Abstract

Background

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), a leading cause of lower respiratory tract infection in US children, reduces quality of life (QOL) of children, their caregivers, and families.

Methods

We conducted a systematic literature review in PubMed, EconLit, and other databases in the United States of articles published since 2000, derived utility lost per RSV episode from cohort studies, and performed a systematic analysis.

Results

From 2262 unique citations, 35 received full-text review and 7 met the inclusion criteria (2 cohort studies, 4 modeling studies, and 1 synthesis). Pooled data from the 2 cohort studies (both containing only hospitalized premature infants) gave quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) losses per episode of 0.0173 at day 38. From the cohort study that also assessed caregivers' QOL, we calculated net QALYs lost directly attributable to RSV per nonfatal episode from onset to 60 days after onset for the child, caregiver, child-and-caregiver dyad of 0.0169 (167% over prematurity alone), 0.0031, and 0.0200, respectively.

Conclusion

Published data on QOL of children in the United States with RSV are scarce and consider only premature hospitalized infants, whereas most RSV episodes occur in children who were born at term and were otherwise healthy. QOL studies are needed beyond hospitalized premature infants.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a leading cause of respiratory infection in childhood, and a major cause of hospitalization, especially those aged ≤6 months [1], with most children in the United States infected with RSV by age 3 years [2]. In a healthy child, RSV infection typically manifests as a runny nose, fever, cough, and wheezing, which resolve without long-term sequelae [3]. However, in 1%–2% of children, the infection will progress to an acute lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI), such as bronchiolitis or pneumonia, requiring hospitalization [4, 5] and possible long-term consequences [6, 7].

The quality of life (QOL) of young children with RSV can be adversely affected by discomfort, cough, or difficulty feeding [8]. In hospitalized children there would be short-term consequences to emotional and physical well-being in the acute period, with a subset experiencing long-term changes in QOL due to asthma [9]. Parents and caregivers may also experience emotional distress, loss of sleep, and decreased ability to attend to work or meet the needs of other family members [10].

Although existing statistics report rates of hospitalizations and medical services for RSV, there are few indicators of the impact of RSV on child and caregiver QOL via patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) or health utilities as there are few validated PROM instruments for young children [11–14].

The US literature on QOL in RSV-affected infants contains 2 observational cohort studies, 4 simulation models, and 1 synthesis. The simulations assess the efficacy of monoclonal antibody treatments for reducing the risk of severe RSV infection featuring utilities derived from other diseases or age groups rather than incorporating QOL estimates from children with RSV. With the exception of the synthesis, the studies examine the impact of RSV among a small group: those children at high risk for the disease [15, 16]. A systematic review on the QOL of children with RSV can provide high-quality evidence to inform future research, prevention and treatment, and economic analyses. Here, we summarize and assess the evidence of the consequences of RSV infection on QOL in children <60 months of age in the United States.

METHODS

Overview

We conducted a systematic literature review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [17, 18]. The protocol was submitted to the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews prior to the review (PROSPERO ID: CRD42020168469) and was posted online on 28 April 2020 [19]. The review was split into 2 substudies (ie, costs and QOL). This review focuses on QOL.

Information Sources, Search Strategy, and Selection Criteria

We identified all published data in English from 1 January 2000 through 2 August 2021, from 11 sources (Supplementary Materials 1). Any economic study of acute RSV, assessment of QOL, use of QOL instruments (eg, EuroQol, PedsQL), and measurement of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and data from clinical trials, observational studies, population studies, claims analyses, or case series in children <60 months old in the United States and modelling studies were included (Supplementary Materials 2).

Study Selection, Data Extraction, and Quality Assessment

Two reviewers (E. L. G. and D. H.) independently conducted the screening and data extraction. Any conflicts were resolved through discussion with a senior investigator (D. S. S.). The data on QOL before and after episode onset, utilities or QALYs, and QOL instruments were extracted. From economic evaluation studies, the data on perspective, time horizon, discounting, treatment, tools, or measures utilized, valuation of preference-based outcomes, and funding source were extracted. The quality of included studies was assessed using an adapted version of a quality assessment tool devised by Gheorghe et al [20] as outlined in the Supplementary Materials 3. Our adapted tool was used to conduct a critical appraisal of the eligible QOL evaluations. In doing so, our work modified the published study protocol, which proposed the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Economic Evaluations for risk of bias assessment, as that Checklist proved not to be well suited for the studies of QOL and health utilities.

Data Synthesis

Given the small number and heterogeneity of the included studies, the planned meta-analysis including studies that used health utilities or QOL scores could not be conducted. Instead, using the 2 prospective observational cohort studies (Leidy et al [21], which had a control group, and Pokrzywinski et al [22]), we conducted systematic analyses to derive utility lost from RSV for premature children and their caregivers. The data collection timelines of the 2 studies are explained in the Supplementary Materials 3.

In the study of premature infants with RSV and controls [21], we converted the global rating of health scale (range, 0–100) to a scale ranging from 0 to 1 for rating utilities. To calculate QALYs, we multiplied the average health utilities in each group by a 60-day duration as a portion of a year (365.25 days) and found the difference between the estimated QALYs in symptomatic RSV-infected and -uninfected groups for the children, caregivers, and their families. We noted that the modeling paper by Weiner et al [23] used an approach roughly similar to ours. However, Weiner et al did not provide the details of their methods and apparently did not include the fact that the control group [21] began with a QOL of less than 1.00.

We pooled and smoothed the data from 2 RSV cohort studies [21, 22] and computed cumulative QALY losses from the date of admission through each available date of follow-up. Our base case analysis focused on 30 days from hospital discharge as a period that both empirical studies included and best reflected the acute portion of the illness. Additional cumulative analyses considered only the inpatient period and the maximum follow-up available. For the 2 cohorts of premature infants [21, 22] and the control group in 1 [21], we performed linear interpolation between the assessments to generate estimates for each day of the observation period. Supplementary Materials 3 detail the methods of pooling, data smoothing, and sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Literature Search Results

A total of 3353 studies were identified through database searches and, after removal of duplicates, 2262 were considered for screening. We excluded 2227 records, assessing 35 full-text articles for eligibility. Of these, 6 articles met our criteria. One additional study was identified separately. Together, 7 studies were included in our final review [21–27] from the reference search of studies screened and met our inclusion criteria (Figure 1 and Table 1).

PRISMA flowchart. Abbreviations: CDSR, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; DARE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects; HTA, Health Technology Assessment Database; NHS EED, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database; PEDE, Pediatric Economic Database Evaluation; PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; ProQuest D&T, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Figure 1.

PRISMA flowchart. Abbreviations: CDSR, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; DARE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects; HTA, Health Technology Assessment Database; NHS EED, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database; PEDE, Pediatric Economic Database Evaluation; PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; ProQuest D&T, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

Table 1.

