ArticlePLoS medicine2026
Evaluating the impact and cost-effectiveness of typhoid conjugate vaccine schedules across diverse settings: A multi-model comparison.
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.
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
14 authors.
Funding
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
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.