METHODS: Rotavirus infection in Children in Southeast Asia countries was assessed using data from Pubmed and Google Scholars. Most countries in Southeast Asia have not yet introduced national RV vaccination programs. We exclude Brunei Darussalam, and Timor Leste because there were no eligible studies identified during that time.
RESULTS: According to the 2008-2018 RV surveillance data for Southeast Asia, 40.78% of all diarrheal disease in children were caused by RV infection, which is still a major cause of morbidity and mortality in children under 5 years old in Southeast Asia. Mortality was inversely related to socioeconomic status. The most predominant genotype distribution of RV changed from G1P[8] and G2P[4] into the rare and unusual genotypes G3P[8], G8P[8], and G9P[8]. Although the predominat strain has changed, but the seasonality of RV infection remains unchanged. One of the best strategies for decreasing the global burden of the disease is the development and implementation of effective vaccines.
CONCLUSIONS: The most predominant genotype distribution of RV was changed time by time. Rotavirus vaccine is highly cost effective in Southeast Asian countries because the ratio between cost per disability-adjusted life years (DALY) averted and gross domestic product (GDP) per capita is less than one. These data are important for healthcare practitioners and officials to make appropriate policies and recommendations about RV vaccination.
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.