PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 12, 2026BMC Medicine0 citationsOpen Access

Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of vaccinating infants and adolescents against invasive meningococcal B disease in the Netherlands

TOThomas OttenNational Institute for Public Health and the EnvironmentMKMirjam J. KnotNational Institute for Public Health and the EnvironmentLMLard Montesano MontessoriNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment

Key Points

  • This evaluation aims to determine the clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of various meningococcal B vaccination strategies for infants and adolescents in the Netherlands.
  • Developed a single-cohort Markov model to predict cases and deaths prevented over a lifetime.
  • Assessed various vaccination strategies for infants and adolescents using 4CMenB and other vaccines.
  • Included a societal perspective in the analysis, accounting for various costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).
  • Conducted threshold and sensitivity analyses to explore the robustness of the findings.
  • For infants, 4CMenB vaccination would prevent 11.14 cases and 0.85 deaths in a birth cohort.
  • For adolescents, vaccination could prevent 7.24 to 8.57 cases and 0.25 to 0.29 deaths, depending on the vaccine used.
  • ICER for infants was €594,056/QALY; for adolescents it ranged between €717,287/QALY and €890,023/QALY.
  • All ICERs exceeded common cost-effectiveness thresholds in the Netherlands, indicating vaccination is not cost-effective.

Abstract

Abstract Background Invasive meningococcal B disease (IMD-B) causes morbidity and mortality among infants and adolescents in the Netherlands. While multiple vaccines against IMD-B are licensed by the European Medicines Agency, none of them is currently part of the Dutch National Immunization Program (NIP). We evaluated the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of different IMD-B vaccination strategies for Dutch infants and adolescents. Methods We developed a static, single-cohort Markov model to estimate the lifetime number of IMD-B cases and deaths prevented, as well as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), of vaccinating infants with 4CMenB (age 0; 2 + 1 schedule) or adolescents with 4CMenB, MenB-fHBp, or MenABCWY + MenB-fHBp (age 15; 1 + 1 schedule), compared with no IMD-B vaccination. The analysis adopted a societal perspective, including costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) related to vaccination, adverse events, acute IMD-B, long-term sequelae, productivity losses of patients and caregivers, special education needs, and out-of-pocket expenses for patients and their families. We also conducted a threshold analysis for the incidence of IMD-B and a systematic uncertainty assessment. Results For infants, the use of 4CMenB would prevent 11.14 IMD-B cases and 0.85 IMD-B-related deaths in one birth cohort of 166,073 infants over a lifetime. For adolescents, IMD-B vaccination would prevent 7.24–8.57 cases and 0.25–0.29 deaths in a single cohort of 197,782 adolescents, depending on which vaccine is used. The ICER was €594,056/QALY for 4CMenB in infants, while for adolescents the ICER ranged between €717,287/QALY and €890,023/QALY, depending on the vaccine type used. These ICERs exceed the commonly used cost-effectiveness thresholds (€20,000 to €80,000/QALY gained) in the Netherlands, rendering vaccination not cost-effective. This outcome proved robust in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, as well as in scenario analyses. The threshold analysis demonstrated that IMD-B vaccination may only become cost-effective at a €80,000/QALY threshold with more than a sixfold increase in incidence. Conclusions The modelled IMD-B vaccination programs resulted in the prevention of limited morbidity and mortality at a high financial burden. The inclusion of any of the evaluated vaccines in the Dutch NIP for infants or adolescents is not cost-effective in any target group at conventional Dutch cost-effectiveness thresholds given current IMD-B incidence levels.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Otten et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/698d6de45be6419ac0d53266https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-026-04651-z
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper