CMAJ • January 6, 2009; 180 (1). doi:10.1503/cmaj.080734.
© 2009 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors
All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association.
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Résumé
Right arrow Online Appendices
Right arrow Correction (v180,p1038)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Huss, A.
Right arrow Articles by Egger, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Huss, A., PhD
Right arrow Articles by Egger, M., MD MSc
Related Collections
Right arrow Drugs: immunological products and vaccines
Right arrow Vaccination
Right arrow Other respiratory infections
Right arrowRelated Articles


Research

Efficacy of pneumococcal vaccination in adults: a meta-analysis

Anke Huss, PhD, Pippa Scott, MSc, Andreas E. Stuck, MD, Caroline Trotter, PhD and Matthias Egger, MD MSc

From the Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (Huss, Scott, Egger), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; the Department of Geriatrics (Stuck), Inselspital University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland; the University Department of Geriatrics (Stuck), Spital Netz Bern Ziegler, Bern, Switzerland; and the Department of Social Medicine (Trotter, Egger), University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Correspondence to: Dr. Matthias Egger, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Finkenhubelweg 11, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland; fax 41 31 631 35 20; egger{at}ispm.unibe.ch

Background: Clinical trials and meta-analyses have produced conflicting results of the efficacy of unconjugated pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine in adults. We sought to evaluate the vaccine's efficacy on clinical outcomes as well as the methodologic quality of the trials.

Methods: We searched several databases and all bibliographies of reviews and meta-analyses for clinical trials that compared pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine with a control. We examined rates of pneumonia and death, taking the methodologic quality of the trials into consideration.

Results: We included 22 trials involving 101 507 participants: 11 trials reported on presumptive pneumococcal pneumonia, 19 on all-cause pneumonia and 12 on all-cause mortality. The current 23-valent vaccine was used in 8 trials. The relative risk (RR) was 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43–0.96) for presumptive pneumococcal pneumonia and 0.73 (95% CI 0.56–0.94) for all-cause pneumonia. There was significant heterogeneity between the trials reporting on presumptive pneumonia (I2 = 74%, p < 0.001) and between those reporting on all-cause pneumonia (I2 = 90%, p < 0.001). The RR for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% CI 0.87–1.09), with moderate heterogeneity between trials (I2 = 44%, p = 0.053). Trial quality, especially regarding double blinding, explained a substantial proportion of the heterogeneity in the trials reporting on presumptive pneumonia and all-cause pneumonia. There was little evidence of vaccine protection in trials of higher methodologic quality (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.75–1.92, for presumptive pneumonia; and 1.19, 95% CI 0.95–1.49, for all-cause pneumonia in double-blind trials; p for heterogeneity > 0.05). The results for all-cause mortality in double-blind trials were similar to those in all trials combined. There was little evidence of vaccine protection among elderly patients or adults with chronic illness in analyses of all trials (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78–1.38, for presumptive pneumococcal pneumonia; 0.89, 95% CI 0.69–1.14, for all-cause pneumonia; and 1.00, 95% CI 0.87–1.14, for all-cause mortality).

Interpretation: Pneumococcal vaccination does not appear to be effective in preventing pneumonia, even in populations for whom the vaccine is currently recommended.



Related Articles

The controversy over the efficacy of pneumococcal vaccine
Ross Andrews, PhD MPH and Sarah A. Moberley, BN MPH
Can. Med. Assoc. J. 2009 180: 18-19. [Full Text] [PDF]

Highlights
Can. Med. Assoc. J. 2009 180: 5. [Full Text] [PDF]

Dans ce numéro
Can. Med. Assoc. J. 2009 180: 7. [Full Text] [PDF]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Virol.Home page
B. T. Korber, N. L. Letvin, and B. F. Haynes
T-Cell Vaccine Strategies for Human Immunodeficiency Virus, the Virus with a Thousand Faces
J. Virol., September 1, 2009; 83(17): 8300 - 8314.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CMAJHome page
R. M. Andrews and S. A. Moberley
Efficacy of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine
Can. Med. Assoc. J., May 26, 2009; 180(11): 1135 - 1135.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CMAJHome page
P. Scott, A. Huss, A. E. Stuck, C. Trotter, and M. Egger
Efficacy of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine
Can. Med. Assoc. J., May 26, 2009; 180(11): 1134 - 1135.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JWatch GeneralHome page
Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccine: Efficacy Remains Controversial
Journal Watch (General), January 27, 2009; 2009(127): 1 - 1.
[Full Text]


Home page
CMAJHome page
R. Andrews PhD MPH and S. A. Moberley BN MPH
The controversy over the efficacy of pneumococcal vaccine
Can. Med. Assoc. J., January 6, 2009; 180(1): 18 - 19.
[Full Text] [PDF]