Cost-effectiveness analysis of 20-valent anti-pneumococcal vaccination in the Spanish pediatric population
Résumé fourni par la source
OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of implementing different pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV) - 20-valent (PCV20; 3 + 1), 13-valent (PCV13; 2 + 1), and 15-valent (PCV15; 2 + 1) - into the Spanish pediatric national immunization program (NIP) for pneumococcal disease prevention. METHODS: A Markov model adopting a Spanish National Healthcare System perspective and annual cycles estimated the health and cost impact of PCV20, PCV13, and PCV15 over 10 years among children. Epidemiological, cost, and utility inputs were derived from published literature and official databases; vaccine efficacy inputs were based on PCV13 clinical effectiveness and 7-valent PCV efficacy and impact studies. Sensitivity analyses evaluated model robustness. RESULTS: PCV20 implementation was predicted to reduce the pneumococcal disease burden, preventing > 1,000,000 pneumococcal disease cases and > 150 deaths, versus both comparators. The adoption of PCV20 was estimated to result in cost-savings of approximately €1 billion versus PCV13 and PCV15. PCV20 demonstrated dominance over both alternatives, with 100% of 1,000 probabilistic sensitivity analysis iterations indicating PCV20 dominance. CONCLUSION: Incorporating PCV20 3 + 1 into the Spanish pediatric NIP was predicted to be more effective at a lower cost than PCV13 2 + 1 and PCV15 2 + 1 due to its broader serotype coverage and enhanced protection against pneumococcal disease.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of 20-valent anti-pneumococcal vaccination in the Spanish pediatric population
- Date Crossref
- 24/06/2025
- Éditeur
- Informa UK Limited
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.