Objective: The COVID‐19 vaccination strategy has been widely used to protect population health worldwide. This study aims to summarize the cost‐effectiveness evidence of economic evaluation of COVID‐19 vaccination strategies to provide evidence supporting the usage of COVID‐19 vaccination, especially where the supply of COVID‐19 vaccine is limited.Methods: A systematic literature review was performed by searching both English and Chinese databases, including PubMed, Embase, Science Direct, Web of Science, Medline, Scopus, and CNKI. Articles published from January 1, 2020 to August 1, 2022 (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022355442).Results: Of the 1035 papers identified, a total of 28 English studies that met the preset criteria were included. COVID‐19 vaccination and booster vaccination were cost‐effective or cost‐saving regardless of the vaccine type; vaccine efficacy, vaccine price, vaccine supply or prioritization, and vaccination pace were the influential factors of cost‐effectiveness among different population groups. When supply is adequate, mass vaccination should be encouraged, while when supply is inadequate, prioritizing the high risk and the elderly is more cost‐effective.Conclusions: COVID‐19 vaccination strategies are economically favorable in a wide range of countries and population groups, and further research on suitable strategies for booster COVID‐19 vaccination is needed.

Objective: This study aimed to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines (CoronaVac and BBIBP-CorV) in China using existing international clinical trials and real-world evidence.Methods: Through a search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CNKI, studies investigating the effectiveness of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines were identified, and a meta-analysis was undertaken to synthesize the vaccine efficacy and effectiveness data. Moreover, a decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of inactivated vaccines for combating the COVID-19 pandemic in the Chinese context from a societal perspective. Results of the meta-analysis, along with cost data from official websites and works of literature were used to populate the model. Sensitivity analysis was performed to test the robustness of the model results.Results: A total of 24 studies were included in the meta-analysis. In comparison to no immunization, the effectiveness of inactivated vaccine against COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, ICU admission and death were 65.18% (95% CI 62.62, 67.75), 79.10% (95% CI 71.69, 86.51), 90.46% (95% CI 89.42, 91.50), and 86.69% (95% CI 85.68, 87.70); and the efficacy against COVID-19 infection and hospitalization were 70.56% (95% CI 57.87, 83.24) and 100% (95% CI 61.72, 100). Inactivated vaccine vaccination prevented more infections, hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths with lower total costs, thus was cost-saving from a societal perspective in China. Base-case analysis results were robust in the one-way sensitivity analysis, and the percentage of ICU admission or death and direct medical cost ranked the top influential factors in our models. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, vaccination had a 100% probability of being cost-effective.Conclusion: Inactivated vaccine is effective in preventing COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, ICU admission and avoiding COVID-19 related death, and COVID-19 vaccination program is cost-saving from societal perspective in China.

Unselected multigene testing for all women with breast cancer (BC) identifies more cancer susceptibility gene (CSG) carriers who can benefit from precision prevention compared with family history (FH)/clinical-criteria-based guidelines. Very little CSG testing is undertaken in middle-income countries such as China, and its cost-effectiveness remains unaddressed. We aimed to estimate cost-effectiveness and population impact of multigene testing for all Chinese BC patients. Data from 8085 unselected BC patients recruited to a Peking University Cancer Hospital study were used for microsimulation modeling, comparing three strategies in the Chinese setting: all BC women undergo BRCA1/BRCA2/PALB2 genetic testing, only BC women fulfilling FH/clinical criteria undergo BRCA testing, and no genetic testing. Prophylactic mastectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy would be adopted where appropriate. Societal and payer perspectives with a lifetime horizon along with sensitivity analyses were presented. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER): incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained is compared to the USD 10,260/QALY (one-times GDP per capita) willingness-to-pay threshold. BC incidence, ovarian cancer (OC) incidence, and related deaths were also estimated. FH/clinical-criteria-based BRCA testing was ruled out on the principle of extensive dominance. Compared with no genetic testing, multigene testing for all BC patients had an ICER = USD 4506/QALY (societal perspective) and USD 7266/QALY (payer perspective), well below our threshold. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed unselected multigene testing remained cost-effective for 94.2%/86.6% of simulations from the societal and payer perspectives. One year’s unselected multigene testing could prevent 7868 BC/OC cases and 5164 BC/OC deaths in China. Therefore, unselected multigene testing is extremely cost-effective and should be offered to all Chinese women with BC.

