对成人15价和20价肺炎球菌疫苗成本-效果分析的系统文献综述。

IF 4.5 3区 医学 Q2 IMMUNOLOGY
Jeong-Yeon Cho , Haeseon Lee , Warisa Wannaadisai , Jeffrey Vietri , Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk
{"title":"对成人15价和20价肺炎球菌疫苗成本-效果分析的系统文献综述。","authors":"Jeong-Yeon Cho ,&nbsp;Haeseon Lee ,&nbsp;Warisa Wannaadisai ,&nbsp;Jeffrey Vietri ,&nbsp;Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk","doi":"10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.126656","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The economic and public health benefits of adult pneumococcal vaccines vary across countries due to different epidemiology and costs. We systematically reviewed and summarized findings and assumptions of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) of the recently introduced 15- and 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV15 and PCV20) in adults.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We performed a systematic search for CEA studies of PCV15 and/or PCV20 versus existing strategies via PubMed, EMBASE, CEA Registry, EconLit, HTA Database, and NITAG resource center through April 23, 2024. Study characteristics, methods, assumptions, and findings were extracted independently by two reviewers; quality was assessed using ECOBIAS. Results were synthesized qualitatively to summarize key attributes and conclusions.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 137 identified records, 26 studies were included; the majority (24/26) concerned high-income countries. All employed static Markov-type models comparing higher-valent PCVs used alone or in combination with 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) to current recommendations (PPSV23 alone, PCV13 alone, PCV13 + PPSV23, no vaccination). Most studies (22/26) concluded PCV20 used alone was cost-saving (dominant) or cost-effective compared to other adult pneumococcal strategies (PPSV23 alone, PCV13 ± PPSV23, PCV15 ± PPSV23, or no vaccination). PCVs were generally assumed to have serotype-specific effectiveness equal to PCV13 efficacy in the pivotal trial, though four studies used estimates from a Delphi panel; protection was assumed to last between 10 and 20 years. PPSV23 was assumed to have lower effectiveness against non-bacteremic pneumonia and shorter duration of protection. Herd effects from higher-valent PCVs in childhood (12/26), serotype replacement (2/26), or both (1/26) were included in half (13/26) of studies, which attenuated adult vaccine impact. Most studies were assessed as low risk of bias; five abstracts did not provide sufficient information for assessment.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Current evidence indicates that 20-valent PCV used alone is likely to be cost-effective or dominate other adult pneumococcal strategies. Future research is needed to address remaining uncertainties in assumptions and to support evidence-based policymaking.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23491,"journal":{"name":"Vaccine","volume":"46 ","pages":"Article 126656"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic literature review of cost-effectiveness analyses of adult 15- and 20-valent pneumococcal vaccines\",\"authors\":\"Jeong-Yeon Cho ,&nbsp;Haeseon Lee ,&nbsp;Warisa Wannaadisai ,&nbsp;Jeffrey Vietri ,&nbsp;Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.126656\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The economic and public health benefits of adult pneumococcal vaccines vary across countries due to different epidemiology and costs. We systematically reviewed and summarized findings and assumptions of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) of the recently introduced 15- and 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV15 and PCV20) in adults.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We performed a systematic search for CEA studies of PCV15 and/or PCV20 versus existing strategies via PubMed, EMBASE, CEA Registry, EconLit, HTA Database, and NITAG resource center through April 23, 2024. Study characteristics, methods, assumptions, and findings were extracted independently by two reviewers; quality was assessed using ECOBIAS. Results were synthesized qualitatively to summarize key attributes and conclusions.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 137 identified records, 26 studies were included; the majority (24/26) concerned high-income countries. All employed static Markov-type models comparing higher-valent PCVs used alone or in combination with 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) to current recommendations (PPSV23 alone, PCV13 alone, PCV13 + PPSV23, no vaccination). Most studies (22/26) concluded PCV20 used alone was cost-saving (dominant) or cost-effective compared to other adult pneumococcal strategies (PPSV23 alone, PCV13 ± PPSV23, PCV15 ± PPSV23, or no vaccination). PCVs were generally assumed to have serotype-specific effectiveness equal to PCV13 efficacy in the pivotal trial, though four studies used estimates from a Delphi panel; protection was assumed to last between 10 and 20 years. PPSV23 was assumed to have lower effectiveness against non-bacteremic pneumonia and shorter duration of protection. Herd effects from higher-valent PCVs in childhood (12/26), serotype replacement (2/26), or both (1/26) were included in half (13/26) of studies, which attenuated adult vaccine impact. Most studies were assessed as low risk of bias; five abstracts did not provide sufficient information for assessment.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Current evidence indicates that 20-valent PCV used alone is likely to be cost-effective or dominate other adult pneumococcal strategies. Future research is needed to address remaining uncertainties in assumptions and to support evidence-based policymaking.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23491,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vaccine\",\"volume\":\"46 \",\"pages\":\"Article 126656\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vaccine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X24013380\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"IMMUNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vaccine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X24013380","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:由于不同的流行病学和成本,成人肺炎球菌疫苗的经济和公共卫生效益因国家而异。我们系统地回顾和总结了最近在成人中引入的15价和20价肺炎球菌结合疫苗(PCV15和PCV20)的成本效益分析(CEA)的发现和假设。方法:我们通过PubMed、EMBASE、CEA Registry、EconLit、HTA数据库和NITAG资源中心对PCV15和/或PCV20与现有策略的CEA研究进行了系统检索,截止到2024年4月23日。研究特征、方法、假设和发现由两位审稿人独立提取;使用ECOBIAS评估质量。对结果进行定性综合,总结关键属性和结论。结果:在137份确定的记录中,包括26项研究;大多数(24/26)涉及高收入国家。所有研究均采用静态马尔可夫型模型,比较单独使用或与23价肺炎球菌多糖疫苗(PPSV23)联合使用的高价pcv与目前推荐的(单独使用PPSV23、单独使用PCV13、PCV13 + PPSV23、不接种)。大多数研究(22/26)得出结论,与其他成人肺炎球菌策略(单独使用PPSV23、PCV13±PPSV23、PCV15±PPSV23或不接种)相比,单独使用PCV20节省成本(占主导地位)或具有成本效益。在关键试验中,pcv通常被认为具有与PCV13相同的血清型特异性有效性,尽管有四项研究使用了德尔菲小组的估计;保护作用被认为可以持续10到20年。PPSV23被认为对非菌源性肺炎的有效性较低,保护时间较短。一半(13/26)的研究中包括了儿童时期高价pcv(12/26)、血清型替代(2/26)或两者(1/26)的群体效应,这些研究减弱了成人疫苗的影响。大多数研究被评估为低偏倚风险;5个摘要没有为评估提供足够的信息。结论:目前的证据表明,单独使用20价PCV可能具有成本效益或主导其他成人肺炎球菌策略。未来的研究需要解决假设中剩余的不确定性,并支持基于证据的政策制定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Systematic literature review of cost-effectiveness analyses of adult 15- and 20-valent pneumococcal vaccines

