Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recommending both the conjugate and polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccines to all U.S. seniors may have little public health impact and be economically unreasonable. Public health impact and cost-effectiveness of using both vaccines in all adults aged ≥65 years were estimated compared with an alternative strategy (omitting pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in the nonimmunocompromised) and with the newly revised recommendation (giving or omitting conjugate vaccine based on patient-physician shared decision making). METHODS: Strategies were examined in hypothetical U.S. 65-year-old population cohorts and segmented into health states based on age- and population-specific data in a Markov state-transition model with a lifetime time horizon from a healthcare perspective. Black population cohorts were examined separately given greater illness risk and lower vaccine uptake. Model parameters came from the Centers for Disease Control Active Core Bacterial Surveillance network, National Health Interview Survey, and Nationwide Inpatient Sample data. Outcomes included incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year gained and pneumococcal disease outcomes for each strategy. Data were gathered and analysis performed in 2018. RESULTS: Giving both vaccines, either routinely or with shared decision making, was most effective, reducing pneumococcal disease incidence compared with no vaccination, but costing $765,000-$2.18 million/quality-adjusted life year gained. Depending on examined population and scenario, the alternative strategy cost $65,700-$226,700/quality-adjusted life year gained (less in black populations) and reduced cases and deaths by 0.3%-0.9%. CONCLUSIONS: A vaccination strategy that omits pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in immunocompetent U.S. seniors may be economically reasonable, particularly for black seniors. Use of both pneumococcal vaccines was more effective but substantially more expensive.