Comparison of a static cohort model and dynamic transmission model for respiratory syncytial virus intervention programs for infants in England and Wales

A recent study comparing results of multiple cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) in a hypothetical population found that monoclonal antibody (mAb) immunoprophylaxis for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in infants averted fewer medically attended cases when estimated using dynamic transmission models...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Vaccine 2024-03, Vol.42 (8), p.1918-1927
Hauptverfasser: Lang, John C., Kura, Klodeta, Garba, Salisu M., Elbasha, Elamin H., Chen, Yao-Hsuan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1927
container_issue 8
container_start_page 1918
container_title Vaccine
container_volume 42
creator Lang, John C.
Kura, Klodeta
Garba, Salisu M.
Elbasha, Elamin H.
Chen, Yao-Hsuan
description A recent study comparing results of multiple cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) in a hypothetical population found that monoclonal antibody (mAb) immunoprophylaxis for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in infants averted fewer medically attended cases when estimated using dynamic transmission models (DTMs) versus static cohort models (SCMs). We aimed to investigate whether model calibration or parameterization could be the primary driver of inconsistencies between SCM and DTM predictions. A recently published DTM evaluating the CEA of infant mAb immunoprophylaxis in England and Wales (EW) was selected as the reference model. We adapted our previously published SCM for US infants to EW by utilizing the same data sources used by the DTM. Both models parameterized mAb efficacy from a randomized clinical trial (RCT) that estimated an average efficacy of 74.5% against all medically attended RSV episodes and 62.1% against RSV hospitalizations. To align model assumptions, we modified the SCM to incorporate waning efficacy. Since the estimated indirect effects from the DTM were small (i.e., approximately 100-fold smaller in magnitude than direct effects), we hypothesized that alignment of model parameters should result in alignment of model predictions. Outputs for model comparison comprised averted hospitalizations and averted GP visits, estimated for seasonal (S) and seasonal-with-catchup (SC) immunization strategies. When we aligned the SCM intervention parameters to DTM intervention parameters, significantly more averted hospitalizations were predicted by the SCM (S: 32.3%; SC: 51.3%) than the DTM (S: 17.8%; SC: 28.6%). The SCM most closely replicated the DTM results when the initial efficacy of the mAb intervention was 62.1%, leading to an average efficacy of 39.3%. Under this parameterization the SCM predicted 17.4% (S) and 27.7% (SC) averted hospitalizations. Results were similar for averted GP visits. Parameterization of the RSV mAb intervention efficacy is a plausible primary driver of differences between SCM versus DTM model predictions.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.02.004
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2928243249</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0264410X24001488</els_id><sourcerecordid>2956719815</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-50057c49b0ad34d2318fc874c19ecc2081b361b3d805c8399eef3880e7e3e2e53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc9u1DAQxi1ERbeFRwBZ4sIlqf8lcU4IrUpBqtQLCG6W154UrxJ7sZ2V8ii8bR124cCFw8iH-X0z3_hD6DUlNSW0vdnXR22M81AzwkRNWE2IeIY2VHa8Yg2Vz9GGsFZUgpLvl-gqpT0hpOG0f4EuueStZExs0K9tmA46uhQ8DgPWOGWdncEm_Agx4ylYGLH2FtvF66k0ctQ-TS4lVxSn9hAijpAOLuoc4oLT4s2SnR7x0cU5YeczxCP4vEoOMTxGPaXfKucH7fNK4Fv_OK571vqmR0gv0cWgxwSvzu81-vrx9sv2U3X_cPd5--G-MlzKXDXlqM6Ifke05cIyTuVgZCcM7cEYRiTd8baUlaQxkvc9wFCEBDrgwKDh1-jdaW5x9nOGlFW5zsBY3ECYk2I9k0xwJvqCvv0H3Yc5-uKuUE3b0V7SdWBzokwMKUUY1CG6ScdFUaLW7NRenbNTa3aKMFWyK7o35-nzbgL7V_UnrAK8PwFQvuPoIKpkHHgD1kUwWdng_rPiCevmsCY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2956719815</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of a static cohort model and dynamic transmission model for respiratory syncytial virus intervention programs for infants in England and Wales</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><creator>Lang, John C. ; Kura, Klodeta ; Garba, Salisu M. ; Elbasha, Elamin H. ; Chen, Yao-Hsuan</creator><creatorcontrib>Lang, John C. ; Kura, Klodeta ; Garba, Salisu M. ; Elbasha, Elamin H. ; Chen, Yao-Hsuan</creatorcontrib><description>A recent study comparing results of multiple cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) in a hypothetical population found that monoclonal antibody (mAb) immunoprophylaxis