Efficacy and Safety of the Pneumococcal Conjugate-13 Valent Vaccine in Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Invasive pneumococcal disease and pneumococcal pneumonia cause substantial morbidity and mortality in the elderly. This review focuses on the immunogenicity, safety, efficacy and effectiveness data on the use of the 13-valent conjugate pneumococcal vaccine (PCV13) in adults. A MEDLINE literature search was performed from January 1946 to December 2017. Additional references were identified from a review of literature citations. All English-language randomized trials, observational studies and meta-analyses assessing the immunogenicity, efficacy, effectiveness and safety of PCV13 in adults were evaluated. Six randomized controlled studies evaluated immunogenicity and safety of PCV13 in adults and showed that the conjugated vaccine elicited a greater immune response to the majority of the 13 serotypes compared to the 23-valent polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine (PPV23). Administering PCV13 prior to PPV23 elicits greater immune responses and multiple doses of PCV13 demonstrated modest advantage. PCV13 titers declined after a year but remained above baseline. A randomized clinical trial (CAPiTA) showed that PCV13 was effective in preventing community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and vaccine-type invasive pneumococcal disease, but not any cause pneumonia. Safety data shows PCV13 elicits minor local reactions, such as pain at the injection site. Major side effects that were commonly reported included muscle fatigue and headache. Both local and systemic adverse events were comparable to PPV23. While PCV13 has a well-established immunogenicity and safety profile in adults, there is sparse data on sequential or multiple dosing, efficacy and effectiveness in adults. As there are few countries who have adopted PCV13 for routine adult immunization, there is a need to evaluate the effectiveness of PCV13 in a real-world setting.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".