Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 11, 2026

An Improved and High Throughput Respiratory Syncytial Virus RSV Micro-neutralization Assay
Published on: January 26, 2019
Cost-effectiveness of infant and maternal RSV immunization strategies, in British Columbia, Canada
Javad Taleshi1, Marina Viñeta Paramo2, Allison Watts2
1Epidemiology & Intelligence Services, BC Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, BC, Canada; School of Population and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Insights
New RSV prevention strategies, including nirsevimab and maternal RSVpreF vaccination, are more cost-effective than palivizumab for infants. Nirsevimab for high- and moderate-risk infants is the most cost-effective approach.
Area of Science:
- Pediatric Infectious Diseases
- Health Economics
- Public Health Policy
Background:
- Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) significantly impacts young children, causing substantial healthcare costs.
- Palivizumab was the historical standard for RSV prevention in high-risk infants.
- Newer options like nirsevimab and maternal RSVpreF vaccination are now available.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of novel RSV prevention strategies compared to the historical standard of care.
- To model the impact of nirsevimab and maternal RSVpreF vaccination on healthcare outcomes and costs.
- To inform public health policy regarding RSV prevention in infants.
Main Methods:
- A discrete-event simulation model was developed using data from British Columbia, Canada.
- Five immunization strategies were compared from a healthcare system perspective.
- Sequential and pairwise cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted, including ICER calculations.
Main Results:
- Nirsevimab for high- and moderate-risk infants (strategy 2) was the most cost-effective option in sequential analysis.
- Maternal RSVpreF vaccination combined with nirsevimab for high- and moderate-risk infants (strategy 4) was cost-effective compared to the historical standard ($18,000/QALY).
- Strategy 4 offered additional health gains but was not incrementally cost-effective versus strategy 2 ($119,000/QALY).
Conclusions:
- Prioritizing nirsevimab for high- and moderate-risk infants is recommended as the most cost-effective strategy.
- Maternal RSVpreF vaccination provides added health benefits and is cost-effective when compared to the historical standard of care.
- Nirsevimab and RSVpreF vaccination represent significant advancements in RSV prevention for young children.
Background:
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a leading cause of lower respiratory tract infections in young children and results in significant healthcare burden and costs. To reduce the impact of RSV in this population, the monoclonal antibody palivizumab has historically been used. Recently, new preventive options have become available, including a longer-acting monoclonal antibody (nirsevimab) and a maternal vaccine (RSVpreF).
Methods:
We developed a discrete-event simulation model using epidemiological and cost data from British Columbia, Canada, and published efficacy estimates. The model simulated a cohort of 100,000 newborns and followed them up to 24 months. We conducted the analysis from a healthcare system perspective, evaluating five immunization strategies: (1) the historical palivizumab standard of care for high-risk children; (2) nirsevimab for high- and moderate-risk children; (3) in-season maternal RSVpreF vaccination combined with nirsevimab for high-risk children; (4) in-season maternal RSVpreF plus nirsevimab for high- and moderate-risk children; and (5) nirsevimab for all infants. We conducted a sequential cost-effectiveness analysis, ordering strategies by cost, excluding dominated or extendedly dominated options, and evaluating the remaining strategies stepwise. To support policy interpretation, we also performed a pairwise analysis comparing each strategy directly with the historical standard of care.
Results:
In the sequential analysis, strategy 2 was the most cost-effective option. Strategy 4 provided additional health gains but was not cost-effective incrementally (ICER ≈ $119,000 per QALY vs strategy 2). Strategy 5 offered the greatest overall health benefits but was the least cost-effective option. When compared directly with the historical standard of care, however, strategy 4 was cost-effective (ICER ≈ $18,000 per QALY).
Interpretation:
These findings support policy recommendations to prioritize nirsevimab for high- and moderate-risk infants as the most cost-effective strategy. Maternal RSVpreF vaccination offers added health benefits and is cost-effective compared with the historical standard of care, though not when considered incrementally.
More Related Videos
09:01An In vitro Model to Study Immune Responses of Human Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells to Human Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection
Published on: December 10, 2013
06:32Protective Efficacy and Pulmonary Immune Response Following Subcutaneous and Intranasal BCG Administration in Mice
Published on: September 19, 2016