Study Characteristics

Author, Year [ref]CountryStudy TypeStudy CohortComparatorCohort CharacteristicsPerspectiveTime HorizonDiscounting
Leidy, 2005 [21]United StatesCase-control studyHospitalized infants with RSVInfants without RSV hospitalizationRSV group: RSV-hospitalized infants and children ≤30 mo of age with a history of prematurity (≤35 wGA), admitted with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of RSV-related acute LRTI; control group: age-matched infants in the same location (5 US hospitals) with no RSV hospitalizationNAAssessment timing: data for the RSV group were gathered within 48 h after admission to the hospital at days 4, 14, 21, and 60 after hospital discharge
Data for the control group were gathered at a control baseline time and at 60 d thereafter
NA
Pokrzywinski, 2019 [22]United StatesSurvey-based prospective cohort studyHospitalized infants with RSVNonePreterm infants 29–35 wGA and aged <12 mo hospitalized for laboratory-confirmed RSV disease who did not receive RSV immunoprophylaxisNA30 d after dischargeNA
GBD Collaborators, 2017 [25]Global, with country-specific resultsSystematic analysis of LRTI based on real-world data and posterior estimatesChildren <5 y and children all ages with LRTI (HiB, pneumococcal pneumonia, influenza, RSV)NoneLRTI cases stratified by country, sex, age, and yearNACross-sectional data for 2015NA
Yount, 2004 [27]United StatesEconomic evaluation and modeling studyProphylaxis with palivizumabNo palivizumabHypothetical cohort of 10 000 infants with CHDSocietal perspectiveLifetimeCost and QALYs discounted at 3%
Elhassan, 2006 [24]United StatesEconomic evaluation and modeling studyProphylaxis with palivizumabNo palivizumabHypothetical cohort of premature infants born at 26–32 wGA without CLD, discharged from the neonatal intensive care unit at 36 wGASocietal perspectiveAnalyses without asthma: 1 y time horizon from birth; analyses with asthma: 8 y in the base-case analysis, and varied up to 10 y in sensitivity analysesCost and QALYs discounted at 3%
Weiner, 2012 [23]United StatesEconomic evaluation and modeling studyProphylaxis with palivizumabNo palivizumab4 Medicaid premature infant populations: (1) 532 wGA and 6 mo CA; (2) 32–34 wGA, 3 mo CA with 2009 AAP risk factors; (3) 32–35 wGA, 6 mo CA with 2006 AAP risk factors; and (4) 32–35 wGA, 6 mo CA with 1 risk factorSocietal perspectiveLifetimeCost and QALYs discounted at 3%
Régnier, 2013 [26]United StatesEconomic evaluation and modeling studyInfants hypothetically vaccinated for RSVInfants not vaccinated for RSVA hypothetical cohort of newborn infantsSocietal perspective5 y–lifetimeaCost and QALYs discounted at 3%
Author, Year [ref]CountryStudy TypeStudy CohortComparatorCohort CharacteristicsPerspectiveTime HorizonDiscounting
Leidy, 2005 [21]United StatesCase-control studyHospitalized infants with RSVInfants without RSV hospitalizationRSV group: RSV-hospitalized infants and children ≤30 mo of age with a history of prematurity (≤35 wGA), admitted with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of RSV-related acute LRTI; control group: age-matched infants in the same location (5 US hospitals) with no RSV hospitalizationNAAssessment timing: data for the RSV group were gathered within 48 h after admission to the hospital at days 4, 14, 21, and 60 after hospital discharge
Data for the control group were gathered at a control baseline time and at 60 d thereafter
NA
Pokrzywinski, 2019 [22]United StatesSurvey-based prospective cohort studyHospitalized infants with RSVNonePreterm infants 29–35 wGA and aged <12 mo hospitalized for laboratory-confirmed RSV disease who did not receive RSV immunoprophylaxisNA30 d after dischargeNA
GBD Collaborators, 2017 [25]Global, with country-specific resultsSystematic analysis of LRTI based on real-world data and posterior estimatesChildren <5 y and children all ages with LRTI (HiB, pneumococcal pneumonia, influenza, RSV)NoneLRTI cases stratified by country, sex, age, and yearNACross-sectional data for 2015NA
Yount, 2004 [27]United StatesEconomic evaluation and modeling studyProphylaxis with palivizumabNo palivizumabHypothetical cohort of 10 000 infants with CHDSocietal perspectiveLifetimeCost and QALYs discounted at 3%
Elhassan, 2006 [24]United StatesEconomic evaluation and modeling studyProphylaxis with palivizumabNo palivizumabHypothetical cohort of premature infants born at 26–32 wGA without CLD, discharged from the neonatal intensive care unit at 36 wGASocietal perspectiveAnalyses without asthma: 1 y time horizon from birth; analyses with asthma: 8 y in the base-case analysis, and varied up to 10 y in sensitivity analysesCost and QALYs discounted at 3%
Weiner, 2012 [23]United StatesEconomic evaluation and modeling studyProphylaxis with palivizumabNo palivizumab4 Medicaid premature infant populations: (1) 532 wGA and 6 mo CA; (2) 32–34 wGA, 3 mo CA with 2009 AAP risk factors; (3) 32–35 wGA, 6 mo CA with 2006 AAP risk factors; and (4) 32–35 wGA, 6 mo CA with 1 risk factorSocietal perspectiveLifetimeCost and QALYs discounted at 3%
Régnier, 2013 [26]United StatesEconomic evaluation and modeling studyInfants hypothetically vaccinated for RSVInfants not vaccinated for RSVA hypothetical cohort of newborn infantsSocietal perspective5 y–lifetimeaCost and QALYs discounted at 3%

Abbreviations: AAP, American Academy of Pediatrics; CA, chronological age; CHD, congenital heart disease; CLD, chronic lung disease; Hib, Haemophilus influenzae type b; LRTI, lower respiratory tract infection; NA, not applicable; QALY, quality-adjusted life-year; RSV, respiratory syncytial virus; wGA, weeks’ gestational age.

a

5 years after birth for health care utilization, 10 years for the impact on asthma, and lifetime for loss of productivity due to premature death.

Table 1.

