Back

Cost-effectiveness of High-Dose Influenza Vaccination in the Netherlands: Updated Analysis Incorporating New Evidence

van der Pol, S.; Emamipour, S.; van Oudheusden, A.; Slierendregt, B.; Moncayo, G.; Boersma, C.

2026-02-18 health economics
10.64898/2026.02.17.26346451 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundHigh-dose inactivated influenza vaccination (HD-IIV) demonstrates superior effectiveness versus standard-dose vaccination (SD-IIV) in adults aged [≥]60 years. A recent meta-analysis integrated complementary evidence sources of representing over 85 million individuals across 14 influenza seasons. MethodsA previously developed model was updated using life-time horizon and societal perspective. Updated parameters included demographics, costs, hospitalization rates, and relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE): RCT evidence (24% for ILI, 7% for cardiorespiratory hospitalizations) and RCT + real-world evidence (RWE) (15% for ILI, 8% for cardiorespiratory hospitalizations). ResultsHD-IIV resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of {euro}7,300/QALY (RCT evidence) and {euro}5,800/QALY (RCT+RWE evidence). Implementation would prevent 7,200 general practitioner visits, 6,300 cardiorespiratory hospitalizations, and 269 deaths, by using RCT evidence. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated >99% probability of cost-effectiveness at {euro}20,000/QALY threshold for both RCT and RCT+RWE evidence. ConclusionsHD-IIV remains highly cost-effective for Dutch adults aged [≥]60 years under updated evidence scenarios, supporting implementation in the national immunization programme. HighlightsO_LIThe economic analysis of high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine was updated. C_LIO_LIRelative vaccine effectiveness of HD-IIV incorporating recent evidence was used. C_LIO_LIHD-IIV remains cost-effective in Dutch adults aged [≥]60. C_LI

Published in Vaccine: X (predicted rank #9) · training set

Matching journals

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

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.