Abstract
A recently published paper that assessed the comparative cost-effectiveness of the 2 pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) in Malaysia and Hong Kong reported that the 13-valent PCV vaccine (PCV13) is a better choice compared to the 10-valent pneumococcal non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae protein D conjugate vaccine (PHiD-CV or PCV10) from both a payer and societal perspective as well as under various scenarios. However, the analysis relied on a large number of assumptions that were either erroneous or did not take into account the most recent body of evidence available. A rigorous evaluation of the underlying assumptions is necessary to present a fair and balanced analysis for decision-making.