Cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination in Albania

Abstract

BackgroundRotavirus vaccines have been introduced in several European countries but can represent a considerable cost, particularly for countries that do not qualify for any external financial support. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of introducing rotavirus vaccination into Albania's national immunization program and to inform national decision-making by improving national capacity to conduct economic evaluations of new vaccines. MethodsThe TRIVAC model was used to assess vaccine impact and cost-effectiveness. The model estimated health and economic outcomes attributed to 10 successive vaccinated birth cohorts (2013–2022) from a government and societal perspective. Epidemiological and economic data used in the model were based on national cost studies, and surveillance data, as well as estimates from the scientific literature. Cost-effectiveness was estimated for both the monovalent (RV1) and pentavalent vaccines (RV5). A multivariate scenario analysis (SA) was performed to evaluate the uncertainty around the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). ResultsWith 3% discounting of costs and health benefits over the period 2013–2022, rotavirus vaccination in Albania could avert 51,172 outpatient visits, 14,200 hospitalizations, 27 deaths, 950 disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and gain 801 life-years. When both vaccines were compared to no vaccination, the discounted cost per DALY averted was US$ 2008 for RV1 and US$ 5047 for RV5 from a government perspective. From the societal perspective the values were US$ 517 and US$ 3556, respectively. ConclusionFrom both the perspectives, the introduction of rotavirus vaccine to the Albanian immunization schedule is either cost-effective or highly cost-effective for a range of plausible scenarios. In most scenarios, including the base-case scenario, the discounted cost per DALY averted was less than three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. However, rotavirus vaccination was not cost-effective when rotavirus cases and deaths were based on plausible minimum estimates. Introduction of RV1 would yield similar benefits at lower cost.