Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Farkouh et al. [1] in their letter to the editor in response to the publication entitled “Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of the 10-Valent Pneumococcal Non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae Protein D Conjugate Vaccine and 13-Valent Pneumococcal Vaccine in Japanese Children” [2] raise questions concerning the efficacy and effectiveness assumptions made for both vaccines.
We agree with Farkouh et al. [1] that the validity of any cost-effectiveness model relies upon both the ability of the model to reflect the reality of complex clinical and epidemiological scenarios and the quality of the input data. In the absence of head-to-head studies comparing the clinical efficacy of the two pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV), validation of the assumptions used in the model is essential. In the case of our model, contrary to the opinion of Farkouh et al. [1], the assumptions are based on the most recent, publicly available clinical evidence. In reflection of the variable robustness of the available evidence, the assumptions were validated by two independent advisory boards (including one undertaken specifically to support the analysis in Japan), each consisting of prominent experts in the field. This was particularly important for the 13-valent PCV (PCV-13), since the data for that vaccine is largely derived from post-marketing surveillance studies that are subject to several different confounding factors, as opposed to results of randomized, double-blind clinical trials, which are considered to be of the highest standard for assessing vaccine efficacy. The latter are only available for the ten-valent pneumococcal non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae protein D conjugate vaccine (PHiD-CV), and data from post-marketing surveillances with PHiD-CV corroborate findings of these randomized trials.
As most of the concerns raised by Farkouh et al. [1] have already been addressed in the scenario and sensitivity analyses presented in our original publication [2], in this response we will largely discuss those assumptions which were not previously elaborated upon [2].
Effectiveness Against Pneumonia
While the suggestion by Farkouh et al. [1] to assume that the individual effectiveness of vaccines is proportional to their serotype coverage seems straightforward, the real-world experience with various PCVs does not support such a close relationship. In fact, based on a critical appraisal of clinical evidence for all marketed as well as many investigational pneumococcal conjugate PCVs, Hausdorff et al. [3] convincingly argued that the serotype coverage of PHiD-CV and PCV-13 vaccines is an inadequate basis for making quantitative projections regarding the overall disease impact [3]. One major reason is that such a simplistic approach does not adequately account for protection against vaccine-related serotypes, while there is substantial, growing evidence in the literature that PCVs can provide substantial protection against those [3]. Moreover, randomized double-blind trials assessing efficacy against pneumonia do not suggest that higher valence vaccines, even beyond the ten-valent formulation [3], offer greater protection against clinical or radiologically confirmed pneumonia. Finally, PHiD-CV efficacy to prevent pneumonia in children was demonstrated in two large randomized, double-blind clinical trials [4, 5] and corroborated during post-marketing surveillance (for example, in Brazil [6], Finland [7], and Iceland [8]), whereas the evidence for PCV-13 is based solely on data from post-marketing surveillance studies [9–14]. As mentioned earlier, this poses difficulties in comparison, as due to a variety of factors inherent in these latter studies, such as differences in populations, schedules, uptake rates, timing and other variables that affect disease rates within an uncontrolled effectiveness or impact analysis, it is very difficult to draw meaningful quantitative or comparative conclusions.
The complexity of interpreting post-marketing impact studies is perhaps best illustrated by a study from Sweden [15] referred to also by Farkouh et al. [1], where currently both PHiD-CV and PCV-13 are used in different county councils. Differences in pneumonia hospitalization incidence were observed between the respective councils and it was suggested that this can be attributed to the difference in the valence of PCVs used [1]. However, as reported in that paper [15], the seven-valent PCV (PCV-7) was introduced in all those councils in Sweden prior to the use of higher valent vaccines, and yet the magnitude of reduction of pneumonia incidence observed during the period when only PCV-7 was used still differed markedly in those respective councils, which are currently using either PCV-13 or PHiD-CV. This observation strongly suggests that any observed differences in pneumonia incidence between the councils mainly reflect other epidemiological factors or secular trends that differ in the two populations, rather than true differences in efficacy against pneumonia of either PCV-13 or PHiD-CV. In conclusion, the concept that overall protection is governed predominantly by serotype coverage is unsupported by the clinical evidence [3] and support the efficacy estimates used in our published model [2].