Study Characteristics

Author, Year [ref]CountryStudy TypeStudy CohortComparatorCohort CharacteristicsPerspectiveTime HorizonDiscounting
Leidy, 2005 [21]United StatesCase-control studyHospitalized infants with RSVInfants without RSV hospitalizationRSV group: RSV-hospitalized infants and children ≤30 mo of age with a history of prematurity (≤35 wGA), admitted with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of RSV-related acute LRTI; control group: age-matched infants in the same location (5 US hospitals) with no RSV hospitalizationNAAssessment timing: data for the RSV group were gathered within 48 h after admission to the hospital at days 4, 14, 21, and 60 after hospital discharge
Data for the control group were gathered at a control baseline time and at 60 d thereafter
NA
Pokrzywinski, 2019 [22]United StatesSurvey-based prospective cohort studyHospitalized infants with RSVNonePreterm infants 29–35 wGA and aged <12 mo hospitalized for laboratory-confirmed RSV disease who did not receive RSV immunoprophylaxisNA30 d after dischargeNA
GBD Collaborators, 2017 [25]Global, with country-specific resultsSystematic analysis of LRTI based on real-world data and posterior estimatesChildren <5 y and children all ages with LRTI (HiB, pneumococcal pneumonia, influenza, RSV)NoneLRTI cases stratified by country, sex, age, and yearNACross-sectional data for 2015NA
Yount, 2004 [27]United StatesEconomic evaluation and modeling studyProphylaxis with palivizumabNo palivizumabHypothetical cohort of 10 000 infants with CHDSocietal perspectiveLifetimeCost and QALYs discounted at 3%
Elhassan, 2006 [24]United StatesEconomic evaluation and modeling studyProphylaxis with palivizumabNo palivizumabHypothetical cohort of premature infants born at 26–32 wGA without CLD, discharged from the neonatal intensive care unit at 36 wGASocietal perspectiveAnalyses without asthma: 1 y time horizon from birth; analyses with asthma: 8 y in the base-case analysis, and varied up to 10 y in sensitivity analysesCost and QALYs discounted at 3%
Weiner, 2012 [23]United StatesEconomic evaluation and modeling studyProphylaxis with palivizumabNo palivizumab4 Medicaid premature infant populations: (1) 532 wGA and 6 mo CA; (2) 32–34 wGA, 3 mo CA with 2009 AAP risk factors; (3) 32–35 wGA, 6 mo CA with 2006 AAP risk factors; and (4) 32–35 wGA, 6 mo CA with 1 risk factorSocietal perspectiveLifetimeCost and QALYs discounted at 3%
Régnier, 2013 [26]United StatesEconomic evaluation and modeling studyInfants hypothetically vaccinated for RSVInfants not vaccinated for RSVA hypothetical cohort of newborn infantsSocietal perspective5 y–lifetimeaCost and QALYs discounted at 3%
Author, Year [ref]CountryStudy TypeStudy CohortComparatorCohort CharacteristicsPerspectiveTime HorizonDiscounting
Leidy, 2005 [21]United StatesCase-control studyHospitalized infants with RSVInfants without RSV hospitalizationRSV group: RSV-hospitalized infants and children ≤30 mo of age with a history of prematurity (≤35 wGA), admitted with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of RSV-related acute LRTI; control group: age-matched infants in the same location (5 US hospitals) with no RSV hospitalizationNAAssessment timing: data for the RSV group were gathered within 48 h after admission to the hospital at days 4, 14, 21, and 60 after hospital discharge
Data for the control group were gathered at a control baseline time and at 60 d thereafter
NA
Pokrzywinski, 2019 [22]United StatesSurvey-based prospective cohort studyHospitalized infants with RSVNonePreterm infants 29–35 wGA and aged <12 mo hospitalized for laboratory-confirmed RSV disease who did not receive RSV immunoprophylaxisNA30 d after dischargeNA
GBD Collaborators, 2017 [25]Global, with country-specific resultsSystematic analysis of LRTI based on real-world data and posterior estimatesChildren <5 y and children all ages with LRTI (HiB, pneumococcal pneumonia, influenza, RSV)NoneLRTI cases stratified by country, sex, age, and yearNACross-sectional data for 2015NA
Yount, 2004 [27]United StatesEconomic evaluation and modeling studyProphylaxis with palivizumabNo palivizumabHypothetical cohort of 10 000 infants with CHDSocietal perspectiveLifetimeCost and QALYs discounted at 3%
Elhassan, 2006 [24]United StatesEconomic evaluation and modeling studyProphylaxis with palivizumabNo palivizumabHypothetical cohort of premature infants born at 26–32 wGA without CLD, discharged from the neonatal intensive care unit at 36 wGASocietal perspectiveAnalyses without asthma: 1 y time horizon from birth; analyses with asthma: 8 y in the base-case analysis, and varied up to 10 y in sensitivity analysesCost and QALYs discounted at 3%
Weiner, 2012 [23]United StatesEconomic evaluation and modeling studyProphylaxis with palivizumabNo palivizumab4 Medicaid premature infant populations: (1) 532 wGA and 6 mo CA; (2) 32–34 wGA, 3 mo CA with 2009 AAP risk factors; (3) 32–35 wGA, 6 mo CA with 2006 AAP risk factors; and (4) 32–35 wGA, 6 mo CA with 1 risk factorSocietal perspectiveLifetimeCost and QALYs discounted at 3%
Régnier, 2013 [26]United StatesEconomic evaluation and modeling studyInfants hypothetically vaccinated for RSVInfants not vaccinated for RSVA hypothetical cohort of newborn infantsSocietal perspective5 y–lifetimeaCost and QALYs discounted at 3%

Abbreviations: AAP, American Academy of Pediatrics; CA, chronological age; CHD, congenital heart disease; CLD, chronic lung disease; Hib, Haemophilus influenzae type b; LRTI, lower respiratory tract infection; NA, not applicable; QALY, quality-adjusted life-year; RSV, respiratory syncytial virus; wGA, weeks’ gestational age.

a

5 years after birth for health care utilization, 10 years for the impact on asthma, and lifetime for loss of productivity due to premature death.

Study Characteristics

Of the 7 studies, 6 [21, 22, 24–27] focused on RSV risk in premature infants or infants with congenital conditions, whereas 1 was a systematic analysis of children <5 years of age with LRTI. Two of the 7 studies [21, 22] used preference elicitation scales and provided QOL estimates. Four of the 7 studies were cost-utility analyses modeling QALYs to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of prophylaxis with a monoclonal antibody or a hypothetical vaccine compared to no prophylaxis [23, 24, 26, 27]. The final included study, a synthesis, focused on population estimates of disability adjusted life years (DALYs) lost to LRTI [25]. As RSV is one of the principal causes of LRTI, the synthesis offers useful insights on RSV. As DALYs are a complement to QALYs, DALYs equal QALYs lost. These 7 studies were published from 2004 through 2019 (median of 2012).

Assessment of Quality of Included Studies

Using the adapted quality assessment tool, the selected studies were assessed for their source or form of QOL elicitation, relevance of the age of the population assessed, and the relevance of the location of the study. Table 2 lists the studies and their rating. Of the 7 studies, 5 were in the medium-to-high categories across all 3 parameters [21–23, 26, 27]. Specifically, 2 were highly rated across all 3 parameters because they focused on RSV events in US infants ≤30 months of age and estimated the influence on the QOL of children using a numerical rating scale elicited from caregiver proxies and also elicited caregiver-specific QOL directly. Although all included studies explicitly stated that the focus population was in the US, 4 citations [24, 25, 27, 28] were downgraded in rating because their model utilities were derived from respondents in countries outside the US, and their utilities were based on LRTI overall, not RSV specifically.

Table 2.

Quality Assessment of Included Studiesa

Author, Year [ref]Source/Form of ElicitationRelevance of PopulationSummary Score
AgeLocation
Leidy, 2005 [21]HighHighHighHigh
Pokrzywinski, 2019 [22]HighHighHighHigh
GBD Collaborators, 2017 [25]MediumHighMediumHigh/medium
Yount, 2004 [27]MediumLowMediumbMedium/low
Elhassan, 2006 [24]MediumMediumMediumbMedium
Weiner, 2012 [23]MediumHighHighHigh/medium
Régnier, 2013 [26]MediumMediumHighHigh/medium
Author, Year [ref]Source/Form of ElicitationRelevance of PopulationSummary Score
AgeLocation
Leidy, 2005 [21]HighHighHighHigh
Pokrzywinski, 2019 [22]HighHighHighHigh
GBD Collaborators, 2017 [25]MediumHighMediumHigh/medium
Yount, 2004 [27]MediumLowMediumbMedium/low
Elhassan, 2006 [24]MediumMediumMediumbMedium
Weiner, 2012 [23]MediumHighHighHigh/medium
Régnier, 2013 [26]MediumMediumHighHigh/medium
a

Assessment tool was adapted from Gheorghe et al [20].

b

The studies by GBD Collaborators [25], Yount [27], and Elhassan [24] were given a lower rating for location because their utility values were derived from studies based globally or in Canada, not the United States. All other included studies explicitly stated that the focus population was in the United States.

Table 2.

Quality Assessment of Included Studiesa

Author, Year [ref]Source/Form of ElicitationRelevance of PopulationSummary Score
AgeLocation
Leidy, 2005 [21]HighHighHighHigh
Pokrzywinski, 2019 [22]HighHighHighHigh
GBD Collaborators, 2017 [25]MediumHighMediumHigh/medium
Yount, 2004 [27]MediumLowMediumbMedium/low
Elhassan, 2006 [24]MediumMediumMediumbMedium
Weiner, 2012 [23]MediumHighHighHigh/medium
Régnier, 2013 [26]MediumMediumHighHigh/medium
Author, Year [ref]Source/Form of ElicitationRelevance of PopulationSummary Score
AgeLocation
Leidy, 2005 [21]HighHighHighHigh
Pokrzywinski, 2019 [22]HighHighHighHigh
GBD Collaborators, 2017 [25]MediumHighMediumHigh/medium
Yount, 2004 [27]MediumLowMediumbMedium/low
Elhassan, 2006 [24]MediumMediumMediumbMedium
Weiner, 2012 [23]MediumHighHighHigh/medium
Régnier, 2013 [26]MediumMediumHighHigh/medium
a

Assessment tool was adapted from Gheorghe et al [20].

b

The studies by GBD Collaborators [25], Yount [27], and Elhassan [24] were given a lower rating for location because their utility values were derived from studies based globally or in Canada, not the United States. All other included studies explicitly stated that the focus population was in the United States.

