Cost-effectiveness of RSVpreF for the prevention of respiratory syncytial virus illness among high-risk adults in Germany
Rattachement africain : us, de. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
INTRODUCTION: Vaccination against lower respiratory tract illness due to respiratory syncytial virus (RSV-LRTI) is approved in Europe for all adults aged ≥18 years. The German Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO), however, only recommends vaccination for high-risk adults aged 60-74 years and all adults aged ≥75 years (standard of care [SOC]). Younger, immunocompromised adults [IC], as well as those with chronic medical conditions [CMC+], remain unprotected. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A multi-cohort model projected lifetime RSV-related clinical and economic outcomes (in 2025 €) among adults in Germany. Base case analyses considered the cost-effectiveness of adding vaccination of IC adults aged 18-59 years to the SOC from a societal perspective. An expanded base case adding CMC+/IC adults aged 18-59 years to the SOC was also evaluated. RESULTS: Adding IC adults aged 18-59 years to the recommendation would prevent 6,490 additional cases, avert 199 more deaths, and reduce costs by 21 million € compared to the SOC. Incorporating CMC+/IC adults would prevent 24,545 additional cases and 388 deaths, at an incremental cost of 238 million €. CONCLUSIONS: Expanding the recommendation to include IC or CMC+/IC adults aged 18-59 years could substantially reduce the clinical burden of RSV-LRTI in Germany; including IC 18-59-year-olds would also be cost-saving.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Cost-effectiveness of RSVpreF for the prevention of respiratory syncytial virus illness among high-risk adults in Germany
- Date Crossref
- 31/07/2026
- Éditeur
- Informa UK Limited
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.