Évaluation du coût de la prise en charge pédiatrique des gastroentérites aiguës à rotavirus

Global economic evaluations of rotavirus vaccines: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

World Health Organization (WHO) recommends Rotavirus vaccines to prevent and control rotavirus infections. Economic evaluations (EE) have been considered to support decision making of national policy. Summarizing global experience of the economic value of rotavirus vaccines is crucial in order to encourage global WHO recommendations for vaccine uptake. Therefore, a systematic review of economic evaluations of rotavirus vaccine was conducted.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, NHS EED, EconLit, CEA Registry, SciELO, LILACS, CABI-Global Health Database, Popline, World Bank - e-Library, and WHOLIS. Full economic evaluations studies, published from inception to November 2015, evaluating Rotavirus vaccines preventing Rotavirus infections were included. The methods, assumptions, results and conclusions of the included studies were extracted and appraised using WHO guide for standardization of EE of immunization programs.

RESULTS

104 relevant studies were included. The majority of studies were conducted in high-income countries. Cost-utility analysis was mostly reported in many studies using incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per DALY averted or QALY gained. Incremental cost per QALY gained was used in many studies from high-income countries. Mass routine vaccination against rotavirus provided the ICERs ranging from cost-saving to highly cost-effective in comparison to no vaccination among low-income countries. Among middle-income countries, vaccination offered the ICERs ranging from cost-saving to cost-effective. Due to low- or no subsidized price of rotavirus vaccines from external funders, being not cost-effective was reported in some high-income settings.

CONCLUSION

Mass vaccination against rotavirus was generally found to be cost-effective, particularly in low- and middle-income settings according to the external subsidization of vaccine price. On the other hand, it may not be a cost-effective intervention at market price in some high-income settings. This systematic review provides supporting information to health policy-makers and health professionals when considering rotavirus vaccination as a national program.

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluation Methodologies Between Resource-Limited and Resource-Rich Countries: A Case of Rotavirus Vaccines

BACKGROUND

For more than three decades, the number and influence of economic evaluations of healthcare interventions have been increasing and gaining attention from a policy level. However, concerns about the credibility of these studies exist, particularly in studies from low- and middle- income countries (LMICs). This analysis was performed to explore economic evaluations conducted in LMICs in terms of methodological variations, quality of reporting and evidence used for the analyses. These results were compared with those studies conducted in high-income countries (HICs).

METHODS

Rotavirus vaccine was selected as a case study, as it is one of the interventions that many studies in both settings have explored. The search to identify individual studies on rotavirus vaccines was performed in March 2014 using MEDLINE and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database. Only full economic evaluations, comparing cost and outcomes of at least two alternatives, were included for review. Selected criteria were applied to assess methodological variation, quality of reporting and quality of evidence used.

RESULTS

Eighty-five studies were included, consisting of 45 studies in HICs and 40 studies in LMICs. Seventy-five percent of the studies in LMICs were published by researchers from HICs. Compared with studies in HICs, the LMIC studies showed less methodological variety. In terms of the quality of reporting, LMICs had a high adherence to technical criteria, but HICs ultimately proved to be better. The same trend applied for the quality of evidence used.

CONCLUSION

Although the quality of economic evaluations in LMICs was not as high as those from HICs, it is of an acceptable level given several limitations that exist in these settings. However, the results of this study may not reflect the fact that LMICs have developed a better research capacity in the domain of health economics, given that most of the studies were in theory led by researchers from HICs. Putting more effort into fostering the development of both research infrastructure and capacity building as well as encouraging local engagement in LMICs is thus necessary.

Cost-Effectiveness of Rotavirus Vaccination in France-Accounting for Indirect Protection

BACKGROUND

Vaccination against rotavirus has shown great potential for reducing the primary cause of severe childhood gastroenteritis. Previous economic evaluations of rotavirus vaccination in France have not modeled the potential impact of vaccines on disease burden via reduced transmission.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of the introduction of pentavalent rotavirus vaccination into the French infant vaccination schedule.

METHODS

We developed an age-structured model of rotavirus transmission calibrated to 6 years of French gastroenteritis incidence and vaccine clinical trial data. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pentavalent rotavirus vaccination considering that 75% of infants would receive the three-dose vaccine course.

RESULTS

Our model predicts that rotavirus vaccination will decrease rotavirus gastroenteritis incidence and associated clinical outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, delay the seasonal peak of infection, and increase the age of infection. From the societal perspective, our base-case scenario predicts that vaccination coverage would be cost-effective at €115 or €135 per vaccine course at €28,500 and €39,500/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, respectively, and suggests that almost 95% of the financial benefits will be recouped within the first 5 years following vaccination implementation. From the third-party payer perspective, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from €12,500 to €20,000/QALY, respectively. Our uncertainty analysis suggests that findings were sensitive to various assumptions including the number of hospitalizations, outpatient visits, and the extent of QALY losses per rotavirus episode.

CONCLUSIONS

Introducing pentavalent rotavirus vaccination into the French infant vaccination schedule would significantly reduce the burden of rotavirus disease in children, and could be cost-effective under plausible conditions.

Comparative review of three cost-effectiveness models for rotavirus vaccines in national immunization programs; a generic approach applied to various regions in the world

BACKGROUND

This study aims to critically review available cost-effectiveness models for rotavirus vaccination, compare their designs using a standardized approach and compare similarities and differences in cost-effectiveness outcomes using a uniform set of input parameters.

METHODS

We identified various models used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination. From these, results using a standardized dataset for four regions in the world could be obtained for three specific applications.

RESULTS

Despite differences in the approaches and individual constituting elements including costs, QALYs Quality Adjusted Life Years and deaths, cost-effectiveness results of the models were quite similar. Differences between the models on the individual components of cost-effectiveness could be related to some specific features of the respective models. Sensitivity analysis revealed that cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination is highly sensitive to vaccine prices, rotavirus-associated mortality and discount rates, in particular that for QALYs.

CONCLUSIONS

The comparative approach followed here is helpful in understanding the various models selected and will thus benefit (low-income) countries in designing their own cost-effectiveness analyses using new or adapted existing models. Potential users of the models in low and middle income countries need to consider results from existing studies and reviews. There will be a need for contextualization including the use of country specific data inputs. However, given that the underlying biological and epidemiological mechanisms do not change between countries, users are likely to be able to adapt existing model designs rather than developing completely new approaches. Also, the communication established between the individual researchers involved in the three models is helpful in the further development of these individual models. Therefore, we recommend that this kind of comparative study be extended to other areas of vaccination and even other infectious disease interventions.