Cost-effectiveness of vaccinating adults aged 60 years and older against respiratory syncytial virus.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) causes substantial morbidity and mortality in older adults. In May 2023, two subunit RSV vaccines (Arexvy [GSK] and Abrysvo [Pfizer]) received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In June 2023, ACIP recommended that adults aged ≥60 years may receive a single dose of RSV vaccine, using shared clinical decision-making. In support of development of this policy, our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of RSV vaccination in the general population in this age group. We used a decision-analytical model of RSV over a two-year timeframe using data from published literature, FDA documents, epidemiological databases, and manufacturer data. We tracked RSV-associated outpatient, emergency department, inpatient healthcare utilization, RSV-attributable deaths, quality-adjusted life-years lost (QALYs), and societal costs. The societal cost per QALY saved from RSV vaccination depended on age group and product: adults aged ≥60 years, $196,842 for GSK's vaccine and $176,557 for Pfizer's vaccine; adults ≥65 years, $162,138 for GSK and $146,543 for Pfizer; adults 60- <65 years, $385,829 for GSK and $331,486 for Pfizer. Vaccine efficacy, incidence of RSV hospitalization, and vaccine cost had the greatest influence on cost per QALY. Cost per QALY saved decreased as the age of those vaccinated increased. Inputs such as long-term efficacy are uncertain. RSV vaccination in adults aged ≥60 years may be cost-effective, particularly in those of more advanced age. Lower vaccine acquisition costs and persistent efficacy beyond two RSV seasons would render RSV vaccination more cost-effective for a broader target population. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Understanding Use of Real-World Data and Real-World Evidence to Support Regulatory Decisions on Medical Product Effectiveness.

RWE has potential to provide efficient and relevant information on the effectiveness of medical products, complementing the data generated in clinical trials; however, how RWE can support regulatory decision-making is unclear, potentially limiting its use. The objective of this study was to identify and characterize instances where RWE was included in the evidence package to support the effectiveness of a medical product regulated by U.S. Food and Drug Administration. A retrospective landscape analysis was conducted to identify instances where RWE was submitted to support effectiveness through targeted review of white and gray literature and publicly available FDA reviews of medical products. Trained evaluators examined FDA reviews to determine if and how RWE contributed to regulatory decision-making regarding effectiveness. Evaluators identified 34 instances of RWE submitted between 1954 and 2020, where 26% of instances were for oncology, 18% for hematology, and 12% for neurology. Over 50% of the products were indicated for use in rare disease or pediatric populations. 82% of products where RWE was submitted received an orphan designation. RWE was included in the product label in 59% of instances. Stated reasons indicating why submitted RWE did not significantly contribute to regulatory decision-making included lack of pre-specification of study design and analysis as well as data reliability and relevancy concerns. While there is historical use of RWE to support medical product effectiveness for oncology and rare diseases, potential exists to leverage the strengths of RWE to support other therapeutic areas and capture outcomes that are most relevant to patients.