Abstract
Background Decision-makers in middle-income countries need evidence on the cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 booster doses and oral antivirals to appropriately prioritise these healthcare interventions.
Methods We used a dynamic transmission model to assess the cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 booster doses and oral antivirals in Fiji, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and Timor-Leste. We conducted cost-effectiveness analysis from both healthcare and societal perspectives using 3% discounting for ongoing costs and health benefits. We developed an interactive R Shiny which allows the user to vary key model assumptions, such as the choice of discounting rate, and view how these assumptions affect model results.
Findings Booster doses were cost saving and therefore cost-effective in all four middle-income settings from both healthcare and societal perspectives using 3% discounting. Providing oral antivirals was cost-effective from a healthcare perspective if procured at a low generic ($25 United States Dollars) or middle-income reference price ($250 United States Dollars); however, their cost-effectiveness was strongly influenced by rates of wastage or misuse, and the ongoing costs of care for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Interestingly, the cost or wastage of rapid antigen tests did not appear strongly influential over the cost-effectiveness of oral antivirals in any of the four study settings.
Conclusions Our results support that government funded COVID-19 booster programs continue to be cost-effective in middle-income settings. Oral antivirals demonstrate the potential to be cost-effective if procured at or below a middle-income reference price of $250 USD per schedule. Further research should quantify the rates of wastage or misuse of oral COVID-19 antivirals in middle-income settings.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
N/A
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability Statement
All data was collated from publicly available sources. Our model code and inputs can be viewed on GitHub: https://github.com/gizembilgin/indoPacific_COVID19_cost_effectiveness/tree/main. An interactive R Shiny version of the results can be found hosted on https://gizemmayisbilgin.shinyapps.io/indoPacific_COVID19_costEffectivenessAnalysis/ or directly downloaded from https://github.com/gizembilgin/indoPacific_COVID19_cost_effectiveness/tree/main/03_cost_effectiveness_analysis/07_shiny
