ABSTRACT
Background Two respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines are currently approved for use in adults aged 60 years and older in Canada. Economic analyses have shown that adult RSV vaccination programs may be cost-effective, particularly when focused on people at increased risk of RSV disease due to increased age or presence of chronic medical conditions (CMCs). We conducted a multi-model comparison to explore the impact of alternate model structural and methodological assumptions on the cost-effectiveness of RSV vaccination programs.
Methods We compared three static cost-utility models developed by the Public Health Agency of Canada, GSK, and Pfizer using a common set of input parameters. Each model evaluated sequential incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2023 Canadian dollars per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for a set of policy alternatives, with vaccine eligibility determined by combinations of age and CMC status. Results were calculated for each vaccine separately for scenarios assuming two or three years of vaccine protection using the health system perspective and a 1.5% annual discount rate.
Results The three cost-utility models were broadly concordant across the scenarios modeled. In all scenarios, focusing on vaccination of people with CMCs was preferred over broader age-based policies. RSV vaccination for people with CMCs over the age of 70 years was most commonly identified as the optimal policy when using a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50,000/QALY. When only considering policies based on age criteria, vaccinating people over 80 years was cost-effective at this threshold.
Discussion A multi-model comparison of Canadian cost-utility models shows that RSV vaccination programs for RSV are likely cost-effective for some groups of older adults in Canada. These findings were consistent across models, despite differences in model structure.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No funding to declare.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Funding statement: No funding to declare
Declaration of author competing interests: No competing interests to declare
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
