Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nirsevimab and RSVpreF Vaccine Prevention Strategies for Respiratory Syncytial Virus Disease in infants: A Canadian Immunisation Research Network (CIRN) Study

Model structure and study population

We developed a discrete-event simulation model (Figure 1) with 1,113 infants per 100,000 population as the birth cohort, reflecting the 2021 census data for Ontario, Canada.¹³ Twelve monthly birth cohorts were followed through the first year of their life, categorised as preterm with <29 weeks of gestational age (wGA), 29-32 wGA, 33-36 wGA,¹⁴ and term infants with 37+ wGA.^15,16 Preterm infants comprised ∼9% of the cohort, distributed as 7%, 17%, and 76% in the corresponding wGA.¹⁴ We also considered chronic lung disease (CLD) and congenital heart disease (CHD) as two major risk factors associated with RSV disease outcomes. The rate of CLD was set to 28.1%, 4%, and 2.4% for wGA <29, 29–32, and 33-36, respectively, among preterm infants.¹⁷ For CHD, we used an overall prevalence rate of 12.3 per 1000 live births in Canada.¹⁸

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Structure of discrete-event simulation model applied to scenarios in the presence and absence of interventions with different outcomes.

RSV-related outcomes

The model was parameterized with estimates of the burden of RSV disease in different chronologic and gestational age groups. The annual incidence of medically-attended (MA) RSV cases per 100,000 population was sampled from the range 1001 – 2439, and distributed among infants under one year of age according to estimated rates and seasonality distribution (Supplementary Material, Figure A1, Table A2).⁷ In our study, MA RSV refers to outpatient care (i.e., office visit or emergency department (ED) visit without hospital admission) or inpatient care (i.e., hospital admission in paediatric ward or intensive care unit, ICU). We considered the beginning of October as the start of RSV season recognizing that the RSV season varies geographically and temporally (Supplementary Material, Figure A3).^7,19

We allowed for a maximum of two MA RSV events during the first year of life,²⁰ with a minimum time-interval of three months between the two events if the second episode occurred. The duration of symptomatic RSV disease for those receiving outpatient care was sampled between 5 to 8 days.²¹ Hospitalisation rates for infants with MA RSV LRTI were based on their age at incidence as well as their wGA (Supplementary Material, Figure A2, Table A3). The likelihood of hospitalisation increased by 1.9 and 2.2 times for infants with CLD and CHD, respectively, compared to infants without these conditions (Supplementary Material).^22,23

Among hospitalised cases, ICU admission varied in the range 41.3% – 62.1%, 13.1% – 53.6%, and 5.4% – 30.0% among infants of ≤32, 33–35, and ≥36 wGA, respectively.²¹ For infants of ≤32 wGA, the duration of hospitalisation was sampled from Gamma distributions, with mean values of 6.1 and 9.5 days in paediatric ward and ICU (Table 1), respectively.^21,24 For infants born at 33 or higher wGA, we sampled the duration of stay in paediatric ward and ICU from Gamma distributions with mean values of 3.9 and 5.2 days, respectively (Table 1).^21,24,25 The probability of experiencing a wheezing episode post hospitalisation was 0.31 during the first year of life.^26,27 The duration of a wheezing episode ranged from 5.2 to 9.8 days.^26,28 RSV-related mortality for hospitalised infants without CLD or CHD varied in the ranges 0.36% – 3.3%, 0.02% – 1.82%, and 0.02% – 1% for infants of ≤32, 33-35, and 36 or higher wGA, respectively.^29–35 For hospitalised infants with CLD and CHD, mortality rates were 3.5% – 5.1% and 3.4% – 5.3%, respectively.²⁹

Costs of RSV-related outcomes

Direct costs borne by the healthcare system included office visit, ED visit, hospitalisation, as well as 30 days’ follow up for hospitalised infants (Table 1). Indirect costs included out-of-pocket expenses, loss of productivity by parents, and monetary loss of life due to RSV-related infant mortality. Out-of-pocket expenses for families with hospitalised infants were estimated at $118 per day for the duration of hospital stay to account for transportation, over-the-counter medications, meals, child care and other costs.⁵ Indirect costs related to workdays lost of working parents (with an average absenteeism of 49%)⁵ were calculated using the per capita personal income of CAD$53,675 per year (i.e., ∼$147 per day) in Ontario.³⁶ We assumed total workdays lost were equal to the length of stay for hospitalised infants and one day for infants who required outpatient care.⁵ We considered the recommended 1.5% discounting rate by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health,³⁷ with an average lifespan of 82 years. Each RSV-related death was estimated to have a total discounted monetary loss of $2,292,572, calculated using the annual personal income, and discounted quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) loss of 45.3. All costs were converted and inflated to 2023 Canadian dollars.