Protection Against Cross-Reactive Serotypes
With respect to protection against cross-reactive serotypes not included in PHiD-CV formulation, our assumptions for vaccine effectiveness against serotypes 19A and 6A are, in contrast to the opinion of Farkouh et al. [1], largely based on data generated with this vaccine in a number of studies of robust design. Data generated with other formulations are also strongly supportive of our assumptions.
Data from various post-marketing studies provide evidence for PHiD-CV protection against serotype 19A [16]. The 82% effectiveness of PHiD-CV against 19A invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) reported in the Brazilian case–control study [17] has been corroborated in two additional robustly designed studies in Quebec (Canada) and Finland, respectively. In the Quebec case–control study [18], the effectiveness of PHiD-CV against serotype 19A was 71%, which was statistically significant. This study, which is unique in also assessing the effectiveness of PCV-13 on 19A disease in the same study setting, demonstrated vaccine effectiveness of 74% for PCV-13 (overlapping confidence intervals with PHiD-CV) [18]. In the Finnish cohort study, a significant 62% reduction in a number of 19A IPD cases was observed following the introduction of PHiD-CV into their national immunization program (NIP) [19]. Additional data supporting the effectiveness of PHiD-CV in their NIP, including the Netherlands [20, 21] and Chile [22], as well as the functional opsonophagocytic antibody (OPA) responses against 19A (functional OPAs are generally agreed to be the mechanism of protection) have been fully described in recent reviews by Hausdorff et al. [23], Clarke et al. [24] and Mrkvan et al. [25].
Evidence from post-marketing surveillance studies indicate that PHiD-CV also prevents disease caused by serotype 6A. The cohort study in Finland also described a significant 100% (95% CI: 41%; 100%) reduction in 6A IPD cases following PHiD-CV introduction into the NIP [26]. Another example is Chile, where at least ten 6A IPD cases in children below 2 years of age were recorded annually in each of the 4 years before PHiD-CV was introduced in 2011 (average of 18 cases per year), but only five cases were reported in 2012 [22]. It should be noted that evidence for the effectiveness of PHiD-CV against serotype 6A is somewhat more limited than for serotype 19A. This is because countries where PCV-7 was implemented to NIP before PHiD-CV had little or negligible residual serotype 6A IPD due to substantial cross protection provided by the 6B conjugate in PCV-7 [3]. Studies using different schedules and conducted in different populations have also consistently demonstrated that PHiD-CV, similarly to PCV-7, elicits robust functional OPA responses against serotype 6A. Notably, the antibody levels elicited by PHiD-CV against cross-reactive serotypes 6A and 19A were especially higher in Japanese infants in comparison with other populations [27].
In summary, data generated during post-marketing surveillance, as well as the immunogenicity results from randomized double-blind studies, strongly support the validity of our assumptions made for protection conferred by PHiD-CV against infections caused by the cross-reactive serotypes 19A and 6A.
Effectiveness Against Acute Otitis Media
Farkouh et al. [1] further question the assumptions specific to acute otitis media (AOM). A vaccine efficacy of 19% for PHiD-CV against clinically confirmed AOM was demonstrated in the large randomized, double-blind COMPAS study [4]. Corresponding data from a randomized clinical trial are not available for PCV-13. As with PCV-13, significant reductions in the burden of AOM have been observed with PHiD-CV in countries where the vaccine has been included in their NIP. For instance, a time series database analysis in Goiania (Brazil) indicated that medical visits for all-cause AOM in 2- to 23-month-olds were 45% lower after the introduction of PHiD-CV [28]. In Iceland, the annual incidence of hospital visits/admissions attributable to AOM was 24% lower in children younger than 2 years, who were born within 1 year of the introduction of PHiD-CV [8]. However, as already discussed above in the context of post-marketing surveillance studies addressing pneumonia, it is rather difficult to draw meaningful quantitative conclusions regarding vaccines used in different populations from post-marketing surveillance.
