ArticlePharmacoEconomics2025
Public Health Impact of Introducing a Pentavalent Vaccine Against Invasive Meningococcal Disease in the United States.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Burden of Invasive Meningococcal Disease: Evolving Epidemiology and Implications for Prevention Policy.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Review
- Public Health Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Revising the Adolescent Meningococcal Vaccine Schedule in the United States.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- Current methods in the diagnosis of invasive meningococcal disease.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInvasive meningococcal disease (IMD) is primarily associated with five Neisseria meningitidis serogroups: A, B, C, W, or Y. In the United States (US), available vaccines protect against serogroups B (MenB), A, C, W, and Y (MenACWY), and A, B, C, W, and Y (MenABCWY). The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is re-evaluating the adolescent meningococcal vaccination schedule with varying recommendation formats. This analysis aimed to predict which schedule could avert the most IMD cases and have the most positive public health impact (PHI).
methodsAn epidemiological model compared the 15-year PHI of vaccination schedules using MenB, MenACWY, and/or MenABCWY vaccines versus current US standard of care (SoC). Varying coverage rates reflected routine, shared clinical decision making, and risk-based recommendations. Sensitivity analyses assessed robustness of the results to different inputs/assumptions.
resultsThe most positive PHI compared with SoC was observed with one dose of MenACWY at 11 years of age and two doses of MenABCWY (6 months apart) at 16 years of age, assuming routine recommendation and coverage reflecting real-world uptake of MenACWY. This strategy resulted in 123 IMD cases averted (MenB: 59, MenACWY: 64), 17 deaths prevented, 574 life-years saved, and 757 quality-adjusted life-years gained versus SoC. Eliminating MenACWY vaccination at 11 years was found to result in an additional IMD burden.
conclusionA routinely recommended two-dose pentavalent vaccine, with doses administered 6 months apart at 16 years of age, alongside the routinely recommended MenACWY vaccine at 11 years of age, would improve the PHI and benefits of IMD vaccination to society.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.