Global economic evaluations of rotavirus vaccines: A systematic review. Issue 26 (8th June 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kotirum, Surachai; Vutipongsatorn, Naaon; Kongpakwattana, Khachen; Hutubessy, Raymond; Chaiyakunapruk, Nathorn
• Is Part Of: Vaccine. Volume 35:Issue 26(2017)
• Page Start: 3364
• Page End: 3386
• Publication Date: 2017-06-08
• Subjects: Rotavirus -- Vaccine -- Economic evaluations -- Systematic review; Vaccines -- Periodicals; 615.372
• DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.04.051
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0264-410X

Abstract

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.