ArticlePharmacoEconomics2025
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nirsevimab for Preventing Respiratory Syncytial Virus-Related Lower Respiratory Tract Disease in Dutch Infants: An Analysis Including All-Infant Protection.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Nirsevimab Immunization to Prevent Pediatric RSV Hospitalizations.JAMA pediatrics · 2026Observational
- Cost-Effectiveness of Immunising Interventions to Reduce Respiratory Syncytial Virus Disease Burden in Infants in Australia.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- Article
- Systematic Review: Efficacy, Safety Profile, and Cost-Effectiveness of Nirsevimab Versus Palivizumab for RSV Prevention in Children Under 24 Months.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of nirsevimab, a recently authorized monoclonal antibody (mAb) for the prevention of lower respiratory tract disease (LRTD) caused by respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), in comparison with the standard practice involving palivizumab for high-risk infants during their first RSV season in the Netherlands.
methodsA static cost-effectiveness model was populated for the Netherlands to evaluate different immunization strategies for nirsevimab over a single RSV season from a societal perspective. The model considered the most recently published RSV incidence data (average incidence from 2006 to2018), costs (adjusted to the 2023 price year), and associated health effects. Extensive scenario analyses were conducted to explore various strategies, and sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the model's robustness.
resultsIn the base-case scenario, all-infant protection-a strategy of in-season with catch-up immunization for all infants-nirsevimab has the potential to prevent numerous RSV-related cases, including 2333 hospitalizations and 150 intensive-care admissions, in the overall population compared with the standard of care. Nirsevimab appears to be cost effective under this strategy with an economically justifiable acquisition price for nirsevimab of €220 at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Sensitivity analyses indicate a 52% probability that nirsevimab is cost effective at this threshold. Comparison of different vaccination strategies revealed that the all-infant protection approach was the one that prevented the higher number of cases.
conclusionsThis study indicates that universal infant immunization with nirsevimab has the potential to be cost effective and significantly reduces the burden of RSV among Dutch infants. These findings underscore the importance of implementing effective protective measures against RSV-LRTD, reducing the pressure on the healthcare system during the RSV season.
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.