for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in infants averted fewer medically attended cases when estimated using dynamic transmission models (DTMs) versus static cohort models (SCMs). We aimed to investigate whether model calibration or parameterization could be the primary driver of inconsistencies between SCM and DTM predictions. A recently published DTM evaluating the CEA of infant mAb immunoprophylaxis in England and Wales (EW) was selected as the reference model. We adapted our previously published SCM for US infants to EW by utilizing the same data sources used by the DTM. Both models parameterized mAb efficacy from a randomized clinical trial (RCT) that estimated an average efficacy of 74.5% against all medically attended RSV episodes and 62.1% against RSV hospitalizations. To align model assumptions, we modified the SCM to incorporate waning efficacy. Since the estimated indirect effects from the DTM were small (i.e., approximately 100-fold smaller in magnitude than direct effects), we hypothesized that alignment of model parameters should result in alignment of model predictions. Outputs for model comparison comprised averted hospitalizations and averted GP visits, estimated for seasonal (S) and seasonal-with-catchup (SC) immunization strategies. When we aligned the SCM intervention parameters to DTM intervention parameters, significantly more averted hospitalizations were predicted by the SCM (S: 32.3%; SC: 51.3%) than the DTM (S: 17.8%; SC: 28.6%). The SCM most closely replicated the DTM results when the initial efficacy of the mAb intervention was 62.1%, leading to an average efficacy of 39.3%. Under this parameterization the SCM predicted 17.4% (S) and 27.7% (SC) averted hospitalizations. Results were similar for averted GP visits. Parameterization of the RSV mAb intervention efficacy is a plausible primary driver of differences between SCM versus DTM model predictions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0264-410X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-2518</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.02.004</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38368224</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Alignment ; Cardiovascular disease ; Clinical trials ; Congenital diseases ; Cost analysis ; Decision trees ; Disease prevention ; Dynamic transmission model ; Effectiveness ; Gestational age ; Hospitalization ; Immunization ; Immunoprophylaxis ; Infants ; Infections ; Intervention ; Lung diseases ; Mathematical models ; Monoclonal antibodies ; Parameterization ; Parameters ; Predictions ; Respiratory syncytial virus ; Seasons ; Standard of care ; Static cohort model ; Vaccines ; Viruses</subject><ispartof>Vaccine, 2024-03, Vol.42 (8), p.1918-1927</ispartof><rights>2024 Merck Sharp &amp; Dohme LLC., a subsidiary of Merck &amp; Co., Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2024 Merck Sharp &amp; Dohme LLC., a subsidiary of Merck &amp; Co., Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>2024. Merck Sharp &amp; Dohme LLC., a subsidiary of Merck &amp; Co., Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-50057c49b0ad34d2318fc874c19ecc2081b361b3d805c8399eef3880e7e3e2e53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2956719815?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995,64385,64387,64389,72469</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38368224$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lang, John C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kura, Klodeta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garba, Salisu M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elbasha, Elamin H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Yao-Hsuan</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of a static cohort model and dynamic transmission model for respiratory syncytial virus intervention programs for infants in England and Wales</title><title>Vaccine</title><addtitle>Vaccine</addtitle><description>A recent study comparing results of multiple cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) in a hypothetical population found that monoclonal antibody (mAb) immunoprophylaxis for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in infants averted fewer medically attended cases when estimated using dynamic transmission models (DTMs) versus static cohort models (SCMs). We aimed to investigate whether model calibration or parameterization could be the primary driver of inconsistencies between SCM and DTM predictions. A recently published DTM evaluating the CEA of infant mAb immunoprophylaxis in England and Wales (EW) was selected as the reference model. We adapted our previously published SCM for US infants to EW