METHODS: A survey was distributed to national experts in infectious diseases and health-care authorities (March 2015-April 2016), collecting information on local recommendations, costs and perception of barriers for implementation.
RESULTS: Forty-nine of the 79 contacted countries (62% response rate) provided a complete analyzable data. RVI was recommended in 27/49 countries (55%). Although five countries have recommended RVI since 2006, a large number (16, 33%) included RVI in a National Immunization Schedule between 2012 and 2014. The costs of vaccination are covered by the government (39%), by the GAVI Alliance (10%) or public and private insurance (8%) in some countries. However, in most cases, immunization is paid by families (43%). Elevated cost of vaccine (49%) is the main barrier for implementation of RVI. High costs of vaccination (rs=-0.39, p=0.02) and coverage of expenses by families (rs=0.5, p=0.002) significantly correlate with a lower immunization rate. Limited perception of RV illness severity by the families (47%), public-health authorities (37%) or physicians (24%) and the timing of administration (16%) are further major barriers to large- scale RVI programs.
CONCLUSIONS: After 10years since its introduction, the implementation of RVI is still unacceptably low and should remain a major target for global public health. Barriers to implementation vary according to setting. Nevertheless, public health authorities should promote education for caregivers and health-care providers and interact with local health authorities in order to implement RVI.
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.