MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415050225 · doi:10.1101/2025.10.10.25337708

The impact of vaccine products, schedules and geographic regions on immunogenicity of pneumococcal vaccines in children under 2 years old: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4415050225 on OpenAlexafffund
Xinghui Chen, Sarah Tavlian, Kylie Carville, Nefel Tellioglu, Violeta Spirkoska, Natalie Carvalho, David J. Price, Patricia T. Campbell, Jodie McVernon

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPneumonia and Respiratory Infections
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health Research
FundersInstitute of Infection and ImmunityChina Scholarship CouncilDepartment of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australian Government
KeywordsImmunogenicitySerotypeVaccinationAntibody responseVaccination scheduleAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Background Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) cover only a proportion of disease-causing serotypes. In some settings, population-level introduction of PCVs has resulted in an increase in “non-vaccine” serotype incidence. Higher-valency PCVs were developed to address shifting disease-causing serotypes. We aim to systematically define the trends in vaccine immunogenicity and likely protection over time. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published to Jan 7, 2025, reporting immunoglobulin G (IgG) responses after PCV vaccination in healthy children <2 years. Outcomes were serotype-specific IgG geometric mean concentration (GMC) and seroresponse rate. We performed random-effects meta-analyses using log-transformed GMCs and logit-transformed seroresponse rates to generate pooled estimates by vaccine product, dosing schedule, and World Health Organization (WHO) region. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024484824). Findings We included 250 articles from 138 study groups involving 244 study arms. Pooled IgG GMCs for vaccine-included serotypes post-childhood-schedule exceeded the WHO-defined protective threshold (0·35 μg/mL), but varied by serotype, lowest for serotype 3-PCV20 (0·84 μg/mL; 95% confidence interval: 0·60–1·17). Post-childhood-schedule seroresponse rates were >95% for all serotypes except serotype 3 (84–92%). A general “downward trend” in IgG GMCs was observed with the increasing vaccine valency. IgG responses increased with the number of primary doses, and were further enhanced by a booster, although magnitude varied by serotype and vaccine. IgG responses post 1-primary dose were low, whereas GMCs post 2- or 3-primary doses exceeded protective thresholds for most serotypes. Booster-containing schedules (3+1, 2+1, 1+1) generally elicited higher post-childhood-schedule IgG response than primary-only schedule (3+0). We observed substantial regional variation of post-childhood-schedule serotype-specific IgG GMCs, with highest GMCs in the Western Pacific Region. Interpretation Vaccine immunogenicity varied by serotype, vaccine product, schedule and WHO region, and should be carefully considered when evaluating potential vaccination programs. Funding PhD Scholarship; Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Research in context Evidence before this study We implemented a targeted literature review strategy to identify prior evidence in PubMed on August 14, 2023, without time and language restrictions, using the following search strategies: ((streptococcus pneumoniae[Title]) OR (pneumococc*[Title]) AND (immun*[Title] OR antibod*[Title]) AND (review[Filter])). We identified six systematic reviews quantitatively evaluating the serotype-specific immune responses following pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) in infants. All reviews focused on PCV7, PCV10-GSK, and PCV13; none included the newer higher-valency PCVs (PCV15, PCV20) or the novel PCV10-SII. Two early reviews (2011) compared 2-dose versus 3-dose primary series in randomized clinical trials (RCTs), reporting differences in seroresponse rates — greatest for serotypes 6B and 23F — without accounting for specific vaccine products. Two reviews in 2014 further explored the impact of dosing schedules, vaccine product, and region on immune responses, but only a subset of vaccine-included serotypes was analysed. A 2020 review investigated regional variation in post-primary responses but was restricted to RCTs and did not assess post-booster immune responses. A 2023 review of head-to-head RCTs in infants comparing PCV7, PCV10-GSK and PCV13 found that 1-month post-primary serotype-specific IgG geometric mean ratios favoured PCV7 over either PCV13 or PCV10 for serotypes 4, 6B, 9V, 14, and 23F. Added value of this study PCV15 and PCV20 were developed in response to changes in patterns of disease-causing serotypes, whereas PCV10-SII was designed for developing countries with distinct serotype distribution. To date, however, no systematic review has synthesised all available PCV data and compared the immunogenicity of newer vaccines relative to earlier ones. As immunogenicity remains the cornerstone of vaccination recommendations in the absence of representative effectiveness studies, our study quantifies and compares immune responses to five widely used PCVs across alternative dosing regimens, populations, and epidemiological contexts. Implications of all the available evidence Vaccine immunogenicity varied by serotype, vaccine product, schedule and World Health Organization (WHO) region. Downward trend of serotype-specific IgG response was generally observed with increasing vaccine valency for most serotypes, indicating the importance of balancing vaccine serotype coverage and the magnitude of immune response for sustained population protection. This evidence should be considered when evaluating potential vaccination programs.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.048
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicPneumonia and Respiratory Infections→French-language works237,207→