by utilizing the same data sources used by the DTM. Both models parameterized mAb efficacy from a randomized clinical trial (RCT) that estimated an average efficacy of 74.5% against all medically attended RSV episodes and 62.1% against RSV hospitalizations. To align model assumptions, we modified the SCM to incorporate waning efficacy. Since the estimated indirect effects from the DTM were small (i.e., approximately 100-fold smaller in magnitude than direct effects), we hypothesized that alignment of model parameters should result in alignment of model predictions. Outputs for model comparison comprised averted hospitalizations and averted GP visits, estimated for seasonal (S) and seasonal-with-catchup (SC) immunization strategies. When we aligned the SCM intervention parameters to DTM intervention parameters, significantly more averted hospitalizations were predicted by the SCM (S: 32.3%; SC: 51.3%) than the DTM (S: 17.8%; SC: 28.6%). The SCM most closely replicated the DTM results when the initial efficacy of the mAb intervention was 62.1%, leading to an average efficacy of 39.3%. Under this parameterization the SCM predicted 17.4% (S) and 27.7% (SC) averted hospitalizations. Results were similar for averted GP visits. Parameterization of the RSV mAb intervention efficacy is a plausible primary driver of differences between SCM versus DTM model predictions.</description><subject>Alignment</subject><subject>Cardiovascular disease</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Congenital diseases</subject><subject>Cost analysis</subject><subject>Decision trees</subject><subject>Disease prevention</subject><subject>Dynamic transmission model</subject><subject>Effectiveness</subject><subject>Gestational age</subject><subject>Hospitalization</subject><subject>Immunization</subject><subject>Immunoprophylaxis</subject><subject>Infants</subject><subject>Infections</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Lung diseases</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Monoclonal antibodies</subject><subject>Parameterization</subject><subject>Parameters</subject><subject>Predictions</subject><subject>Respiratory syncytial virus</subject><subject>Seasons</subject><subject>Standard of care</subject><subject>Static cohort model</subject><subject>Vaccines</subject><subject>Viruses</subject><issn>0264-410X</issn><issn>1873-2518</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc9u1DAQxi1ERbeFRwBZ4sIlqf8lcU4IrUpBqtQLCG6W154UrxJ7sZ2V8ii8bR124cCFw8iH-X0z3_hD6DUlNSW0vdnXR22M81AzwkRNWE2IeIY2VHa8Yg2Vz9GGsFZUgpLvl-gqpT0hpOG0f4EuueStZExs0K9tmA46uhQ8DgPWOGWdncEm_Agx4ylYGLH2FtvF66k0ctQ-TS4lVxSn9hAijpAOLuoc4oLT4s2SnR7x0cU5YeczxCP4vEoOMTxGPaXfKucH7fNK4Fv_OK571vqmR0gv0cWgxwSvzu81-vrx9sv2U3X_cPd5--G-MlzKXDXlqM6Ifke05cIyTuVgZCcM7cEYRiTd8baUlaQxkvc9wFCEBDrgwKDh1-jdaW5x9nOGlFW5zsBY3ECYk2I9k0xwJvqCvv0H3Yc5-uKuUE3b0V7SdWBzokwMKUUY1CG6ScdFUaLW7NRenbNTa3aKMFWyK7o35-nzbgL7V_UnrAK8PwFQvuPoIKpkHHgD1kUwWdng_rPiCevmsCY</recordid><startdate>20240319</startdate><enddate>20240319</enddate><creator>Lang, John C.</creator><creator>Kura, Klodeta</creator><creator>Garba, Salisu M.</creator><creator>Elbasha, Elamin H.</creator><creator>Chen, Yao-Hsuan</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20240319</creationdate><title>Comparison of a static cohort model and dynamic transmission model for respiratory syncytial virus intervention programs for infants in England and Wales</title><author>Lang, John C. ; Kura, Klodeta ; Garba, Salisu M. ; Elbasha, Elamin H. ; Chen, Yao-Hsuan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-50057c49b0ad34d2318fc874c19ecc2081b361b3d805c8399eef3880e7e3e2e53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Alignment</topic><topic>Cardiovascular disease</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Congenital diseases</topic><topic>Cost analysis</topic><topic>Decision trees</topic><topic>Disease prevention</topic><topic>Dynamic transmission model</topic><topic>Effectiveness</topic><topic>Gestational age</topic><topic>Hospitalization</topic><topic>Immunization</topic><topic>Immunoprophylaxis</topic><topic>Infants</topic><topic>Infections</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Lung diseases</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Monoclonal antibodies</topic><topic>Parameterization</topic><topic>Parameters</topic><topic>Predictions</topic><topic>Respiratory syncytial virus</topic><topic>Seasons</topic><topic>Standard of care</topic><topic>Static cohort model</topic><topic>Vaccines</topic><topic>Viruses</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lang, John C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kura, Klodeta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garba, Salisu M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elbasha, Elamin H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Yao-Hsuan</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Vaccine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lang, John C.