MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408199896 · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2025.126985

Cost-effectiveness analysis of 21-valent pneumococcal conjugated vaccine among adults in Canada

2025· article· en· W4408199896 on OpenAlexaffabout
Raphael Ximenes, Alison E. Simmons, Gebremedhin Beedemariam Gebretekle, Austin Nam, Eva Wong, Marina I. Salvadori, Alyssa Golden, Beate Sander, Kyla J. Hildebrand, Matthew Tunis, Ashleigh R. Tuite

Bibliographic record

VenueVaccine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPneumonia and Respiratory Infections
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Children's HospitalMcGill University Health CentreToronto Rehabilitation InstitutePublic Health OntarioInstitute for Work & HealthPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPneumococcal infectionsPneumococcal diseasePneumococcal vaccineMedicineCost analysisImmunologyStreptococcus pneumoniaeVirologyIntensive care medicineEnvironmental healthBiologyMicrobiologyAntibioticsOperations research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A 21-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV21) was recently authorized in Canada to protect adults against invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD). OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of PCV21 compared to current Canadian vaccination recommendations for adults of different age and risk groups. METHODS: We used a static cohort model to estimate lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), in 2023 Canadian dollars per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), discounted at 1.5 %, in population cohorts aged 33 (midpoint of the 18-49 year age group), 50, and 65 years from the health system and societal perspectives. The primary analysis used 2022 serotype distributions for IPD cases. Additional analyses incorporated indirect effects from pediatric vaccination and used IPD serotype distributions from 2015 to 2019, to explore the impact of changes over time observed in some age groups. RESULTS: For population groups currently recommended to receive PCV20 in Canada (65 years and older, 50-64 years with additional risk factors for IPD, or 18-49 years with immunocompromising conditions), PCV21 was cost-effective at a $50,000 per QALY threshold and dominated PCV20 in most scenarios when PCV21 serotypes were more prevalent. When PCV20 serotypes were equally or more prevalent than PCV21 serotypes, results were more sensitive to assumptions about indirect effects and serotype replacement. For groups not currently recommended a conjugate vaccine (50-64 years without additional IPD risk factors and 18-49 years with chronic medical conditions or unhoused populations), use of a higher-valency conjugate vaccine was a cost-effective intervention compared to no vaccination, with the optimal vaccine dependent on the proportion of IPD attributable to PCV20 and PCV21 serotypes in the population of interest. Results were sensitive to vaccine price in most scenarios. INTERPRETATION: The use of PCV21 may be cost-effective in some populations, depending on the prevalence of IPD serotypes covered by PCV20 and PCV21.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVaccineSame topicPneumonia and Respiratory InfectionsFrench-language works237,207