Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37559118›Full record

ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2023

Cost-effectiveness of 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine compared with 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine among adults in a Norwegian setting.

Mikkelsen Malene B, Husby Oyvind, Molden Tor, Mwaura David N, Olsen Jens, Kristensen Nanna V, Vietri Jeffrey

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Antimicrobial resistance ofFrontiers in public health · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mikkelsen Malene BEY, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Husby OyvindPfizer Norway, Drammensveien 288, Oslo, 0283, Norway.
Molden TorPfizer Norway, Drammensveien 288, Oslo, 0283, Norway.
Mwaura David NPfizer Norway, Drammensveien 288, Oslo, 0283, Norway.
Olsen JensEY, Copenhagen, Denmark. jens.olsen@dk.ey.com.
Kristensen Nanna VEY, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Vietri JeffreyPfizer Inc, Collegeville, PA, USA.
Pfizer (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe morbidity and mortality of adult diseases caused by S. pneumoniae increase with age and presence of underlying chronic diseases. Currently, two vaccine technologies against S. pneumoniae are used: the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) and the pneumococcal conjugate vaccines, one of which is the 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV20) that has recently been approved for adults.

objectiveThis study was conducted to investigate the cost-effectiveness of implementing PCV20 in a reimbursement scheme for Norwegian adults aged 18-99 years at risk of pneumococcal diseases and those aged 65 years and older at low risk compared to PPV23.

methodsAn established Markov model was adapted to a Norwegian setting to estimate the economic and clinical consequences of vaccinating the Norwegian population in specific age and risk groups against pneumococcal diseases. Inputs for the model were found in Norwegian or Danish real-world evidence or retrieved from available studies. The costs and clinical outcomes were assessed using a health sector perspective and a lifetime time horizon.

resultsThe results showed that PCV20 was associated with better health outcomes including fewer disease cases, fewer disease-attributable fatalities, a higher gain of life years and quality-adjusted life years compared to PPV23. In addition, PCV20 had a lower total cost compared to PPV23. Therefore, PCV20 was the dominant vaccination strategy. The base case result was investigated in multiple sensitivity analyses, which showed that the results were robust to changes in input parameters and methodological assumptions, as PCV20 remained the dominant vaccination strategy in almost all scenarios.

conclusionResults showed that vaccinating the Norwegian adults with PCV20 was cost-effective compared to PPV23. Changes in the hospital cost of pneumonia, the price of PCV 20, the effectiveness of PCV20 against pneumonia, and the pneumonia disease incidence had the highest impact on the ICER, i.e., were the main drivers of the results.

Indexed as

20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccineCost-effectivenessCost-utility analysisPCV20Pneumococcal diseasesPneumococcal infectionPneumoniaVaccination

Identifiers

PMID37559118
PMCPMC10413527
OpenAlexW4385698541

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.