ArticleLancet regional health. Americas2025
Assessing the impact of revising MenACWY vaccination schedule for adolescents in the United States: a modelling study.
Article in Lancet regional health. Americas, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Public Health Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Revising the Adolescent Meningococcal Vaccine Schedule in the United States.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a predictive model for 30-day mortality in adult bacterial meningitis: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The current recommendation for MenACWY vaccination against invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) in the United States (US) includes two doses: the first dose at ages 11-12 and a booster dose at age 16. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has proposed options for revising this schedule by either eliminating the first dose or adjusting the timing of the first dose to age 15 and the booster to ages 17-18. The impact of these alternative schedules on IMD incidence remains undetermined. Methods: We developed an age-stratified, agent-based Monte-Carlo simulation model of meningococcal transmission dynamics, parameterised with US age demographics, to assess the impact of the proposed changes to the MenACWY vaccination schedules. Excluding serogroup A, absent in the US for decades, the model included serogroups C, W, and Y for asymptomatic infection (carriage) and vaccine effectiveness against IMD. We calibrated serogroup-specific transmission and IMD development probabilities by fitting the model to reported IMD cases from 1997 to 2004, before vaccine introduction. The calibrated model then simulated the current vaccination schedule (CVS) starting in 2005 and alternative schedules from January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2035, comparing outcomes over the same period. Findings: Switching from the CVS to a single-dose program at age 16 with 61% vaccine uptake (as reported for the booster in 2022) would result in 1062 (95% Uncertainty Range [UR]: 724-1419) additional IMD cases during the 11-year study period. With a case fatality rate of 14.5%, this change could cause an estimated 154 (95% UR: 105-206) additional deaths. Even if vaccine uptake increased to 90% at age 16, the program would still result in 934 (95% UR: 640-1242) additional cases and 135 (95% UR: 93-180) more deaths compared to the CVS. The second alternative schedule (i.e. first dose at age 15, booster at ages 17-18) also increased IMD cases, notably shifting a substantial burden to adolescents aged 11-15 years. Interpretation: Our findings indicate that the current MenACWY vaccination program remains more effective than the proposed alternatives, even with increased vaccine uptake during late adolescence. Improving the uptake rate of the booster at age 16 while maintaining the 11-12-year dose within the existing program would reduce the IMD burden among high-risk adolescents and young adults. Funding: This study was in part supported by Sanofi. Seyed M. Moghadas acknowledges support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery Grant and Alliance Grant (ALLRP 576914-22). Alison P. Galvani acknowledges support from The Notsew Orm Sands Foundation.
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.