Background

The economic and public health benefits of adult pneumococcal vaccines vary across countries due to different epidemiology and costs. We systematically reviewed and summarized findings and assumptions of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) of the recently introduced 15- and 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV15 and PCV20) in adults.

Methods

We performed a systematic search for CEA studies of PCV15 and/or PCV20 versus existing strategies via PubMed, EMBASE, CEA Registry, EconLit, HTA Database, and NITAG resource center through April 23, 2024. Study characteristics, methods, assumptions, and findings were extracted independently by two reviewers; quality was assessed using ECOBIAS. Results were synthesized qualitatively to summarize key attributes and conclusions.

Results

Of 137 identified records, 26 studies were included; the majority (24/26) concerned high-income countries. All employed static Markov-type models comparing higher-valent PCVs used alone or in combination with 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) to current recommendations (PPSV23 alone, PCV13 alone, PCV13 + PPSV23, no vaccination). Most studies (22/26) concluded PCV20 used alone was cost-saving (dominant) or cost-effective compared to other adult pneumococcal strategies (PPSV23 alone, PCV13 ± PPSV23, PCV15 ± PPSV23, or no vaccination). PCVs were generally assumed to have serotype-specific effectiveness equal to PCV13 efficacy in the pivotal trial, though four studies used estimates from a Delphi panel; protection was assumed to last between 10 and 20 years. PPSV23 was assumed to have lower effectiveness against non-bacteremic pneumonia and shorter duration of protection. Herd effects from higher-valent PCVs in childhood (12/26), serotype replacement (2/26), or both (1/26) were included in half (13/26) of studies, which attenuated adult vaccine impact. Most studies were assessed as low risk of bias; five abstracts did not provide sufficient information for assessment.

Conclusion

Current evidence indicates that 20-valent PCV used alone is likely to be cost-effective or dominate other adult pneumococcal strategies. Future research is needed to address remaining uncertainties in assumptions and to support evidence-based policymaking.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Vaccine
Vaccine 医学-免疫学
CiteScore
8.70
自引率
5.50%
发文量
992
审稿时长
131 days
期刊介绍: Vaccine is unique in publishing the highest quality science across all disciplines relevant to the field of vaccinology - all original article submissions across basic and clinical research, vaccine manufacturing, history, public policy, behavioral science and ethics, social sciences, safety, and many other related areas are welcomed. The submission categories as given in the Guide for Authors indicate where we receive the most papers. Papers outside these major areas are also welcome and authors are encouraged to contact us with specific questions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信