Direct Elicitation Studies

Two studies obtained utilities empirically via parent proxies to assess the consequences of RSV on hospitalized infants and young children with a history of prematurity (weeks’ gestational age [wGA] 29–35). In Leidy et al's study [21], the RSV-hospitalized group of 46 children had a mean chronological age of 10.2 (SD 9.3) months and a hospital length of stay of 5.8 (SD 8.0) days, while the 212 enrollees in Pokrzywinski et al's study [22] were slightly younger in age (3 [SD 3] months). The latter cohort had a longer hospital length of stay (8 [SD 9] days), with 51% admitted to intensive care, of whom 21% required mechanical ventilation. Leidy et al [21] included a comparator group with age and geographically matched uninfected controls.

The primary outcomes of both studies included RSV severity and caregiver's rating of infant health and functional status, caregiver health, stress, and anxiety, and family functioning. The caregivers were questioned during the period of acute illness and after hospitalization. The age-matched controls were questioned during a baseline period and 60 days later. Relevant to measurement of QOL, both studies used a global rating of health numerical rating scale (range, 0–100, where 0 = the worst health imaginable and 100 = the best health imaginable) to rate current health. The parents were also asked to rate the child's health before onset of RSV.

In Leidy et al's study [21], the mean global rating of health in the RSV infected groups was 77.0, which was significantly below the score of 92.5 in the control group during the baseline period (P < .05). After 60 days, these scores changed to 87.0 and 95.0 in the RSV and control groups, respectively, indicating improved health in the RSV group but lower scores compared with those of age-matched controls. Of note, the average score in the control group was 95.0, about 5% below the score for perfect health (100) (Table 3). In Pokrzywinski et al's study [22], at hospital discharge the mean infant health score was 64.3 (SD 26.9)—lower than those of the RSV-infected infants in Leidy et al's study (Table 3).

Table 3.

Reported Utilities and Ratings in Included Studies

Author, Year [ref]Source CountryUtility SourceUtility Source Population CharacteristicsSource NReported UtilitiesaOverall Study Quality
Intervention GroupComparator Group
Child
 Leidy, 2005 [21]United StatesGlobal rating of health scaleInfants/young children with a history of prematurity46Day 0 = 55.0;
Day 4 = 78.0;
Day 14 = 83.0;
Day 21 = 85.0;
Day 60 = 87.0
Day 0 = 91.0;
Day 4 = 92.0;
Day 14 = 93.0;
Day 21 = 94.0;
Day 60 = 95.0
High
 Pokrzywinski, 2019 [22]United StatesGlobal rating of health scaleInfants with history of prematurity212Day 8 = 64.1;
Day 14 = 71.8;
Day 21 = 79.0;
Day 30 = 84.0
NAHigh
 GBD Collaborators, 2017 [25]GlobalSalomon et al [29]Respondents aged 18–65 y in 4 European countries6000Moderate case = 0.949; severe case = 0.867Healthy = 1.000High/medium
 Yount, 2004 [27]CanadaaModeled from TTO in Fryback [30]Adults aged 45–84 y with congestive heart failure13560.71NAMedium/low
 Elhassan, 2006 [24]CanadaaModeled from HUI in Juniper [31]Children aged 7–17 y with asthma52Asthma: mild = 0.80; severe = 0.89NAMedium
 Weiner, 2012 [23]USModeled from NRS in Leidy [21]bInfants/young children with a history of prematurity46Acute = 0.3972; recovery = 0.0925NAHigh/medium
 Régnier, 2013 [26]USModeled from Lee [32] for pertussisHypothetical cohort of newborn infantsInpatient = 0.58;
ED = 0.67;
outpatient = 0.78
NAHigh/medium
Caregivers
 Leidy, 2005 [21]United StatesGlobal rating of health scaleInfants/young children with a history of prematurity46Day 0 = 81.0;
Day 4 = 87.0;
Day 14 = 88.0;
Day 21 = 89.0;
Day 60 = 90.0
Day 0 = 87.0;
Day 4 = 88.0;
Day 14 = 89.0;
Day 21 = 91.0;
Day 60 = 92.0
High
Family unit
 Leidy, 2005 [21]United StatesGlobal rating of health scaleInfants/young children with a history of prematurity46Day 0 = 84.0;
Day 4 = 86.5;
Day 14 = 89.0;
Day 21 = 91.0;
Day 60 = 93.0
Day 0 = 92.5;
Day 4 = 93.0;
Day 14 = 94.0;
Day 21 = 95.0;
Day 60 = 95.5
High
Author, Year [ref]Source CountryUtility SourceUtility Source Population CharacteristicsSource NReported UtilitiesaOverall Study Quality
Intervention GroupComparator Group
Child
 Leidy, 2005 [21]United StatesGlobal rating of health scaleInfants/young children with a history of prematurity46Day 0 = 55.0;
Day 4 = 78.0;
Day 14 = 83.0;
Day 21 = 85.0;
Day 60 = 87.0
Day 0 = 91.0;
Day 4 = 92.0;
Day 14 = 93.0;
Day 21 = 94.0;
Day 60 = 95.0
High
 Pokrzywinski, 2019 [22]United StatesGlobal rating of health scaleInfants with history of prematurity212Day 8 = 64.1;
Day 14 = 71.8;
Day 21 = 79.0;
Day 30 = 84.0
NAHigh
 GBD Collaborators, 2017 [25]GlobalSalomon et al [29]Respondents aged 18–65 y in 4 European countries6000Moderate case = 0.949; severe case = 0.867Healthy = 1.000High/medium
 Yount, 2004 [27]CanadaaModeled from TTO in Fryback [30]Adults aged 45–84 y with congestive heart failure13560.71NAMedium/low
 Elhassan, 2006 [24]CanadaaModeled from HUI in Juniper [31]Children aged 7–17 y with asthma52Asthma: mild = 0.80; severe = 0.89NAMedium
 Weiner, 2012 [23]USModeled from NRS in Leidy [21]bInfants/young children with a history of prematurity46Acute = 0.3972; recovery = 0.0925NAHigh/medium
 Régnier, 2013 [26]USModeled from Lee [32] for pertussisHypothetical cohort of newborn infantsInpatient = 0.58;
ED = 0.67;
outpatient = 0.78
NAHigh/medium
Caregivers
 Leidy, 2005 [21]United StatesGlobal rating of health scaleInfants/young children with a history of prematurity46Day 0 = 81.0;
Day 4 = 87.0;
Day 14 = 88.0;
Day 21 = 89.0;
Day 60 = 90.0
Day 0 = 87.0;
Day 4 = 88.0;
Day 14 = 89.0;
Day 21 = 91.0;
Day 60 = 92.0
High
Family unit
 Leidy, 2005 [21]United StatesGlobal rating of health scaleInfants/young children with a history of prematurity46Day 0 = 84.0;
Day 4 = 86.5;
Day 14 = 89.0;
Day 21 = 91.0;
Day 60 = 93.0
Day 0 = 92.5;
Day 4 = 93.0;
Day 14 = 94.0;
Day 21 = 95.0;
Day 60 = 95.5
High

Abbreviations: ED, emergency department; HUI, Health Utilities Index; NA, not applicable; NRS, numerical rating scale (range, 0–100); TTO, time trade-off.

a

The studies by Yount and Mahle [27] and Elhassan et al [24] derive their utility values from studies based in Canada, not the United States. All other included studies explicitly stated that the focus population was in the United States.

b

Reported values for Leidy et al [21] were based on measurements of graphs.

Table 3.