Our model therefore relies on extrapolations, made by the expert panels, of assumptions of vaccine efficacy against the major pathogens causing bacterial AOM, Streptococcus pneumoniae and non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae (NTHi), derived from available randomized trials. Although the efficacy data for PCV-13 against pneumococcal AOM are lacking, it should be noted that whenever the vaccine efficacy against vaccine-type (VT) pneumococcal AOM was assessed for PCVs (PCV-7, the 7-valent conjugate vaccine with outer membrane protein carrier (7vOMP), the 11-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine with protein D of Haemophilus influenzae as a carrier (11PnPD), and PHiD-CV), it [4, 29–31] was similar, so it is reasonable to assume that it would not be a lot different for PCV-13.
With respect to efficacy against NTHi-AOM, although the COMPAS trial was not powered to provide conclusive evidence, the positive point estimate of PHiD-CV efficacy against NTHi (22%; 95% CI: −43%; 57%) is [4] consistent with the significant efficacy observed with the predecessor protein D conjugate formulation in the POET study (35%; 95% CI: 2%; 57%) [31]. The positive point estimates for efficacy against NTHi OM observed in COMPAS and POET are in contrast with the negative point estimates observed in studies of non-protein D containing PCV formulations, including CRM conjugates [4, 29–31]. In addition, there is concordant body of pre-clinical and immunological evidence (reviewed in detail in [32, 33]), lending credence to the notion that protein D containing vaccines elicit an immunological response and offer protection against NTHi AOM [34–37].
Despite that population-based studies evaluating the impact of vaccines on AOM are generally based on clinical rather than pathogen-specific diagnoses, and therefore cannot generally provide information on the impact on AOM due to NTHi, further, albeit limited, evidence of PHiD-CV impact on NTHi disease is emerging from some post-marketing studies. For instance, one cross-sectional survey study has provided information on the prevalence of NTHi AOM in a PHiD-CV-vaccinated population of Australian indigenous children compared with a historical cohort of children who had received PCV-7. Also, the prevalence of the more severe suppurative disease presentations were significantly lower in the PHiD-CV cohort. Moreover, the prevalence of NTHi was significantly lower in the PHiD-CV cohort of children diagnosed with suppurative disease and culturing of otopathogens [38]. Although these findings need to be interpreted with the same caution as for other observational studies, they provide an encouraging sign that protein D-based vaccines may offer some level of protection against disease due to NTHi.
Notwithstanding the multiple lines of evidence above, the possibility that PHiD-CV has no efficacy against NTHi AOM has been explored and presented as an additional scenario in the original paper [2].
Effectiveness Against IPD Caused by Serotype 3
Farkouh et al. [1] state that PCV-13 cannot be considered ineffective against serotype 3 because the available evidence is not conclusive at this point. We argue the contrary, because today, several years after introduction of PCV-13 into many national immunization programs, there is still no conclusive evidence that PCV-13 prevents serotype 3 disease or provides herd protection [39–50]. Some post-marketing surveillance studies report no detectable change at all in serotype 3 disease [41, 42]. Although some studies, including the latest Joint Committee on Vaccines and Immunization (JCVI) minutes from the UK [51], as cited by Farkouh et al. [1], have reported non-significant trends for reduction, it is unclear whether these observations should be attributed to the use of the vaccine, or rather represent a secular trend/natural cyclical pattern in the disease, as have been described for a number of serotypes [52], including serotype 3 as suggested in other settings [40, 53]. Indeed, the most recent published data from the UK report a non-significant vaccine effectiveness of 26% (95% CI: −69%; 68%) [44], a very wide confidence interval crossing zero and a point estimate that is remarkably lower) than the high (and significant) effectiveness estimates obtained for the other PCV-13 vaccine serotypes [44]. Nonetheless, we note that the assumption of effectiveness of PCV-13 up to 89.0% [54] against serotype 3 IPD was tested in the sensitivity analysis of our model, revealing no substantial impact on the model outcome.
