PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Frank Sandmann
AU  - Nicholas G. Davies
AU  - Centre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases COVID-19 working group
AU  - Anna Vassall
AU  - W John Edmunds
AU  - Mark Jit
TI  - The potential health and economic value of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination alongside physical distancing in the UK: transmission model-based future scenario analysis and economic evaluation
AID  - 10.1101/2020.09.24.20200857
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.09.24.20200857
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/25/2020.09.24.20200857.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/25/2020.09.24.20200857.full
AB  - Background In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the UK adopted mandatory physical distancing measures in March 2020. Vaccines against the newly emerged severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) may become available as early as late 2020. We explored the health and economic value of introducing SARS-CoV-2 immunisation alongside physical distancing scenarios in the UK.Methods We used an age-structured dynamic-transmission and economic model to explore different scenarios of immunisation programmes over ten years. Assuming vaccines are effective in 5-64 year olds, we compared vaccinating 90% of individuals in this age group to no vaccination. We assumed either vaccine effectiveness of 25% and 1-year protection and 90% re-vaccinated annually, or 75% vaccine effectiveness and 10-year protection and 10% re-vaccinated annually. Natural immunity was assumed to last 45 weeks in the base case. We also explored the additional impact of physical distancing. We considered benefits from disease prevented in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs to the healthcare payer versus the national economy. We discounted at 3.5% annually and monetised health impact at £20,000 per QALY to obtain the net monetary value, which we explored in sensitivity analyses.Findings Without vaccination and physical distancing, we estimated 147.9 million COVID-19 cases (95% uncertainty interval: 48.5 million, 198.7 million) and 2.8 million (770,000, 4.2 million) deaths in the UK over ten years. Vaccination with 75% vaccine effectiveness and 10-year protection may stop community transmission entirely for several years, whereas SARS-CoV-2 becomes endemic without highly effective vaccines. Introducing vaccination compared to no vaccination leads to economic gains (positive net monetary value) of £0.37 billion to +£1.33 billion across all physical distancing and vaccine effectiveness scenarios from the healthcare perspective, but net monetary values of physical distancing scenarios may be negative from societal perspective if the daily national economy losses are persistent and large.Interpretation Our model findings highlight the substantial health and economic value of introducing SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Given uncertainty around both characteristics of the eventually licensed vaccines and long-term COVID-19 epidemiology, our study provides early insights about possible future scenarios in a post-vaccination era from an economic and epidemiological perspective.Evidence before this study We searched PubMed and medRxiv for economic evaluations of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines with the search string (coronavirus OR COVID OR SARS-CoV-2) AND (vaccin* OR immunisation) AND ((economic evaluation) OR (cost effectiveness analysis)) AND 2020[dp] on September 21, 2020, with no language restrictions. We found one pre-print that valued health outcomes in monetary terms and explored the additional impact of vaccines in a cost-benefit analysis of physical distancing for the USA; no study focused on vaccines in a full economic evaluation.Added value of this study With a growing number of vaccine candidates under development and having entered clinical trials, our study is to our knowledge the first to explore the health and economic value of introducing a national SARS-CoV-2 immunisation programme. A programme with high vaccine effectiveness and long-lasting protection may stop the community transmission entirely for a couple of years, but even a vaccine with 25% vaccine effectiveness is worthwhile to use; even at short-lived natural and vaccine-induced protections. After an initial lockdown, voluntary physical distancing as a sole strategy risks a large second epidemic peak, unless accompanied by highly effective immunisation. Compared to no vaccination, introducing vaccination leads to positive net monetary value across physical distancing scenarios from the healthcare perspective, subject to the long-run vaccine price and cost-effectiveness of other treatments (e.g. new drugs). The net monetary value of immunisation decreases if vaccine introduction is delayed, natural immunity is long or vaccine-induced protection is short. Intermittent physical distancing leads to negative net benefits from the perspective of the wider economy if the daily national income losses are persistent and large.Implications of all the available evidence Our model findings highlight the health and economic value of introducing SARS-CoV-2 vaccination to control the COVID-19 epidemic. Despite the many uncertainties, continued physical distancing may be needed to reduce community transmission until vaccines with sufficiently high vaccine effectiveness and long-lasting protection are available. Our study provides first broad health-economic insights rather than precise quantitative projections given the many uncertainties and unknown characteristics of the vaccine candidates and aspects of the long-term COVID-19 epidemiology, and the value of vaccines will ultimately depend on other socioeconomic and health-related policies and population behaviours.Competing Interest StatementThe following funding sources are acknowledged as providing funding for the named authors. This