Abstract
BackgroundRotavirus causes morbidity and mortality in children particularly in low-income countries (LICs) and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccine in LICs and LMICs.MethodsRelevant studies were identified from PubMed and Scopus from their inception to January 2019. Studies were eligible if they assessed the cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccine in children in LICs and LMICs and reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Risk of bias and quality assessment was assessed based on the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standard checklist. Incremental net benefits (INBs) were estimated, and meta-analysis based on the DerSimonian and Laird method was applied to pool INBs across studies.ResultsWe identified 1614 studies, of which 28 studies (29 countries) were eligible and conducted using cost-utility analysis in LICs (n = 8) and LMICs (n = 21). The pooled INB was estimated at $62.17 (95% confidence interval, $7.12–$117.21) in LICs, with a highly significant heterogeneity (χ2 = 33.96; df = 6; P < .001; I2 = 82.3%), whereas the pooled INB in LMICs was $82.46 (95% confidence interval, $54.52–$110.41) with no heterogeneity (χ2 = 8.46; df = 11; P = .67; I2 = 0%).ConclusionsRotavirus vaccine would be cost-effective to introduce in LICs and LMICs. These findings could aid decision makers and provide evidence for introduction of rotavirus vaccination.
Highlights
Rotavirus causes morbidity and mortality in children in low-income countries (LICs) and lowermiddle-income countries (LMICs)
Rotavirus vaccine would be cost-effective to introduce in LICs and LMICs
Rotavirus is among the leading causes of diarrhea among children aged
Summary
Relevant studies were identified from PubMed and Scopus from their inception to January 2019. Studies were eligible if they assessed the cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccine in children in LICs and LMICs and reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Risk of bias and quality assessment was assessed based on the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standard checklist. Incremental net benefits (INBs) were estimated, and meta-analysis based on the DerSimonian and Laird method was applied to pool INBs across studies. On 30 June 2017 we systematically searched Medline via PubMed and Scopus for relevant studies published globally since inception of the databases. We conducted an updated search in 22 January 2019. The search terms and strategies were conducted for both databases based on the study’s targeted population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes, as described in detail in Supplementary A and B.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
