Economic evaluation of rotavirus vaccination in children of Bhutan.

BACKGROUND: Diarrhoea remains one of the top ten causes of under-five child morbidity in Bhutan, and rotavirus is a significant cause of child diarrhoeal hospitalisations. This study sought to determine the health outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and budget and human resource implications of introducing rotavirus vaccines in the routine immunisation program to inform Bhutan's decision-making process. METHODS: We used UNIVAC model (version 1.3.41) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a rotavirus vaccination programme compared with no vaccination from a government perspective. We also projected the impact of rotavirus vaccination on human resources and budget. Acost-effectiveness threshold was determined to be 0.5 times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (equivalent to the United States dollar ($) 1,537) per Disability-Adjusted Life-Year (DALY) averted.One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and threshold analyses were performed to capture parameter uncertainties. RESULTS: In Bhutan, a rotavirus vaccination programme over 10 years (2020 to 2029) can avert between 104 and 115 DALYs, at an incremental cost ranging from $322,000 to $1,332,000. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) across four vaccination programmes compared to no vaccination scenario were $9,267, $11,606, $3,201, and $2,803 per DALY averted for ROTARIX, RotaTeq, ROTAVAC, and ROTASIIL, respectively. The net five-year budget impact of introducing a rotavirus vaccination programme ranged from $0.20 to $0.81 million. The rotavirus vaccination programme has a potential to reduce the workload of health care workers such as paediatricians, nurses, dieticians, and pharmacists; however, the programme would require an additional 1.93-2.88 full-time equivalent of health assistants. CONCLUSION: At the current cost-effectiveness threshold, routine rotavirus vaccination in Bhutan is unlikely to be cost-effective with any of the currently available vaccines. However, routine vaccination with ROTASIIL was under the cost-effectiveness threshold of one times the GDP per capita ($3,074). ROTASIIL and ROTAVAC would provide the best value for money in Bhutan.

How Should Global Fund Use Value-for-Money Information to Sustain its Investments in Graduating Countries?

It has been debated whether the Global Fund (GF), which is supporting the implementation of programs on the prevention and control of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis (TB) and malaria, should consider the value-for-money (VFM) for programs/interventions that they are supporting. In this paper, we critically analyze the uses of economic information for GF programs, not only to ensure accountability to their donors but also to support country governments in continuing investment in cost-effective interventions initiated by the GF despite the discontinuation of financial support after graduation. We demonstrate that VFM is not a static property of interventions and may depend on program start-up cost, economies of scales, the improvement of effectiveness and efficiency of providers once the program develops, and acceptance and adherence of the target population. Interventions that are cost-ineffective in the beginning may become cost-effective in later stages. We consider recent GF commitments towards value for money and recommend that the GF supports interventions with proven cost-effectiveness from program initiation as well as interventions that may be cost-effective afterwards. Thus, the GF and country governments should establish mechanisms to monitor cost-effectiveness of interventions invested over time.