ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2026
Cost-Effectiveness of Maternal RSVpreF Vaccination Compared with Newborn Nirsevimab RSV Prophylaxis or No RSV Prophylaxis in Switzerland.
Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRSVpreF is a vaccine that immunises against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), a seasonal respiratory virus, that can lead to lower respiratory tract infections. In Switzerland, RSVpreF is indicated for the passive protection of infants against RSV following maternal immunisation.
objectiveThe Swiss Federal Office of Public Health commissioned a health technology assessment (HTA) of RSVpreF for maternal vaccination, evaluating the clinical and cost effectiveness of the vaccine compared with nirsevimab (administered directly to newborns and infants) or no RSV prophylaxis. This study reports the cost-effectiveness model developed for the Swiss HTA.
methodsThe model used a Markov model structure, a 1-year time horizon, a one-month cycle length, a Swiss healthcare payers' perspective, and a 3% discount rate for costs and health benefits. Health states included no RSV infection, RSV infection leading to hospitalisation, primary care visits or emergency department visits, post-RSV infection, and death. MATISSE informed RSVpreF efficacy, and MELODY and HARMONIE informed nirsevimab efficacy. Health outcomes were expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to explore the impact of parameter uncertainty on the model results.
resultsWhen compared with nirsevimab, RSVpreF reduces total costs (CHF -9,878,738) and QALYs (-18.4), with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 536,008 per QALY (N = 38,844). Compared with no RSV prophylaxis, RSVpreF increases total costs (CHF +470,441) and QALYs (+27.1), with an ICER of 17,377 per QALY (N = 38,844).
conclusionsRSVpreF is highly likely to be cost-effective versus both comparators at a range of plausible threshold values. The results of the model contributed to guidance updates in Switzerland, with RSVpreF now reimbursed by mandatory health insurance.
Identifiers
42587205What 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.