BUDGET IMPACT OF RSVPREF MATERNAL VACCINE AND NIRSEVIMAB MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY TO PROTECT INFANTS IN UAE AGAINST RESPIRATORY SYNCYTIAL VIRUS
Author(s)
Mostafa Zayed, MSc1, Jean Joury, BSPharm, CMD1, Sara Al Dallal, MD2, Huda Al Dhanhani, MD3, Zeina Azrak, MS1, Erin Quinn, BS4, Mary MacKinnon, BS4, Amy Law, PharmD5.
1Pfizer Gulf FZ LLC, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 2Emirates Health Economics Society, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 3Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Sheikh Khalifa Medical City, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 4Avalere Health, Washington, DC, USA, 5Pfizer Inc, New York, NY, USA.
1Pfizer Gulf FZ LLC, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 2Emirates Health Economics Society, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 3Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Sheikh Khalifa Medical City, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 4Avalere Health, Washington, DC, USA, 5Pfizer Inc, New York, NY, USA.
OBJECTIVES: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) represents a significant clinical and economic burden among infants in Dubai and worldwide. Both RSVpreF maternal vaccine and nirsevimab monoclonal antibody are authorized for use in the United Arab Emirates to protect infants against RSV, but use of RSVpreF remains limited. We evaluated clinical and economic outcomes associated with intervention strategies to protect privately insured infants in Dubai.
METHODS: A deterministic cohort model was employed to estimate the budgetary impact of immunization strategies to prevent RSV encounters among five annual birth cohorts of infants aged <1 year in Dubai (N=136,285). Clinical outcomes include setting-specific RSV episodes (hospital, emergency department, outpatient) and associated deaths. Economic outcomes (reported in US dollars) include medical care and intervention costs. Budget impact was reported as overall cost and cost per-member per-year (PMPY). Intervention strategies included no intervention (NI), nirsevimab alone (NA), and maternal vaccination with complementary nirsevimab for infants not yet protected (MV+N). RSVpreF uptake was 10% for infants born year-round. Nirsevimab uptake (for NI and MV+N) was 90%, with eligibility only among infants born during RSV season (September-February) and not yet protected via RSVpreF.
RESULTS: Over 5 years, NI would yield 23,267 RSV-related episodes, with $11.5 million (M) in associated costs. NA would protect 63,278 infants, reducing cases and medical costs by 21% and 25% respectively; with $61.8M in intervention costs, budget impact would be $59.0M or $3.61 PMPY. Alternatively, MV+N would protect 70,026 infants, reducing cases and medical costs by 22% and 27% respectively, compared to NI. With $58.9M in intervention costs (RSVpreF: $3.1M; nirsevimab: $55.8M), budget impact would be $55.8M or $3.42 PMPY. Increasing RSVpreF coverage would continue to protect more infants and reduce total costs.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this analysis suggest that increasing use of RSVpreF alongside nirsevimab would expand protection among infants while saving costs.
METHODS: A deterministic cohort model was employed to estimate the budgetary impact of immunization strategies to prevent RSV encounters among five annual birth cohorts of infants aged <1 year in Dubai (N=136,285). Clinical outcomes include setting-specific RSV episodes (hospital, emergency department, outpatient) and associated deaths. Economic outcomes (reported in US dollars) include medical care and intervention costs. Budget impact was reported as overall cost and cost per-member per-year (PMPY). Intervention strategies included no intervention (NI), nirsevimab alone (NA), and maternal vaccination with complementary nirsevimab for infants not yet protected (MV+N). RSVpreF uptake was 10% for infants born year-round. Nirsevimab uptake (for NI and MV+N) was 90%, with eligibility only among infants born during RSV season (September-February) and not yet protected via RSVpreF.
RESULTS: Over 5 years, NI would yield 23,267 RSV-related episodes, with $11.5 million (M) in associated costs. NA would protect 63,278 infants, reducing cases and medical costs by 21% and 25% respectively; with $61.8M in intervention costs, budget impact would be $59.0M or $3.61 PMPY. Alternatively, MV+N would protect 70,026 infants, reducing cases and medical costs by 22% and 27% respectively, compared to NI. With $58.9M in intervention costs (RSVpreF: $3.1M; nirsevimab: $55.8M), budget impact would be $55.8M or $3.42 PMPY. Increasing RSVpreF coverage would continue to protect more infants and reduce total costs.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this analysis suggest that increasing use of RSVpreF alongside nirsevimab would expand protection among infants while saving costs.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
EE439
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Disease
Respiratory-Related Disorders (Allergy, Asthma, Smoking, Other Respiratory), Vaccines