ArticleInfectious diseases and therapy2025
Modelling the Epidemiological Impact of Different Adult Pneumococcal Vaccination Strategies in the United Kingdom.
Article in Infectious diseases and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of a 21-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine on pneumococcal disease incidence among adults 65-84 years of age in Belgium: An epidemiological modeling study.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- A multicentre case-control study about effectiveness of pneumococcal vaccination against pneumonia hospitalization in at-risk adults.Pneumonia (Nathan Qld.) · 2026Article
- Conceptual Methodological Framework for Incorporating Antimicrobial Resistance Considerations in Economic Models for Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccines.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2025Article
- Review
- Epidemiological Impact of Increasing Vaccination Coverage Rate and Re-Vaccination on Pneumococcal Disease in Older Adults in Germany.Vaccines · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) were first introduced in the paediatric United Kingdom (UK) immunisation programme in 2006 which led to significant declines in invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) caused by targeted serotypes. Although paediatric PCVs provide some indirect protection to adults, a significant IPD burden remains in older adults. Here, we compared three adult (65+ years-old) and risk group (2-64-year-old) vaccination scenarios, namely a continuation of the status quo with PPSV23 vaccination, using the recently licensed-in-adults PCV20, or using the new adult-focused 21-valent PCV, V116.
methodsA population-level compartmental dynamic transmission model (DTM) was adapted to the UK setting. The model described Streptococcus pneumoniae carriage transmission dynamics and disease progression in the presence of age- and serotype-specific pneumococcal vaccines. We calibrated the DTM to age- and serotype-specific IPD data in the UK and used the model to make projections under the different adult vaccination scenarios while keeping PCV13 immunisation in children.
resultsThe calibrated model yielded reasonable parameter values and model fits that closely matched observed IPD dynamics. Among 65+ year-olds, 10-year model projections predicted that the routine use of V116 would reduce IPD incidence by 15.5%, while PCV20 would reduce IPD incidence by 8.9% and the continued use of PPSV23 would increase incidence by 3.83%. There was a notable decrease in IPD incidence in the serotypes unique to V116. In the serotypes included in PCV20 but not V116, the model did not predict a resurgence of IPD.
conclusionsProjections revealed that in adults, V116 led to significantly greater reductions in IPD in the 65+ year-old population compared with PCV20 or PPSV23.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.