Infant and maternal RSV prevention strategies

Although year-round RSV activity was implemented in the model according to reported incidence and outcomes (Supplementary Material, Figure A1),^7,19 we considered infant immunisation with nirsevimab to start in October, corresponding to the start of RSV season (Supplementary Material, Figure A3). Infants born off-season were immunised at the start of the RSV season following their birth. Based on the current recommendation for use of palivizumab, which is directed at preterm and selected high-risk infants,²¹ we evaluated the following program options (Table 2) for passive immunisation with nirsevimab: (i) preterm infants ≤32 wGA and infants with CLD or CHD condition (L1); (ii) preterm infants ≤36 wGA and infants with CLD or CHD condition (L2); (iii) all preterm infants (<37 wGA), infants with CLD or CHD, and term infants born during RSV season (L3); and (iv) the entire birth cohort (L3). The coverage for these immunisation programs was set to 100% for the base-case analysis, but reduced to 80% for the secondary analysis (Supplementary Material).

Maternal immunisation (MI) was implemented as a year-round program, with vaccination of pregnant women who are in their last trimester before gestation week 33 (Supplementary Material, Figure A3). In the base-case analysis, vaccination coverage was set to 100%. For the secondary analysis, we assumed a 60% coverage based on estimates of 2021 vaccination coverage against influenza and pertussis in pregnant women in Canada (Supplementary Material).³⁸

To evaluate the combination of nirsevimab and RSVpreF, we implemented a program (LMI) that includes year-round vaccination of pregnant women followed by administration of nirsevimab to infants at high-risk of severe RSV disease (i.e., preterm infants ≤32 wGA and infants with CLD or CHD condition) during RSV season. Table 2 summarises all the immunisation programs, target populations, and coverages for base-case and secondary analyses.

Efficacy of nirsevimab and RSVpreF vaccine

We considered the efficacy of nirsevimab and RSVpreF against MA RSV LRTI and severe RSV LRTI. Conservatively, no efficacy against RSV infection or symptomatic RSV disease was assumed. The efficacy of a single dose of nirsevimab against MA RSV-LRTI is estimated at 79.5% (95% CI: 65.9% to 87.7%) through 150 days post-dose.³⁹ Mean efficacies against hospitalisation and very severe RSV LRTI (used against ICU admission in our model) are estimated at 77.3% (95% CI: 50.3% to 89.7%) and 86% (95% CI: 62.5% to 94.8%), respectively.³⁹

We employed a sigmoidal decay to temporally disaggregate the constant efficacy values for up to 10 months,⁴⁰ while maintaining the same mean efficacy for the first 5 months as estimated in clinical trials (Supplementary Material, Figure A4). As sensitivity analysis, we used constant vaccine efficacy profiles with mean estimates as reported in clinical trials, and a linear decline beginning at 5 months post immunisation (Supplementary Material, Figure A4).

The efficacy of RSVpreF is estimated at 57.1% (95% CI: 14.7% to 79.8%) against MA RSV LRTI, 67.9% (95% CI: 34.6% to 84.2%) against hospitalisation, and 81.8% (95% CI: 40.6% to 96.3%) against severe MA RSV LRTI (used against ICU admission in our model) for the first 90 days of life.^12,41–43 Similar to nirsevimab, we used a sigmoidal decay to determine temporal vaccine efficacy over 10 months, with the same mean efficacy as estimated in clinical trials for the first 3 months after birth (Supplementary Material, Figure A4). We also performed a sensitivity analysis using constant vaccine efficacy profiles with mean estimates from clinical trials, and a linear decline starting 3 months after birth (Supplementary Material, Figure A4).

