Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jul 1;8(7):e2522779.
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.22779.

Optimizing Timing for Respiratory Syncytial Virus Prevention Interventions for Infants

Danielle Nguyen  1 , Haeseon Lee  1 , Andrew T Pavia  2 , Richard E Nelson  3   4 , Matthew Samore  3   4 , Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk  1   3
Affiliations

Optimizing Timing for Respiratory Syncytial Virus Prevention Interventions for Infants

Danielle Nguyen et al. JAMA Netw Open. .

Abstract

Importance: The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend seasonal administration of maternal vaccine (MV) or nirsevimab to protect infants in the first year of life from respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections. Differences in uptake, costs, and efficacy between these agents may affect cost-effectiveness depending on the timing of administration.

Objective: To evaluate the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of no intervention, MV, and nirsevimab administration during the entire RSV season and separately for each monthly birth cohort from October through February.

Design, setting, and participants: This economic evaluation used a Markov model to analyze cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective, applying a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Participants included infants born in the US during the RSV season. Data were accrued from October 2023 to June 2024 and analyzed from July 2024 to May 2025.

Interventions: MV, nirsevimab administration, or no intervention.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost per QALY gained). Clinical outcomes included the number of hospitalizations, outpatient infections, and deaths averted. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results: An estimated monthly birth cohort of 299 277 infants was included in the analysis. Compared with no intervention, MV was cost-saving for infants in the October, November, and December cohorts and cost-effective in the January but not the February cohorts ($504 517/QALY). For infants born in the combined cohort (October-February), MV was cost-effective at $19 562/QALY. Compared with MV, nirsevimab was cost-effective only in October ($67 178/QALY) and November ($88 531/QALY). During the RSV season, MV was projected to avert 45 558 outpatient visits, 7154 hospitalizations, and 12 deaths; nirsevimab was projected to avert 92 265 outpatient visits, 11 893 hospitalizations, and 19 deaths. The probability of no intervention being cost-effective during the RSV season was 19.8%; MV, 62.2%; and nirsevimab, 18.0%.

Conclusions and relevance: In this economic evaluation of RSV prevention interventions, administration of MV in the first 4 months of and throughout the viral season could be cost-effective. Across the entire RSV season, nirsevimab was cost-effective compared with MV only in October and November. Intervention use may be optimized by restricting administration to select months. Further study is needed to assess transmission dynamics to refine cost-effectiveness outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Lee reported receiving funding from Pfizer Inc and Sanofi SA outside the submitted work. Dr Pavia reported receiving consulting fees from Haleon Consulting on OTC products outside the submitted work. Dr Chaiyakunapruk reported receiving funding from BMS, Abbott Laboratories, Pfizer Inc, Novo Nordisk A/S, Edwards Lifesciences, Gilead Sciences, Hoffman–La Roche AG, Janssen Global Services LLC, and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Markov Model
RSV indicates respiratory syncytial virus infections.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curves for Respiratory Syncytial Virus Prevention Interventions
Data are stratified by month of birth. WTP indicates willingness to pay.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Hall CB, Weinberg GA, Iwane MK, et al. The burden of respiratory syncytial virus infection in young children. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(6):588-598. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0804877 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) . Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) surveillance. 2021. Accessed March 1, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/surveillance/nrevss/rsv/index.html
    1. Suh M, Movva N, Jiang X, et al. Respiratory syncytial virus is the leading cause of United States infant hospitalizations, 2009-2019: a Study of the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample. J Infect Dis. 2022;226(suppl 2):S154-S163. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiac120 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Infectious Diseases; American Academy of Pediatrics Bronchiolitis Guidelines Committee . Updated guidance for palivizumab prophylaxis among infants and young children at increased risk of hospitalization for respiratory syncytial virus infection. Pediatrics. 2014;134(2):e620-e638. doi: 10.1542/peds.2014-1666 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Caserta MT, O’Leary ST, Munoz FM, Ralston SL; Committee on Infectious Diseases . Palivizumab prophylaxis in infants and young children at increased risk of hospitalization for respiratory syncytial virus infection. Pediatrics. 2023;152(1):e2023061803. doi: 10.1542/peds.2023-061803 - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

Substances