</au><au>Kura, Klodeta</au><au>Garba, Salisu M.</au><au>Elbasha, Elamin H.</au><au>Chen, Yao-Hsuan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of a static cohort model and dynamic transmission model for respiratory syncytial virus intervention programs for infants in England and Wales</atitle><jtitle>Vaccine</jtitle><addtitle>Vaccine</addtitle><date>2024-03-19</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>42</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>1918</spage><epage>1927</epage><pages>1918-1927</pages><issn>0264-410X</issn><eissn>1873-2518</eissn><abstract>A recent study comparing results of multiple cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) in a hypothetical population found that monoclonal antibody (mAb) immunoprophylaxis for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in infants averted fewer medically attended cases when estimated using dynamic transmission models (DTMs) versus static cohort models (SCMs). We aimed to investigate whether model calibration or parameterization could be the primary driver of inconsistencies between SCM and DTM predictions. A recently published DTM evaluating the CEA of infant mAb immunoprophylaxis in England and Wales (EW) was selected as the reference model. We adapted our previously published SCM for US infants to EW by utilizing the same data sources used by the DTM. Both models parameterized mAb efficacy from a randomized clinical trial (RCT) that estimated an average efficacy of 74.5% against all medically attended RSV episodes and 62.1% against RSV hospitalizations. To align model assumptions, we modified the SCM to incorporate waning efficacy. Since the estimated indirect effects from the DTM were small (i.e., approximately 100-fold smaller in magnitude than direct effects), we hypothesized that alignment of model parameters should result in alignment of model predictions. Outputs for model comparison comprised averted hospitalizations and averted GP visits, estimated for seasonal (S) and seasonal-with-catchup (SC) immunization strategies. When we aligned the SCM intervention parameters to DTM intervention parameters, significantly more averted hospitalizations were predicted by the SCM (S: 32.3%; SC: 51.3%) than the DTM (S: 17.8%; SC: 28.6%). The SCM most closely replicated the DTM results when the initial efficacy of the mAb intervention was 62.1%, leading to an average efficacy of 39.3%. Under this parameterization the SCM predicted 17.4% (S) and 27.7% (SC) averted hospitalizations. Results were similar for averted GP visits. Parameterization of the RSV mAb intervention efficacy is a plausible primary driver of differences between SCM versus DTM model predictions.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>38368224</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.02.004</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0264-410X
ispartof Vaccine, 2024-03, Vol.42 (8), p.1918-1927
issn 0264-410X
1873-2518
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2928243249
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete; ProQuest Central UK/Ireland
subjects Alignment
Cardiovascular disease
Clinical trials
Congenital diseases
Cost analysis
Decision trees
Disease prevention
Dynamic transmission model
Effectiveness
Gestational age
Hospitalization
Immunization
Immunoprophylaxis
Infants
Infections
Intervention
Lung diseases
Mathematical models
Monoclonal antibodies
Parameterization
Parameters
Predictions
Respiratory syncytial virus
Seasons
Standard of care
Static cohort model
Vaccines
Viruses
title Comparison of a static cohort model and dynamic transmission model for respiratory syncytial virus intervention programs for infants in England and Wales
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T12%3A52%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20a%20static%20cohort%20model%20and%20dynamic%20transmission%20model%20for%20respiratory%20syncytial%20virus%20intervention%20programs%20for%20infants%20in%20England%20and%20Wales&rft.jtitle=Vaccine&rft.au=Lang,%20John%20C.&rft.date=2024-03-19&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1918&rft.epage=1927&rft.pages=1918-1927&rft.issn=0264-410X&rft.eissn=1873-2518&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.02.004&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2956719815%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2956719815&rft_id=info:pmid/38368224&rft_els_id=S0264410X24001488&rfr_iscdi=true