Key result
Targeted voluntary vaccination proves more cost-effective than large-scale bivalent vaccine rollout in China.
Why the study?
While the monovalent EV-A71 vaccine reduced EV-A71-associated HFMD, it does not protect against CV-A16, and the economic viability of a bivalent EV-A71/CV-A16 vaccine under different immunization strategies remains uncertain.
Is a hypothetical bivalent EV-A71/CV-A16 vaccine cost-effective compared to current strategies for preventing Hand, Foot, and Mouth Disease in China?
Is a hypothetical bivalent EV-A71/CV-A16 vaccine cost-effective compared to current strategies for preventing Hand, Foot, and Mouth Disease in China?
Targeted voluntary vaccination with a bivalent EV-A71/CV-A16 vaccine for unvaccinated populations is more cost-effective than large-scale national immunization at current cost levels.
Modeling suggests targeted bivalent strategies may optimize costs; leaves open real-world adoption pending validation.
Background: Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) remains a major public-health concern in China. While the monovalent EV-A71 vaccine has effectively reduced EV-A71–associated cases, it offers no protection against CV-A16. The introduction of a bivalent EV-A71/CV-A16 vaccine may offer broader protection, but its economic viability under different immunization strategies remains uncertain. Methods: We developed a dynamic transmission model integrated with cost-effectiveness analysis to assess the epidemiological and economic impact of a hypothetical bivalent EV-A71/CV-A16 vaccine in China. Based on the immunization program policy, seven vaccination strategies, vaccine effectiveness (VE) levels ranging from 50–95% against EV-A71/CV-A16, and coverage levels from 0–95% were evaluated. The threshold vaccine price (TVP) was derived based on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) calculations. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds defined as 1–3 times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Results: The mean cost of two doses of the monovalent EV-A71 vaccine was USD133.0 (95% CI: 126.9–139.1). Strategy 2, which targeted individuals unvaccinated with the monovalent EV-A71 vaccine, demonstrated the most favorable cost-effectiveness. At 45% coverage and 85% vaccine effectiveness, the estimated threshold price per dose was USD 107.7 (95% CI: 103.4–112.0), with threshold vaccine prices increasing as coverage declined. When vaccination coverage exceeded 80%, the threshold vaccine price decreased substantially, falling below USD 45.9 (95% CI: 43.5–48.3) per dose. Conclusions: Large-scale inclusion in the national immunization program may not be economically justified at current cost levels. Targeted voluntary vaccination of unvaccinated, susceptible populations represents a more cost-effective and practical strategy during the early stage of vaccine introduction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question. Targeted voluntary vaccination of unvaccinated individuals was more cost-effective than large-scale inclusion of the bivalent vaccine in China's immunization program.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: