Impact and cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination in Niger: a modelling study evaluating alternative rotavirus vaccines.
Health economics
Health policy
Paediatric infectious disease & immunisation
Public health
Journal
BMJ open
ISSN: 2044-6055
Titre abrégé: BMJ Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101552874
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 10 2022
05 10 2022
Historique:
entrez:
5
10
2022
pubmed:
6
10
2022
medline:
12
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alternative rotavirus vaccines in Niger, using UNIVAC, a proportionate outcomes model. The study leverages global, regional and local data to inform cost-effectiveness modelling. Local data were collected as part of a clinical trial taking place in the Madarounfa district, Maradi region, Niger. The study models impact of infants vaccination on rotavirus gastroenteritis in children under 5 years of age. We compared the use of ROTARIX (GlaxoSmithKline, Belgium), ROTAVAC (Bharat Biotech, India) and ROTASIIL (Serum Institute, India) to no vaccination and to each other over a 10-year period starting in 2021. We estimated that ROTARIX, ROTAVAC and ROTASIIL would each prevent 13 million cases and 20 000 deaths of children under 5 years over a 10-year period in Niger. Compared with no vaccination, the cost to avert a disability-adjusted life-year was US$146 with ROTARIX, US$107 with ROTASIIL and US$76 with ROTAVAC from the government perspective. ROTAVAC dominated ROTARIX and ROTASIIL (eg, provided similar or higher benefits at a lower cost) and had 90% chance to be cost-effective at a US$100 willingness-to-pay threshold. This study can inform decision-making around rotavirus vaccination policy in Niger, demonstrating that ROTAVAC is likely the most cost-effective option. Alternative products (ROTASIIL and ROTARIX) may also be considered by decision-makers if they are priced more competitively, or if their cold chain requirements could bring additional economic benefits.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36198460
pii: bmjopen-2022-061673
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061673
pmc: PMC9535195
doi:
Substances chimiques
Rotavirus Vaccines
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e061673Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
Vaccine. 2015 May 7;33 Suppl 1:A13-20
pubmed: 25919153
Lancet Glob Health. 2019 Nov;7(11):e1541-e1552
pubmed: 31607466
Emerg Infect Dis. 2014 Apr;20(4):573-80
pubmed: 24655441
Vaccine. 2018 Jun 14;36(25):3674-3680
pubmed: 29752026
Lancet Glob Health. 2019 Dec;7(12):e1664-e1674
pubmed: 31708147
PLoS One. 2020 Feb 5;15(2):e0228506
pubmed: 32023295
Vaccine. 2017 Oct 13;35(43):5835-5841
pubmed: 28941619
Lancet Infect Dis. 2019 Jul;19(7):717-727
pubmed: 31178289
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Nov 17;11:CD008521
pubmed: 34788488
BMC Public Health. 2020 May 5;20(1):619
pubmed: 32370763
Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2021 Jun 3;17(6):1787-1802
pubmed: 33327868
Lancet Glob Health. 2015 Nov;3(11):e712-23
pubmed: 26475018
Lancet Glob Health. 2021 Jul;9(7):e942-e956
pubmed: 33891885
Lancet Infect Dis. 2017 Sep;17(9):909-948
pubmed: 28579426
Lancet. 2009 May 2;373(9674):1543-9
pubmed: 19303633
J Infect Dis. 2018 Mar 5;217(6):861-868
pubmed: 29514306
N Engl J Med. 2017 Mar 23;376(12):1121-1130
pubmed: 28328346
PLoS Med. 2021 Jul 2;18(7):e1003655
pubmed: 34214095
Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Aug 30;69(6):1071-1078
pubmed: 30689799