Herd Effect
Farkouh et al. [1] question whether indirect effects for VT disease have been demonstrated and reported for both formulations, i.e., both PCV-13 and PHiD-CV. Decreases in VT disease in non-vaccinated cohorts have been observed in post-marketing studies for both PCV-13 and PHiD-CV (including Brazil, Chile, Finland and Iceland [55]). In addition, the herd effect of PHiD-CV has been more rigorously analyzed in the context of a cluster randomized double-blind study in Finland [56].
Although not mentioned by Farkouh et al. [1], the public health value of the herd effects remains an area of debate. Based on the experience with PCV-7 use, the herd effect observed for VT disease is likely to be largely or fully offset by disease caused by circulating non-vaccine serotypes, a phenomenon called serotype replacement [57, 58]. The extent of such replacement elicited by each of the new vaccines is a remaining area of uncertainty, and therefore whether there will be differential net herd effect is currently difficult to assess conclusively [3]. In consequence, we did not incorporate herd or indirect protection in our analysis. Further discussion on the reasons why herd effects were not considered for this analysis is detailed in our original paper [2].
Summary
Our analysis has considered the most up-to-date clinical evidence, placing emphasis on data from randomized double-blind controlled trials, rather than having relied on theoretical assumptions. In addition, we have consulted an external group of experts to validate each parameter that was used as base-case input into the model. We hope that the evidence provided here, in addition to what is reflected in our original paper, testifies that we have considered the strengths and weaknesses of all available data to construct a sensible and conservative base-case analysis as well as have meticulously addressed any areas of uncertainty using appropriate sensitivity and scenario analyses.
References
Farkouh RA, Hall-Murray C, Klok RM, Hilton B, Isturiz RE. Response to Shiragami et al. Infect Dis Ther. doi:10.1007/s40121-015-0063-0.
Shiragami M, Mizukami A, Leeuwenkamp O, Mrkvan T, Delgleize E, Kurono Y, et al. Cost-effectiveness evaluation of the 10-valent pneumococcal non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae protein D conjugate vaccine and 13-valent pneumococcal vaccine in Japanese children. Infect Dis Ther. 2015;4(1):93–112. doi:10.1007/s40121-014-0053-7.
Hausdorff WP, Hoet B, Adegbola RA. Predicting the impact of new pneumococcal conjugate vaccines: serotype composition is not enough. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2015;14(3):413–28. doi:10.1586/14760584.2015.965160.
Tregnaghi MW, Saez-Llorens X, Lopez P, Abate H, Smith E, Posleman A, et al. Efficacy of pneumococcal nontypable Haemophilus influenzae protein D conjugate vaccine (PHiD-CV) in young Latin American children: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. PLoS Med. 2014;11(6):e1001657. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001657.
Kilpi TM, Palmu AA, Puumalainen T, Nieminen H, Ruokokoski E, Rinta-Kokko H, et al. Effectiveness of the 10-valent pneumococcal Haemophilus influenzae protein D conjugate vaccine (phid-cv10) against hospital-diagnosed pneumonia in infants-finip trial. Abstract presented at ESPID. Available from: http://w3.kenes-group.com/apps/espid2013/abstracts/pdf/134.pdf. Accessed Mar 19, 2015.
Afonso ET, Minamisava R, Bierrenbach AL, Escalante JJ, Alencar AP, Domingues CM, et al. Effect of 10-valent pneumococcal vaccine on pneumonia among children, Brazil. Emerg Infect Dis. 2013;19(4):589–97. doi:10.3201/eid1904.121198.
Palmu A, Kilpi T, Rinta-Kokko H, Nohynek H, Ruokokoski E, Nuorti J. Impact of ten-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV10) against hospital-diagnosed pneumonia among vaccine-eligible children in Finland. Abstract no. G295. Presented at interscience conference on antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, Washington, USA; 2014.
Sigurdsson S, Kristinsson KG, Erlendsdottir H, et al. An early reduction of acute otitis media and pneumonia in children in Iceland following PCV-10 immunization. Ireland: ESPID Dublin; 2014.
Angoulvant F, Levy C, Grimprel E, Varon E, Lorrot M, Biscardi S, et al. Early impact of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine on community-acquired pneumonia in children. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58(7):918–24. doi:10.1093/cid/ciu006.
