|
KMID : 1146320180060020148
|
|
Journal of Health Technology Assessment
2018 Volume.6 No. 2 p.148 ~ p.155
|
|
|
A Systematic Review on Economic Evaluation of Rotavirus Vaccination
|
|
Lee Min-Jun
Lee Han-Kil
Cho Hyeon-Seok
Kang Hye-Young
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
Objectives: Rotavirus is one of the main causes of severe diarrhea in children under five. Two types of rotavirus vaccines [Rotarix® (RV1) and Rotateq® (RV5)] have been introduced and its administration was optional in South Korea. A systematic review (SR) on economic evaluation (EE) of RV was conducted to examine whether the introduction of rotavirus vaccine to national vaccine program (NIP) is cost-effective.
Methods: Previous SR studies of EE for RV were searched in August 2017 through databases such as MEDLINE and EMBASE. Additional search was performed to include literatures published after or unincluded in the previous SR studies. Among the 11 SR studies identified, 2 studies were reviewed via inclusion/exclusion criteria. A previous SR study including 104 original articles was selected by A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews. Among the 36 original articles identified through additional search, 10 were selected, resulting in 114 studies included in our analysis.
Results: RV1-only, RV5-only, and evaluating-both studies account for about 44%, 22%, and 33%, respectively. Among RV1-only, RV5-only, or evaluating-both studies, 90%, 64%, or 68% of the studies concluded RV as being cost-effective, respectively. RV5-only studies were usually executed in high-income countries (68%), whereas RV1-only studies were executed mostly in lower (32%) and upper (26%) middle-income countries. When classifying studies by their funding sources, RV1-only studies (82%; 28 of 34 studies specifying funding sources) were chiefly supported by non-profit organization, and 100% of these studies were concluded as being cost-effective. RV5-only studies were mostly supported by profit organization (68%; 13 of 19 studies specifying sources), and 92% of these studies concluded as being cost-effective.
Conclusion: By reviewing global EE studies for RV, we have learned that about 70% of these studies was shown to be costeffective and RV1 appeared to be more cost-effective than RV5.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
Rotavirus, Vaccines, Economic evaluations, Systematic review
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
|
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
|
|
|