Cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies for use of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) in Canadian adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Canadian National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) recommends use of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine and 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine in a sequential schedule (PCV13 → PPV23) among adults aged ≥ 65 years and those aged ≥ 18 years who are immunocompromised. In light of recent PCV13 efficacy data from the Community-Acquired Pneumonia Immunization Trial in Adults (CAPiTA), and new sero-epidemiology data on community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), we examined the economic implications of funding an expanded adult pneumococcal immunization program in Canada. METHODS: A microsimulation model depicting expected lifetime risks, consequences, and costs of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and CAP was developed. PPV23 effectiveness was based on published literature, and PCV13 effectiveness was based on CAPiTA; all other model parameters were based on published data or secondary sources. Herd effects from the PCV13 pediatric program were considered. Outcomes and costs were evaluated assuming use of PPV23 alone, and alternatively, use of PCV13 → PPV23 among (1) all adults aged ≥ 65 years (n = 5.4 M) and (2) immunocompromised and high-risk adults aged ≥ 65 years (n = 3.0 M). RESULTS: For population no. 1, PCV13 → PPV23 reduced IPD cases by 1100, CAP cases by 7000, and disease costs by $135.8M; vaccination costs increased by $254.3M, and cost per QALY gained was $35,484. For population no. 2, PCV13 → PPV23 reduced IPD cases by 900, CAP cases by 6000, and disease costs by $120.3M; vaccination costs increased by $149.8M, and cost per QALY gained was $10,728. CONCLUSION: Expanding use of PCV13 → PPV23 by funding PCV13 among Canadian adults aged ≥ 65 would be a cost-effective use of healthcare resources.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".