Rotavirus vaccine effectiveness and impact in Uzbekistan, the first country to introduce in central Asia.

Uzbekistan, the most populous country in central Asia, was the first in the region to introduce rotavirus vaccine into its national immunization program. Rotarix (GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, RV1) was introduced in June 2014, with doses recommended at age 2 and 3 months. To evaluate vaccine impact, active surveillance for rotavirus diarrhea was reestablished in 2014 at 2 hospitals in Tashkent and Bukhara which had also performed surveillance during the pre-vaccine period 2005-2009. Children aged <5 y admitted with acute diarrhea had stool specimens collected and tested for rotavirus by enzyme immunoassay. Proportions testing rotavirus-positive in post-vaccine years were compared with the pre-vaccine period. Vaccine records were obtained and effectiveness of 2 RV1 doses vs 0 doses was estimated using rotavirus-case and test-negative design among children enrolled from Bukhara city. In 2015 and 2016, 8%-15% of infants and 10%-16% of children aged<5 y hospitalized with acute diarrhea at the sites tested rotavirus-positive, compared with 26% of infants and 27% of children aged<5 y in pre-vaccine period (reductions in proportion positive of 42%-68%, p <.001). Vaccine effectiveness of 2 RV1 doses vs 0 doses in protecting against hospitalization for rotavirus disease among those aged ≥6 months was 51% (95% CI 2-75) and is based on cases predominantly of genotype G2P[4]. Vaccine effectiveness point estimates tended to be higher against cases with higher illness severity (e.g., clinical severity based on modified Vesikari score ≥11). Our data demonstrate that the monovalent rotavirus vaccine is effective in reducing the likelihood of hospitalization for rotavirus disease in young children in Uzbekistan.

Comparative economic evaluation of Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccination in Belarus and Uzbekistan.

BACKGROUND: Hib vaccine has gradually been introduced into more and more countries during the past two decades, partly due to GAVI Alliance support to low-income countries. However, since Hib disease burden is difficult to establish in settings with limited diagnostic capacities and since the vaccine continues to be relatively expensive, some Governments remain doubtful about its value leading to concerns about financial sustainability. Similarly, several middle-income countries have not introduced the vaccine. The aim of this study is to estimate and compare the cost-effectiveness of Hib vaccination in a country relying on self-financing (Belarus) and a country eligible for GAVI Alliance support (Uzbekistan). METHODS AND FINDINGS: A decision analytic model was used to estimate morbidity and mortality from Hib meningitis, Hib pneumonia and other types of Hib disease with and without the vaccine. Treatment costs were attached to each disease event. Data on disease incidence, case fatality ratios and costs were primarily determined from national sources. For the Belarus 2009 birth cohort, Hib vaccine is estimated to prevent 467 invasive disease cases, 4 cases of meningitis sequelae, and 3 deaths, while in Uzbekistan 3,069 invasive cases, 34 sequelae cases and 341 deaths are prevented. Estimated costs per discounted DALY averted are US$ 9,323 in Belarus and US$ 267 in Uzbekistan. CONCLUSION: The primary reason why the cost-effectiveness values are more favourable in Uzbekistan than in Belarus is that relatively more deaths are averted in Uzbekistan due to higher baseline mortality burden. Two other explanations are that the vaccine price is lower in Uzbekistan and that Uzbekistan uses a three dose schedule compared to four doses in Belarus. However, when seen in the context of the relative ability to pay for public health, the vaccine can be considered cost-effective in both countries.