Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27510721›Full record

SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2016

Cost Effectiveness of Pneumococcal Vaccination in Children in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.

Surasak Saokaew, Ajaree Rayanakorn, David Bin-Chia Wu, Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk

Abstract readComparative StudySystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Surasak SaokaewCenter of Health Outcomes Research and Therapeutic Safety (COHORTS), School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Phayao, Phayao, Thailand.
Ajaree RayanakornSchool of Pharmacy, Monash University Malaysia, Jalan Lagoon Selatan, 46150, Bandar Sunway, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia.
David Bin-Chia WuSchool of Pharmacy, Monash University Malaysia, Jalan Lagoon Selatan, 46150, Bandar Sunway, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia.
Nathorn ChaiyakunaprukCenter of Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research (CPOR), Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Naresuan University, Phitsanulok, Thailand. nathorn.chaiyakunapruk@monash.edu.
Monash University Malaysia · MYNaresuan University · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) have been available for prevention of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) for over a decade, their adoption into national immunization programmes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is still limited. Economic evaluations (EEs) play a crucial role in support of evidence-informed decisions.

objectiveThis systematic review aims to provide a critical summary of EEs of PCVs and identify key drivers of EE findings in LMICs.

methodsWe searched Scopus, ISI Web of Science, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central from their inception to 30 September 2015 and limited the search to LMICs. The search was undertaken using the search strings 'pneumococc* AND conjugat* AND (vaccin* OR immun*)' AND 'economic OR cost-effectiveness OR cost-benefit OR cost-utility OR cost-effectiveness OR cost-benefit OR cost-utility' in the abstract, title or keyword fields. To be included, each study had to be a full EE of a PCV and conducted for an LMIC. Studies were extracted and reviewed by two authors. The review involved standard extraction of the study overview or the characteristics of the study, key drivers or parameters of the EE, assumptions behind the analyses and major areas of uncertainty.

resultsOut of 134 records identified, 22 articles were included. Seven studies used a Markov model for analysis, while 15 studies used a decision-tree analytic model. Eighteen studies performed a cost-utility analysis (CUA), with disability-adjusted life-years, quality-adjusted life-years or life-years gained as a measure of health outcome, while four studies focused only on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Both CEA and CUA findings were provided by eight studies. Herd effects and serotype replacement were considered in 10 and 13 studies, respectively. The current evidence shows that both the 10-valent and 13-valent PCVs are probably cost effective in comparison with the 7-valent PCV or no vaccination. The most influential parameters were vaccine efficacy and coverage (in 16 of 22 studies), vaccine price (in 13 of 22 studies), disease incidence (in 11 of 22 studies), mortality from IPD and pneumonia (in 8 of 22 studies) and herd effects (in 4 of 22 studies). The findings were found to be supportive of the products owned by the manufacturers.

conclusionOur review demonstrated that an infant PCV programme was a cost-effective intervention in most LMICs (in 20 of 22 studies included). The results were sensitive to vaccine efficacy, price, burden of disease and sponsorship. Decision makers should consider EE findings and affordability before adoption of PCVs.

Indexed as

Quality-Adjusted Life YearsChildCost-Benefit AnalysisDecision MakingDeveloping CountriesHumansImmunization ProgramsPneumococcal InfectionsPneumococcal VaccinesResearch DesignVaccinationVaccines, ConjugatePneumococcal VaccinesVaccines, Conjugate

Identifiers

PMID27510721
OpenAlexW2476595719

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.