Cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination in Mozambique

Framework for determining the optimal course of action when efficiency and affordability measures differ by perspective in cost-effectiveness analysis-with an illustrative case of HIV treatment in Mozambique

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a standard tool for evaluating health programs and informing decisions about resource allocation and prioritization. Most CEAs evaluating health interventions in low- and middle-income countries adopt a health sector perspective, accounting for resources funded by international donors and country governments, while often excluding out-of-pocket expenditures and time costs borne by program beneficiaries. Even when patients' costs are included, a companion analysis focused on the patient perspective is rarely performed. We view this as a missed opportunity.

METHODS

We developed methods for assessing intervention affordability and evaluating whether optimal interventions from the health sector perspective also represent efficient and affordable options for patients. We mapped the five different patterns that a comparison of the perspective results can yield into a practical framework, and we provided guidance for researchers and decision-makers on how to use results from multiple perspectives. To illustrate the methodology, we conducted a CEA of six HIV treatment delivery models in Mozambique. We conducted a Monte Carlo microsimulation with probabilistic sensitivity analysis from both patient and health sector perspectives, generating incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the treatment approaches. We also calculated annualized patient costs for the treatment approaches, comparing the costs with an affordability threshold. We then compared the cost-effectiveness and affordability results from the two perspectives using the framework we developed.

RESULTS

In this case, the two perspectives did not produce a shared optimal approach for HIV treatment at the willingness-to-pay threshold of 0.3 × Mozambique's annual GDP per capita per DALY averted. However, the clinical 6-month antiretroviral drug distribution strategy, which is optimal from the health sector perspective, is efficient and affordable from the patient perspective. All treatment approaches, except clinical 1-month distributions of antiretroviral drugs which were standard before Covid-19, had an annual cost to patients less than the country's annual average for out-of-pocket health expenditures.

CONCLUSION

Including a patient perspective in CEAs and explicitly considering affordability offers decision-makers additional insights either by confirming that the optimal strategy from the health sector perspective is also efficient and affordable from the patient perspective or by identifying incongruencies in value or affordability that could affect patient participation.

The Full Impact of Rotavirus Vaccines in Africa Has Yet to Be Realized

Africa bears the brunt of diarrheal mortality globally. Rotavirus vaccination rates are high across the continent and demonstrate impact on diarrheal disease reduction. Nevertheless, there is room for significant improvement in managing rotavirus vaccine coverage, in access to recognized public services such as appropriate medical care, including oral rehydration therapy and improved water and sanitation.

Impact of rotavirus vaccination on diarrheal hospitalizations in children younger than 5 years of age in a rural southern Mozambique

BACKGROUND

Rotavirus vaccine(Rotarix®) was introduced in Mozambique through its Expanded Program of Immunization in September 2015. We assessed the impact of rotavirus vaccination on childhood gastroenteritis-associated hospitalizations post-vaccine introduction in a high HIV prevalence rural setting of southern Mozambique.

METHODS

We reviewed and compared the trend of hospitalizations (prevalence) and incidence rates of acute gastroenteritis (AGE), and rotavirus associated-diarrhea (laboratory confirmed rotavirus) in pre- (January 2008-August 2015) and post-rotavirus vaccine introduction periods (September 2015-December 2020), among children <5 years of age admitted to Manhiça District Hospital.

RESULTS

From January 2008 to December 2020, rotavirus vaccination was found to contribute to the decline of the prevalence of AGE from 19% (95% CI: 18.14-20.44) prior to the vaccine introduction to 10% (95% CI: 8.89-11.48) in the post-introduction period, preventing 40% (95 % IE: 38-42) and 84% (95 % IE: 80-87) of the expected AGE and laboratory confirmed rotavirus cases, respectively, among infants. Similarly, the overall incidence of rotavirus was 11.8-fold lower in the post-vaccine introduction period (0.4/1000 child-years-at-risk [CYAR]; 95% CI: 0.3-0.6) compared with the pre-vaccination period (4.7/1000 CYAR; 95% CI: 4.2-5.1) with the highest reduction being observed among infants (16.8-fold lower from the 15.1/1000 CYAR in the pre-vaccine to 0.9/1000 CYAR in the post-vaccine eras).

CONCLUSIONS

We documented a significant reduction in all-cause diarrhea hospitalizations and rotavirus positivity after vaccine introduction demonstrating the beneficial impact of rotavirus vaccination in a highly vulnerable population.