Cost-effectiveness of introducing a rotavirus vaccine in developing countries: The case of Mexico

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In developing countries rotavirus is the leading cause of severe diarrhoea and diarrhoeal deaths in children under 5. Vaccination could greatly alleviate that burden, but in Mexico as in most low- and middle-income countries the decision to add rotavirus vaccine to the national immunisation program will depend heavily on its cost-effectiveness and affordability. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of including the pentavalent rotavirus vaccine in Mexico's national immunisation program.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A cost-effectiveness model was developed from the perspective of the health system, modelling the vaccination of a hypothetical birth cohort of 2 million children monitored from birth through 60 months of age. It compares the cost and disease burden of rotavirus in an unvaccinated cohort of children with one vaccinated as recommended at 2, 4, and 6 months.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Including the pentavalent vaccine in the national immunisation program could prevent 71,464 medical visits (59%), 5,040 hospital admissions (66%), and 612 deaths from rotavirus gastroenteritis (70%). At US$10 per dose and a cost of administration of US$13.70 per 3-dose regimen, vaccination would cost US$122,058 per death prevented, US$4,383 per discounted life-year saved, at a total net cost of US$74.7 million dollars to the health care system. Key variables influencing the results were, in order of importance, case fatality, vaccine price, vaccine efficacy, serotype prevalence, and annual loss of efficacy. The results are also very sensitive to the discount rate assumed when calculated per life-year saved.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>At prices below US$15 per dose, the cost per life-year saved is estimated to be lower than one GNP per capita and hence highly cost effective by the WHO Commission on Macroeconomics and Health criteria. The cost-effectiveness estimates are highly dependent upon the mortality in the absence of the vaccine, which suggests that the vaccine is likely to be significantly more cost-effective among poorer populations and among those with less access to prompt medical care – such that poverty reduction programs would be expected to reduce the future cost-effectiveness of the vaccine.</p

Are there any differences in clinical and laboratory findings on admission between H1N1 positive and negative patients with flu-like symptoms?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The World Health Organization alert for the H1N1 influenza pandemic led to the implementation of certain measures regarding admission of patients with flu-like symptoms. All these instructions were adopted by the Greek National Health System. The aim of this study was to retrospectively examine the characteristics of all subjects admitted to the Unit of Infectious Diseases with symptoms indicating H1N1 infection, and to identify any differences between H1N1 positive or negative patients. Patients from the ED (emergency department) with flu-like symptoms (sore throat, cough, rhinorhea, or nasal congestion) and fever >37.5°C were admitted in the Unit of Infectious diseases and gave pharyngeal or nasopharyngeal swabs. Swabs were tested with real-time reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR).</p> <p>Findings</p> <p>Patients were divided into two groups. Group A comprised 33 H1N1 positive patients and Group B (control group) comprised of 27 H1N1 negative patients. The two groups did not differ in terms of patient age, co-morbidities, length of hospitalization, temperature elevation, hypoxemia, as well as renal and liver function. There were also no significant differences in severity on admission. C-reactive protein (CRP) (mean 12.8 vs. 5.74) and white blood count (WBC) (mean 10.528 vs. 7.114) were significantly higher in group B than in group A upon admission. Obesity was noted in 8 patients of Group A (mean 31.67) and 14 patients of Group B (mean 37.78). Body mass index (BMI) was lower in H1N1 positive than in H1N1 negative patients (mean 31.67 vs. 37.78, respectively; p = 0.009).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The majority of patients in both groups were young male adults. CRP, WBC and BMI were higher among H1N1 negative patients. Finally, clinical course of patients in both groups was mild and uneventful.</p