Simonsen L, Taylor RJ, Schuck-Paim C, Lustig R, Haber M, Klugman KP. Effect of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine on admissions to hospital 2 years after its introduction in the USA: a time series analysis. Lancet Respir Med. 2014;2(5):387–94. doi:10.1016/s2213-2600(14)70032-3.
Pirez MC, Algorta G, Chamorro F, Romero C, Varela A, Cedres A, et al. Changes in hospitalizations for pneumonia after universal vaccination with pneumococcal conjugate vaccines 7/13 valent and Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine in a Pediatric Referral Hospital in Uruguay. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2014;33(7):753–9. doi:10.1097/inf.0000000000000294.
Martinelli D, Pedalino B, Cappelli MG, Caputi G, Sallustio A, Fortunato F, et al. Towards the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate universal vaccination: effectiveness in the transition era between PCV7 and PCV13 in Italy, 2010–2013. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2014;10(1):33–9. doi:10.4161/hv.26650.
Becker-Dreps S, Amaya E, Liu L, Moreno G, Rocha J, Briceno R, et al. Changes in childhood pneumonia and infant mortality rates following introduction of the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in Nicaragua. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2014;33(6):637–42. doi:10.1097/inf.0000000000000269.
Hortal M, Laurani H, Meny M, Estevan M, Arrieta F. Effectiveness of 7 and 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines for consolidated pneumonia in hospitalized children. Abstract (ISPPD-0244). In: 9th international symposium on pneumococci and pneumococcal diseases; Hyderabad, India. Pneumonia. 2014;3:142.
Berglund A, Ekelund M, Fletcher MA, Nyman L. All-cause pneumonia hospitalizations in children <2 years old in Sweden, 1998 to 2012: impact of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine introduction. PLoS One. 2014;9(11):e112211. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0112211.
Hausdorff WP, Mrkvan T, Moreira M, Ruiz Guiñazú J, Borys D. Five years of post-licensure experience with the 10-valent pneumococcal non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae protein D conjugate vaccine (PHiD-CV): a review. In: 9th international symposium on pneumococci and pneumococcal diseases; Hyderabad, India, March 9–13, 2014, p 286.
Domingues CM, Verani JR, Montenegro Renoiner EI, de Cunto Brandileone MC, Flannery B, de Oliveira LH, et al. Effectiveness of ten-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine against invasive pneumococcal disease in Brazil: a matched case–control study. Lancet Respir Med. 2014;2(6):464–71. doi:10.1016/s2213-2600(14)70060-8.
Deceuninck G, De Serres G, Boulianne N, Lefebvre B, De Wals P. Effectiveness of three pneumococcal conjugate vaccines to prevent invasive pneumococcal disease in Quebec, Canada. Abstract Presented at Canadian immunization conference, Ottawa, ON, Canada; 2014.
Jokinen J, Rinta-Kokko H, Siira L, Palmu AA, Virtanen MJ, Nohynek H, et al. Impact of ten-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccination on invasive pneumococcal disease in finnish children—a population-based study. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0120290. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0120290.
The Netherlands Reference Laboratory for Bacterial Meningitis (AMC/RIVM). Bacterial meningitis in The Netherlands; Annual Report 2012; 2013.
The Netherlands Reference Laboratory for Bacterial Meningitis (AMC/RIVM). Bacterial meningitis in The Netherlands; Annual Report 2010; 2011.
SIREVA II. Available from: http://www.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=3609&Itemid=3953&lang=pt. Last accessed Mar 7, 2014.
Hausdorff WP, Hoet B, Schuerman L. Do pneumococcal conjugate vaccines provide any cross-protection against serotype 19A? BMC Pediatr. 2010;10:4. doi:10.1186/1471-2431-10-4.
Clarke CJ, Hausdorff WP. Further evidence for the effectiveness of PCV10 against Streptococcus pneumoniae serotype 19A. Lancet Respir Med. 2014;2(6):e7. doi:10.1016/s2213-2600(14)70128-6.
Mrkvan T, Hoet B, Adegbola RA, Van Dyke M, Hausdorff WP. Serotype 19A and the 10-valent pneumococcal non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae protein D conjugate vaccine (PHiD-CV): lessons learned to date. Abstract no. 255. Presented at the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, Milan, Italy; 2013.
Jokinen J, Rinta-Kokko H, Siira L, Palmu A, Virtanen M, Nohynek H, et al. Impact of 10-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV10) on invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) among vaccine-eligible children in Finland. Presented at WSPID; 2013.
Iwata S, Kawamura N, Kuroki H, Tokoeda Y, Miyazu M, Iwai A, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of 10-valent pneumococcal non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae protein D conjugate vaccine co-administered with DTPa in Japanese children. Abstract no. 288. Presented at the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, Milan, Italy; 2013.
Sartori AL, Minamisava R, Afonso ET, Antunes JLF, Bierrenbach AL, Morais-Neto OL, et al. Reduction in all-cause otitis-related outpatient visits in children after PCV10 introduction in Brazil. Abstract no. ISPPD-0244. In: 9th international symposium on pneumococci and pneumococcal diseases; Hyderabad, India. 2014;3:240.
Eskola J, Kilpi T, Palmu A, Jokinen J, Haapakoski J, Herva E, et al. Efficacy of a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine against acute otitis media. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(6):403–9. doi:10.1056/nejm200102083440602.
Kilpi T, Ahman H, Jokinen J, Lankinen KS, Palmu A, Savolainen H, et al. Protective efficacy of a second pneumococcal conjugate vaccine against pneumococcal acute otitis media in infants and children: randomized, controlled trial of a 7-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide-meningococcal outer membrane protein complex conjugate vaccine in 1666 children. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;37(9):1155–64. doi:10.1086/378744.
Prymula R, Peeters P, Chrobok V, Kriz P, Novakova E, Kaliskova E, et al. Pneumococcal capsular polysaccharides conjugated to protein D for prevention of acute otitis media caused by both Streptococcus pneumoniae and non-typable Haemophilus influenzae: a randomised double-blind efficacy study. Lancet. 2006;367(9512):740–8. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(06)68304-9.
Croxtall JD, Keating GM. Pneumococcal polysaccharide protein D-conjugate vaccine (Synflorix; PHiD-CV). Paediatr Drugs. 2009;11(5):349–57. doi:10.2165/11202760-000000000-00000.
Prymula R, Schuerman L. 10-Valent pneumococcal nontypeable Haemophilus influenzae PD conjugate vaccine: Synflorix. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2009;8(11):1479–500. doi:10.1586/erv.09.113.
Akkoyunlu M, Ruan M, Forsgren A. Distribution of protein D, an immunoglobulin D-binding protein, in Haemophilus strains. Infect Immun. 1991;59(4):1231–8.
Bakaletz LO, Kennedy BJ, Novotny LA, Duquesne G, Cohen J, Lobet Y. Protection against development of otitis media induced by nontypeable Haemophilus influenzae by both active and passive immunization in a chinchilla model of virus-bacterium superinfection. Infect Immun. 1999;67(6):2746–62.
Novotny LA, Jurcisek JA, Godfroid F, Poolman JT, Denoel PA, Bakaletz LO. Passive immunization with human anti-protein D antibodies induced by polysaccharide protein D conjugates protects chinchillas against otitis media after intranasal challenge with Haemophilus influenzae. Vaccine. 2006;24(22):4804–11. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.03.021.
Janson H, Melhus A, Hermansson A, Forsgren A. Protein D, the glycerophosphodiester phosphodiesterase from Haemophilus influenzae with affinity for human immunoglobulin D, influences virulence in a rat otitis model. Infect Immun. 1994;62(11):4848–54.
Leach AJ, Wigger C, Andrews R, Chatfield M, Smith-Vaughan H, Morris PS. Otitis media in children vaccinated during consecutive 7-valent or 10-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccination schedules. BMC Pediatr. 2014;14:200. doi:10.1186/1471-2431-14-200.
Steens A, Bergsaker MA, Aaberge IS, Ronning K, Vestrheim DF. Prompt effect of replacing the 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine with the 13-valent vaccine on the epidemiology of invasive pneumococcal disease in Norway. Vaccine. 2013;31(52):6232–8. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.10.032.
Harboe ZB, Dalby T, Weinberger DM, Benfield T, Molbak K, Slotved HC, et al. Impact of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccination in invasive pneumococcal disease incidence and mortality. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59(8):1066–73. doi:10.1093/cid/ciu524.
Demczuk WH, Martin I, Griffith A, Lefebvre B, McGeer A, Lovgren M, et al. Serotype distribution of invasive Streptococcus pneumoniae in Canada after the introduction of the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, 2010–2012. Can J Microbiol. 2013;59(12):778–88. doi:10.1139/cjm-2013-0614.
Vizzotti C, Rancano C, Juarez M, Sagradini S, Gaiano S, Neyro S, et al. Argentinas experience 2 years after universal PCV-13 introduction: the importance of a national epidemiological surveillance system to monitoring a vaccination strategy. Abstract no. ISPPD-0518. In: 9th international symposium on pneumococci and pneumococcal diseases; Hyderabad, India; 2014.
Kaplan SL, Barson WJ, Lin PL, Romero JR, Bradley JS, Tan TQ, et al. Early trends for invasive pneumococcal infections in children after the introduction of the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2013;32(3):203–7. doi:10.1097/INF.0b013e318275614b.
Andrews NJ, Waight PA, Burbidge P, Pearce E, Roalfe L, Zancolli M, et al. Serotype-specific effectiveness and correlates of protection for the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine: a postlicensure indirect cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2014;14(9):839–46. doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(14)70822-9.
Moore M, Taylor T, Pondo T, Barnes M, Petit S, Holtzman C, et al. Impact of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (pcv13) against invasive pneumococcal disease (ipd) among children <5 years old in the US. Abstract no. ISPPD-0467. In: 9th international symposium on pneumococci and pneumococcal diseases; Hyderabad, India; 2014.
Aukes L, Pelton S, Center KJ, Yee A, Chao C, Gurtman A, et al. Changes in incidence and serotype distribution in invasive pneumococcal disease (ipd) after introduction of prevnar 13 in kaiser northern california. Abstract no. ISPPD-0456. In: 9th international symposium on pneumococci and pneumococcal diseases; Hyderabad, India; 2014.
Picazo J, Ruiz-Contreras J, Casado-Flores J, Negreira S, Baquero F, Hernandez-Sampelayo E, et al. Changes in incidence of serotype-specific invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) after withdrawal of PCV13 from the pediatric vaccination calendar in Madrid. Abstract no. ISPPD-0087. In: 9th international symposium on pneumococci and pneumococcal diseases; Hyderabad, India; 2014.
Ben-Shimol S, Greenberg D, Givon-Lavi N, Dagan R. Serotype-specific PCV7/PCV13 effect on invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) in children <5 years in Israel, July 2004–June 2013. Abstract no. ISPPD-0183. In: 9th international symposium on pneumococci and pneumococcal diseases; Hyderabad, India; 2014.
van der Linden M, Perniciaro S, Imohl M. Effects of 5 years of immunization with higher valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines in german children. Abstract no. ISPPD-0142. In: 9th international symposium on pneumococci and pneumococcal diseases; Hyderabad, India; 2014.
Savulescu C, Hanquet G, Group Ts. Effectiveness of higher valency conjugate vaccines on invasive pneumococcal disease in Europe: preliminary results of spidnet multicentre project. Abstract no. ISPPD-0562. In: 9th international symposium on pneumococci and pneumococcal diseases; Hyderabad, India; 2014.
Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. Minutes of the JCVI meeting, 1 Oct 2014. Available at: https://app.box.com/s/iddfb4ppwkmtjusir2tc/1/2199012147/22846051967/1. Accessed Mar 2, 2015.
Fenoll A, Granizo JJ, Aguilar L, Gimenez MJ, Aragoneses-Fenoll L, Hanquet G, et al. Temporal trends of invasive Streptococcus pneumoniae serotypes and antimicrobial resistance patterns in Spain from 1979 to 2007. J Clin Microbiol. 2009;47(4):1012–20. doi:10.1128/jcm.01454-08.
