ArticlePharmacoEconomics2026
Public Health Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Revising the Adolescent Meningococcal Vaccine Schedule in the United States.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundIn 2025, invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) vaccination in United States (US) adolescents consisted of two standard of care (SoC) schedules: Q-Q-B-B (routine MenACWY [Q] at ages 11 and 16 years; MenB [B] under shared clinical decision-making [SCDM] at age 16 years and 6 months later) or Q-P-B (routine MenACWY at ages 11 and 16 years; MenABCWY [P] at age 16 years and MenB under SCDM 6 months later). We assessed public health impact (PHI) and cost-effectiveness (CE) of intervention strategies on the basis of potential implementation options and revisions to the adolescent meningococcal vaccine schedule proposed in June 2024 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
methodsA model utilizing epidemiological and economic inputs compared projected outcomes for 27 intervention strategies (distinguished by vaccine type [Q, P, and/or B], recommendation type [routine, risk-based], and dosing interval for MenB-containing vaccines [0,6-month , 0,24-month]) versus no vaccination or SoC over 15 years (2025-2039). Discounted outcomes (societal perspective) included IMD cases, deaths, and quality-adjusted life-year losses averted; total direct and indirect costs; and incremental CE ratios.
resultsRetaining routine MenACWY at age 11-12 years and including routine or risk-based MenB-containing vaccines at age 16 years improved PHI versus SoC, particularly with 0,6-month dosing interval for MenB-containing vaccines. Five strategies incorporating MenABCWY improved PHI and were cost-saving versus SoC: Q-Q-B-B.
conclusionsAdolescent meningococcal vaccine schedule revisions retaining routine MenACWY and incorporating risk-based or routine MenABCWY may increase PHI in a cost-effective manner, minimizing the humanistic and economic burden of IMD.
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.