Cost-Effectiveness of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccines for Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract

 Three economic evaluations and 1 summary of economic evaluations were identified that assessed the cost-effectiveness of 2 respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines of interest (RSVPreF3 [Arexvy] and RSVpreF [Abrysvo]) compared with no intervention in older adults residing in high-income countries. No economic evaluations assessing mRNA-1345 were identified. No publications investigating RSV vaccination in adults aged 59 years or younger were identified.
 
 In total, 5 economic evaluations for RSV vaccines in adults were identified.
 Four economic evaluations were conducted in the US and 1 was conducted in Hong Kong. All results were presented in terms of incremental cost-utility ratios (i.e., incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained). Net cost per outcome averted was reported for 1 economic evaluation, and cost per hospitalization averted was reported for 3 economic evaluations.
 The results of all publications found that RSVPreF3 (Arexvy) and RSVpreF (Abrysvo) were more costly and more effective than no intervention for RSV-associated disease. All publications reported that vaccinating older adults against RSV disease was potentially cost-effective. All publications noted that the cost-effectiveness was dependent on vaccine cost, vaccine efficacy, the waning of vaccine protection, RSV hospitalization incidence, health care unit costs, and respective regional willingness-to-pay thresholds.
 
 
 The generalizability of the identified economic evaluations may be limited because the study settings were notably different from Canada. To estimate the cost-effectiveness of RSV vaccinations in Canada, a de novo economic evaluation conducted from a Canadian setting comparing RSVPreF3 (Arexvy), RSVpreF (Abrysvo), and mRNA-1345 is required.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".