Reported Utilities and Ratings in Included Studies

Author, Year [ref]Source CountryUtility SourceUtility Source Population CharacteristicsSource NReported UtilitiesaOverall Study Quality
Intervention GroupComparator Group
Child
 Leidy, 2005 [21]United StatesGlobal rating of health scaleInfants/young children with a history of prematurity46Day 0 = 55.0;
Day 4 = 78.0;
Day 14 = 83.0;
Day 21 = 85.0;
Day 60 = 87.0
Day 0 = 91.0;
Day 4 = 92.0;
Day 14 = 93.0;
Day 21 = 94.0;
Day 60 = 95.0
High
 Pokrzywinski, 2019 [22]United StatesGlobal rating of health scaleInfants with history of prematurity212Day 8 = 64.1;
Day 14 = 71.8;
Day 21 = 79.0;
Day 30 = 84.0
NAHigh
 GBD Collaborators, 2017 [25]GlobalSalomon et al [29]Respondents aged 18–65 y in 4 European countries6000Moderate case = 0.949; severe case = 0.867Healthy = 1.000High/medium
 Yount, 2004 [27]CanadaaModeled from TTO in Fryback [30]Adults aged 45–84 y with congestive heart failure13560.71NAMedium/low
 Elhassan, 2006 [24]CanadaaModeled from HUI in Juniper [31]Children aged 7–17 y with asthma52Asthma: mild = 0.80; severe = 0.89NAMedium
 Weiner, 2012 [23]USModeled from NRS in Leidy [21]bInfants/young children with a history of prematurity46Acute = 0.3972; recovery = 0.0925NAHigh/medium
 Régnier, 2013 [26]USModeled from Lee [32] for pertussisHypothetical cohort of newborn infantsInpatient = 0.58;
ED = 0.67;
outpatient = 0.78
NAHigh/medium
Caregivers
 Leidy, 2005 [21]United StatesGlobal rating of health scaleInfants/young children with a history of prematurity46Day 0 = 81.0;
Day 4 = 87.0;
Day 14 = 88.0;
Day 21 = 89.0;
Day 60 = 90.0
Day 0 = 87.0;
Day 4 = 88.0;
Day 14 = 89.0;
Day 21 = 91.0;
Day 60 = 92.0
High
Family unit
 Leidy, 2005 [21]United StatesGlobal rating of health scaleInfants/young children with a history of prematurity46Day 0 = 84.0;
Day 4 = 86.5;
Day 14 = 89.0;
Day 21 = 91.0;
Day 60 = 93.0
Day 0 = 92.5;
Day 4 = 93.0;
Day 14 = 94.0;
Day 21 = 95.0;
Day 60 = 95.5
High
Author, Year [ref]Source CountryUtility SourceUtility Source Population CharacteristicsSource NReported UtilitiesaOverall Study Quality
Intervention GroupComparator Group
Child
 Leidy, 2005 [21]United StatesGlobal rating of health scaleInfants/young children with a history of prematurity46Day 0 = 55.0;
Day 4 = 78.0;
Day 14 = 83.0;
Day 21 = 85.0;
Day 60 = 87.0
Day 0 = 91.0;
Day 4 = 92.0;
Day 14 = 93.0;
Day 21 = 94.0;
Day 60 = 95.0
High
 Pokrzywinski, 2019 [22]United StatesGlobal rating of health scaleInfants with history of prematurity212Day 8 = 64.1;
Day 14 = 71.8;
Day 21 = 79.0;
Day 30 = 84.0
NAHigh
 GBD Collaborators, 2017 [25]GlobalSalomon et al [29]Respondents aged 18–65 y in 4 European countries6000Moderate case = 0.949; severe case = 0.867Healthy = 1.000High/medium
 Yount, 2004 [27]CanadaaModeled from TTO in Fryback [30]Adults aged 45–84 y with congestive heart failure13560.71NAMedium/low
 Elhassan, 2006 [24]CanadaaModeled from HUI in Juniper [31]Children aged 7–17 y with asthma52Asthma: mild = 0.80; severe = 0.89NAMedium
 Weiner, 2012 [23]USModeled from NRS in Leidy [21]bInfants/young children with a history of prematurity46Acute = 0.3972; recovery = 0.0925NAHigh/medium
 Régnier, 2013 [26]USModeled from Lee [32] for pertussisHypothetical cohort of newborn infantsInpatient = 0.58;
ED = 0.67;
outpatient = 0.78
NAHigh/medium
Caregivers
 Leidy, 2005 [21]United StatesGlobal rating of health scaleInfants/young children with a history of prematurity46Day 0 = 81.0;
Day 4 = 87.0;
Day 14 = 88.0;
Day 21 = 89.0;
Day 60 = 90.0
Day 0 = 87.0;
Day 4 = 88.0;
Day 14 = 89.0;
Day 21 = 91.0;
Day 60 = 92.0
High
Family unit
 Leidy, 2005 [21]United StatesGlobal rating of health scaleInfants/young children with a history of prematurity46Day 0 = 84.0;
Day 4 = 86.5;
Day 14 = 89.0;
Day 21 = 91.0;
Day 60 = 93.0
Day 0 = 92.5;
Day 4 = 93.0;
Day 14 = 94.0;
Day 21 = 95.0;
Day 60 = 95.5
High

Abbreviations: ED, emergency department; HUI, Health Utilities Index; NA, not applicable; NRS, numerical rating scale (range, 0–100); TTO, time trade-off.

a

The studies by Yount and Mahle [27] and Elhassan et al [24] derive their utility values from studies based in Canada, not the United States. All other included studies explicitly stated that the focus population was in the United States.

b

Reported values for Leidy et al [21] were based on measurements of graphs.

Global Systematic Analysis Study

GBD Collaborators estimated LRTI-associated mortality and morbidity for 4 etiologies, including RSV, across 195 countries by age using the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2015 study [25]. This study estimated 47 000 disability-adjusted life-years lost due to LRTI in the United States in children aged <5 years in 2015. LRTI episodes were categorized into moderate and severe episodes using standard definitions [33]. Disability per unit time for moderate and severe cases was 0.051 and 0.133, respectively [29]. Our analysis supplemented these data using additional prevalence and incidence data [28] (Supplementary Materials 4).

Modeling Studies

Yount and Mahle [27] performed a cost-utility analysis of RSV prophylaxis with palivizumab versus no intervention in a hypothetical group of 10 000 infants 6–7 months chronological age born premature and with congenital heart disease (CHD). Among the primary outcomes was cost per QALY saved. The primary source of utilities was a Canadian study of adults with congestive heart failure that evaluated health using time trade-off methods [30]. These values were extrapolated to the CHD population. The cost-utility analysis assumed a utility of 0.71 due to life-long exercise intolerance from preexisting CHD, a loss of 0.29 (Table 3). The baseline utility of the control group was assumed to be 1.0. QALYs lost per episode per child were not directly reported.

Elhassan et al [24] modeled the cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness of palivizumab prophylaxis in a hypothetical cohort of premature infants without chronic lung disease, accounting for risk of childhood asthma after RSV infection. The primary outcome measure in the analysis was QALYs. The QOL estimates for children with severe asthma was set at 0.89, and the absolute difference in QOL with and without asthma was provided (0.03). Health utility was assumed to be 1.0 for infants at baseline. These values were derived from previous studies of children aged 7–17 years using the Health Utility Index [31]. The change in QALYs was reported by gestational age, with the modeled difference between the palivizumab and no prophylaxis groups ranging from 0.0060 for infants born at 26 wGA to 0.0018 for infants born at 32 wGA (Table 3).

