Key result
Maternal RSVpreF cuts costs vs nirsevimab but lowers QALYs, yielding an ICER of ~536,000.
Why the study?
The Swiss Federal Office of Public Health commissioned an evaluation of the clinical and cost effectiveness of maternal RSVpreF vaccination compared with newborn nirsevimab or no prophylaxis.
Does maternal RSVpreF vaccination improve cost-effectiveness compared with newborn nirsevimab prophylaxis or no RSV prophylaxis in newborns?
Does maternal RSVpreF vaccination improve cost-effectiveness compared with newborn nirsevimab prophylaxis or no RSV prophylaxis in newborns?
Maternal RSVpreF vaccination is highly likely to be cost-effective versus both nirsevimab and no RSV prophylaxis in Switzerland, supporting its reimbursement by mandatory health insurance.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
I need the paper's actual comparison and evidence level before drafting the implication. Searching now.The paper is a Swiss cost-effectiveness model of maternal RSVpreF vs nirsevimab. Opening the full text next.Wrong Springer article. Fetching the correct paper and the Swiss HTA report.May prefer RSVpreF to nirsevimab on cost despite fewer QALYs; leaves open transferability beyond this Swiss Marko
RSVpreF is a vaccine that immunises against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), a seasonal respiratory virus, that can lead to lower respiratory tract infections. In Switzerland, RSVpreF is indicated for the passive protection of infants against RSV following maternal immunisation. The Swiss Federal Office of Public Health commissioned a health technology assessment (HTA) of RSVpreF for maternal vaccination, evaluating the clinical and cost effectiveness of the vaccine compared with nirsevimab (administered directly to newborns and infants) or no RSV prophylaxis. This study reports the cost-effectiveness model developed for the Swiss HTA. The model used a Markov model structure, a 1-year time horizon, a one-month cycle length, a Swiss healthcare payers' perspective, and a 3% discount rate for costs and health benefits. Health states included no RSV infection, RSV infection leading to hospitalisation, primary care visits or emergency department visits, post-RSV infection, and death. MATISSE informed RSVpreF efficacy, and MELODY and HARMONIE informed nirsevimab efficacy. Health outcomes were expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to explore the impact of parameter uncertainty on the model results. When compared with nirsevimab, RSVpreF reduces total costs (CHF −9,878,738) and QALYs (−18.4), with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 536,008 per QALY ( N = 38,844). Compared with no RSV prophylaxis, RSVpreF increases total costs (CHF +470,441) and QALYs (+27.1), with an ICER of 17,377 per QALY ( N = 38,844). RSVpreF is highly likely to be cost-effective versus both comparators at a range of plausible threshold values. The results of the model contributed to guidance updates in Switzerland, with RSVpreF now reimbursed by mandatory health insurance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bainbridge et al. (2026) studied Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection (n=38,844). Maternal RSVpreF vaccination vs. Nirsevimab or no RSV prophylaxis was evaluated on Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY gained (ICER 536,008 per QALY). Compared with nirsevimab, maternal vaccination with RSVpreF reduces total costs by CHF 9,878,738 and QALYs by 18.4, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 536,008 per QALY.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: