Evaluates budget impact of RSVpreF and nirsevimab in infants, suggesting cost-effective protection strategies.
INTRODUCTION: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) manifesting as lower respiratory tract illness (LRTI; RSV-LRTI) has a significant clinical and economic impact for infants in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and globally. We evaluated the budget impact (BI) of strategies involving maternal vaccine (RSVpreF) and single-dose monoclonal antibody (nirsevimab) to protect KSA infants against RSV-LRTI. METHODS: A deterministic cohort model evaluated the clinical and economic burden of RSV-LRTI and the impact of interventions among five annual birth cohorts of infants aged < 1 year. Parameter values were estimated on the basis of published sources using KSA-specific data to the extent possible. Model outcomes included RSV-LRTI episodes (hospital, emergency department [ED], primary care [PC]), disease-attributable deaths, medical care costs, and intervention costs (in US$). Nirsevimab alone (herein "Nirs"; price: $1005.78; uptake: 90%) and, alternatively, mixed approach RSVpreF (price: $217.07; uptake: 14.3%) with nirsevimab (uptake: 90%) for unprotected infants ("MV + Nirs") were compared against no intervention ("NoInt"). RESULTS: NoInt would yield 2,115,924 cases (hospital: 85,898, ED: 943,770, PC: 1,086,255) and $817.9 million in medical care costs. Nirs would prevent 1,206,819 cases and $470.1 million in medical care costs; with $2054.3 million in intervention costs, BI would be $1.6 billion. Compared with NoInt, MV + Nirs would prevent 1,143,754 cases and $457.1 million in medical care costs; with $1851.6 million in intervention costs (MV: $78.6, Nirs: $1773.0), BI would be $1.4 billion. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that either strategy would substantially reduce the burden of RSV-LRTI. Even with low uptake, adding RSVpreF (mixed approach) yielded considerably lower budget impact compared with nirsevimab alone.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alharbi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: