Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37243021›Full record

ArticleVaccines2023

The Economic Value of Rotavirus Vaccination When Optimally Implemented in a High-Income Country.

Baudouin Standaert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccines, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

1 author.

Baudouin StandaertDepartment Care and Ethics, Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, University Hasselt, 3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-6801-9654

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rotavirus vaccination was introduced in high-income countries starting in 2006, with no recommendation for optimal implementation. Economic evaluations were presented before launch projecting potential impacts. Few economic reassessments have been reported following reimbursement. This study compares the short- to long-term economic value of rotavirus vaccination between pre-launch predictions and real-world evidence collected over 15 years, proposing recommendations for optimal vaccine launch. A cost-impact analysis compared rotavirus hospitalisation data after the introduction of vaccination between pre-launch modelled projections and observed data collected in the RotaBIS study in Belgium. A best model fit of the observed data was used to simulate launch scenarios to identify the optimal strategy. Data from other countries in Europe were used to confirm the potential optimal launch assessment. The Belgian analysis in the short term (first 8 years) indicated a more favourable impact for the observed data than predicted pre-launch model results. The long-term assessment (15 years) showed bigger economic disparities in favour of the model-predicted scenario. A simulated optimal vaccine launch, initiating the vaccination at least 6 months prior the next seasonal disease peak with an immediate very high vaccine coverage, indicated important additional potential gains, which would make vaccination very cost impactful. Finland and the UK are on such a route leading to long-term vaccination success, whereas Spain and Belgium have difficulties in achieving optimum vaccine benefits. An optimal launch of rotavirus vaccination may generate substantial economic gains over time. For high-income countries that are considering implementing rotavirus vaccination, achieving an optimal launch is a critical factor for long-term economic success.

Indexed as

economic evaluation long-termoptimal introduction cost-impact analysisrotavirus vaccination

Identifiers

PMID37243021
PMCPMC10223627

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.