Economic Evaluation of COVID-19 Immunization Strategies: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to systematically assess global economic evaluation studies on COVID-19 vaccination, offer valuable insights for future economic evaluations, and assist policymakers in making evidence-based decisions regarding the implementation of COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: Searches were performed from January 2020 to September 2023 across seven English databases (PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, EBSCO, KCL-Korean Journal Dataset, SciELO Citation Index, and Derwent Innovations Index) and three Chinese databases (Wanfang Data, China Science and Technology Journal, and CNKI). Rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Data were extracted from eligible studies using a standardized data collection form, with the reporting quality of these studies assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022). RESULTS: Of the 40 studies included in the final review, the overall reporting quality was good, evidenced by a mean score of 22.6 (ranging from 10.5 to 28). Given the significant heterogeneity in fundamental aspects among the studies reviewed, a narrative synthesis was conducted. Most of these studies adopted a health system or societal perspective. They predominantly utilized a composite model, merging dynamic and static methods, within short to medium-term time horizons to simulate various vaccination strategies. The research strategies varied among studies, investigating different doses, dosages, brands, mechanisms, efficacies, vaccination coverage rates, deployment speeds, and priority target groups. Three pivotal parameters notably influenced the evaluation results: the vaccine's effectiveness, its cost, and the basic reproductive number (R0). Despite variations in model structures, baseline parameters, and assumptions utilized, all studies identified a general trend that COVID-19 vaccination is cost-effective compared to no vaccination or intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The current review confirmed that COVID-19 vaccination is a cost-effective alternative in preventing and controlling COVID-19. In addition, it highlights the profound impact of variables such as dose size, target population, vaccine efficacy, speed of vaccination, and diversity of vaccine brands and mechanisms on cost effectiveness, and also proposes practical and effective strategies for improving COVID-19 vaccination campaigns from the perspective of economic evaluation.

A head-to-head comparison of the measurement properties of EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in Chinese family caregivers of cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Although both EQ-5D-3L(3L) and EQ-5D-5L(5L) have demonstrated good measurement properties in several patient populations, there is currently limited evidence comparing the measurement properties of 3L and 5L in family caregivers (FCs) of cancer patients. PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the measurement properties of 3L and 5L in a sample of family caregivers of cancer patients. METHODS: A consecutive sample of FCs of cancer patients recruited from three tertiary hospitals were invited to complete the two versions of the EQ-5D in two rounds of interviews. We compared i) the ceiling effect using the McNemar's test, ii) test-retest reliability using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cohen's Kappa, iii) convergent validity using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, iv) known-group validity using F-statistic, v) and discriminant capacity using ordinal logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 416 FCs completed the baseline questionnaire and 120 caregivers completed the follow-up questionnaire. Ceiling effects were smaller in 5L (12.5%) than in 3L (20.7%). The convergent validity (r = 0.344-0.771), known-groups validity (Fratio5L/3L = 2.06-4.09), discriminant capacity (ES = 0.341-0.396), and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.725) of the 5L were slightly better than those of the 3L in China. CONCLUSION: The current study found both 3L and 5L to be suitable for use by FCs of cancer patients. However, 5L showed superior measurement properties compared to 3L and therefore could be the preferred instrument when EQ-5D data of cancer patients FCs is required.

Multimorbidity and catastrophic health expenditure: Evidence from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study.

Background: Population aging accompanied by multimorbidity imposes a great burden on households and the healthcare system. This study aimed to determine the incidence and determinants of catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) in the households of old people with multimorbidity in China. Methods: Data were obtained from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS) conducted in 2018, with 3,511 old people (≥60 years) with multimorbidity responding to the survey on behalf of their households. CHE was identified using two thresholds: ≥10% of out-of-pocket (OOP) health spending in total household expenditure (THE) and ≥40% of OOP health spending in household capacity to pay (CTP) measured by non-food household expenditure. Logistic regression models were established to identify the individual and household characteristics associated with CHE incidence. Results: The median values of THE, OOP health spending, and CTP reached 19,900, 1,500, and 10,520 Yuan, respectively. The CHE incidence reached 31.5% using the ≥40% CTP threshold and 45.6% using the ≥10% THE threshold. It increased by the number of chronic conditions reported by the respondents (aOR = 1.293-1.855, p < 0.05) and decreased with increasing household economic status (aOR = 1.622-4.595 relative the highest quartile, p < 0.001). Hospital admissions over the past year (aOR = 6.707, 95% CI: 5.186 to 8.674) and outpatient visits over the past month (aOR = 4.891, 95% CI: 3.822 to 6.259) of the respondents were the strongest predictors of CHE incidence. The respondents who were male (aOR = 1.266, 95% CI: 1.054 to 1.521), married (OR = 1.502, 95% CI: 1.211 to 1.862), older than 70 years (aOR = 1.288-1.458 relative to 60-69 years, p < 0.05), completed primary (aOR = 1.328 relative to illiterate, 95% CI: 1.079 to 1.635) or secondary school education (aOR = 1.305 relative to illiterate, 95% CI: 1.002 to 1.701), lived in a small (≤2 members) household (aOR = 2.207, 95% CI: 1.825 to 2.669), and resided in the northeast region (aOR = 1.935 relative to eastern, 95% CI: 1.396 to 2.682) were more likely to incur CHE. Conclusion: Multimorbidity is a significant risk of CHE. Household CHE incidence increases with the number of reported chronic conditions. Socioeconomic and regional disparities in CHE incidence persist in China.