Similarly, Weiner et al [23] used a decision tree model simulating a cohort of Medicaid-insured infants aged 2.4 months with a history of prematurity (born at <35 wGA). The baseline utility in the group was assumed to be 1.0. Using the data from Leidy et al [21], Weiner et al incorporated utilities extrapolated from real-world estimates of parent proxies for their ill children and evaluated the immediate impact of RSV during and after hospitalization. The base case utility losses for hospitalization and for a 60-day postrecovery period were 0.3972 and 0.0911, respectively (Table 3). The change in QALYs ranged from 0.014 to 0.0539, based on extent of prematurity, chronological age at time of RSV, and risk factors.

Régnier [26] used a hypothetical cohort of infants to assess the cost utility of a theoretical vaccination versus prophylaxis with palivizumab in high-risk children aged <5 years. The study included RSV-related hospitalizations and emergency department, outpatient, and primary care provider visits, along with mortality and long-term sequelae. The study obtained health utilities and QALY losses from Lee et al [32], who reported utilities of 0.78 for mild cough, 0.67 for severe cough, and 0.58 for respiratory complications using short-term time trade-off assessment of pertussis in adolescents and adults. Severe cough and complications were categorized as emergency department or inpatient events, and therefore the authors in this study assumed 0.78 to be the utility for an outpatient RSV event (Table 3). The study reported that 77% of hospitalizations occurred in children aged <12 months, with 57% in children aged <6 months.

Data Synthesis

Using data derived from Leidy et al [21], the QALY losses directly attributable to RSV for the infant, caregiver, and family were 0.0169, 0.0031, and 0.0067, respectively (Table 4). We also calculated a combined metric for child and caregiver, and the estimated QALY loss due to RSV for this dyad was 0.0200 (Figure 2A). Both RSV cases and control groups consisted of infants or young children with a history of prematurity. The estimated incremental burden of RSV relative to prematurity alone for the child, caregiver, and family were 167%, 20%, and 77%, respectively, and for the child and caregiver dyad it was 78% (Figure 2B).

Burden of RSV episode in infants/young children with a history of prematurity (data derived from Leidy et al [21]): (A) estimated absolute QALY burden of an RSV episode and (B) estimated incremental health burden relative to prematurity. Abbreviations: QALY, quality-adjusted life-year; RSV, respiratory syncytial virus.
Figure 2.

Burden of RSV episode in infants/young children with a history of prematurity (data derived from Leidy et al [21]): (A) estimated absolute QALY burden of an RSV episode and (B) estimated incremental health burden relative to prematurity. Abbreviations: QALY, quality-adjusted life-year; RSV, respiratory syncytial virus.

Table 4.

Data Synthesis and Estimation of QALY Loss Due to an RSV Episode in Children, Caregivers, and Family Unita

MeasurebChildCaregiverFamily
RSV IllnessHealthy ControlsRSV IllnessHealthy ControlsRSV IllnessHealthy Controls
Average utilityc83.694.288.790.690.694.7
Lost value (range, 0–100)16.55.811.39.49.45.3
QALYs lost per dayd0.16450.05830.11320.09440.09390.0530
Study period as fraction of a year0.16430.16430.16430.16430.16430.1643
QALYs lost in RSV episode or control group in premature infants0.02700.01010.01860.01550.01540.0087
QALYs lost in a year, less the effect of prematurity0.01690.00310.0067
MeasurebChildCaregiverFamily
RSV IllnessHealthy ControlsRSV IllnessHealthy ControlsRSV IllnessHealthy Controls
Average utilityc83.694.288.790.690.694.7
Lost value (range, 0–100)16.55.811.39.49.45.3
QALYs lost per dayd0.16450.05830.11320.09440.09390.0530
Study period as fraction of a year0.16430.16430.16430.16430.16430.1643
QALYs lost in RSV episode or control group in premature infants0.02700.01010.01860.01550.01540.0087
QALYs lost in a year, less the effect of prematurity0.01690.00310.0067

Abbreviations: QALY, quality-adjusted life-year; RSV, respiratory syncytial virus.

a

Based on Leidy et al [21] alone because this was the only study to utilize the same scale (global rating of health) for the child and others.

b

All groups were infants and children with a history of prematurity, gestational age at birth of ≤35 weeks.

c

On the global rating of health scale with a maximum health value of 100.

d

Treating value as a utility.

Table 4.

Data Synthesis and Estimation of QALY Loss Due to an RSV Episode in Children, Caregivers, and Family Unita

MeasurebChildCaregiverFamily
RSV IllnessHealthy ControlsRSV IllnessHealthy ControlsRSV IllnessHealthy Controls
Average utilityc83.694.288.790.690.694.7
Lost value (range, 0–100)16.55.811.39.49.45.3
QALYs lost per dayd0.16450.05830.11320.09440.09390.0530
Study period as fraction of a year0.16430.16430.16430.16430.16430.1643
QALYs lost in RSV episode or control group in premature infants0.02700.01010.01860.01550.01540.0087
QALYs lost in a year, less the effect of prematurity0.01690.00310.0067
MeasurebChildCaregiverFamily
RSV IllnessHealthy ControlsRSV IllnessHealthy ControlsRSV IllnessHealthy Controls
Average utilityc83.694.288.790.690.694.7
Lost value (range, 0–100)16.55.811.39.49.45.3
QALYs lost per dayd0.16450.05830.11320.09440.09390.0530
Study period as fraction of a year0.16430.16430.16430.16430.16430.1643
QALYs lost in RSV episode or control group in premature infants0.02700.01010.01860.01550.01540.0087
QALYs lost in a year, less the effect of prematurity0.01690.00310.0067

Abbreviations: QALY, quality-adjusted life-year; RSV, respiratory syncytial virus.

a

Based on Leidy et al [21] alone because this was the only study to utilize the same scale (global rating of health) for the child and others.

b

All groups were infants and children with a history of prematurity, gestational age at birth of ≤35 weeks.

c

On the global rating of health scale with a maximum health value of 100.

d

Treating value as a utility.

Figure 3 describes the QOL in cohort studies, showing both the control and RSV cohorts, and showing both the original data (Figure 3A) and cumulative effect (Figure 3B). The cumulative (solid) line in Figure 3B shows a steep rise in the first part of the illness, and a more moderate but constant rate of rise, in the second part of the illness. The slope (broken) line remains above zero, however, even in the second part of the illness. This result shows that the longer the period of follow-up of these premature infants with RSV, the greater the cumulative loss. Sensitivity analyses varying the QOL score on day 0, included in the Supplementary Materials 5–7, showed that this variation potentially changed the cumulative QOL loss at day 38 only minimally (by 0.4%).

Quality of life in cohort studies. A, Pooling and analysis of the originally reported average QOL of the cohort studies combined [21, 22], and (B) cumulative QALY loss (solid line) and its slope (derivative, broken line). A, Symbols show dates for which each cohort contributed data (triangles denote control cohort, squares the Leidy et al RSV cohort [21], and circles the Pokrzywinski et al RSV cohort [22]). Labeled values (estimated QOL values) refer to the discharge date (day 6), the last common follow-up date between the 2 studies (day 38), and the end of comparative data (day 61). The extrapolated QOL score in (A) for day 0 was estimated to be 52.4 in the RSV group and improved to 87.0 by day 66. The control group started at a score of 90.9 and improved by 3.5 points by day 61. Using both studies, the cumulative loss was 0.0173 on day 38, the last time point with 2 QOL values. The cumulative line in (B) shows a steep rise in the first part of the episode, and a more moderate, but constant, rate of rise in the second part of the episode. The slope line remains above zero, however, even in the second part of the episode. This shows that the longer the period of follow-up of these premature infants with RSV, the greater the cumulative loss. It is possible that this pattern is a result of their prematurity and speaks to the need for RSV assessments in term infants. Abbreviations: QALY, quality-adjusted life-year; QOL, quality of life; RSV, respiratory syncytial virus.
Figure 3.

