Surachai Kotirum1, Naaon Vutipongsatorn2, Khachen Kongpakwattana3, Raymond Hutubessy4, Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk5. 1. School of Pharmacy, Monash University Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia; Social and Administrative Pharmacy Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, Rangsit University, Muang, Pathumthani, Thailand. 2. School of Pharmacy, Monash University Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia; Faculty of Pharmacy, Silpakorn University, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand. 3. School of Pharmacy, Monash University Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia. 4. World Health Organization, Initiative for Vaccine Research, Geneva, Switzerland. 5. School of Pharmacy, Monash University Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia; Center of Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research (CPOR), Department of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Naresuan University, Phitsanulok, Thailand; School of Pharmacy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA; Health and Well-being Cluster, Global Asia in the 21(st) Centuary (GA21) Platform, Monash University Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia. Electronic address: nathorn.chaiyakunapruk@monash.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: World Health Organization (WHO) recommends Rotavirus vaccines to prevent and control rotavirus infections. Economic evaluations (EE) have been considered to support decision making of national policy. Summarizing global experience of the economic value of rotavirus vaccines is crucial in order to encourage global WHO recommendations for vaccine uptake. Therefore, a systematic review of economic evaluations of rotavirus vaccine was conducted. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, NHS EED, EconLit, CEA Registry, SciELO, LILACS, CABI-Global Health Database, Popline, World Bank - e-Library, and WHOLIS. Full economic evaluations studies, published from inception to November 2015, evaluating Rotavirus vaccines preventing Rotavirus infections were included. The methods, assumptions, results and conclusions of the included studies were extracted and appraised using WHO guide for standardization of EE of immunization programs. RESULTS: 104 relevant studies were included. The majority of studies were conducted in high-income countries. Cost-utility analysis was mostly reported in many studies using incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per DALY averted or QALY gained. Incremental cost per QALY gained was used in many studies from high-income countries. Mass routine vaccination against rotavirus provided the ICERs ranging from cost-saving to highly cost-effective in comparison to no vaccination among low-income countries. Among middle-income countries, vaccination offered the ICERs ranging from cost-saving to cost-effective. Due to low- or no subsidized price of rotavirus vaccines from external funders, being not cost-effective was reported in some high-income settings. CONCLUSION: Mass vaccination against rotavirus was generally found to be cost-effective, particularly in low- and middle-income settings according to the external subsidization of vaccine price. On the other hand, it may not be a cost-effective intervention at market price in some high-income settings. This systematic review provides supporting information to health policy-makers and health professionals when considering rotavirus vaccination as a national program.
INTRODUCTION: World Health Organization (WHO) recommends Rotavirus vaccines to prevent and control rotavirus infections. Economic evaluations (EE) have been considered to support decision making of national policy. Summarizing global experience of the economic value of rotavirus vaccines is crucial in order to encourage global WHO recommendations for vaccine uptake. Therefore, a systematic review of economic evaluations of rotavirus vaccine was conducted. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, NHS EED, EconLit, CEA Registry, SciELO, LILACS, CABI-Global Health Database, Popline, World Bank - e-Library, and WHOLIS. Full economic evaluations studies, published from inception to November 2015, evaluating Rotavirus vaccines preventing Rotavirus infections were included. The methods, assumptions, results and conclusions of the included studies were extracted and appraised using WHO guide for standardization of EE of immunization programs. RESULTS: 104 relevant studies were included. The majority of studies were conducted in high-income countries. Cost-utility analysis was mostly reported in many studies using incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per DALY averted or QALY gained. Incremental cost per QALY gained was used in many studies from high-income countries. Mass routine vaccination against rotavirus provided the ICERs ranging from cost-saving to highly cost-effective in comparison to no vaccination among low-income countries. Among middle-income countries, vaccination offered the ICERs ranging from cost-saving to cost-effective. Due to low- or no subsidized price of rotavirus vaccines from external funders, being not cost-effective was reported in some high-income settings. CONCLUSION: Mass vaccination against rotavirus was generally found to be cost-effective, particularly in low- and middle-income settings according to the external subsidization of vaccine price. On the other hand, it may not be a cost-effective intervention at market price in some high-income settings. This systematic review provides supporting information to health policy-makers and health professionals when considering rotavirus vaccination as a national program.
Authors: Giovanna Elisa Calabro'; Elettra Carini; Alessia Tognetto; Irene Giacchetta; Ester Bonanno; Marco Mariani; Walter Ricciardi; Chiara de Waure Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-03-09
Authors: Mark M Janko; Jonah Joffe; Danielle Michael; Lauren Earl; Katherine L Rosettie; Gianna W Sparks; Samuel B Albertson; Kelly Compton; Paola Pedroza Velandia; Lauryn Stafford; Peng Zheng; Aleksandr Aravkin; Hmwe H Kyu; Christopher J L Murray; Marcia R Weaver Journal: Vaccine Date: 2022-05-25 Impact factor: 4.169
Authors: Adam L Cohen; Negar Aliabadi; Fatima Serhan; Jacqueline E Tate; Patrick Zuber; Umesh D Parashar Journal: Vaccine Date: 2018-08-18 Impact factor: 4.169