ReviewVaccines2025
Immunogenicity of a 20-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine Versus a 13-Valent Vaccine in Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Vaccines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV20) was approved for use in children and infants on the basis of studies comparing its safety and immunogenicity with those of the 13-valent vaccine (PCV13). PCV20 offers expanded coverage of seven additional serotypes. This meta-analysis aimed to summarize the available evidence on the comparative immunogenicity between PCV20 and PCV13.
methodsA systematic search of the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases was conducted in September 2024. The following inclusion criteria were used: (i) design: randomized clinical trials; (ii) outcomes: studies that included immunogenicity outcomes; (iii) compared vaccines: any study directly comparing the immunogenicity of PCV20 and PCV13; and (iv) population: infant population <2 years of age. No language or temporal restrictions were applied in the study. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted via the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method, with subgroup analyses according to the serotype and vaccination schedule (3 + 1 and 2 + 1). We used the revised Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool (RoB 2.0) to assess the risk of bias. The following parameters of immunogenicity were estimated: (i) the pooled geometric mean ratio (GMR PCV20/PCV13) of serotype-specific pneumococcal anticapsular antibodies, (ii) the pooled difference (PCV20-PCV13) in the percentage (DP) of participants who achieved predefined antibody levels for each serotype, and (iii) the pooled geometric mean titres (GMTs) of serotype-specific opsonophagocytic activity (OPA) in PCV20 and PCV13, along with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).
resultsFour studies (4093 infants aged 42-180 days) that compared the PCV20 and PCV13 vaccines, published between 2021 and 2024, were included in this meta-analysis. The immunogenicity of both groups was compared one month after the primary series and one month after the booster dose. The pooled results indicated that PCV20 elicited lower immune responses for the 13 serotypes shared with PCV13, according to the GMR and OPA outcomes. For the DP outcome, no statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups. Immune responses were higher for the additional serotypes in the PCV20 group; however, these differences were not statistically significant for all serotypes.
conclusionsThis meta-analysis offers an overview of the evidence on the comparative immunogenicity of PCV20 and PCV13. Although some outcomes indicate that PCV20 elicits lower immune responses for the 13 serotypes shared with PCV13, it provides immunity against seven additional serotypes associated with IPD. Further studies are warranted to strengthen the evidence base, and continuous IPD surveillance remains essential to monitor shifts in serotype prevalence, assess the impact of current and future vaccines, and guide vaccine policy recommendations.
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.