution of such gaps within future models will ensure greater robustness and transparency, and enable more accurate assessment of the impact that new interventions may have, thereby providing more meaningful guidance to policy makers.

What, how and who: Cost-effectiveness analyses of COVID-19 vaccination to inform key policies in Nigeria.

While safe and efficacious COVID-19 vaccines have achieved high coverage in high-income settings, roll-out remains slow in sub-Saharan Africa. By April 2022, Nigeria, a country of over 200 million people, had only distributed 34 million doses. To ensure the optimal use of health resources, cost-effectiveness analyses can inform key policy questions in the health technology assessment process. We carried out several cost-effectiveness analyses exploring different COVID-19 vaccination scenarios in Nigeria. In consultation with Nigerian stakeholders, we addressed three key questions: what vaccines to buy, how to deliver them and what age groups to target. We combined an epidemiological model of virus transmission parameterised with Nigeria specific data with a costing model that incorporated local resource use assumptions and prices, both for vaccine delivery as well as costs associated with care and treatment of COVID-19. Scenarios of vaccination were compared with no vaccination. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated in terms of costs per disability-adjusted life years averted and compared to commonly used cost-effectiveness ratios. Viral vector vaccines are cost-effective (or cost saving), particularly when targeting older adults. Despite higher efficacy, vaccines employing mRNA technologies are less cost-effective due to high current dose prices. The method of delivery of vaccines makes little difference to the cost-effectiveness of the vaccine. COVID-19 vaccines can be highly effective and cost-effective (as well as cost-saving), although an important determinant of the latter is the price per dose and the age groups prioritised for vaccination. From a health system perspective, viral vector vaccines may represent most cost-effective choices for Nigeria, although this may change with price negotiation.

Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of Biomedical, Non-Surgical HIV Prevention Interventions: A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Considerable evidence on the costs and cost-effectiveness of biomedical, non-surgical interventions to prevent human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission has been generated over the last decade. This study aims to synthesize findings and identify remaining knowledge gaps to suggest future research priorities. METHODS: A systematic literature review was carried out in August 2020 using the MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health and EconLit databases to retrieve economic evaluations and costing studies of oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), injectable long-acting PrEP, vaginal microbicide rings and gels, HIV vaccines and broadly neutralizing antibodies. Studies reporting costs from the provider or societal perspective were included in the analysis. Those reporting on behavioural methods of prevention, condoms and surgical approaches (voluntary medical male circumcision) were excluded. The quality of reporting of the included studies was assessed using published checklists. RESULTS: We identified 3007 citations, of which 87 studies were retained. Most were set in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs; n = 53) and focused on the costs and/or cost-effectiveness of oral PrEP regimens (n = 70). Model-based economic evaluations were the most frequent study design; only two trial-based cost-effectiveness analyses and nine costing studies were found. Less than half of the studies provided practical details on how the intervention would be delivered by the health system, and only three of these, all in LMICs, explicitly focused on service integration and its implication for delivery costs. 'Real-world' programme delivery mechanisms and costs of intervention delivery were rarely considered. PrEP technologies were generally found to be cost-effective only when targeting high-risk subpopulations. Single-dose HIV vaccines are expected to be cost-effective for all groups despite substantial uncertainty around pricing. CONCLUSIONS: A lack of primary, detailed and updated cost data, including above-service level costs, from a variety of settings makes it difficult to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of specific delivery modes at scale, or to evaluate strategies for services integration. Closing this evidence gap around real-world implementation is vital, not least because the strategies targeting high-risk groups that are recommended by PrEP models may incur substantially higher costs and be of limited practical feasibility in some settings.

Correction: COVID-19 vaccination in Sindh Province, Pakistan: A modelling study of health impact and cost-effectiveness.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003815.].