Moore MR, Link-Gelles R, Schaffner W, Lynfield R, Lexau C, Bennett NM, et al. Effect of use of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in children on invasive pneumococcal disease in children and adults in the USA: analysis of multisite, population-based surveillance. Lancet Infect Dis. 2015;15(3):301–9. doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(14)71081-3.
Moore M, Link-Gelles R, Guevara R, Rosen G, Barnes M, Petit S, et al. Case–control study of effectiveness of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (pcv13) against invasive pneumococcal disease (ipd) in the US: preliminary estimates. Abstract no. 0329. Pneumonia. 2014;3:182.
Mrkvan T, Hausdorff WP, Moreira M, Borys D. Evidence of early herd protection after infant vaccination with the 10-valent pneumococcal non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae Protein D conjugate vaccine (PHID-CV): A review. Abstract [P6] Presented at Nordic Vaccine Meeting 2014. Available from: http://www.fhi.no/dokumenter/d858c4c99b.pdf. Accessed Mar 19, 2015.
Kilpi T, Palmu A, Ruokokoski E. Indirect impact of pneumococcal Haemophilus influenzae protein D conjugate vaccine (PHID-CV10) on invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) in a clinical trial. Presented at: 8th World Congress on Pediatric Infectious Diseases (WSPID). Cape Town, South Africa, Nov 19–22, 2013.
Feikin DR, Kagucia EW, Loo JD, Link-Gelles R, Puhan MA, Cherian T, et al. Serotype-specific changes in invasive pneumococcal disease after pneumococcal conjugate vaccine introduction: a pooled analysis of multiple surveillance sites. PLoS Med. 2013;10(9):e1001517. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001517.
Weinberger DM, Malley R, Lipsitch M. Serotype replacement in disease after pneumococcal vaccination. Lancet. 2011;378(9807):1962–73. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(10)62225-8.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Amrita Ostawal for medical writing assistance (freelancer on behalf of the GSK group of companies) and Fabien Debailleul (Business & Decision Life Sciences, Brussels, Belgium on behalf of GSK Vaccines, Wavre, Belgium) for publication coordination. The authors would like to thank Tomohide Sato (Japan Vaccine Co., Ltd) and Katsiaryna Holl (GSK Vaccines, Wavre, Belgium) for their critical review of this letter. All named authors meet the ICMJE criteria for authorship of this manuscript, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole and have reviewed and given final approval of the version to be published.
Conflict of interest
Makoto Shiragami received fees for consulting from Japan Vaccine Co. Ltd for the original study. Akiko Mizukami is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline K.K. Oscar Leeuwenkamp is a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA. Tomas Mrkvan is an employee of the GSK group of companies and reports ownership of stock options from GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA. Emmanuelle Delgleize is an employee of the GSK group of companies and reports ownership of restricted shares from GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA. Yuichi Kurono received consulting fees from Japan Vaccine Co. Ltd for the original study and outside the scope of the study. Satoshi Iwata received consulting fees from Japan Vaccine Co. Ltd for the original study and outside the scope of the study, personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline K.K. for manuscript preparation and grants for lectures from GlaxoSmithKline K.K., Pfizer Japan Inc. and MSD K.K. outside of this work.
Source of funding
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (Rixensart, Belgium) funded the original study and all costs associated with the development and publication of this letter. Japan vaccine Co., Ltd (Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan) funded a contract with Makoto Shiragami, Yuichi Kurono and Satoshi Iwata for technical expertise. GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA and GlaxoSmithKline K.K. were involved in all stages of the study conduct and analysis.
Open Access
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Shiragami, M., Mizukami, A., Leeuwenkamp, O. et al. Reply to Farkouh RA et al. Comment on “Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of the 10-Valent Pneumococcal Non-Typeable Haemophilus Influenzae Protein D Conjugate Vaccine and 13-Valent Pneumococcal Vaccine in Japanese Children”. Infect Dis Ther 4, 235–244 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40121-015-0062-1
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40121-015-0062-1