Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30420039›Full record

ArticleVaccine2018

Re-evaluating the cost and cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination in Bangladesh, Ghana, and Malawi: A comparison of three rotavirus vaccines.

Clint Pecenka, Frederic Debellut, Naor Bar-Zeev, Palwasha Anwari, Justice Nonvignon, Md Shamsuzzaman, Andrew Clark

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Frontiers in microbiology · 2022
    Article
  16. How to Prevent Vaccines Falling Victim to Their Own Success: Intertemporal Dependency of Incidence Levels on Indirect Effects in Economic Reevaluations.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Economic burden of childhood diarrhea in Burundi.Global health research and policy · 2021
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Clint PecenkaPATH, 2201 Westlake Ave, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98121, USA.
Frederic DebellutPATH, Rue de Varembé 7, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland.
Naor Bar-ZeevInternational Vaccine Access Center, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; Malawi-Liverpool-Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, College of Medicine, University of Malawi, Blantyre, Malawi.
Palwasha AnwariAfghanistan National Immunization Technical Advisory Group, District 10, Kabul, Afghanistan.
Justice NonvignonSchool of Public Health, University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana.
Md ShamsuzzamanNational Immunization Program of Bangladesh, Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS), EPI Bhaban, Mohakhali, Dhaka 1212, Bangladesh.
Andrew ClarkLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDiarrhea is a leading cause of mortality worldwide and rotavirus accounts for many of these deaths. As of August 2018, 96 countries have introduced rotavirus vaccines into their immunization programs. Two rotavirus vaccines, Rotarix® and RotaTeq®, have been WHO-prequalified since 2009, with Rotarix® being the preferred product of most Gavi-supported countries. ROTAVAC® and ROTASIIL® have both been prequalified recently. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe reevaluated the costs and cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination in Bangladesh, Ghana, and Malawi and compared Rotarix®, ROTAVAC®, and ROTASIIL® in each country. For consistency with previously published analyses in these countries, we used the same Excel-based cohort model and much of the same data as the original analyses. We varied the expected price (with and without Gavi subsidy), wastage, and incremental health system costs associated with each vaccine. We assumed the same efficacy and waning assumptions following administration of two or three doses for the respective product.

resultsThe discounted cost per DALY averted compared to no vaccination ranged from 0.3 to 1.3 times GNI per capita for each vaccine. With the Gavi subsidy, the average cost-effectiveness ratios were below 0.3 times GNI per capita in all three countries. Though critical empirical cost data are not yet available, Rotarix® is the least costly and most cost-effective product in the countries examined in this modelling study. However, small decreases in the incremental health system cost for other products could result in cost and cost-effectiveness outcomes that match or surpass those of Rotarix®.

conclusionCountries may wish to consider new rotavirus vaccines entering the market. Countries should carefully examine multiple product attributes including price and the incremental health system costs associated with each vaccine. These costs will vary by country and may be a defining factor in determining the least costly and most cost-effective product for the population.

Indexed as

Immunization ProgramsBangladeshChild, PreschoolCohort StudiesCost-Benefit AnalysisGhanaHealth Care CostsHumansInfantMalawiModels, TheoreticalRotavirus InfectionsRotavirus VaccinesVaccinationVaccines, AttenuatedRIX4414 vaccineRotaTeqRotavirus VaccinesVaccines, AttenuatedCost-effectivenessGavi countriesNew vaccine introductionRotavirus vaccines

Identifiers

PMID30420039
PMCPMC6238205

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.