Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33203423›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2020

Evaluating the next generation of RSV intervention strategies: a mathematical modelling study and cost-effectiveness analysis.

David Hodgson, Richard Pebody, Jasmina Panovska-Griffiths, Marc Baguelin, Katherine E Atkins

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 85 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

David HodgsonCentre for Mathematics, Physics and Engineering in the Life Sciences and Experimental Biology, University College London, London, UK. david.hodgson@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5585-8974
Richard PebodyImmunisation and Countermeasures Division, Public Health England, London, UK.
Jasmina Panovska-GriffithsCentre for Mathematics, Physics and Engineering in the Life Sciences and Experimental Biology, University College London, London, UK.
Marc BaguelinCentre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Katherine E AtkinsDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Public Health England · GBUniversity of London · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R015600/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith a suite of promising new RSV prophylactics on the horizon, including long-acting monoclonal antibodies and new vaccines, it is likely that one or more of these will replace the current monoclonal Palivizumab programme. However, choosing the optimal intervention programme will require balancing the costs of the programmes with the health benefits accrued.

methodsTo compare the next generation of RSV prophylactics, we integrated a novel transmission model with an economic analysis. We estimated key epidemiological parameters by calibrating the model to 7 years of historical epidemiological data using a Bayesian approach. We determined the cost-effective and affordable maximum purchase price for a comprehensive suite of intervention programmes.

findingsOur transmission model suggests that maternal protection of infants is seasonal, with 38-62% of infants born with protection against RSV. Our economic analysis found that to cost-effectively and affordably replace the current monoclonal antibody Palivizumab programme with long-acting monoclonal antibodies, the purchase price per dose would have to be less than around £4350 but dropping to £200 for vaccinated heightened risk infants or £90 for all infants. A seasonal maternal vaccine would have to be priced less than £85 to be cost-effective and affordable. While vaccinating pre-school and school-age children is likely not cost-effective relative to elderly vaccination programmes, vaccinating the elderly is not likely to be affordable. Conversely, vaccinating infants at 2 months seasonally would be cost-effective and affordable if priced less than £80.

conclusionsIn a setting with seasonal RSV epidemiology, maternal protection conferred to newborns is also seasonal, an assumption not previously incorporated in transmission models of RSV. For a country with seasonal RSV dynamics like England, seasonal programmes rather than year-round intervention programmes are always optimal.

Indexed as

Antibodies, MonoclonalCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleModels, TheoreticalRespiratory Syncytial Virus InfectionsAntibodies, MonoclonalMaternal vaccinationMonoclonal antibodiesRespiratory syncytial virusTransmission model

Identifiers

PMID33203423
PMCPMC7672821
OpenAlexW3100996326

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.