Explore the vast range of titles available.

Potential cost-effective barriers in cost-effectiveness studies mean that budgetary impact analyses should also be included in post-2015 Sustainable Development Goal projects says Joshua Salomon and colleagues.

ObjectivesWhile almost 60% of the world has received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, the global distribution of vaccination has not been equitable. Only 4% of the population of low-income countries (LICs) has received a full primary vaccine series, compared with over 70% of the population of high-income nations.DesignWe used economic and epidemiological models, parameterised with public data on global vaccination and COVID-19 deaths, to estimate the potential benefits of scaling up vaccination programmes in LICs and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) in 2022 in the context of global spread of the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV2.SettingLow-income and lower-middle-income nations.Main outcome measuresOutcomes were expressed as number of avertable deaths through vaccination, costs of scale-up and cost per death averted. We conducted sensitivity analyses over a wide range of parameter estimates to account for uncertainty around key inputs.FindingsGlobally, universal vaccination in LIC/LMIC with three doses of an mRNA vaccine would result in an estimated 1.5 million COVID-19 deaths averted with a total estimated cost of US$61 billion and an estimated cost-per-COVID-19 death averted of US$40 800 (sensitivity analysis range: US$7400–US$81 500). Lower estimated infection fatality ratios, higher cost-per-dose and lower vaccine effectiveness or uptake lead to higher cost-per-death averted estimates in the analysis.ConclusionsScaling up COVID-19 global vaccination would avert millions of COVID-19 deaths and represents a reasonable investment in the context of the value of a statistical life. Given the magnitude of expected mortality facing LIC/LMIC without vaccination, this effort should be an urgent priority.

Over 20,000 rabies deaths occur annually in India, representing one-third of global human rabies. The Indian state of Tamil Nadu has pioneered a “One Health” committee to address the challenge of rabies in dogs and humans. Currently, rabies control in Tamil Nadu involves postexposure vaccination of humans after dog bites, whereas potential supplemental approaches include canine vaccination and sterilization. We developed a data-driven rabies transmission model fit to human rabies autopsy data and human rabies surveillance data from Tamil Nadu. Integrating local estimates for canine demography and costs, we predicted the impact of canine vaccination and sterilization on human health outcomes and evaluated cost-effectiveness according to the WHO criteria for India, which correspond to thresholds of $1,582 and $4,746 per disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for very cost-effective and cost-effective strategies, respectively. We found that highly feasible strategies focused on stray dogs, vaccinating as few as 7% of dogs annually, could very cost-effectively reduce human rabies deaths by 70% within 5 y, and a modest expansion to vaccinating 13% of stray dogs could cost-effectively reduce human rabies by almost 90%. Through integration over parameter uncertainty, we find that, for a cost-effectiveness threshold above $1,400 per DALY, canine interventions are at least 95% likely to be optimal. If owners are willing to bring dogs to central point campaigns at double the rate that campaign teams can capture strays, expanded annual targets become cost-effective. This case study of cost-effective canine interventions in Tamil Nadu may have applicability to other settings in India and beyond.

HIV/AIDS remains the second most common cause of death in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), and only 34% of eligible patients in Africa received antiretroviral therapy (ART) in 2013. This study investigated the impact of ART decentralization on patient enrollment and retention in rural Malawi. We reviewed electronic medical records of patients registered in the Neno District ART program from August 1, 2006, when ART first became available, through December 31, 2013. We used GPS data to calculate patient-level distance to care, and examined number of annual ART visits and one-year lost to follow-up (LTFU) in HIV care. The number of ART patients in Neno increased from 48 to 3,949 over the decentralization period. Mean travel distance decreased from 7.3 km when ART was only available at the district hospital to 4.7 km when ART was decentralized to 12 primary health facilities. For patients who transferred from centralized care to nearer health facilities, mean travel distance decreased from 9.5 km to 4.7 km. Following a transfer, the proportion of patients achieving the clinic's recommended ≥4 annual visits increased from 89% to 99%. In Cox proportional hazards regression, patients living ≥8 km from a health facility had a greater hazard of being LTFU compared to patients <8 km from a facility (adjusted HR: 1.7; 95% CI: 1.5-1.9). ART decentralization in Neno District was associated with increased ART enrollment, decreased travel distance, and increased retention in care. Increasing access to ART by reducing travel distance is one strategy to achieve the ART coverage and viral suppression objectives of the 90-90-90 UNAIDS targets in rural impoverished areas.

