INTRODUCTION: Use of the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in nonimmunocompromised adults aged ≥65 years is controversial. Higher-valency conjugate vaccines (15-valent and 20-valent ) are under development; their potential cost effectiveness in older adults is unknown, particularly when potential indirect (herd immunity) effects from childhood vaccination are considered. METHODS: A Markov model estimated the cost effectiveness of current U.S. recommendations and alternative strategies using currently available and in-development pneumococcal conjugate vaccines in seniors. Separately, strategies using a hypothetical 20-valent vaccine adding the 7 most common disease-causing non-13-valent vaccine serotypes were considered. Sensitivity analyses were performed and alternative scenarios were examined. Data were gathered and the analyses were performed in 2020. RESULTS: In analyses considering only existing and in-development vaccines, sole 20-valent vaccine use cost $172,491/quality-adjusted life year gained compared with current U.S. recommendations under baseline assumptions (equal serotype effectiveness and no childhood vaccination indirect effects). Strategies using 15-valent vaccine were more costly and less effective. When 13-valent/20-valent vaccines were assumed ineffective against pneumococcal serotype 3 and 15-valent vaccine was fully effective, 15-valent vaccine cost $237,431/quality-adjusted life year gained. With indirect effects considered, 15-valent or 20-valent vaccine cost >$449,000/quality-adjusted life year gained. When adding hypothetical 20-valent vaccine under baseline assumptions, hypothetical 20-valent vaccine cost $139,348/quality-adjusted life year gained. CONCLUSIONS: In-development pneumococcal conjugate vaccines may be economically unreasonable in older adults, regardless of serotype effectiveness assumptions, particularly when considering potential indirect effects from use of those vaccines in children. Adult vaccines containing high-risk serotypes not contained in childhood vaccines may be more promising.
INTRODUCTION: Use of the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in nonimmunocompromised adults aged ≥65 years is controversial. Higher-valency conjugate vaccines (15-valent and 20-valent ) are under development; their potential cost effectiveness in older adults is unknown, particularly when potential indirect (herd immunity) effects from childhood vaccination are considered. METHODS: A Markov model estimated the cost effectiveness of current U.S. recommendations and alternative strategies using currently available and in-development pneumococcal conjugate vaccines in seniors. Separately, strategies using a hypothetical 20-valent vaccine adding the 7 most common disease-causing non-13-valent vaccine serotypes were considered. Sensitivity analyses were performed and alternative scenarios were examined. Data were gathered and the analyses were performed in 2020. RESULTS: In analyses considering only existing and in-development vaccines, sole 20-valent vaccine use cost $172,491/quality-adjusted life year gained compared with current U.S. recommendations under baseline assumptions (equal serotype effectiveness and no childhood vaccination indirect effects). Strategies using 15-valent vaccine were more costly and less effective. When 13-valent/20-valent vaccines were assumed ineffective against pneumococcal serotype 3 and 15-valent vaccine was fully effective, 15-valent vaccine cost $237,431/quality-adjusted life year gained. With indirect effects considered, 15-valent or 20-valent vaccine cost >$449,000/quality-adjusted life year gained. When adding hypothetical 20-valent vaccine under baseline assumptions, hypothetical 20-valent vaccine cost $139,348/quality-adjusted life year gained. CONCLUSIONS: In-development pneumococcal conjugate vaccines may be economically unreasonable in older adults, regardless of serotype effectiveness assumptions, particularly when considering potential indirect effects from use of those vaccines in children. Adult vaccines containing high-risk serotypes not contained in childhood vaccines may be more promising.
Authors: Marc J M Bonten; Susanne M Huijts; Marieke Bolkenbaas; Chris Webber; Scott Patterson; Samantha Gault; Cornelis H van Werkhoven; Anna M M van Deursen; Elisabeth A M Sanders; Theo J M Verheij; Michael Patton; Anne McDonough; Anita Moradoghli-Haftvani; Helen Smith; Tracey Mellelieu; Michael W Pride; Graham Crowther; Beate Schmoele-Thoma; Daniel A Scott; Kathrin U Jansen; Rita Lobatto; Bas Oosterman; Nils Visser; Esther Caspers; Andre Smorenburg; Emilio A Emini; William C Gruber; Diederick E Grobbee Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Angela R Wateska; Mary Patricia Nowalk; Chyongchiou J Lin; Lee H Harrison; William Schaffner; Richard K Zimmerman; Kenneth J Smith Journal: Vaccine Date: 2019-03-04 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Rama Kandasamy; Merryn Voysey; Sarah Collins; Guy Berbers; Hannah Robinson; Irene Noel; Harri Hughes; Susan Ndimah; Katherine Gould; Norman Fry; Carmen Sheppard; Shamez Ladhani; Matthew D Snape; Jason Hinds; Andrew J Pollard Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2020-03-28 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Allison Thompson; Erik Lamberth; Joseph Severs; Ingrid Scully; Sanela Tarabar; John Ginis; Kathrin U Jansen; William C Gruber; Daniel A Scott; Wendy Watson Journal: Vaccine Date: 2019-09-05 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: David Greenberg; Patricia A Hoover; Timo Vesikari; Christopher Peltier; David C Hurley; Richard D McFetridge; Michael Dallas; Jonathan Hartzel; Rocio D Marchese; Beth-Ann G Coller; Jon E Stek; Chitrananda Abeygunawardana; Michael A Winters; John E MacNair; Narahari S Pujar; Luwy Musey Journal: Vaccine Date: 2018-09-21 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Kenneth J Smith; Angela R Wateska; Mary Patricia Nowalk; Chyongchiou J Lin; Lee H Harrison; William Schaffner; Richard K Zimmerman Journal: Infect Dis Ther Date: 2022-07-13