Quality of life in cohort studies. A, Pooling and analysis of the originally reported average QOL of the cohort studies combined [21, 22], and (B) cumulative QALY loss (solid line) and its slope (derivative, broken line). A, Symbols show dates for which each cohort contributed data (triangles denote control cohort, squares the Leidy et al RSV cohort [21], and circles the Pokrzywinski et al RSV cohort [22]). Labeled values (estimated QOL values) refer to the discharge date (day 6), the last common follow-up date between the 2 studies (day 38), and the end of comparative data (day 61). The extrapolated QOL score in (A) for day 0 was estimated to be 52.4 in the RSV group and improved to 87.0 by day 66. The control group started at a score of 90.9 and improved by 3.5 points by day 61. Using both studies, the cumulative loss was 0.0173 on day 38, the last time point with 2 QOL values. The cumulative line in (B) shows a steep rise in the first part of the episode, and a more moderate, but constant, rate of rise in the second part of the episode. The slope line remains above zero, however, even in the second part of the episode. This shows that the longer the period of follow-up of these premature infants with RSV, the greater the cumulative loss. It is possible that this pattern is a result of their prematurity and speaks to the need for RSV assessments in term infants. Abbreviations: QALY, quality-adjusted life-year; QOL, quality of life; RSV, respiratory syncytial virus.

DISCUSSION

Overall, this systematic literature review on the QOL of children with RSV revealed only 7 US studies published between 2000 and 2021. Our best estimate of the impact of an RSV LRTI episode on the child from direct observation was 0.0173 QALYs based on 2 pooled cohort studies in premature infants.

The continued lower QOL in RSV-infected infants compared with uninfected infants from days 38 through 60 suggests that there may be some additional difference, beyond the acute effect of the RSV episode, affecting QOL. Extrapolating the data from Leidy et al [21] we estimated a loss of 0.0169 QALYs to the infant during the acute episode and immediate recovery period for RSV. Several factors may explain the differences among the studies: (1) health utility modeling estimates that include losses from comorbidities that are not directly attributable to RSV; (2) evaluation of lifetime rather than short-term losses; and (3) a focus on loss of utilities in older children, adolescents, and adults rather than losses in infants and young children. Validated tools for ascertaining QOL in infants and measuring infant health utilities are sparse. Although RSV is a common childhood disease, the existing studies are limited to children with preexisting health conditions, typically involving studies of children eligible for monoclonal antibodies for prophylaxis against the disease. Additionally, the early developmental level of young study participants presents a barrier to direct measurement of QOL, requiring researchers to rely on parent proxies.

The 4 modeling studies in this review illustrate the considerable challenges in assigning utility values for QOL in infants [23, 24, 26, 27]. The models assume a baseline utility of 1.0, representing the best health imaginable, despite evidence to the contrary in the matched control group [21]. The modeling studies using a lifetime perspective [23, 27] did not present the rationale for their utility assumptions. Both the modeling and the case-control studies focused on hospitalizations, excluding any evaluation of QOL in the outpatient setting and for non–medically attended RSV cases. Similarly, the emotional and physiologic impact of infant illness on a parent or caregiver was neglected in 3 of the 4 RSV studies. To overcome the dearth of information on RSV-associated QOL in the United States, data derived directly from a representative sample of term infants, young children, and their caregivers from both the inpatient and outpatient settings are needed.

The Infant Health-Related Quality of Life Instrument (IQI) is a recently developed tool consisting of 7 health items: sleeping, feeding, breathing, bowel function, mood, skin, and interaction. The initial study on the IQI used discrete choice experiments to derive health states; however, the values have yet to be standardized and organized into health utilities [34]. Once further validated, this tool has the potential to allow more accurate estimates of infant conditions and to evaluate the impact of interventions for this age group.

One measure developed specifically to evaluate the impact of influenza-like illness (ILI) on the parents of ill children is Care-ILI-QoL, a tool developed and validated in Australia, but with the potential for adaptation to other settings [35]. The Care-ILI-QoL survey consists of 17 items covering domains related to disturbances in daily life, social function, perceived QOL, satisfaction, and worry. The tool is not mapped for health utilities; however, if the 7-item Care-ILI-QoL was used in conjunction with the 5-item EuroQol 5-dimension scale, or the newly developed IQI, the resulting combination of 12 items would measure disease-specific QOL and health utilities for estimating QALYs lost to illness.

Our systematic analysis has several limitations. Because of the heterogeneity of the modeling studies, we were able to utilize only data from the 2 cohort studies to inform our estimates. Our data extraction had to rely on the graphs of means, point estimates, and associated reported timelines from Leidy et al [21] and Pokrzywinski et al [22] to calculate utilities and QALYs. As there were no standard deviations or standard errors of the mean report from these studies, we were unable to provide confidence intervals for our results. As the cohort studies only focused on very young children with a history of prematurity, representing only a small percentage of children infected with RSV, the available data limit our ability to generalize estimates of utilities lost to RSV beyond these narrow groups.

In conclusion, published data on QOL of children in the United States with RSV are scarce and consider only premature hospitalized infants, whereas most RSV episodes occur in children who were born at term and were otherwise healthy. To overcome this limitation, QOL studies are needed beyond hospitalized premature infants. Finally, this study shows that the loss of QOL by other household members from a child's RSV hospitalization adds appreciably to overall societal loss.

Supplementary Data

Supplementary materials are available at The Journal of Infectious Diseases online (http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/). Supplementary materials consist of data provided by the author that are published to benefit the reader. The posted materials are not copyedited. The contents of all supplementary data are the sole responsibility of the authors. Questions or messages regarding errors should be addressed to the author.

Notes

Author contributions. E. L. G. contributed to protocol development and registration, search strategy development and data, data extraction, statistical and data analysis, review of results, manuscript development, review, and editing. D. H. contributed to data extraction, statistical and data analysis, review of results, manuscript development, review, and editing. K. R. R. and R. M. G. contributed to protocol development and registration, search strategy development and data, title and abstract review, full-text review, and data extraction. D. M. B. contributed to protocol development and registration, search strategy development and data, title and abstract review, full-text review, and data extraction. D. S. S. contributed to securing funding, protocol development and registration, search strategy development and data, data extraction, statistical and data analysis, review of results, manuscript development, review, and editing. L. B. contributed to protocol development and registration, search strategy development, and database search. C. B. M. contributed to securing funding and providing critical comments.

Acknowledgments. The authors thank Clare L. Hurley (Brandeis University), Hardik Ashar (funded by Sanofi), and Barbara Walsh (inScience Communications, Philadelphia, PA, also funded by Sanofi) for editorial assistance.

Financial support. This work was supported in part by Sanofi and AstraZeneca.

Supplement sponsorship. This article appears as part of the supplement “Respiratory Syncytial Virus Disease Among US Infants,” sponsored by Sanofi and AstraZeneca.

References

1

Shi
T
,
McAllister
DA
,
O’Brien
KL
, et al. 
Global, regional, and national disease burden estimates of acute lower respiratory infections due to respiratory syncytial virus in young children in 2015: a systematic review and modelling study
.
Lancet
2017
;
390
:
946
58
.

2

Hall
CB
,
Weinberg
GA
,
Iwane
M
, et al. 
The burden of respiratory syncytial virus infection in young children
.
N Engl J Med
2009
;
360
:
588
98
.

3

Kimberlin
DW
,
Brady
MT
,
Jackson
MA
and
Long
SS
, eds. Respiratory syncytial virus.
Red book: 2018 report of the committee on infectious diseases
.
Itasca
,
IL
:
American Academy of Pediatrics
,
2018
:
682
92
.

4

Hall
CB
,
Weinberg
GA
,
Blumkin
AK
, et al. 
Respiratory syncytial virus-associated hospitalizations among children less than 24 months of age
.
Pediatrics
2013
;
132
:
e341
48
.

