ArticleBMC public health2025
A budget impact analysis of 15- or 20- valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine use in all US adults aged 50-64 years old compared to those with high-risk conditions from US payer perspective.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Economic Analyses of COVID-19 Interventions: A Narrative Review of Global Evidence.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn 2023, the US CDC recommended 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV20) or 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV15) followed by 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) for all adults aged 65-years and older and those aged 19-64 years old with chronic conditions. However, there is substantial pneumococcal disease burden in healthy adults aged 50-64 years, particularly in Black adults, who are likely to benefit from vaccination. This study assesses the financial impact of introducing routine PCV15 or PCV20 in US adults aged 50-64 years.
objectiveTo evaluate the budget impact of introducing PCV20 or PCV15/PPSV23 use in adults aged 50-64 years old compared to vaccinating only those with high-risk conditions for pneumococcal disease.
methodsA budget impact model was developed over a 3-year time horizon to compare PCV20 versus PCV15/PPSV23 from the US payer perspective. Outcomes and costs of pneumococcal disease among US adults aged 50-64 years and those with underlying conditions were projected using a Markov decision model.
resultsIncorporating either PCV20 or PCV15/PPSV23 vaccines in routine vaccination programs for adults aged 50-64 years compared to vaccinating only adults with chronic conditions had an incremental budget impact of $6.5 and $9 billion, respectively, over three years. Budgetary impact was sensitive to number of vaccine doses, cost of vaccine per dose, vaccine coverage proportion and pneumococcal treatment cost across the overall population and sub-groups. Routine vaccination of 50-64-year-old age group was more economically favorable in Black adults sub-group analyses.
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.