Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42868196›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2026

Evaluating the impact and cost-effectiveness of typhoid conjugate vaccine schedules across diverse settings: A multi-model comparison.

Catherine G C Wenger, Kyra H Grantz, Tigist F Menkir, Alina M Muellenmeister, Zeaan Pithawala, Raymond Hutubessy, Vittal Mogasale, Alicia N M Kraay, Nick Scott, Romesh G Abeysuriya and 4 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Catherine G C WengerDepartment of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-5564-0630
Kyra H GrantzInstitute for Disease Modeling, Gates Foundation, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2319-5010
Tigist F MenkirDivision of Infectious Diseases and Geographic Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America.
Alina M MuellenmeisterBurnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-9712-0141
Zeaan PithawalaDepartment of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5348-1037
Raymond HutubessyDepartment of Performance, Finance and Delivery, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Vittal MogasaleDepartment of Performance, Finance and Delivery, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0596-8072
Alicia N M KraayInstitute for Disease Modeling, Gates Foundation, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Nick ScottBurnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9213-0798
Romesh G AbeysuriyaBurnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9618-6457
Jason R AndrewsDivision of Infectious Diseases and Geographic Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5967-251X
Jillian GauldInstitute for Disease Modeling, Gates Foundation, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Nathan C LoDivision of Infectious Diseases and Geographic Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5407-2005
Virginia E PitzerDepartment of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1015-2289

Funding

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation INV-034281
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGiven emerging evidence on the waning of immunity from typhoid conjugate vaccines (TCV), the World Health Organization (WHO) commissioned a multi-model comparison to determine the optimal schedule in terms of health and economic impact to inform updated recommendations for TCV use across different settings. METHODS AND

findingsTo identify optimal vaccination strategies across different incidence settings and vaccine waning assumptions, we compared two agent-based and two compartmental dynamic models of typhoid transmission. All models were fitted to harmonized age-specific incidence data from medium, high, and very high incidence settings. We assessed different TCV schedules under slow- and fast-waning scenarios to evaluate the best age for routine vaccination and the potential need for booster doses and catch-up campaigns. We evaluated the public health and economic impact predicted for each model and scenario using the net-monetary-benefit framework to determine cost-effectiveness under two representative scenarios for the health outcomes and costs of vaccination and treatment. Over a 10-year time horizon, routine vaccination at 9 months with a catch-up campaign to 15 years and a booster dose at 5 years was predicted to have the greatest impact, reducing cases by a median of 40%-68% across the incidence settings. Across all four models, TCV introduction with a catch-up campaign was cost-effective above willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $1,250 per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted in medium incidence settings when costs of illness and case fatality risk (CFR) are high and in high incidence settings when costs and CFR are low. The optimal strategy was to delay vaccination to 2 or 5 years of age if waning is fast, depending on the age of peak incidence. In very high incidence settings, TCV introduction at 9 months or 2 years of age was cost-saving, and adding a booster dose at 5 years was cost-effective at most WTP values across all scenarios. The study findings are limited by the data available to inform indirect vaccine protection and other simplifying assumptions made in this analysis.

conclusionsModel predictions for the impact and cost-effectiveness of different TCV schedules were fairly robust to uncertainty in parameter values and model structure, but the optimal strategy depends on the typhoid incidence rate, CFR, and waning rate of vaccine protection.

Indexed as

Immunization ScheduleTyphoid FeverTyphoid-Paratyphoid VaccinesAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolCost-Benefit AnalysisCost-Effectiveness AnalysisHumansIncidenceInfantVaccines, ConjugateTyphoid-Paratyphoid VaccinesVaccines, Conjugate

Identifiers

PMID42868196
PMCPMC13686463

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.