ArticleInfectious diseases and therapy2026
Budget Impact of Strategies Involving RSVpreF and Nirsevimab to Protect Infants in Saudi Arabia Against Respiratory Syncytial Virus.
Article in Infectious diseases and therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRespiratory syncytial virus (RSV) manifesting as lower respiratory tract illness (LRTI; RSV-LRTI) has a significant clinical and economic impact for infants in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and globally. We evaluated the budget impact (BI) of strategies involving maternal vaccine (RSVpreF) and single-dose monoclonal antibody (nirsevimab) to protect KSA infants against RSV-LRTI.
methodsA deterministic cohort model evaluated the clinical and economic burden of RSV-LRTI and the impact of interventions among five annual birth cohorts of infants aged < 1 year. Parameter values were estimated on the basis of published sources using KSA-specific data to the extent possible. Model outcomes included RSV-LRTI episodes (hospital, emergency department [ED], primary care [PC]), disease-attributable deaths, medical care costs, and intervention costs (in US$). Nirsevimab alone (herein "Nirs"; price: $1005.78; uptake: 90%) and, alternatively, mixed approach RSVpreF (price: $217.07; uptake: 14.3%) with nirsevimab (uptake: 90%) for unprotected infants ("MV + Nirs") were compared against no intervention ("NoInt").
resultsNoInt would yield 2,115,924 cases (hospital: 85,898, ED: 943,770, PC: 1,086,255) and $817.9 million in medical care costs. Nirs would prevent 1,206,819 cases and $470.1 million in medical care costs; with $2054.3 million in intervention costs, BI would be $1.6 billion. Compared with NoInt, MV + Nirs would prevent 1,143,754 cases and $457.1 million in medical care costs; with $1851.6 million in intervention costs (MV: $78.6, Nirs: $1773.0), BI would be $1.4 billion.
conclusionsFindings suggest that either strategy would substantially reduce the burden of RSV-LRTI. Even with low uptake, adding RSVpreF (mixed approach) yielded considerably lower budget impact compared with nirsevimab alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42307865What 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.