Costs of RSV prevention strategies

We varied the single-dose cost of both nirsevimab and RSVpreF between $50 and $1000 to determine the price range within which an immunisation program would be cost-effective. Costs associated with dose administration was set to $15 for both infant and maternal immunisation.^44,45

Cost-effectiveness analysis

To determine whether a program was cost-effective for a given willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold, we calculated the net monetary benefit (NMB) by NMB = ΔE × WTP − ΔC, where ΔE represents QALYs gained using intervention compared to no intervention, and ΔC is the incremental costs.⁴⁶ A program was considered cost-effective if it resulted in a positive NMB. In the primary analysis, we calculated the monetary value of health using a WTP threshold of $50,000 per QALY gain.⁴⁷ In secondary analyses (Supplementary Material), we considered a lower threshold of $30,000⁴⁸ and a higher threshold of $70,000⁴⁹ corresponding to the per capita gross domestic product in Canada. We also estimated the ICER for each intervention as ΔC/ΔE, which provides a metric to measure the additional costs required to gain one QALY. Disutility values of RSV-related outcomes were sampled individually for each RSV case from their respective distributions (Table 1), and adjusted for the duration of illness and outcomes.^50–54 Utility values were calculated as (1 – sampled disutility) and used to derive total QALYs in each scenario by adding utility values during the illness and outside the illness duration in one year of life. We sampled a baseline disutility, and calculated the utility without RSV (Table 1), accounting for non-RSV health related illnesses.⁵⁵ When immunisation was effective against MA RSV LRTI, preventing outpatient, we considered adjusted utility values for the duration of symptomatic RSV disease in non-MA infants. The distribution of QALY loss calculated using sampled disutility values were consistent with recent estimates.⁵⁶

We considered both healthcare and societal perspectives for cost-effectiveness analysis. The healthcare perspective included all direct medical costs of RSV-related disease and the immunisation program during the first year of life. In the base-case analysis, the societal perspective incorporated direct and indirect costs in the calculation of NMB and ICER, including productivity loss of parents, without considering the monetary loss of life due to RSV-related infant mortality. In the secondary analysis, we also included the monetary loss of life due infant mortality in the societal perspective (Supplementary Material). Based on the results of cost-effectiveness analyses, we determined the budget impact of each immunisation program as the difference between immunisation costs and the total direct healthcare savings achieved in the program.

Model implementation

For each scenario, the model was simulated stochastically using Monte-Carlo sampling for a total of 1000 realisations. All parameters were sampled from their respective distributions and individually for each infant, thus probabilistically accounting for the sensitivity of the model outcomes with respect to input parameters. For parameters for which a statistical distribution was unknown, we sampled uniformly from the estimated ranges. Point estimates of the model outcomes reflected the mean value of the 1000 Monte Carlo simulations. The uncertainty around the point estimates were derived using a nonparametric, bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap technique with 1000 replicates, and 95% confidence intervals for the mean of estimates were constructed in scenarios evaluated. The computational model is available at https://github.com/affans/rsv_costeffectiveness

Ethics and guidelines

This study used publicly available estimates and data sources and thus no ethics approval was required. We followed guidelines set forth by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS).⁵⁷

Role of the funding source

The funders had no role in the study design, input collection or analysis, interpretation of results, or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Health outcomes with sigmoidal vaccine efficacy profiles

For immunisation strategies in Table 1, we estimated that L1 would reduce RSV-related outpatient care by 2.0% (95% CI: 2.0% to 2.0%) and inpatient care by 6.2% (95% CI: 5.7% to 6.6%) in the base-case analysis (Figure 2A). Program extension to all preterm infants in L2 provided a marginal improvement in the reduction of outpatient care at 5.9% (95% CI: 5.8% to 5.9%) and inpatient care at 11.1% (95% CI: 10.6% to 11.6%). L3 was associated with a reduction of 38.9% (95% CI: 38.8% to 39.0%) outpatient care and 61.2% (95% CI: 60.4% to 62.1%) inpatient care. Administration of nirsevimab to the entire birth cohort in L4 reduced outpatient care by 63.4% (95% CI: 63.2% to 63.5%), and inpatient care by 79.3% (95% CI: 78.7% to 80.1%). The reduction in RSV-related infant mortality was 24.3% (95% CI: 16.9% to 33.2%) in L1, 36.3% (95% CI: 26.8% to 46.5%) in L2, 67.9% (95% CI: 58.8% to 77.3%) in L3, and 77.8% (95% CI: 69.6% to 85.3%) in L4 (Supplementary Material, Table A6).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Overall reduction of RSV-related outpatient care (office and ED visits), inpatient care (paediatric ward and ICU admissions), and death among infants under one year of age for standalone immunisation programs with nirsevimab (L1, L2, L3, L4) and RSVpreF (MI), and combined nirsevimab and RSV-preF immunisation program (LMI), compared to the scenario without any prevention strategy. Panel (A) and (B) correspond to the sigmoidal and constant vaccine efficacy profiles, respectively.

