A cost effectiveness and capacity analysis for the introduction of universal rotavirus vaccination in Kenya : comparison between Rotarix and RotaTeq vaccines

Background Diarrhoea is an important cause of death in the developing world, and rotavirus is the single most important cause of diarrhoea associated mortality. Two vaccines (Rotarix and RotaTeq) are available to prevent rotavirus disease. This analysis was undertaken to aid the decision in Kenya as to which vaccine to choose when introducing rotavirus vaccination. Methods Cost-effectiveness modelling, using national and sentinel surveillance data, and an impact assessment on the cold chain. Results The median estimated incidence of rotavirus disease in Kenya was 3015 outpatient visits, 279 hospitalisations and 65 deaths per 100,000 children under five years of age per year. Cumulated over the first five years of life vaccination was predicted to prevent 34% of the outpatient visits, 31% of the hospitalizations and 42% of the deaths. The estimated prevented costs accumulated over five years totalled US$1,782,761 (direct and indirect costs) with an associated 48,585 DALYs. From a societal perspective Rotarix had a cost-effectiveness ratio of US$142 per DALY (US$5 for the full course of two doses) and RotaTeq US$288 per DALY ($10.5 for the full course of three doses). RotaTeq will have a bigger impact on the cold chain compared to Rotarix. Conclusion Vaccination against rotavirus disease is cost-effective for Kenya irrespective of the vaccine. Of the two vaccines Rotarix was the preferred choice due to a better cost-effectiveness ratio, the presence of a vaccine vial monitor, the requirement of fewer doses and less storage space, and proven thermo-stability

Oral rehydration versus intravenous therapy for treating dehydration due to gastroenteritis in children: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Despite treatment recommendations from various organizations, oral rehydration therapy (ORT) continues to be underused, particularly by physicians in high-income countries. We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to compare ORT and intravenous therapy (IVT) for the treatment of dehydration secondary to acute gastroenteritis in children. METHODS: RCTs were identified through MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, authors and references of included trials, pharmaceutical companies, and relevant organizations. Screening and inclusion were performed independently by two reviewers in order to identify randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing ORT and IVT in children with acute diarrhea and dehydration. Two reviewers independently assessed study quality using the Jadad scale and allocation concealment. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. The primary outcome measure was failure of rehydration. We analyzed data using standard meta-analytic techniques. RESULTS: The quality of the 14 included trials ranged from 0 to 3 (Jadad score); allocation concealment was unclear in all but one study. Using a random effects model, there was no significant difference in treatment failures (risk difference [RD] 3%; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0, 6). The Mantel-Haenzsel fixed effects model gave a significant difference between treatment groups (RD 4%; 95% CI: 2, 5) favoring IVT. Based on the four studies that reported deaths, there were six in the IVT groups and two in ORT. There were no significant differences in total fluid intake at six and 24 hours, weight gain, duration of diarrhea, or hypo/hypernatremia. Length of stay was significantly shorter for the ORT group (weighted mean difference [WMD] -1.2 days; 95% CI: -2.4,-0.02). Phlebitis occurred significantly more often with IVT (number needed to treat [NNT] 33; 95% CI: 25,100); paralytic ileus occurred more often with ORT (NNT 33; 95% CI: 20,100). These results may not be generalizable to children with persistent vomiting. CONCLUSION: There were no clinically important differences between ORT and IVT in terms of efficacy and safety. For every 25 children (95% CI: 20, 50) treated with ORT, one would fail and require IVT. The results support existing practice guidelines recommending ORT as the first course of treatment in appropriate children with dehydration secondary to gastroenteritis

Self-care support for children and adolescents with long-term conditions : the REfOCUS evidence synthesis

