Cost-effectiveness of an in-development adult-formulated pneumococcal vaccine in older US adults.
Journal
Vaccine
ISSN: 1873-2518
Titre abrégé: Vaccine
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8406899
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 07 2023
05 07 2023
Historique:
received:
15
02
2023
revised:
16
05
2023
accepted:
02
06
2023
pmc-release:
05
07
2024
medline:
3
7
2023
pubmed:
15
6
2023
entrez:
14
6
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
CDC pneumococcal vaccination recommendations for older adults now include either 15- or 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV15/PCV20). However, an in-development 21-valent vaccine (PCV21), formulated based on adult pneumococcal disease epidemiology, could substantially increase coverage of disease-causing pneumococcal serotypes, particularly in Black older adults, who are at greater risk. The potential public health impact and cost-effectiveness of PCV21 compared to currently recommended vaccines in older adults is unclear. A Markov decision model compared current pneumococcal vaccination recommendations to PCV21 use in Black and non-Black 65-year-old cohorts. CDC Active Bacterial Core surveillance data informed population and serotype-specific pneumococcal disease risk. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated using Delphi panel estimates and clinical trial data, with variation in sensitivity analyses. Potential indirect effects on adult disease from PCV15 childhood vaccination were examined. All model parameters were varied individually and collectively in sensitivity analyses. Scenarios with decreased PCV21 effectiveness and potential COVID-19 pandemic effects were also examined. In the Black cohort, the PCV21 strategy cost $88,478 per quality adjusted life-year (QALY) gained without and $97,952/QALY with childhood PCV15 indirect effects. PCV21 in the non-Black cohort cost $127,436/QALY gained without and $141,358/QALY with childhood PCV15 effects. Current recommendation strategies were economically unfavorable, regardless of population or indirect childhood vaccination effects. Results favoring PCV21 use were robust in sensitivity analyses and alternative scenarios. An in-development PCV21 vaccine would likely be economically and clinically favorable compared to currently recommended pneumococcal vaccines in older adults. While PCV21 was more favorable in Black cohort analyses, results for both Black and non-Black populations were economically reasonable, highlighting the potential importance of adult-specific pneumococcal vaccine formulations and, pending further investigation, potentially justifying a future general population recommendation for PCV21 use in older adults.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37316409
pii: S0264-410X(23)00669-2
doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.06.007
pmc: PMC10330932
mid: NIHMS1909171
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Pneumococcal Vaccines
0
Vaccines, Conjugate
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
4431-4437Subventions
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : R01 AI116575
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Drs. Smith and Zimmerman have an active research grant from Sanofi Pasteur on unrelated topics. Dr. Nowalk has grant funding from Merck & Co., Inc. on an unrelated topic and had research grants within 3 years from Pfizer, Inc. and Sanofi Pasteur on unrelated topics that are no longer active. Dr. Schaffner is a member of a data safety monitoring board (DSMB) for Pfizer, former member of a DSMB for Merck, and has served as a consultant to Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Harrison has served as a consultant to GSK, Merck, Pfizer, and Sanofi Pasteur. All other authors have no competing interests to disclose.
Références
MMWR Surveill Summ. 2021 May 14;70(3):1-26
pubmed: 33983910
N Engl J Med. 2015 Mar 19;372(12):1114-25
pubmed: 25785969
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020 Jun;68(6):1271-1278
pubmed: 32086950
BMC Infect Dis. 2017 Mar 14;17(1):208
pubmed: 28292280
Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Mar 1;72(5):e65-e75
pubmed: 33196783
Public Health Rep. 2010 Jan-Feb;125(1):44-51
pubmed: 20402195
J Gen Intern Med. 2016 Aug;31(8):901-8
pubmed: 26976292
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 Jan 28;71(4):109-117
pubmed: 35085226
Ann Intern Med. 2003 Jun 17;138(12):960-8
pubmed: 12809452
Am J Prev Med. 2021 Jul;61(1):28-36
pubmed: 34148625
Med Care. 1998 Jun;36(6):778-92
pubmed: 9630120
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017 Apr;65(4):763-768
pubmed: 28024090
JAMA. 1999 Jan 20;281(3):243-8
pubmed: 9918479
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Nov 22;68(46):1069-1075
pubmed: 31751323
PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e60273
pubmed: 23565216
Infect Dis Ther. 2022 Aug;11(4):1683-1693
pubmed: 35831685