Advertisement

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

, Volume 14, Issue 6, pp 659–672 | Cite as

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluation Methodologies Between Resource-Limited and Resource-Rich Countries: A Case of Rotavirus Vaccines

  • Kittiphong Thiboonboon
  • Benjarin Santatiwongchai
  • Varit Chantarastapornchit
  • Waranya Rattanavipapong
  • Yot Teerawattananon
Systematic Review

Abstract

Background

For more than three decades, the number and influence of economic evaluations of healthcare interventions have been increasing and gaining attention from a policy level. However, concerns about the credibility of these studies exist, particularly in studies from low- and middle- income countries (LMICs). This analysis was performed to explore economic evaluations conducted in LMICs in terms of methodological variations, quality of reporting and evidence used for the analyses. These results were compared with those studies conducted in high-income countries (HICs).

Methods

Rotavirus vaccine was selected as a case study, as it is one of the interventions that many studies in both settings have explored. The search to identify individual studies on rotavirus vaccines was performed in March 2014 using MEDLINE and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database. Only full economic evaluations, comparing cost and outcomes of at least two alternatives, were included for review. Selected criteria were applied to assess methodological variation, quality of reporting and quality of evidence used.

Results

Eighty-five studies were included, consisting of 45 studies in HICs and 40 studies in LMICs. Seventy-five percent of the studies in LMICs were published by researchers from HICs. Compared with studies in HICs, the LMIC studies showed less methodological variety. In terms of the quality of reporting, LMICs had a high adherence to technical criteria, but HICs ultimately proved to be better. The same trend applied for the quality of evidence used.

Conclusion

Although the quality of economic evaluations in LMICs was not as high as those from HICs, it is of an acceptable level given several limitations that exist in these settings. However, the results of this study may not reflect the fact that LMICs have developed a better research capacity in the domain of health economics, given that most of the studies were in theory led by researchers from HICs. Putting more effort into fostering the development of both research infrastructure and capacity building as well as encouraging local engagement in LMICs is thus necessary.

Keywords

Economic Evaluation Economic Evaluation Study RotaRix Full Economic Evaluation Electronic Supplementary Material Appendix 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP) is funded by the Thailand Research Fund under the Senior Research Scholar on Health Technology Assessment (RTA5580010), the National Health Security Office, the Thai Health Promotion Foundation, the Health System Research Institute, and the Bureau of Health Policy and Strategy, Ministry of Public Health. HITAP international activities, including academic journal publications, are also supported by the Thaihealth-Global Link Initiative Project. The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies.

Author contributions

Study concept and design: YT, KT, BS, VC and WR. Acquisition of data: BS, VC, WR, YT and KT. Analysis and interpretation of data: KT, BS, VC and YT. Drafting of the manuscript: KT, BS, VC and YT. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: VC, BS and YT. Final approval of the version to be published: KT, BS, VC, WR and YT.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest and financial interests.

