Back

Cost-Effectiveness of Prefusion F Protein-Based Vaccines Against Respiratory Syncytial Virus Disease for Older Adults in the United States

Moghadas, S.; Shoukat, A.; Bawden, C. E.; Langley, J. M.; Singer, B. H.; Fitzpatrick, M. C.; Galvani, A. P.

2023-08-16 health economics
10.1101/2023.08.14.23294076
Show abstract

BackgroundTwo prefusion F protein-based vaccines, Arexvy and Abrysvo, have been authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration for protecting older adults against Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV)-associated lower respiratory tract illness. We evaluated the health benefits and cost-effectiveness of these vaccines. MethodsWe developed a discrete-event simulation model, parameterized with the burden of RSV disease including outpatient care, hospitalization, and death for adults aged 60 years or older in the US. Taking into account the costs associated with these RSV-related outcomes, we calculated the net monetary benefit using quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained as a measure of effectiveness, and determined the range of price-per-dose (PPD) for Arexvy and Abrysvo vaccination programs to be cost-effective from a societal perspective. ResultsUsing a willingness-to-pay of $95,000 per QALY gained, we found that vaccination programs could be cost-effective for a PPD under $120 with Arexvy and $111 with Abrysvo over the first RSV season. Achieving an influenza-like vaccination coverage of 66% for the population of older adults in the US, the budget impact of these programs at the maximum PPD ranged from $5.74 to $6.10 billion. If the benefits of vaccination extend to a second RSV season as reported in clinical trials, we estimated a maximum PPD of $250 for Arexvy and $233 for Abrysvo, with two-year budget impacts of $11.59 and $10.89 billion, respectively. ConclusionsVaccination of older adults would provide substantial direct health benefits by reducing outcomes associated with RSV-related illness in this population.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Clinical Infectious Diseases
based on 219 papers
Top 0.1%
23.1%
2
Journal of Medical Economics
based on 10 papers
Top 0.1%
15.3%
3
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 43%
11.7%
50% of probability mass above
4
Vaccine
based on 140 papers
Top 2%
5.2%
5
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
based on 137 papers
Top 2%
3.4%
6
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
based on 57 papers
Top 2%
3.2%
7
BMC Medicine
based on 155 papers
Top 6%
2.9%
8
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
based on 124 papers
Top 3%
2.7%
9
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 66%
2.1%
10
PLOS Medicine
based on 95 papers
Top 7%
2.1%
11
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
based on 100 papers
Top 6%
2.0%
12
npj Vaccines
based on 18 papers
Top 0.2%
2.0%
13
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
based on 11 papers
Top 0.3%
1.8%
14
JAMA Network Open
based on 125 papers
Top 9%
1.8%
15
Vaccines
based on 131 papers
Top 3%
1.8%
16
Genetics in Medicine
based on 57 papers
Top 4%
1.4%
17
eClinicalMedicine
based on 55 papers
Top 4%
0.9%
18
Canadian Medical Association Journal
based on 15 papers
Top 0.4%
0.9%
19
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
based on 23 papers
Top 2%
0.8%
20
BMJ Open
based on 553 papers
Top 51%
0.8%
21
The Lancet Healthy Longevity
based on 11 papers
Top 0.4%
0.8%
22
Nature Communications
based on 483 papers
Top 41%
0.8%
23
BMC Public Health
based on 148 papers
Top 22%
0.8%
24
Vaccine: X
based on 16 papers
Top 1%
0.5%