Prevention of violence against women and girls: A cost-effectiveness study across 6 low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Violence against women and girls (VAWG) is a human rights violation with social, economic, and health consequences for survivors, perpetrators, and society. Robust evidence on economic, social, and health impact, plus the cost of delivery of VAWG prevention, is critical to making the case for investment, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where health sector resources are highly constrained. We report on the costs and health impact of VAWG prevention in 6 countries. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of VAWG prevention interventions using primary data from 5 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in sub-Saharan Africa and 1 in South Asia. We evaluated 2 school-based interventions aimed at adolescents (11 to 14 years old) and 2 workshop-based (small group or one to one) interventions, 1 community-based intervention, and 1 combined small group and community-based programme all aimed at adult men and women (18+ years old). All interventions were delivered between 2015 and 2018 and were compared to a do-nothing scenario, except for one of the school-based interventions (government-mandated programme) and for the combined intervention (access to financial services in small groups). We computed the health burden from VAWG with disability-adjusted life year (DALY). We estimated per capita DALYs averted using statistical models that reflect each trial's design and any baseline imbalances. We report cost-effectiveness as cost per DALY averted and characterise uncertainty in the estimates with probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs), which show the probability of cost-effectiveness at different thresholds. We report a subgroup analysis of the small group component of the combined intervention and no other subgroup analysis. We also report an impact inventory to illustrate interventions' socioeconomic impact beyond health. We use a 3% discount rate for investment costs and a 1-year time horizon, assuming no effects post the intervention period. From a health sector perspective, the cost per DALY averted varies between US$222 (2018), for an established gender attitudes and harmful social norms change community-based intervention in Ghana, to US$17,548 (2018) for a livelihoods intervention in South Africa. Taking a societal perspective and including wider economic impact improves the cost-effectiveness of some interventions but reduces others. For example, interventions with positive economic impacts, often those with explicit economic goals, offset implementation costs and achieve more favourable cost-effectiveness ratios. Results are robust to sensitivity analyses. Our DALYs include a subset of the health consequences of VAWG exposure; we assume no mortality impact from any of the health consequences included in the DALYs calculations. In both cases, we may be underestimating overall health impact. We also do not report on participants' health costs. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that investment in established community-based VAWG prevention interventions can improve population health in LMICs, even within highly constrained health budgets. However, several VAWG prevention interventions require further modification to achieve affordability and cost-effectiveness at scale. Broadening the range of social, health, and economic outcomes captured in future cost-effectiveness assessments remains critical to justifying the investment urgently required to prevent VAWG globally.

Stark choices: exploring health sector costs of policy responses to COVID-19 in low-income and middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 has altered health sector capacity in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Cost data to inform evidence-based priority setting are urgently needed. Consequently, in this paper, we calculate the full economic health sector costs of COVID-19 clinical management in 79 LMICs under different epidemiological scenarios. METHODS: We used country-specific epidemiological projections from a dynamic transmission model to determine number of cases, hospitalisations and deaths over 1 year under four mitigation scenarios. We defined the health sector response for three base LMICs through guidelines and expert opinion. We calculated costs through local resource use and price data and extrapolated costs across 79 LMICs. Lastly, we compared cost estimates against gross domestic product (GDP) and total annual health expenditure in 76 LMICs. RESULTS: COVID-19 clinical management costs vary greatly by country, ranging between <0.1%-12% of GDP and 0.4%-223% of total annual health expenditure (excluding out-of-pocket payments). Without mitigation policies, COVID-19 clinical management costs per capita range from US$43.39 to US$75.57; in 22 of 76 LMICs, these costs would surpass total annual health expenditure. In a scenario of stringent social distancing, costs per capita fall to US$1.10-US$1.32. CONCLUSIONS: We present the first dataset of COVID-19 clinical management costs across LMICs. These costs can be used to inform decision-making on priority setting. Our results show that COVID-19 clinical management costs in LMICs are substantial, even in scenarios of moderate social distancing. Low-income countries are particularly vulnerable and some will struggle to cope with almost any epidemiological scenario. The choices facing LMICs are likely to remain stark and emergency financial support will be needed.