Supplementary material

40258_2016_265_MOESM1_ESM.docx (12 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 12 kb)
40258_2016_265_MOESM2_ESM.docx (114 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 114 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clement FM, Harris A, Li JJ, et al. Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. JAMA. 2009;302(13):1437–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Neumann PJ, Thorat T, Shi J, et al. The changing face of the cost-utility literature, 1990–2012. Value Health. 2015;18(2):271–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Drummond M, Sculpher M. Common methodological flaws in economic evaluations. Med Care. 2005;43(7 Suppl.):II-5–14.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weinstein MC. Recent developments in decision-analytic modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(11):1043–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Al-Aqeel SA. State of health economic evaluation research in Saudi Arabia: a review. J Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2012;4:177–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hoque M, Khan J, Hossain S, et al. A systematic review of economic evaluations of health and health-related interventions in Bangladesh. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2011;9:12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Teerawattananon Y, Russell S, Mugford M. A systematic review of economic evaluation literature in Thailand: are the data good enough to be used by policy-makers? Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(6):467–79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Singer ME. Cost-effectiveness analysis: developing nations left behind. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(5):359–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jefferson T, Demicheli V. Quality of economic evaluations in health care: it is time for action to ensure higher methodological quality. 2002;324:313–4.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tate JE, Burton AH, Boschi-Pinto C, et al. 2008 estimate of worldwide rotavirus-associated mortality in children younger than 5 years before the introduction of universal rotavirus vaccination programmes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012;12(2):136–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vesikari T. Rotavirus vaccination: a concise review. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012;18(Suppl. 5):57–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Soares-Weiser K, Maclehose H, Bergman H, et al. Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;11:CD008521.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ustrup M, Madsen LB, Bygbjerg IC, et al. Outstanding challenges for rotavirus vaccine introduction in low-income countries: a systematic review. Danish Med Bull. 2011;58(10):A4323.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leshem E, Lopman B, Glass R, et al. Distribution of rotavirus strains and strain-specific effectiveness of the rotavirus vaccine after its introduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2014;14(9):847–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosillon D, Buyse H, Friedland LR, et al. Risk of intussusception after rotavirus vaccination: meta-analysis of postlicensure studies. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2015;34(7):763–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    The Program for Appropriate Technology in Health. Complete country rotavirus introduction list 2016 [cited May 2016]. http://sites.path.org/rotavirusvaccine/country-introduction-maps-and-spreadsheet/. Accessed 20 July 2016.
  18. 18.
    Ozawa S, Mirelman A, Stack ML, et al. Cost-effectiveness and economic benefits of vaccines in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Vaccine. 2012;31(1):96–108.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    The World Bank. How we classify countries [cited April 20 2013]. http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications. Accessed 20 July 2016.
  20. 20.
    Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ. 2013;346:f1049.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cooper N, Coyle D, Abrams K, et al. Use of evidence in decision models: an appraisal of health technology assessments in the UK since 1997. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(4):245–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Griffiths RI, Anderson GF, Powe NR, et al. Economic impact of immunization against rotavirus gastroenteritis: evidence from a clinical trial. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1995;149(4):407–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Smith JC, Haddix AC, Teutsch SM, Glass RI. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a rotavirus immunization program for the United States. Pediatrics. 1995;96(4 Pt 1):609–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fischer TK, Anh DD, Antil L, et al. Health care costs of diarrheal disease and estimates of the cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination in Vietnam. J Infect Dis. 2005;192(10):1720–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Podewils LJ, Antil L, Hummelman E, et al. Projected cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination for children in Asia. J Infect Dis. 2005;192(Suppl. 1):S133–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Parry J. New vaccines to boost child care in developing countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2007;85(6):426–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Griffiths UK, Miners A. Economic evaluations of Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine: systematic review of the literature. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2009;9(4):333–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Karnon J, Brown J. Selecting a decision model for economic evaluation: a case study and review. Health Care Manag Sci. 1998;1(2):133–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tan-Torres Edejer T, Baltussen R, Adam T, Hutubessy R, et al. Making choices in health: WHO guide to cost effectiveness analysis. Geneva: WHO; 2003.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Paulden M, Claxton K. Budget allocation and the revealed social rate of time preference for health. Health Econ. 2012;21(5):612–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Payne DC, Staat MA, Edwards KM, et al. Direct and indirect effects of rotavirus vaccination upon childhood hospitalizations in 3 US Counties, 2006–2009. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;53(3):245–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Claxton K, Revill P, Sculpher M, et al. The Gates reference case for economic evaluation. Seattle: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; 2014.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(36):iii–iv, ix–xi, 1–158.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hendriks ME, Kundu P, Boers AC, et al. Step-by-step guideline for disease-specific costing studies in low- and middle-income countries: a mixed methodology. Glob Health Action. 2014;7:23573.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Walker D, Fox-Rushby JA. Economic evaluation of communicable disease interventions in developing countries: a critical review of the published literature. Health Econ. 2000;9(8):681–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mulligan JA, Walker D, Fox-Rushby J. Economic evaluations of non-communicable disease interventions in developing countries: a critical review of the evidence base. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2006;4:7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tu HA, Woerdenbag HJ, Kane S, et al. Economic evaluations of rotavirus immunization for developing countries: a review of the literature. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2011;10(7):1037–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Aballea S, Millier A, Quilici S, et al. A critical literature review of health economic evaluations of rotavirus vaccination. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2013;9(6):1272–88.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Andrus JK, Toscano CM, Lewis M, et al. A model for enhancing evidence-based capacity to make informed policy decisions on the introduction of new vaccines in the Americas: PAHO’s ProVac initiative. Public Health Rep. 2007;122(6):811–6.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Andrus JK, Jauregui B, De Oliveira LH. Ruiz Matus C. Challenges to building capacity for evidence-based new vaccine policy in developing countries. Health Affairs. 2011;30(6):1104–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Blau J, Hoestlandt C, Clark AD, Baxter L, et al. Strengthening national decision-making on immunization by building capacity for economic evaluation: implementing ProVac in Europe. Vaccine. 2015;33(Suppl. 1):A34–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Huet F, Allaert FA, Trancart A, et al. Economic evaluation of acute paediatric rotavirus gastroenteritis in France. Arch Pediatr. 2008;15(7):1159–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kostinov MP, Zverev VV. Economic effectiveness of vaccination against rotavirus infection in the Russian Federation. Zh Mikrobiol Epidemiol Immunobiol. 2012;3:50–5.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vitale F, Barbieri M, Dirodi B, et al. A full economic evaluation of extensive vaccination against rotavirus with RIX4414 vaccine at the national and regional level in Italy. Ann Ig. 2013;25(1):43–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Constenla D, O’Ryan M, Navarrete MS, et al. Potential cost effectiveness of a rotavirus vaccine in Chile. Rev Med Chil. 2006;134(6):679–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kittiphong Thiboonboon
    • 1
  • Benjarin Santatiwongchai
    • 1
  • Varit Chantarastapornchit
    • 1
  • Waranya Rattanavipapong
    • 1
  • Yot Teerawattananon
    • 1
  1. 1.Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program, Department of Health, Ministry of Public HealthNonthaburiThailand

Personalised recommendations