Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34297961›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Global health2021

Introducing rotavirus vaccine in eight sub-Saharan African countries: a cost-benefit analysis.

Charles E Okafor, Obinna I Ekwunife

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Global health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Charles E OkaforCentre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Griffith University Nathan Campus, Nathan, QLD, Australia; Menzies Health Institute, Griffith University Nathan Campus, Nathan, QLD, Australia. Electronic address: charles.okafor@griffithuni.edu.au.
Obinna I EkwunifeDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacy Management, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria.
Griffith University · AUNnamdi Azikiwe University · NG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStimulated by the economic challenges faced by many sub-Saharan African countries and the changes in the rotavirus burden across these countries, this study aimed to inform the decision of health policy makers of eight sub-Saharan countries, who are yet to introduce the rotavirus vaccine as of Dec 31, 2020, on the health economic consequences of the introduction of the vaccine in terms of the costs and benefits.

methodsWe did a cost-benefit analysis using a simulation-based decision-analytic model for children aged younger than 1 year, who were followed up to 259 weeks, in the Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea, Somalia, and South Sudan. Data were collected and analysed between Jan 13, 2020, and Dec 11, 2020. Cost-effectiveness analysis and budget impact analysis were done as secondary analyses. Four rotavirus vaccinations (Rotarix, Rotateq, Rotavac, and Rotasiil) were compared with no vaccination. The primary outcome was disability-adjusted life-years averted, converted to monetary terms. The secondary outcomes include rotavirus gastroenteritis averted, and rotavirus vaccine-associated intussusception. The primary economic evaluation measure was the benefit-cost ratio (BCR).

findingsFor the modelling period, Jan 1, 2021, to Dec 31, 2030, we found that the benefits of introducing the rotavirus vaccine outweighed the costs in all eight countries, with Chad and the Central African Republic having the highest BCR of 19·42 and 11·36, respectively. Guinea had the lowest BCR of 3·26 amongst the Gavi-eligible countries. Equatorial Guinea and Gabon had a narrow BCR of 1·86 and 2·06, respectively. Rotarix was the optimal choice for all the Gavi-eligible countries; Rotasiil and Rotavac were the optimal choices for Equatorial Guinea and Gabon, respectively.

interpretationIntroducing the rotavirus vaccine in all eight countries, but with caution in Equatorial Guinea and Gabon, would be worthwhile. With the narrow BCR for Equatorial Guinea and Gabon, cautious, pragmatic, and stringent measures need to be employed to ensure optimal health benefits and cost minimisation of the vaccine introduction. The final decision to introduce the rotavirus vaccine should be preceded by comparing its BCR to the BCRs of other health-care projects.

fundingCopenhagen Consensus Center and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Indexed as

Africa South of the SaharaCost-Benefit AnalysisHealth PolicyHumansInfantQuality-Adjusted Life YearsRotavirus InfectionsRotavirus VaccinesRotavirus Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID34297961
PMCPMC8315146
OpenAlexW3184524018

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.