Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 27, 2025
Assays for the Specific Growth Rate and Cell-binding Ability of Rotavirus
Published on: January 28, 2019
Introducing rotavirus vaccine in eight sub-Saharan African countries: a cost-benefit analysis
Charles E Okafor1, Obinna I Ekwunife2
1Centre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Griffith University Nathan Campus, Nathan, QLD, Australia; Menzies Health Institute, Griffith University Nathan Campus, Nathan, QLD, Australia.
Background:
Stimulated by the economic challenges faced by many sub-Saharan African countries and the changes in the rotavirus burden across these countries, this study aimed to inform the decision of health policy makers of eight sub-Saharan countries, who are yet to introduce the rotavirus vaccine as of Dec 31, 2020, on the health economic consequences of the introduction of the vaccine in terms of the costs and benefits.
Methods:
We did a cost-benefit analysis using a simulation-based decision-analytic model for children aged younger than 1 year, who were followed up to 259 weeks, in the Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea, Somalia, and South Sudan. Data were collected and analysed between Jan 13, 2020, and Dec 11, 2020. Cost-effectiveness analysis and budget impact analysis were done as secondary analyses. Four rotavirus vaccinations (Rotarix, Rotateq, Rotavac, and Rotasiil) were compared with no vaccination. The primary outcome was disability-adjusted life-years averted, converted to monetary terms. The secondary outcomes include rotavirus gastroenteritis averted, and rotavirus vaccine-associated intussusception. The primary economic evaluation measure was the benefit-cost ratio (BCR).
Findings:
For the modelling period, Jan 1, 2021, to Dec 31, 2030, we found that the benefits of introducing the rotavirus vaccine outweighed the costs in all eight countries, with Chad and the Central African Republic having the highest BCR of 19·42 and 11·36, respectively. Guinea had the lowest BCR of 3·26 amongst the Gavi-eligible countries. Equatorial Guinea and Gabon had a narrow BCR of 1·86 and 2·06, respectively. Rotarix was the optimal choice for all the Gavi-eligible countries; Rotasiil and Rotavac were the optimal choices for Equatorial Guinea and Gabon, respectively.
Interpretation:
Introducing the rotavirus vaccine in all eight countries, but with caution in Equatorial Guinea and Gabon, would be worthwhile. With the narrow BCR for Equatorial Guinea and Gabon, cautious, pragmatic, and stringent measures need to be employed to ensure optimal health benefits and cost minimisation of the vaccine introduction. The final decision to introduce the rotavirus vaccine should be preceded by comparing its BCR to the BCRs of other health-care projects.
Funding:
Copenhagen Consensus Center and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
