6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Return on Investment of the COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign in New York City

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This decision analytical model estimates the direct and indirect costs as well as the benefits associated with a citywide COVID-19 vaccination initiative in New York City.

          Key Points

          Question

          Did the economic savings accrued from reductions in COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths outweigh the investment in the COVID-19 vaccination program in New York City?

          Findings

          In this decision analytical model study of a citywide initiative, every $1 invested in the New York City vaccination campaign yielded an estimated $10.19 in cost savings from lower infection and mortality rates, fewer productivity losses, and averted health care use.

          Meaning

          Findings of this study suggest that COVID-19 vaccination in New York City was associated with reduction in severe outcomes and avoidance of substantial economic losses.

          Abstract

          Importance

          New York City, an early epicenter of the pandemic, invested heavily in its COVID-19 vaccination campaign to mitigate the burden of disease outbreaks. Understanding the return on investment (ROI) of this campaign would provide insights into vaccination programs to curb future COVID-19 outbreaks.

          Objective

          To estimate the ROI of the New York City COVID-19 vaccination campaign by estimating the tangible direct and indirect costs from a societal perspective.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This decision analytical model of disease transmission was calibrated to confirmed and probable cases of COVID-19 in New York City between December 14, 2020, and January 31, 2022. This simulation model was validated with observed patterns of reported hospitalizations and deaths during the same period.

          Exposures

          An agent-based counterfactual scenario without vaccination was simulated using the calibrated model.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Costs of health care and deaths were estimated in the actual pandemic trajectory with vaccination and in the counterfactual scenario without vaccination. The savings achieved by vaccination, which were associated with fewer outpatient visits, emergency department visits, emergency medical services, hospitalizations, and intensive care unit admissions, were also estimated. The value of a statistical life (VSL) lost due to COVID-19 death and the productivity loss from illness were accounted for in calculating the ROI.

          Results

          During the study period, the vaccination campaign averted an estimated $27.96 (95% credible interval [CrI], $26.19-$29.84) billion in health care expenditures and 315 724 (95% CrI, 292 143-340 420) potential years of life lost, averting VSL loss of $26.27 (95% CrI, $24.39-$28.21) billion. The estimated net savings attributable to vaccination were $51.77 (95% CrI, $48.50-$55.85) billion. Every $1 invested in vaccination yielded estimated savings of $10.19 (95% CrI, $9.39-$10.87) in direct and indirect costs of health outcomes that would have been incurred without vaccination.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          Results of this modeling study showed an association of the New York City COVID-19 vaccination campaign with reduction in severe outcomes and avoidance of substantial economic losses. This significant ROI supports continued investment in improving vaccine uptake during the ongoing pandemic.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine

          Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. Methods In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 μg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety. Results A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. Conclusions A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine

            Abstract Background Vaccines are needed to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and to protect persons who are at high risk for complications. The mRNA-1273 vaccine is a lipid nanoparticle–encapsulated mRNA-based vaccine that encodes the prefusion stabilized full-length spike protein of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes Covid-19. Methods This phase 3 randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 99 centers across the United States. Persons at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection or its complications were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular injections of mRNA-1273 (100 μg) or placebo 28 days apart. The primary end point was prevention of Covid-19 illness with onset at least 14 days after the second injection in participants who had not previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Results The trial enrolled 30,420 volunteers who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either vaccine or placebo (15,210 participants in each group). More than 96% of participants received both injections, and 2.2% had evidence (serologic, virologic, or both) of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline. Symptomatic Covid-19 illness was confirmed in 185 participants in the placebo group (56.5 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 48.7 to 65.3) and in 11 participants in the mRNA-1273 group (3.3 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0); vaccine efficacy was 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3 to 96.8%; P<0.001). Efficacy was similar across key secondary analyses, including assessment 14 days after the first dose, analyses that included participants who had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline, and analyses in participants 65 years of age or older. Severe Covid-19 occurred in 30 participants, with one fatality; all 30 were in the placebo group. Moderate, transient reactogenicity after vaccination occurred more frequently in the mRNA-1273 group. Serious adverse events were rare, and the incidence was similar in the two groups. Conclusions The mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy at preventing Covid-19 illness, including severe disease. Aside from transient local and systemic reactions, no safety concerns were identified. (Funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; COVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04470427.)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Recommendations for Conduct, Methodological Practices, and Reporting of Cost-effectiveness Analyses: Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

              Since publication of the report by the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine in 1996, researchers have advanced the methods of cost-effectiveness analysis, and policy makers have experimented with its application. The need to deliver health care efficiently and the importance of using analytic techniques to understand the clinical and economic consequences of strategies to improve health have increased in recent years.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                21 November 2022
                November 2022
                21 November 2022
                : 5
                : 11
                : e2243127
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut
                [2 ]Agent-Based Modelling Laboratory, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [3 ]Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
                [4 ]The Commonwealth Fund, New York, New York
                [5 ]The National Committee for Quality Assurance, Washington, DC
                [6 ]New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York, New York
                [7 ]New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: October 9, 2022.
                Published: November 21, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.43127
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND License. © 2022 Sah P et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Alison P. Galvani, PhD, Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis (CIDMA), Yale School of Public Health, 135 College, Ste 200, New Haven, CT 06520 ( alison.galvani@ 123456yale.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Drs Sah and Moghadas had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs Sah, Vilches, Moghadas, and Galvani contributed equally.
                Concept and design: Sah, Moghadas, Pandey, Gondi, Schneider, Chokshi, Galvani.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Sah, Vilches, Moghadas, Pandey, Singer, Chokshi, Galvani.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Sah, Vilches, Moghadas, Pandey, Galvani.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Sah, Vilches, Moghadas, Gondi, Schneider, Singer, Chokshi, Galvani.
                Statistical analysis: Sah, Vilches, Moghadas.
                Obtained funding: Moghadas and Galvani.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Moghadas, Pandey, Singer, Chokshi.
                Supervision: Moghadas, Chokshi, Galvani.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Gondi reported receiving consulting fees from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Dr Schneider reported being employed by The Commonwealth Fund at the time of the analysis outside the submitted work. Dr Chokshi reported being the 43rd Health Commissioner of New York City overseeing the city’s COVID-19 vaccination campaign. Dr Galvani reported receiving personal fees from Janssen outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This study was supported by grant 20223668 from The Commonwealth Fund and grant 84689 from the Fund for Public Health in New York. Dr Moghadas was supported by COVID-19 Rapid Research Fund grant OV4 – 170643 from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and by Mathematics for Public Health grant A2022-0319 from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Emerging Infectious Disease Modelling Initiative.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Additional Contributions: Sami Jarrah, MPH, and Wei Xia, BA, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, assisted with gathering the data necessary to perform the analysis. These individuals received no additional compensation, outside of their usual salary, for their contributions.
                Article
                zoi221213
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.43127
                9679875
                36409495
                6290fcc1-3f3a-4642-8923-aac3e186772c
                Copyright 2022 Sah P et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND License.

                History
                : 14 June 2022
                : 9 October 2022
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Public Health

                Comments

                Comment on this article