Table 5. Results of the 5 Hypothetical RVVs Used in the RVV Selection Model (TSE-Pilot) in Thailand, Against the ACIP and NLEM Criteria .

Criteria	Outputs From RVV Selection Model (TSE-Pilot)	Scoring
		RVV-1	RVV-2	RVV-3	RVV-4	RVV-5
Criteria by ACIP
1. Disease prevalence (size of population affected)	337 596	5	5	5	5	5
2.Disease burden (case fatality rate)	0.02%	1	1	1	1	1
3.Vaccine effectiveness	Total case averted No vaccine = 337 596 RVV-1 = 56 239 (16.7%) RVV-2 = 58 265 (17.3%) RVV-3 = 77 776 (23.0%) RVV-4 = 114 295 (33.9%) RVV-5 = 80 984 (24.0%)	1	1	1	1	1
4.Vaccine safety	Incidence of intussusception cases (1-7 days risk period), per 100 000 per year RVV-1 = 19 (0.02%) RVV-2 = 11 (0.01%) RVV-3 = 4 (0.004%) RVV-4 = 3 (0.003%) RVV-5 = 5 (0.005%)	4	4	5	5	5
5. Budget impact	5-year budget impact (THB) RVV-1 = 1033 million RVV-2 = 325 million RVV-3 = 105 million RVV-4 = 2236 million RVV-5 = 1651 million	2	4	5	1	1
6. Vaccine production in country	NA	Hypothetical RVV
Total scores (out of 25)		13	15	17	13	13
NLEM’s Additional Criteria to ACIP a
1. Cost-effectiveness analysis	ICER, compared to ‘No vaccine’ scenario (THB per DALY loss averted) RVV-1 = 242 000 THB RVV-2 = 63 500 THB RVV-3 = 12 000 THB RVV-4 = 232 300 THB RVV-5 = 242 200 THB	Dominated	Dominated	12 000	699 900 (compared to RRV-3)	Dominated
2. Budget impact	5-year budget impact (THB) RVV-1 = 1033 million RVV-2 = 325 million RVV-3 = 105 million RVV-4 = 2236 million RVV-5 = 1651 million	1033 million	325 million	105 million	2236 million	1651 million
3. Equity across health problems	NA	Hypothetical RVV

Abbreviations: ACIP, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices; ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; NA, not applicable; NLEM, National List of Essential Medicines; RVV, rotavirus vaccine; THB, Thai Baht; TSE, Total System Effectiveness; DALY, disability-adjusted life year.

^aNLEM applies ‘choose one policy,’ it does not generate ranks for all the vaccine products.