The COVID-19 booster immunization policy is cost-effective, but evidence on additional booster doses and appropriate strategies is scarce. This study, just published in PLOS ONE, compared the cost-effectiveness of several potential booster policies in Thailand. Researchers from the Ministry of Public Health and Stamford International University in Thailand modelled four policy scenarios: (1) hypothetical no-booster immunization policy; (2) twice-a-year vaccination policy; (3) annual vaccination policy; and (4) biennial vaccination policy.
Compared to non-booster policies, all three booster strategies substantially reduced the number of cases, hospital admissions, and severe infections. Without a booster, total cases would reach 16,220,615 by day 1,460, whereas, with a twice-a-year booster, the total cases would reach 597,901 in the same period. Even though the no booster scenario incurred the lowest costs by approximately the first 500 days, by day 1,460 the biennial booster scenario demonstrated the lowest cost at 72.0 billion baht. The most cost-saving policy was the biennial booster scenario. The annual booster scenario also stood as a cost-effective option for most outcomes. In the epidemic stage and in an assumption where the vaccination costs dropped, all booster policies became more cost-effective or cost-saving compared with the main assumption. This study underscores the significance of the COVID-19 vaccine booster policy. Implementing policies should take into consideration cost-effectiveness, feasibility, and public communication.
Any organization or individual working in the field of immunization economics can submit findings, opportunities, calls to action, or other relevant work below to be shared with our community.