research was partly funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-003174: MJ). This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme - project EpiPose (101003688: MJ, WJE). This research was partly funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) using UK aid from the UK Government to support global health research. FGS, NGD, AV, WJE and MJ were supported by the NIHR HPRU in Modelling and Health Economics, a partnership between Public Health England (PHE), Imperial College London and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) (grant code NIHR200908). MJ and ND were supported by the NIHR HPRU in Immunisation at LSHTM in partnership with PHE (Grant Reference Code HPRU-2012-10096). WJE was supported by the NIHR programme VEEPED (Vaccine Efficacy Evaluation for Priority Emerging Diseases; grant code PR-OD-1017-20002). The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of EC, NIHR, PHE or the UK Department of Health and Social Care. The following funding sources are acknowledged as providing funding for the working group authors. Alan Turing Institute (AE). BBSRC LIDP (BB/M009513/1: DS). This research was partly funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-001754: MQ; INV-003174: KP, YL; NTD Modelling Consortium OPP1184344: CABP, GFM; OPP1180644: SRP; OPP1183986: ESN; OPP1191821: MA). BMGF (OPP1157270: KA). DFID/Wellcome Trust (Epidemic Preparedness Coronavirus research programme 221303/Z/20/Z: CABP, KvZ). Elrha R2HC/UK DFID/Wellcome Trust/This research was partly funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) using UK aid from the UK Government to support global health research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK Department of Health and Social Care (KvZ). ERC Starting Grant (#757699: MQ). This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme - project EpiPose (101003688: KP, PK, RCB, YL). This research was partly funded by the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) project 'RECAP' managed through RCUK and ESRC (ES/P010873/1: AG, CIJ, TJ). HDR UK (MR/S003975/1: RME). MRC (MR/N013638/1: NRW). Nakajima Foundation (AE). NIHR (16/136/46: BJQ; 16/137/109: BJQ, CD, FYS, YL; Health Protection Research Unit for Modelling Methodology HPRU-2012-10096: TJ; PR-OD-1017-20002: AR). Royal Society (Dorothy Hodgkin Fellowship: RL; RP\EA\180004: PK). UK DHSC/UK Aid/NIHR (ITCRZ 03010: HPG). UK MRC (LID DTP MR/N013638/1: GRGL; MC_PC_19065: AG, RME, SC, TJ, YL; MR/P014658/1: GMK). Authors of this research receive funding from UK Public Health Rapid Support Team funded by the United Kingdom Department of Health and Social Care (TJ). Wellcome Trust (206250/Z/17/Z: AJK, TWR; 206471/Z/17/Z: OJB; 208812/Z/17/Z: SC, SFlasche; 210758/Z/18/Z: JDM, JH, KS, NIB, SA, SFunk, SRM). No funding (AMF, AS, CJVA, DCT, JW, KEA, YWDC).Funding StatementThe following funding sources are acknowledged as providing funding for the named authors. This research was partly funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-003174: MJ). This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme - project EpiPose (101003688: MJ, WJE). This research was partly funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) using UK aid from the UK Government to support global health research. FGS, NGD, AV, WJE and MJ were supported by the NIHR HPRU in Modelling and Health Economics, a partnership between Public Health England (PHE), Imperial College London and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) (grant code NIHR200908). MJ and ND were supported by the NIHR HPRU in Immunisation at LSHTM in partnership with PHE (Grant Reference Code HPRU-2012-10096). WJE was supported by the NIHR programme VEEPED (Vaccine Efficacy Evaluation for Priority Emerging Diseases; grant code PR-OD-1017-20002). The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of EC, NIHR, PHE or the UK Department of Health and Social Care. The following funding sources are acknowledged as providing funding for the working group authors. Alan Turing Institute (AE). BBSRC LIDP (BB/M009513/1: DS). This research was partly funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-001754: MQ; INV-003174: KP, YL; NTD Modelling Consortium OPP1184344: CABP, GFM; OPP1180644: SRP; OPP1183986: ESN; OPP1191821: MA). BMGF (OPP1157270: KA). DFID/Wellcome Trust (Epidemic Preparedness Coronavirus research programme 221303/Z/20/Z: CABP, KvZ). Elrha R2HC/UK DFID/Wellcome Trust/This research was partly funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) using UK aid from the UK Government to support global health research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK Department of Health and Social Care (KvZ). ERC Starting Grant (#757699: MQ). This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme - project EpiPose (101003688: KP, PK, RCB, YL). This research was partly funded by the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) project 'RECAP' managed through RCUK and ESRC (ES/P010873/1: AG, CIJ, TJ). HDR UK (MR/S003975/1: RME). MRC (MR/N013638/1: NRW). Nakajima Foundation (AE). NIHR (16/136/46: BJQ; 16/137/109: BJQ, CD, FYS, YL; Health Protection Research Unit for Modelling Methodology HPRU-2012-10096: TJ; PR-OD-1017-20002: AR). Royal Society (Dorothy Hodgkin Fellowship: RL; RP\EA\180004: PK). UK DHSC/UK Aid/NIHR (ITCRZ 03010: HPG). UK MRC (LID DTP MR/N013638/1: GRGL; MC_PC_19065: AG, RME, SC, TJ, YL; MR/P014658/1: GMK). Authors of this research receive funding from UK Public Health Rapid Support Team funded by the United Kingdom Department of Health and Social Care (TJ). Wellcome Trust (206250/Z/17/Z: AJK, TWR; 206471/Z/17/Z: OJB; 208812/Z/17/Z: SC, SFlasche; 210758/Z/18/Z: JDM, JH, KS, NIB, SA, SFunk, SRM). No funding (AMF, AS, CJVA, DCT, JW, KEA, YWDC).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:PHE-led studyAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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.YesData were taken from published sources.