Rabies causes more than 24 000 human deaths annually in Sub-Saharan Africa. The World Health Organization recommends annual canine vaccination campaigns with at least 70% coverage to control the disease. While previous studies have considered optimal coverage of animal rabies vaccination, variation in the frequency of vaccination campaigns has not been explored. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of rabies canine vaccination campaigns at varying coverage and frequency, we parametrized a rabies virus transmission model to two districts of northwest Tanzania, Ngorongoro (pastoral) and Serengeti (agro-pastoral). We found that optimal vaccination strategies were every 2 years, at 80% coverage in Ngorongoro and annually at 70% coverage in Serengeti. We further found that the optimality of these strategies was sensitive to the rate of rabies reintroduction from outside the district. Specifically, if a geographically coordinated campaign could reduce reintroduction, vaccination campaigns every 2 years could effectively manage rabies in both districts. Thus, coordinated campaigns may provide monetary savings in addition to public health benefits. Our results indicate that frequency and coverage of canine vaccination campaigns should be evaluated simultaneously and tailored to local canine ecology as well as to the risk of disease reintroduction from surrounding regions.

IntroductionAssessing the impact of COVID-19 policy is critical for informing future policies. However, there are concerns about the overall strength of COVID-19 impact evaluation studies given the circumstances for evaluation and concerns about the publication environment.MethodsWe included studies that were primarily designed to estimate the quantitative impact of one or more implemented COVID-19 policies on direct SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 outcomes. After searching PubMed for peer-reviewed articles published on 26 November 2020 or earlier and screening, all studies were reviewed by three reviewers first independently and then to consensus. The review tool was based on previously developed and released review guidance for COVID-19 policy impact evaluation.ResultsAfter 102 articles were identified as potentially meeting inclusion criteria, we identified 36 published articles that evaluated the quantitative impact of COVID-19 policies on direct COVID-19 outcomes. Nine studies were set aside because the study design was considered inappropriate for COVID-19 policy impact evaluation (n=8 pre/post; n=1 cross-sectional), and 27 articles were given a full consensus assessment. 20/27 met criteria for graphical display of data, 5/27 for functional form, 19/27 for timing between policy implementation and impact, and only 3/27 for concurrent changes to the outcomes. Only 4/27 were rated as overall appropriate. Including the 9 studies set aside, reviewers found that only four of the 36 identified published and peer-reviewed health policy impact evaluation studies passed a set of key design checks for identifying the causal impact of policies on COVID-19 outcomes.DiscussionThe reviewed literature directly evaluating the impact of COVID-19 policies largely failed to meet key design criteria for inference of sufficient rigour to be actionable by policy-makers. More reliable evidence review is needed to both identify and produce policy-actionable evidence, alongside the recognition that actionable evidence is often unlikely to be feasible.

The US COVID-19 Trends and Impact Survey (CTIS) is a large, cross-sectional, internet-based survey that has operated continuously since April 6, 2020. By inviting a random sample of Facebook active users each day, CTIS collects information about COVID-19 symptoms, risks, mitigating behaviors, mental health, testing, vaccination, and other key priorities. The large scale of the survey—over 20 million responses in its first year of operation—allows tracking of trends over short timescales and allows comparisons at fine demographic and geographic detail. The survey has been repeatedly revised to respond to emerging public health priorities. In this paper, we describe the survey methods and content and give examples of CTIS results that illuminate key patterns and trends and help answer high-priority policy questions relevant to the COVID-19 epidemic and response. These results demonstrate how large online surveys can provide continuous, real-time indicators of important outcomes that are not subject to public health reporting delays and backlogs. The CTIS offers high value as a supplement to official reporting data by supplying essential information about behaviors, attitudes toward policy and preventive measures, economic impacts, and other topics not reported in public health surveillance systems.