Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25301037›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2014

Re-evaluating cost effectiveness of universal meningitis vaccination (Bexsero) in England: modelling study.

Hannah Christensen, Caroline L Trotter, Matthew Hickman, W John Edmunds

Open access · hybridAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
12.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 140 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Comparison of 13-, 15- and 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines in the paediatric Canadian population: A cost-utility analysis.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. On spillovers in economic evaluations: definition, mapping review and research agenda.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024
    Review
  15. Lifecycle model-based evaluation of infant 4CMenB vaccination in the UK.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Preventing invasive meningococcal disease in early infancy.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Hannah ChristensenSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK hannah.christensen@bristol.ac.uk.
Caroline L TrotterDisease Dynamics Unit, Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0ES, UK.
Matthew HickmanSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK.
W John EdmundsLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK.
University of Bristol · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Department of Health PDF-2012-05-245Department of Health RDA/03/07/014Medical Research Council MR/K023233/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo use mathematical and economic models to predict the epidemiological and economic impact of vaccination with Bexsero, designed to protect against group B meningococcal disease, to help inform vaccine policy in the United Kingdom.

designModelling study.

settingEngland. POPULATION: People aged 0-99.

interventionsIncremental impact of introductory vaccine strategies simulated with a transmission dynamic model of meningococcal infection and vaccination including potential herd effects. Model parameters included recent evidence on the vaccine characteristics, disease burden, costs of care, litigation costs, and loss of quality of life from disease, including impacts on family and network members. The health impact of vaccination was assessed through cases averted and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained.

main outcome measuresCases averted and cost per QALY gained through vaccination; programmes were deemed cost effective against a willingness to pay of £20,000 (€25,420, $32,677) per QALY gained from an NHS and personal and social services perspective.

resultsIn the short term, case reduction is greatest with routine infant immunisation (26.3% of cases averted in the first five years). This strategy could be cost effective at £3 (€3.8, $4.9) a vaccine dose, given several favourable assumptions and the use of a quality of life adjustment factor. If the vaccine can disrupt meningococcal transmission more cases are prevented in the long term with an infant and adolescent combined programme (51.8% after 30 years), which could be cost effective at £4 a vaccine dose. Assuming the vaccine reduces acquisition by 30%, adolescent vaccination alone is the most favourable strategy economically, but takes more than 20 years to substantially reduce the number of cases.

conclusionsRoutine infant vaccination is the most effective short term strategy and could be cost effective with a low vaccine price. Critically, if the vaccine reduces carriage acquisition in teenagers, the combination of infant and adolescent vaccination could result in substantial long term reductions in cases and be cost effective with competitive vaccine pricing.

Indexed as

Models, EconomicAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildChild, PreschoolCost-Benefit AnalysisEnglandHumansInfantMass VaccinationMeningitis, MeningococcalMeningococcal VaccinesMiddle AgedYoung Adult4CMenB vaccineMeningococcal Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID25301037
PMCPMC4192138
OpenAlexW1998717627

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.