ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
The impact of introducing meningococcal C/ACWY booster vaccination among adolescents in Germany: a dynamic transmission modelling study.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- National immunisation recommendations: why country-specific evidence and context matter.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Germany, primary vaccination against invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) serogroup C aims to reduce the highest burden of IMD in infants aged 12–23 month. Due to another IMD-peak in adolescents, we modelled the potential impact of introducing adolescent boosters with conjugate meningococcal C or ACWY (MenC/MenACWY) vaccines.
methodsWe built an age- and serogroup-structured dynamic-transmission model for Germany, which we calibrated to national surveillance data in 2005–2019. We simulated five vaccination scenarios of either continuing with the current MenC primary vaccination (scenario 1), or additionally introducing MenC or MenACWY boosters at age 13 years (scenarios 2–3) or 16 years (scenarios 4–5). We performed comprehensive sensitivity analyses, including on the protection against carriage and serogroup replacement.
resultsThe calibrated model projected for scenario 1 an annual mean of 243 (95%-uncertainty interval: 220–258) expected IMD cases over a 10-year period. Introducing the MenC booster prevented an estimated 5 (3.9–6.7) and the MenACWY booster 8 (6.7–9.1) IMD cases per year on average (scenario 2 and 3). The number-needed-to-vaccinate (NNVs) to prevent one IMD case were 140,000 (100,000-180,000) and 91,000 (76,000-100,000), respectively. To prevent one sequela or death, NNVs were higher (i.e., less efficient). Results were broadly similar for scenarios 4–5. Simulations suggested relevant serogroup replacement starting eight-to-ten years after introducing the MenACWY booster.
conclusionsIntroducing adolescent MenC or MenACWY boosters marginally reduces the expected IMD burden in Germany. Effectiveness and efficiency of evaluated strategies depend on future incidence. The magnitude of future serogroup replacement for the MenACWY vaccine is highly uncertain.
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.