ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2017
Economic evaluation of routine infant rotavirus immunisation program in Japan.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review of the incremental costs of interventions that increase immunization coverage.Vaccine · 2018Pooled it
- Does the Choice of Health Metric, DALY or QALY, Influence Conclusions of Health Economic Evaluation? A Case Study of Rotavirus Vaccine in Burundi.Applied health economics and health policy · 2022Article
- Clinical Features and Outcomes of Children Admitted to the PICU due to Rotavirus Infection.Turkish archives of pediatrics · 2021Article
- Determinants of self-paid rotavirus vaccination status in Kanazawa, Japan, including socioeconomic factors, parents' perception, and children's characteristics.BMC infectious diseases · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two rotavirus vaccines are currently available in Japan. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of routine infant rotavirus immunisation program without defining which vaccine to be evaluated, which reflects the current deliberation at the Health Science Council in charge of Immunisation and Vaccine established by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan. Three ICERs were estimated, one from payers' perspective and 2 from societal perspective depending on the scenarios to uptake vaccines. The health statuses following the birth cohort were as follows: not infected by rotavirus, asymptomatic infection, outpatients after infection, hospitalised after infection, developing encephalitis/encephalopathy followed by recovery, sequelae, and death. Costs of per course of vaccination was ¥30,000 (US$283; US$1 = ¥106). The model runs for 60 months with one month cycle. From payers' perspective, estimated ICERs were ¥6,877,000 (US$64,877) per QALY. From societal perspective, immunisation program turns out to be cost-saving for 75% simultaneous vaccination scenario, while it is at ¥337,000 (US$3,179) per QALY gained with vaccine alone scenario. The probability of rotavirus immunisation program to be under ¥5,000,000 (US$47,170) per QALY was at 19.8%, 40.7%, and 75.6% when costs per course of vaccination were set at ¥30,000 (US$283), ¥25,000 (US$236), and ¥20,000 (US$189), respectively. Rotavirus immunisation program has a potential to be cost-effective from payers' perspective and even cost-saving from societal perspective in Japan, however, caution should be taken with regard to the interpretation of the results as cost-effectiveness is critically dependent on vaccination costs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.