Observational studyEuropean journal of pediatrics2026
Cost-benefit analysis of nirsevimab for respiratory syncytial virus prevention in infants: a population-based study.
Observational study in European journal of pediatrics, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) represents a major healthcare, economic, and social burden, particularly among infants. The present study aims to evaluate, from a public health perspective, the economic impact of implementing a universal immunization strategy with nirsevimab in the Community of Madrid (CM).A cost-benefit analysis was conducted from both healthcare and societal perspectives using real-world observational data. The study included all newborns between April 1 and December 31, 2023. The follow-up period corresponded to the RSV epidemic season (October 2023-March 2024). Data sources included administrative, clinical, vaccination, and epidemiological surveillance records. Direct costs included primary care, emergency services, and hospitalizations-with and without intensive care-while indirect costs captured parental productivity losses. A probabilistic model with Monte Carlo simulations (100,000 iterations) was used to assess uncertainty, and the internal rate of return (IRR) was calculated for different dose price scenarios. The study included 37,689 newborns. The incidence density of healthcare events was consistently lower among immunized children. The IRR was 62% at a price of €209 per dose, remaining positive up to €330 per dose. At the base price (€209 per dose), the intervention was cost-beneficial in 100% of simulations. Universal immunization with nirsevimab in the CM proved to be cost-beneficial and robust across various price scenarios, supporting its inclusion in child public health programs. Conclusion: Universal immunization with nirsevimab in the CM proved to be cost-beneficial and robust across various price scenarios, supporting its inclusion in child public health programs. What is known: • Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) causes a major clinical and economic burden in infants due to high hospitalization and emergency care rates during seasonal epidemics. • Clinical trials and modeling studies suggest that nirsevimab effectively prevents RSV disease and may be economically favorable, but real-world cost-benefit evidence remains limited. What is new: • This study presents a real-world, population-based cost-benefit analysis of a universal nirsevimab immunization campaign using administrative and clinical data from a regional birth cohort. • Universal immunization was cost-beneficial from both healthcare and societal perspectives across a wide range of price scenarios, demonstrating robust economic returns under real-life conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42399582What 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.