MI was estimated to reduce RSV-related outpatient care by 34.0% (95% CI: 33.9% to 34.2%), inpatient care by 72.8% (95% CI: 72.1% to 73.5%), and death by 72.4% (95% CI: 62.5% to 81.9%) (Figure 2A). For the immunisation program combining administration of nirsevimab and RSVpreF (LMI), we estimated a reduction of 35.2% (95% CI: 35.0% to 35.3%) for outpatient care, 74.1% (95% CI: 73.5% to 74.9%) for inpatient care, and 76.8% (95% CI: 67.1% to 85.8%) for death, compared with no intervention (Supplementary Material, Table A6).

Health outcomes with constant vaccine efficacy profiles

In the base-case analysis, we estimated that L1 would reduce RSV-related outpatient and inpatient care by 2.0% (95% CI: 2.0% to 2.0%) and 6.1% (95% CI: 5.7% to 6.6%), respectively (Figure 2B). Program extension to all preterm infants in L2 provided a reduction of 5.8% (95% CI: 5.7% to 5.8%) in outpatient care and 11.0% (95% CI: 10.5% to 11.6%) for inpatient care. L3 was associated with a reduction of 38.1% (95% CI: 38.0% to 38.2%) in outpatient care and 60.8% (95% CI: 60.0% to 61.7%) for inpatient care. Immunising the entire birth cohort with nirsevimab in L4 reduced outpatient care by 62.3% (95% CI: 62.1% to 62.4%) and inpatient care by 78.9% (95% CI: 78.2% to 79.6%). The reductions in RSV-related infant mortality were estimated to be the same as the corresponding nirsevimab immunisation programs using sigmoidal vaccine efficacy profiles.

MI was estimated to reduce RSV-related outpatient care by 42.3% (95% CI: 42.1% to 42.4%), inpatient care by 80.6% (95% CI: 80.0% to 81.2%), and death by 82.1% (95% CI: 71.4% to 88.9%) (Figure 2B). For the combined immunisation program, we estimated that LMI would reduce outpatient care by 43.1% (95% CI: 43.0% to 43.3%), inpatient care by 81.3% (95% CI: 80.6% to 81.9%), and death by 82.3% (95% CI: 74.0% to 90.2%), compared with no intervention (Supplementary Material, Table A6).

Cost-effectiveness of standalone nirsevimab and RSVpreF prevention programs

We determined the price per dose (PPD) of nirsevimab below which the standalone infant immunisation programs were cost-effective at the WTP of $50,000 per QALY gained. From a healthcare perspective (Table 3), the maximum PPD for a positive NMB was $615 in L1, and reduced to $375 in L2, $300 in L3, and $215 in L4 using sigmoidal vaccine efficacy profiles (Figure 3C). Corresponding to these PPDs, the probabilities of L1, L2, L3, and L4 being cost-effective were 50%, 56%, 79%, and 99%, respectively. For MI, the maximum PPD was $160, at which the program was cost-effective with the probability of 68%. From a societal perspective (Table 3) with sigmoidal vaccine efficacy profiles, the maximum PPD for a positive NMB was estimated to be $705 in L1, $455 in L2, $385 in L3, and $290 in L4 (Figure 3D). The probabilities of these programs being cost-effective at their maximum PPD were 52%, 51%, 83%, and 55% in L1, L2, L3, and L4, respectively. MI was cost-effective for a PPD up to $200, with the probability of 87%.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

Required doses of nirsevimab and RSVpreF per 100,000 population for immunisation strategies (A), with total purchasing costs (B), and the estimated net monetary benefit (NMB) as a function of price per dose at the WTP threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained. Panels (C) and (D) correspond to the analysis from healthcare and societal perspectives, respectively, with sigmoidal vaccine efficacy profiles. Panels (E) and (F) correspond to the analysis from the healthcare and societal perspectives, respectively, with constant vaccine efficacy profiles. Note: in panel B, curves for MI and L4 are superposed.

