Key result
Rotavirus vaccines have consistently been shown to save lives and be cost-effective in low-income and middle-income countries compared with no vaccination.
Why the study?
Are rotavirus vaccines cost-effective and life-saving in low-income and middle-income countries compared to no vaccination?
Are rotavirus vaccines cost-effective and life-saving in low-income and middle-income countries compared to no vaccination?
Rotavirus vaccines remain a highly cost-effective and life-saving intervention in LMICs, highlighting the need for continued implementation despite the focus on COVID-19.
In the maelstrom of COVID-19, it is easy to forget the importance of non-COVID health interventions and the processes that policy makers use to choose where to allocate limited resources. Rotavirus vaccines have consistently been shown to save lives in low-income settings and to be cost-effective in most low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) when compared with no vaccination, with multiple instances where rotavirus vaccination was found to be highly cost-effective or even cost-saving.1 Of the 110 countries that have introduced rotavirus vaccines into their national immunisation programmes, 53 have accessed support from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Buttery et al. (2021) conducted an editorial in Rotavirus. Rotavirus vaccines vs. no vaccination was evaluated. Rotavirus vaccines have consistently been shown to save lives and be cost-effective in low-income and middle-income countries compared with no vaccination.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: