Back

Cost-effectiveness of immunising interventions to reduce respiratory syncytial virus disease burden in infants in Australia

Carlin, J. B.; Marcato, A. J.; Wang, Y.; Moss, R.; Carville, K. S.; Chen, X.; Oliver, V. L.; Spirkoska, V.; Campbell, P. T.; Price, D. J.; Carvalho, N.; McVernon, J.

2025-08-11 infectious diseases
10.1101/2025.08.06.25333104 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundTwo immunising products are emerging to prevent the burden of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in infants: long-lasting monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and maternal vaccines given during pregnancy (MV). This study assesses the potential cost-effectiveness of programs involving each product, to help inform policy decisions related to their implementation in the Australian context. MethodsWe developed an individual-based dynamic transmission model of RSV infection, linked to a clinical pathways model and cost-effectiveness model. We modelled key scenarios exploring varying eligibility and coverage of immunisation products for at-risk and not-at-risk populations, in addition to sensitivity analyses of immunisation characteristics, program costs, and the impact of potential under-ascertainment of RSV burden. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of each program from a health system perspective, with results presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year gained (QALY). FindingsWe found a combined program in which administration of MV during pregnancy is supplemented with a birth-dose of mAbs for newborns born without protection from MV is likely to be cost-saving, compared to the status quo of no MV or mAbs delivered. This program averted on average 41% of infant hospitalisations per year and reduced QALY losses by 33%. InterpretationPrograms combining infant immunisation products are likely to significantly reduce the burden of RSV disease in Australia, and be cost-saving. However, their estimated impact and cost-effectiveness is strongly dependent on key assumptions i) the consistency and completeness of ascertainment of disease burden over time; ii) the cost of a hospitalisation and immunising dose; iii) the efficacy and durability of protection of the modelled products, and; iv) the timing and coverage of the immunisation delivery. FundingThis modelling was commissioned by the National Immunisation Division of the Australian Government Department of Health, Disability and Ageing.

Published in PharmacoEconomics · not in our set (fewer than 10 published preprints to learn from) · training set

Matching journals

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

1
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.3%
2
Vaccine
189 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.3%
3
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.5%
50% of probability mass above
4
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
5.0%
5
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.1%
6
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.8%
7
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
8
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
2.0%
9
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
10
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.8%
11
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.5%
12
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.5%
13
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
14
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
15
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
16
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
17
The Lancet Global Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
18
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
19
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
20
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
21
Eurosurveillance
80 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
22
The Lancet Regional Health - Europe
32 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
23
Canadian Medical Association Journal
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%
24
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
25
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
26
New England Journal of Medicine
50 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.5%