MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386522915 · doi:10.1101/2023.09.05.23295085

The potential clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of the updated COVID-19 mRNA Fall 2023 vaccines in the United States

2023· preprint· en· W4386522915 on OpenAlexaff
Michele Kohli, Michael Maschio, Kedar Joshi, A Lee, K Fust, Ekkehard Beck, Nicolas Van de Velde, MC Weinstein

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsQUAD Engineering (Canada)
FundersModerna
KeywordsMedicineVaccinationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Incidence (geometry)Cost effectivenessCost–benefit analysisDemographyQuality-adjusted life yearPediatricsVirologyDiseaseInternal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives To assess the potential clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines updated for Fall 2023 in adults ≥18 years over a 1-year analytic time horizon (September 2023-August 2024). Methods A compartmental Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Recovered model was updated to reflect COVID-19 in summer 2023. Numbers of symptomatic infections, COVID-19 related hospitalizations and deaths, and costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were calculated using a decision tree model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of a Moderna updated mRNA Fall 2023 vaccine (Moderna Fall Campaign) was compared to no additional vaccination. Potential differences between the Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech Fall 2023 vaccines were examined. Results Base case results suggest the Moderna Fall Campaign would decrease the expected 64.2 million symptomatic infections by 7.2 million (11%) to 57.0 million. COVID-19-related hospitalizations and deaths are expected to decline by 343,000 (–29%) and 50,500 (–33%), respectively. The Moderna Fall Campaign would increase QALYs by 740,880 and healthcare costs by $5.7 billion relative to No Vaccine, yielding an ICER of $7,700 per QALY gained. Using a societal cost perspective, the ICER is $2,100. Sensitivity analyses suggest that vaccine effectiveness, COVID-19 incidence, hospitalization rates and costs drive cost-effectiveness. With a relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of Moderna versus Pfizer-BioNTech of 5.1% for infection and 9.8% for hospitalization, use of the Moderna vaccine is expected to prevent 24,000 more hospitalizations and 3,300 more deaths than the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Limitations and Conclusions As COVID-19 becomes endemic, future incidence, including patterns of infection, are highly uncertain. Vaccine effectiveness of Fall 2023 vaccines is unknown, and it is unclear when a new variant that evades natural or vaccine immunity will emerge. Despite these limitations, the Moderna Fall 2023 vaccine can be considered cost-effective relative to no vaccine.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchFrench-language works237,207