Using constant vaccine efficacy profiles, we estimated similar PPD for nirsevimab immunisations programs evaluated. From a healthcare perspective (Table 4), the maximum PPD for a positive NMB was $610 in L1, and reduced to $370 in L2, $295 in L3, and $215 in L4 (Figure 3E). Corresponding to these PPDs, the probabilities of L1, L2, L3, and L4 being cost-effective were 54%, 69%, 90%, and 86%, respectively. For MI, the maximum PPD was $185 (Figure 3E), with cost-effectiveness probability of 81%. From a societal perspective (Table 4) with constant vaccine efficacy profiles, the maximum PPD for a positive NMB was estimated to be $700 in L1, $450 in L2, $380 in L3, and $285 in L4 (Figure 3D). The probabilities of these programs being cost-effective at their maximum PPD were 55%, 58%, 82%, and 78% in L1, L2, L3, and L4, respectively. MI was cost-effective for a PPD up to $235, with the probability of 83%.

Cost-effectiveness of a combined nirsevimab and RSVpreF prevention program

LMI was cost-effective for various combinations of PPD values for nirsevimab and RSVpreF (Figure 4). Here, we considered maximum PPDs derived for L1 and L4 programs in combination with MI at which LMI program was cost-effective (Tables 5 and 6). From a healthcare perspective, at PPD of $615 for nirsevimab with sigmoidal vaccine efficacy profiles, LMI was cost-effective (NMB>0) for a PPD up to $140 for RSVpreF, with probability of 100% at the WTP threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained (Table 5). Reducing PPD for nirsevimab to $215, LMI was cost-effective for a PPD up to $155 for RSVpreF with the probability of 96%. From a societal perspective, LMI with a PPD of $705 for nirsevimab and $180 for RSVpreF was cost-effective with the probability of 98% (Table 5). LMI was also cost-effective for a combination PPD of $290 and $195 for nirsevimab and RSVpreF, respectively, with the probability of 95%.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4.

Net monetary benefit (NMB) of the combined infant and maternal immunisation program at the WTP of $50,000 per QALY gained as a function of PPD for nirsevimab and RSVpreF. Panels (A) and (B) correspond to the analysis from healthcare and societal perspectives, respectively, with sigmoidal vaccine efficacy profiles. Panels (C) and (D) correspond to the analysis from the healthcare and societal perspectives, respectively, with constant vaccine efficacy profiles. Red circles correspond to the PPD values in Tables 5 and 6.

With constant vaccine efficacy profiles, LMI was cost-effective from a healthcare perspective at PPD of $610 for nirsevimab and $165 for RSVpreF, with the probability of 0.96% at the WTP threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained (Table 6). Reducing PPD for nirsevimab to $215, LMI was cost-effective at a PPD of $180 for RSVpreF with the probability of 82%. From a societal perspective, LMI with constant vaccine efficacy profiles was cost-effective at a PPD of $700 for nirsevimab and $215 for RSVpreF, with the probability of 78% (Table 6). LMI was also cost-effective for a combination PPD of $285 and $230 for nirsevimab and RSVpreF, respectively, with the probability of 63%.

Budget impact

The total number of nirsevimab doses per 100,000 population was 38, 104, 582, and 1113 in L1, L2, L3, and L4, respectively (Figure 3A). For sigmoidal vaccine efficacy profiles, the annual budget impact of these interventions to the healthcare system would be $1,225 in L1, $1,668 in L2, $3,303 in L3, and $503 in L4 at the maximum PPD estimated for each program to be cost-effective (Table 3). For MI, the total number of RSVpreF vaccine doses was 1113 per 100,000 population (Figure 3A), resulting in an annual budget impact of $4,546 to the healthcare system. From a societal perspective, the annual budget impact was estimated at $4,606, $9,976, $52,738, and $83,978 for PPD of $705 in L1, $455 in L2, $385 in L3, and $290 in L4, respectively (Table 3). The annual budget impact for MI with a PPD of $200 would be $49,066.