5

Rha
B
,
Curns
AT
,
Lively
JY
, et al. 
Respiratory syncytial virus-associated hospitalizations among young children: 2015–2016
.
Pediatrics
2020
;
146
:
e20193611
.

6

Piedimonte
G
,
Perez
MK
.
Respiratory syncytial virus infection and bronchiolitis
.
Pediatr Rev
2014
;
35
:
519
30
.

7

Wu
P
,
Hartert
TV
.
Evidence for a causal relationship between respiratory syncytial virus infection and asthma
.
Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther
2011
;
9
:
731
45
.

8

Arriola
CS
,
Kim
L
,
Langley
G
, et al. 
Estimated burden of community-onset respiratory syncytial virus-associated hospitalizations among children aged <2 years in the United States, 2014–15
.
J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc
2020
;
9
:
587
95
.

9

Korsten
K
,
Blanken
MO
,
Buiteman
BJM
, et al. 
RSV hospitalization in infancy increases the risk of current wheeze at age 6 in late preterm born children without atopic predisposition
.
Eur J Pediatr
2019
;
178
:
455
62
.

10

Young
M
,
Smitherman
L
.
Socioeconomic impact of RSV hospitalization
.
Infect Dis Ther
2021
;
10
:
35
45
.

11

Janssens
A
,
Rogers
M
,
Thompson Coon
J
, et al. 
A systematic review of generic multidimensional patient-reported outcome measures for children, part II: evaluation of psychometric performance of English-language versions in a general population
.
Value Health
2015
;
8
:
334
45
.

12

Janssens
A
,
Thompson Coon
J
,
Rogers
M
, et al. 
A systematic review of generic multidimensional patient-reported outcome measures for children, part I: descriptive characteristics
.
Value Health
2015
;
18
:
315
33
.

13

Khan
KA
,
Petrou
S
,
Rivero-Arias
O
,
Walters
SJ
,
Boyle
SE
.
Mapping EQ-5D utility scores from the PedsQL™ generic core scales
.
Pharmacoeconomics
2014
;
32
:
693
706
.

14

Sweeney
R
,
Chen
G
,
Gold
L
,
Mensah
F
,
Wake
M
.
Mapping PedsQL(TM) scores onto CHU9D utility scores: estimation, validation and a comparison of alternative instrument versions
.
Qual Life Res
2020
;
29
:
639
52
.

15

Andabaka
T
,
Nickerson
JW
,
Rojas-Reyes
MX
,
Rueda
JD
,
Vrca
VB
,
Barsic
B
.
Monoclonal antibody for reducing the risk of respiratory syncytial virus infection in children
.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
2013
; (
8
):
2243
376
.

16

Mac
S
,
Sumner
A
,
Duchesne-Belanger
S
,
Stirling
R
,
Tunis
M
,
Sander
B
.
Cost-effectiveness of palivizumab for respiratory syncytial virus: a systematic review
.
Pediatrics
2019
;
143
:
e20184064
.

17

Moher
D
,
Liberati
A
,
Tetzlaff
J
,
Altman
DG
,
Prisma Group
.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement
.
BMJ
2009
;
339
:
b2535
.

18

Page
MJ
,
McKenzie
JE
,
Bossuyt
PM
, et al. 
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
.
PLOS Med
2021
;
18
:
e1003583
.

19

Shepard
DS
,
Bowser
D
,
Glaser
E
,
Gervasio
R
,
Hwang
F
,
Rowlands
K
.
The economic and quality of life impact of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV): systematic review
. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=168469.
Accessed 20 January 2022
.

20

Gheorghe
A
,
Moran
G
,
Duffy
H
,
Roberts
T
,
Pinkney
T
,
Calvert
M
.
Health utility values associated with surgical site infection: a systematic review
.
Value Health
2015
;
18
:
1126
37
.

21

Leidy
NK
,
Margolis
MK
,
Marcin
JP
, et al. 
The impact of severe respiratory syncytial virus on the child, caregiver, and family during hospitalization and recovery
.
Pediatrics
2005
;
115
:
1536
46
.

22

Pokrzywinski
RM
,
Swett
LL
,
Pannaraj
PS
, et al. 
Impact of respiratory syncytial virus-confirmed hospitalizations on caregivers of US preterm infants
.
Clin Pediatr (Phila)
2019
;
58
:
837
50
.

23

Weiner
LB
,
Masaquel
AS
,
Polak
MJ
,
Mahadevia
PJ
.
Cost-effectiveness analysis of palivizumab among pre-term infant populations covered by Medicaid in the United States
.
J Med Econ
2012
;
15
:
997
1018
.

24

Elhassan
NO
,
Sorbero
ME
,
Hall
CB
,
Stevens
TP
,
Dick
AW
.
Cost-effectiveness analysis of palivizumab in premature infants without chronic lung disease
.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med
2006
;
160
:
1070
6
.

25

GBD 2015 LRI Collaborators
.
Estimates of the global, regional, and national morbidity, mortality, and aetiologies of lower respiratory tract infections in 195 countries: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015
.
Lancet Infect Dis
2017
;
17
:
1133
61
.

26

Régnier
SA
.
Respiratory syncytial virus immunization program for the United States: impact of performance determinants of a theoretical vaccine
.
Vaccine
2013
;
31
:
4347
54
.

27

Yount
LE
,
Mahle
WT
.
Economic analysis of palivizumab in infants with congenital heart disease
.
Pediatrics
2004
;
114
:
1606
11
.

28

Global Burden of Disease Collaborative Network
.
Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 (GBD 2019) results
. http://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-results-tool.
Accessed 4 October 2021
.

29

Salomon
JA
,
Haagsma
JA
,
Davis
A
, et al. 
Disability weights for the Global Burden of Disease 2013 Study
.
Lancet Glob Health
2015
;
3
:
e712
23
.

30

Fryback
DG
,
Dasbach
EJ
,
Klein
R
, et al. 
The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors
.
Med Decis Making
1993
;
13
:
89
102
.

31

Juniper
EF
,
Guyatt
GH
,
Feeny
DH
,
Griffith
LE
,
Ferrie
PJ
.
Minimum skills required by children to complete health-related quality of life instruments for asthma: comparison of measurement properties
.
Eur Respir J
1997
;
10
:
2285
94
.

32

Lee
GM
,
Salomon
JA
,
LeBaron
CW
,
Lieu
TA
.
Health-state valuations for pertussis: methods for valuing short-term health states
.
Health Qual Life Outcomes
2005
;
3
:
17
.

33

World Health Organization, Department of Child and Adolescent Health and Development (CAH), UNICEF
.
Handbook: IMCI Integrated Management of Childhood Illness
.
2005
. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/42939/9241546441.pdf?sequence=1.
Accessed 26 April 2022
.

34

Jabrayilov
R
,
Vermeulen
KM
,
Detzel
P
,
Dainelli
L
,
van Asselt
ADI
,
Krabbe
PFM
.
Valuing health status in the first year of life: the infant health-related quality of life instrument
.
Value Health
2019
;
22
:
721
7
.

35

Chow
MY
,
Yin
JK
,
Heron
L
, et al. 
The impact of influenza-like illness in young children on their parents: a quality of life survey
.
Qual Life Res
2014
;
23
:
1651
60
.

Author notes

Presented in part: International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Europe 2021, 30 November to 3 December 2021, virtual.

Potential conflicts of interest. E. L. G., D. H., D. M. B., R. M. G., K. R. R., and D. S. S. were supported under an agreement between Sanofi and Brandeis University, but none received any direct funding nor in-kind support from the sponsors. C. B. N. is an employee of Sanofi and may hold shares and/or stock options in the company. L. B. declared no conflicts.

All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

Supplementary data