COVID-19 vaccination in Sindh Province, Pakistan: A modelling study of health impact and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Multiple Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines appear to be safe and efficacious, but only high-income countries have the resources to procure sufficient vaccine doses for most of their eligible populations. The World Health Organization has published guidelines for vaccine prioritisation, but most vaccine impact projections have focused on high-income countries, and few incorporate economic considerations. To address this evidence gap, we projected the health and economic impact of different vaccination scenarios in Sindh Province, Pakistan (population: 48 million). METHODS AND FINDINGS: We fitted a compartmental transmission model to COVID-19 cases and deaths in Sindh from 30 April to 15 September 2020. We then projected cases, deaths, and hospitalisation outcomes over 10 years under different vaccine scenarios. Finally, we combined these projections with a detailed economic model to estimate incremental costs (from healthcare and partial societal perspectives), disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for each scenario. We project that 1 year of vaccine distribution, at delivery rates consistent with COVAX projections, using an infection-blocking vaccine at $3/dose with 70% efficacy and 2.5-year duration of protection is likely to avert around 0.9 (95% credible interval (CrI): 0.9, 1.0) million cases, 10.1 (95% CrI: 10.1, 10.3) thousand deaths, and 70.1 (95% CrI: 69.9, 70.6) thousand DALYs, with an ICER of $27.9 per DALY averted from the health system perspective. Under a broad range of alternative scenarios, we find that initially prioritising the older (65+) population generally prevents more deaths. However, unprioritised distribution has almost the same cost-effectiveness when considering all outcomes, and both prioritised and unprioritised programmes can be cost-effective for low per-dose costs. High vaccine prices ($10/dose), however, may not be cost-effective, depending on the specifics of vaccine performance, distribution programme, and future pandemic trends. The principal drivers of the health outcomes are the fitted values for the overall transmission scaling parameter and disease natural history parameters from other studies, particularly age-specific probabilities of infection and symptomatic disease, as well as social contact rates. Other parameters are investigated in sensitivity analyses. This study is limited by model approximations, available data, and future uncertainty. Because the model is a single-population compartmental model, detailed impacts of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as household isolation cannot be practically represented or evaluated in combination with vaccine programmes. Similarly, the model cannot consider prioritising groups like healthcare or other essential workers. The model is only fitted to the reported case and death data, which are incomplete and not disaggregated by, e.g., age. Finally, because the future impact and implementation cost of NPIs are uncertain, how these would interact with vaccination remains an open question. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccination can have a considerable health impact and is likely to be cost-effective if more optimistic vaccine scenarios apply. Preventing severe disease is an important contributor to this impact. However, the advantage of prioritising older, high-risk populations is smaller in generally younger populations. This reduction is especially true in populations with more past transmission, and if the vaccine is likely to further impede transmission rather than just disease. Those conditions are typical of many low- and middle-income countries.

Exploring equity in health and poverty impacts of control measures for SARS-CoV-2 in six countries.

BACKGROUND: Policy makers need to be rapidly informed about the potential equity consequences of different COVID-19 strategies, alongside their broader health and economic impacts. While there are complex models to inform both potential health and macro-economic impact, there are few tools available to rapidly assess potential equity impacts of interventions. METHODS: We created an economic model to simulate the impact of lockdown measures in Pakistan, Georgia, Chile, UK, the Philippines and South Africa. We consider impact of lockdown in terms of ability to socially distance, and income loss during lockdown, and tested the impact of assumptions on social protection coverage in a scenario analysis. RESULTS: In all examined countries, socioeconomic status (SES) quintiles 1-3 were disproportionately more likely to experience income loss (70% of people) and inability to socially distance (68% of people) than higher SES quintiles. Improving social protection increased the percentage of the workforce able to socially distance from 48% (33%-60%) to 66% (44%-71%). We estimate the cost of this social protection would be equivalent to an average of 0.6% gross domestic product (0.1% Pakistan-1.1% Chile). CONCLUSIONS: We illustrate the potential for using publicly available data to rapidly assess the equity implications of social protection and non-pharmaceutical intervention policy. Social protection is likely to mitigate inequitable health and economic impacts of lockdown. Although social protection is usually targeted to the poorest, middle quintiles will likely also need support as they are most likely to suffer income losses and are disproportionately more exposed.

Economic Evaluation of Public Health Interventions: An Application to Interventions for the Prevention of Violence Against Women and Girls Implemented by the "What Works to Prevent Violence Against Women and Girls?" Global Program.

Violence against women and girls (VAWG) has important social, economic, and public health impacts. Governments and international donors are increasing their investment in VAWG prevention programs, yet clear guidelines to assess the "value for money" of these interventions are lacking. Improved costing and economic evaluation of VAWG prevention can support programming through supporting priority setting, justifying investment, and planning the financing of VAWG prevention services. This article sets out a standardized methodology for the economic evaluation of complex, that is, multicomponent and/or multiplatform, programs designed to prevent VAWG in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). It outlines an approach that can be used alongside the most recent guidance for the economic evaluation of public health interventions in LMICs. It defines standardized methods of data collection and analysis, outcomes, and unit costs (i.e., average costs per person reached, output or service delivered), and provides guidance to investigate the uncertainty in cost-effectiveness estimates and report results. The costing approach has been developed and piloted as part of the "What Works to Prevent Violence Against Women and Girls?" (What Works?) program in five countries. This article and its supplementary material can be used by both economists and non-economists to contribute to the generation of new cost-effectiveness data on VAWG prevention, and ultimately improve the allocative efficiency and financing across VAWG programs.