Back

Cost-effectiveness of respiratory syncytial virus vaccination for older adults: a modelling analysis

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

2026-07-13 health economics
10.64898/2026.07.08.26357577 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background. Evidence of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new vaccines that reduce the burden of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in older populations is emerging. The reported cost-effectiveness of these vaccination strategies varies substantially across different settings. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of older adult-targeted RSV vaccination strategies in the Australian context and compared findings with published evaluations. Methods. We developed an individual-based dynamic transmission model of RSV infection, linked to a clinical pathways and cost-effectiveness model. We modelled different adult vaccination strategies for the general population and the Indigenous population, and present incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) as cost per quality-adjusted life year gained, from a healthcare system perspective. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored drivers of cost-effectiveness and sensitivity of findings to uncertainty in parameter estimates. Results. Vaccinating the general population of older adults in Australia was not found to be cost-effective at a dose price of 100 AUD, but was found to be cost-saving for Indigenous adults, given the higher disease burden in this population. Individual drivers of ICERs in our setting were dose price, hospitalisation incidence and mortality, however conclusions about cost-effectiveness were robust to joint parameter uncertainty. Conclusions. The cost-effectiveness of vaccinating adults against RSV depends on many uncertain and context-specific quantities. Strategies that target high risk populations were found to be cost-effective in Australia due to the larger avertable burden.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Vaccine
203 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
18.5%
2
BMC Medicine
176 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
11.9%
3
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 20%
8.9%
4
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 3%
5.5%
5
Vaccines
198 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
5.1%
6
BMC Health Services Research
51 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.3%
50% of probability mass above
7
BMC Public Health
158 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.5%
8
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
142 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.4%
9
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 7%
3.2%
10
PLOS Medicine
110 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.2%
11
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
466 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.6%
12
Vaccine: X
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.6%
13
eClinicalMedicine
77 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.4%
14
Journal of Medical Economics
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
15
npj Vaccines
67 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
16
BMJ Global Health
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
17
Canadian Medical Association Journal
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.4%
18
BMJ Public Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.4%
19
Clinical Infectious Diseases
235 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
20
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 17%
1.1%
21
Value in Health
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
22
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
73 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
23
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 71%
1.0%
24
Journal of Theoretical Biology
162 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
25
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
235 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
26
Frontiers in Public Health
148 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.6%
27
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease
14 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%