For the combined immunisation program with sigmoidal vaccine efficacy profiles, LMI was associated with an annual budget impact of $467 per 100,000 population with PPD of $615 and $140 for nirsevimab and RSVpreF, respectively (Table 5). When the PPD for nirsevimab and RSVpreF changed to $215 and $155, respectively, the budget impact of LMI was estimated at $2,135. From a societal perspective, the budget impact of MLI was estimated at $48,368 with a PPD of $705 and $180 for nirsevimab and RSVpreF, respectively (Table 5). Changing the corresponding PPDs to $290 and $195 resulted in a similar budget impact of $49,473.

Using constant vaccine efficacy profiles, we estimated the annual budget impact of infant immunisation programs with nirsevimab to the healthcare system to be $1,144 in L1, $1,330 in L2, $2,354 in L3, and $3,050 in L4 per 100,000 population at the maximum PPD estimated for each program to be cost-effective (Table 4). MI resulted in a total annual budget impact of $4,010 to the healthcare system at the maximum PPD. From a societal perspective, the annual budget impact was estimated at $4,525, $9,637, $51,790, and $80,960 for PPD of $700 in L1, $450 in L2, $380 in L3, and $285 in L4, respectively (Table 4). The annual budget impact for MI with a PPD of $235 would be $59,660 per 100,000 population.

For the combined immunisation program with constant vaccine efficacy profiles, LMI was associated with an annual budget impact of $2,099 per 100,000 population with PPD of $610 and $165 for nirsevimab and RSVpreF, respectively (Table 6). When the PPD for nirsevimab and RSVpreF changed to $215 and $180, respectively, the budget impact of LMI was estimated at $3,954. From a societal perspective, the budget impact of MLI was estimated at $61,130 with a PPD of $700 for nirsevimab and $215 for RSVpreF (Table 6). Changing the corresponding PPDs to $285 and $230 resulted in a similar annual budget impact of $62,234.

Secondary analyses

The results of secondary analyses for reduced coverage of nirsevimab and RSFpreF using both sigmoidal and constant vaccine profiles, without and with monetary loss of life due to RSV-related infant mortality, are provided in the Supplementary Material. We also estimated the reduction of direct healthcare costs (outpatient and inpatient care) and indirect costs (loss of productivity and out-of-pocket expenses) achieved from interventions (Supplementary Material, Tables A4 and A5). Our results show that PPD for cost-effective programs with nirsevimab is sensitive to the target groups among the infant population, but remained relatively robust with respect to the efficacy profiles of nirsevimab and the coverage of immunisation.

Limitations

A strength of our study is the stratification of the infant population by wGA and critical risk factors of CLD and CHD, which allowed us to utilise available estimates associated with RSV outcomes in infants. However, our model has several limitations. First, for efficacy of nirsevimab against RSV disease outcomes, we relied on reported estimates for infants of ≥29 wGA.³⁹ If the efficacy among preterm infants <29 wGA is lower than those ≥29 wGA, the maximum PPD for cost-effectiveness may be lower than our estimates. Second, the efficacy of a single dose of nirsevimab may also depend on weight-based dosing.^10,11 We assumed that PPD is not affected by the dosage. Third, the model includes only CLD and CHD as risk factors; however, other risk factors may be considered such as cystic fibrosis, Down syndrome, and immunocompromise,²¹ which were not considered in our analysis due to the lack of specific estimates. Furthermore, the National Advisory Committee on Immunisation recommends only hemodynamically significant CHD infants for use of palivizumab, as opposed to all infants with congenital heart disease.²¹ Although the proportion of CHD infants who are hemodynamically significant could be as high as 79% (95% CI: 62% to 91%),⁶⁵ in the absence of such estimates in Canada, we considered all CHD infants in the basecase analysis and 80% of them in the secondary analysis of combined nirsevimab and RSVpreF immunisation program. Fourth, we note that maternal vaccination is recommended during the third trimester of pregnancy and therefore a proportion of preterm birth mothers may not receive RSVpreF prior to their infants’ birth, which could be considered under our secondary analysis with 60% vaccine coverage of pregnant women.

Finally, we recognize that the feasibility of different immunisation programs to deliver interventions to pregnant women and infants seasonally are not considered here, and will impact decision making.