Background: Self-care support (e.g. education, training, peer/professional support) is intended to enhance the self-care capacities of children and young people, while simultaneously reducing the financial burden facing health-care systems. Objectives: To determine which models of self-care support for long-term conditions (LTCs) are associated with significant reductions in health utilisation and costs without compromising outcomes for children and young people. Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Population: Children and young people aged 0–18 years with a long-term physical or mental health condition (e.g. asthma, depression). Intervention: Self-care support in health, social care, educational or community settings. Comparator: Usual care. Outcomes: Generic/health-related quality of life (QoL)/subjective health symptoms and health service utilisation/costs. Design: Randomised/non-randomised trials, controlled before-and-after studies, and interrupted time series designs. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ISI Web of Science, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, The Cochrane Library, Health Technology Assessment database, Paediatric Economic Database Evaluation, IDEAS, reference scanning, targeted author searches and forward citation searching. All databases were searched from inception to March 2015. Methods: We conducted meta-analyses, simultaneously plotting QoL and health utilisation effects. We conducted subgroup analyses for evidence quality, age, LTC and intervention (setting, target, delivery format, intensity). Results: Ninety-seven studies reporting 114 interventions were included. Thirty-seven studies reported adequate allocation concealment. Fourteen were UK studies. The vast majority of included studies recruited children and young people with asthma (n = 66, 68%). Four per cent of studies evaluated ‘pure’ self-care support (delivered through health technology without additional contact), 23% evaluated facilitated self-care support (≤ 2 hours’/four sessions’ contact), 65% were intensively facilitated (≥ 2 hours’/four sessions’ contact) and 8% were case management (≥ 2 hours’ support with multidisciplinary input). Self-care support was associated with statistically significant, minimal benefits for QoL [effect size (ES) –0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.23 to –0.11], but lacked clear benefit for hospital admissions (ES –0.05, 95% CI –0.12 to 0.03). This finding endured across intervention intensities and LTCs. Statistically significant, minimal reductions in emergency use were observed (ES –0.11, 95% CI –0.17 to –0.04). The total cost analysis was limited by the small number of data. Subgroup analyses revealed statistically significant, minimal reductions in emergency use for children aged ≤ 13 years (ES –0.10, 95% CI –0.17 to –0.04), children and young people with asthma (ES –0.12, 95% CI –0.18 to –0.06) and children and young people receiving ≥ 2 hours per four sessions of support (ES –0.10, 95% CI –0.17 to –0.03). Preliminary evidence suggested that interventions that include the child or young person, and deliver some content individually, may optimise QoL effects. Face-to-face delivery may help to maximise emergency department effects. Caution is required in interpreting these findings. Limitations: Identification of optimal models of self-care support is challenged by the size and nature of evidence available. The emphasis on meta-analysis meant that a minority of studies with incomplete but potentially relevant data were excluded. Conclusions: Self-care support is associated with positive but minimal effects on children and young people’s QoL, and minimal, but potentially important, reductions in emergency use. On current evidence, we cannot reliably conclude that self-care support significantly reduces health-care costs. Future work: Research is needed to explore the short- and longer-term effects of self-care support across a wider range of LTCs. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014015452. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme

Experiences with rotavirus vaccines: can we improve rotavirus vaccine impact in developing countries?

Rotavirus vaccines have been introduced into over 95 countries globally and demonstrate substantial impact in reducing diarrheal mortality and diarrheal hospitalizations in young children. The vaccines are also considered by WHO as "very cost effective" interventions for young children, particularly in countries with high diarrheal disease burden. Yet the full potential impact of rotavirus immunization is yet to be realized. Large countries with big birth cohorts and where disease burden is high in Africa and Asia have not yet implemented rotavirus vaccines at all or at scale. Significant advances have been made demonstrating the impact of the vaccines in low- and lower-middle income countries, yet the modest effectiveness of the vaccines in these settings is challenging. Current research highlights these challenges and considers alternative strategies to overcome them, including alternative immunization schedules and host factors that may inform us of new opportunities

Cost-effectiveness of Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine in low- and middle-income countries: regional analysis and assessment of major determinants.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) conjugate vaccine in low- and middle-income countries and identify the model variables, which are most important for the result. STUDY DESIGN: A static decision tree model was developed to predict incremental costs and health impacts. Estimates were generated for 4 country groups: countries eligible for funding by the GAVI Alliance in Africa and Asia, lower middle-income countries, and upper middle-income countries. Values, including disease incidence, case fatality rates, and treatment costs, were based on international country estimates and the scientific literature. RESULTS: From the societal perspective, it is estimated that the probability of Hib conjugate vaccine cost saving is 34%-53% in Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization eligible African and Asian countries, respectively. In middle-income countries, costs per discounted disability adjusted life year averted are between US$37 and US$733. Variation in vaccine prices and risks of meningitis sequelae and mortality explain most of the difference in results. For all country groups, disease incidence cause the largest part of the uncertainty in the result. CONCLUSIONS: Hib conjugate vaccine is cost saving or highly cost-effective in low- and middle-income settings. This conclusion is especially influenced by the recent decline in Hib conjugate vaccine prices and new data revealing the high costs of lost productivity associated with meningitis sequelae