Policymakers require robust cost-effectiveness evidence of risk-reducing-surgery (RRS) for decision making on resource allocation for breast cancer (BC)/ovarian cancer (OC)/endometrial cancer (EC) prevention. We aimed to summarise published data on the cost-effectiveness of risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM)/risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO)/risk-reducing early salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy (RRESDO) for BC/OC prevention in intermediate/high-risk populations; hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) in Lynch syndrome women; and opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy (OBS) for OC prevention in baseline-risk populations. Major databases were searched until December 2021 following a prospective protocol (PROSPERO-CRD42022338008). Data were qualitatively synthesised following a PICO framework. Twenty two studies were included, with a reporting quality varying from 53.6% to 82.1% of the items scored in the CHEERS checklist. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio/incremental cost-utility ratio and cost thresholds were inflated and converted to US$2020, using the original currency consumer price index (CPI) and purchasing power parities (PPP), for comparison. Eight studies concluded that RRM and/or RRSO were cost-effective compared to surveillance/no surgery for BRCA1/2, while RRESDO was cost-effective compared to RRSO in one study. Three studies found that hysterectomy with BSO was cost-effective compared to surveillance in Lynch syndrome women. Two studies showed that RRSO was also cost-effective at ≥4%/≥5% lifetime OC risk for pre-/post-menopausal women, respectively. Seven studies demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of OBS at hysterectomy (n = 4), laparoscopic sterilisation (n = 4) or caesarean section (n = 2). This systematic review confirms that RRS is cost-effective, while the results are context-specific, given the diversity in the target populations, health systems and model assumptions, and sensitive to the disutility, age and uptake rates associated with RRS. Additionally, RRESDO/OBS were sensitive to the uncertainty concerning the effect sizes in terms of the OC-risk reduction and long-term health impact. Our findings are relevant for policymakers/service providers and the design of future research studies.

Background: Risk-reducing hysterectomy (RRH) is the gold-standard prevention for endometrial cancer (EC). Knowledge of the impact on quality-of-life (QoL) is crucial for decision-making. This systematic review aims to summarise the evidence. Methods: We searched major databases until July 2022 (CRD42022347631). Given the paucity of data on RRH, we also included hysterectomy as treatment for benign disease. We used validated quality-assessment tools, and performed qualitative synthesis of QoL outcomes. Results: Four studies (64 patients) reported on RRH, 25 studies (1268 patients) on hysterectomy as treatment for uterine bleeding. There was moderate risk-of-bias in many studies. Following RRH, three qualitative studies found substantially lowered cancer-worry, with no decision-regret. Oophorectomy (for ovarian cancer prevention) severely impaired menopause-specific QoL and sexual-function, particularly without hormone-replacement. Quantitative studies supported these results, finding low distress and generally high satisfaction. Hysterectomy as treatment of bleeding improved QoL, resulted in high satisfaction, and no change or improvements in sexual and urinary function, although small numbers reported worsening. Conclusions: There is very limited evidence on QoL after RRH. Whilst there are benefits, most adverse consequences arise from oophorectomy. Benign hysterectomy allows for some limited comparison; however, more research is needed for outcomes in the population of women at increased EC-risk.

To effectively prevent and control the COVID-19 pandemic, countries have adopted a booster vaccination strategy. This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of sequential booster COVID-19 vaccination compared to two-dose inactivated vaccination in China from a societal perspective. A Markov model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of sequential vaccination, including two doses of an inactivated vaccine followed by a booster shot of an inactivated vaccine, adenovirus vectored vaccine, protein subunit vaccine, or mRNA vaccine. The incremental effects of a booster shot with an inactivated vaccine, protein subunit vaccine, adenovirus vectored vaccine, and mRNA vaccine were 0.0075, 0.0110, 0.0208, and 0.0249 QALYs and saved costs of US$163.96, US$261.73, US$583.21, and US$724.49, respectively. Under the Omicron virus pandemic, the sequential vaccination among adults and the elderly (aged 60–69, 70–79, over 80) was consistently cost-saving, and a booster shot of the mRNA vaccine was more cost-saving. The results indicate that the sequential vaccination strategy is cost-effective in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic, and improving vaccination coverage among the elderly is of great importance in avoiding severe cases and deaths.