ArticleBMC health services research2025
Cost-effectiveness and benefit-risk of rotavirus vaccination in Afghanistan: a modelling analysis informed by post-licensure surveillance.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAfghanistan added ROTARIX to the routine national immunization programme in 2018. We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness and benefit-risk of ROTARIX and compare its continued use with other rotavirus vaccines that could be used in the future.
methodsWe used a static cohort model with a finely disaggregated age structure (weeks of age < 5 years) to assess the use of ROTARIX (1-dose vial) over a seven-year period (2018-2024) in Afghanistan. The primary outcome measure was the discounted cost (2022 US$) per Disability Adjusted Life Year (DALY) averted (from government and societal perspectives) compared to no vaccination. We also calculated the benefit-risk ratio i.e., the number of RVGE deaths prevented per one excess intussusception death. Model inputs were informed by pre- and post-licensure surveillance data, new analyses of household survey data, and updated estimates from the international literature. We ran a separate analysis to compare the potential cost-effectiveness and benefit-risk of ROTARIX (1-dose vial), ROTASIIL (1-dose vial), ROTASIIL (2-dose vial), and ROTAVAC (5-dose vial) over a ten-year period (2025-2034). Each product was compared to no rotavirus vaccination and each other. We ran deterministic and probabilistic uncertainty analyses and interpreted our results over a range of cost-effectiveness thresholds.
findingsWe estimated that routine use of ROTARIX between 2018 and 2024 has prevented 4,600 RVGE deaths (a 41% reduction), 86,400 hospital admissions, and 1.72 million RVGE cases. For every 1,493 RVGE deaths prevented by the vaccine, we estimated one potential excess intussusception death. With a heavily reduced vaccine dose cost (due to support from Gavi) the net cost to the Afghanistan government vaccine programme was estimated to be US$ 4.4 million per year. The cost per DALY averted was US$ 125 (0.25 times the national GDP per capita) when using a Gavi-subsidised vaccine cost and including household costs averted by vaccination. This increased to US$ 471 (0.94 times the national GDP per capita) when incorporating the full vaccine price without Gavi's subsidy and excluding household costs averted by vaccination. When assuming continued Gavi support over the period 2025-2034, the dominant product would be ROTARIX. Without Gavi support, ROTASIIL (2-dose vial) dominates.
conclusionOur study supports the sustained use of rotavirus vaccination in Afghanistan. The health benefits of the vaccine greatly exceed the potential risks.
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.