PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Joshua Szanyi
AU  - Tim Wilson
AU  - Samantha Howe
AU  - Jessie Zeng
AU  - Hassan Andrabi
AU  - Tony Blakely
TI  - An integrated epidemiologic and economic model to assess optimal COVID-19 pandemic policy
AID  - 10.1101/2022.08.01.22278262
DP  - 2022 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2022.08.01.22278262
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/08/03/2022.08.01.22278262.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/08/03/2022.08.01.22278262.full
AB  - Background Identifying optimal COVID-19 policies is challenging. For Victoria, Australia (6.6 million people), we ranked 44 policy packages (two levels of stringency of public health and social measures [PHSMs]; providing respirators during infection surges; 11 vaccination schedules of current and next-generation vaccines) in the context of 64 future SARS-CoV-2 variants (combinations of transmissibility, virulence, immune escape, and incursion date).Methods We used an agent-based model to estimate morbidity, mortality, and costs over 18 months from 1 April 2022 for each scenario. Policies were ranked on cost-effectiveness (health system only and health system plus GDP perspectives), deaths and days exceeding hospital occupancy thresholds.Findings The median number of infections across the 44 policies was 6.2 million (range 5.4 to 7.1 million).Higher stringency PHSMs ranked better from a health system perspective, but not a health system plus GDP perspective. The provision of respirators to replace surgical/cloth masks had minimal impact. Vaccinating all ages was superior to nil further vaccination and targeted vaccination of individuals aged ≥60 years.Averaging over 64 future SARS-CoV-2 variant scenarios the optimal policy was a multivalent vaccine for all age groups with higher stringency PHSMs and no respirator provision. For the SARS-CoV-2 variant scenario approximating recent BA.4/5, Omicron-targeted vaccines were more likely optimal even with a three-month delay compared to boosting with current-generation vaccines.Interpretation Modelling that accommodates future scenarios with uncertainty, and that can be rapidly updated as new data arises, can provide a framework for pandemic decision making.Funding Anonymous donation, University of Melbourne funding.Evidence before this study We searched Ovid MEDLINE to 28 July 2022 for studies using the terms (economic evaluation.mp. OR cost effectiveness.mp. OR health economic*.mp.) AND (simulation.mp. OR model*.mp.) AND pandemic*.mp. to identify existing simulation modelling analyses of pandemic preparedness and response that incorporated cost effectiveness considerations. All identified literature examined pandemic influenza and COVID-19 and was highly heterogeneous in terms of modelled interventions (which included school closures, masks, hand hygiene, vaccination, testing strategies, antiviral medication, physical distancing measures, indoor ventilation, and personal protective equipment), quality, context, model structure, and economic evaluation approach.Systematic reviews of COVID-19 modelling studies that include a health economic component generally indicate that SARS-CoV-2 testing, personal protective equipment, masks, and physical distancing measures are cost-effective. However, few prior studies consider optimal packages of interventions (as opposed to standalone interventions), and none explicitly account for ongoing viral evolution or capture the complexities of vaccine- or natural infection-derived immunity to SARS-CoV-2.For example, a previous study integrating a dynamic SARS-CoV-2 transmission model with an economic analysis using a net monetary benefit approach published in early 2021 emphasized the combined public health and economic advantages of COVID-19 vaccination combined with physical distancing measures in the UK. However, considering current knowledge regarding the substantial waning of vaccine effectiveness and relatively low protection against infection conferred by vaccination (compared to more severe clinical outcomes), this model likely over-estimated the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on viral transmission. Scenarios that considered the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (and thus associated changes in viral transmissibility, immune escape capacity or virulence) were also not modelled.Added value of this study To our knowledge, our study is the first that utilises a dynamic disease transmission model combined with an integrated economic evaluation framework to systematically compare COVID-19 policy intervention packages while accounting for ongoing SARS-CoV-2 evolution and waning population immunity. In this context we found that a considerable degree of COVID-19 disease burden should be expected in the future, with optimal modelled interventions able to reduce but not entirely ameliorate morbidity and mortality associated with the pandemic.Averaged over 64 plausible future SARS-CoV-2 variant scenarios higher stringency PHSMs ranked better from a health system perspective, but not when societal losses (i.e., GDP losses from stringent PHSMs) were considered. The provision of respirators to the public, for use instead of surgical or cloth masks during infection surges, had little impact at a population level despite their efficacy in reducing viral transmission between individuals. Next-generation vaccines adapted for SARS-CoV-2 variants and administered to all ages (as opposed to just ≥60-year-olds) performed optimally when taking into account cost effectiveness, the burden on the hospital system and deaths.For the one of 64 scenarios that approximates most closely the recently dominant BA.4/5 Omicron variant, vaccine schedules that delay three months for an Omicron-targeted vaccine outrank schedules with current-generation vaccines rolled out at the time of variant emergence.Implications of all the available evidence The policy implications of this study are three-fold. Firstly, it reinforces the cost-effectiveness of ongoing vaccination of the public to mitigate morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19. Vaccines with improved effectiveness against emerging variants, and less waning over time, will likely deliver important gains in the pandemic response. Secondly, the specific characteristics of emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants substantially influence public health outcomes. When these characteristics can be predicted, optimal policy responses (for example, vaccine schedules) can be tailored accordingly. Finally, at a phase of the pandemic characterised by growing intervention options urgently requiring prioritisation by decision makers alongside a large degree of ongoing uncertainty about future variants, this study provides a framework within which to systematically compare the health and economic benefits and burdens of packages of interventions that can be rapidly updated with new information (such as estimated effectiveness and waning kinetics of newly-developed vaccines) to support policy making.Competing Interest StatementSeparate to the current study, the research group will likely soon receive funding from Moderna to conduct vaccine effectiveness studies in Australia. Moderna had no role in the current study.Clinical Protocols https://mspgh.unimelb.edu.au/research-groups/centre-for-epidemiology-and-biostatistics-research/population-interventions/protocols Funding StatementFunding: Anonymous donation, University of Melbourne funding.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI 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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe data analysis protocol is available online at https://mspgh.unimelb.edu.au/research-groups/centre-for-epidemiology-and-biostatistics-research/population-interventions/protocols. All model inputs are detailed in the appendix. Detailed output data is provided in the appendix and the accompanying online tool. Requests for additional model output data may be granted upon reasonable request to the researchers. Access to model code is generally not available but negotiated access may be possible. Please contact the researchers for further information.