Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Letters

Efficacy of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine

Ross M. Andrews and Sarah A. Moberley
CMAJ May 26, 2009 180 (11) 1135; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1090019
Ross M. Andrews
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sarah A. Moberley
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

The commentators respond:

Our commentary 1 was intended as a critical review of the evidence base provided by Anke Huss and colleagues’ meta-analysis. 2 We challenged what we perceived as an implied recommendation for countries to cease vaccination programs with polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine for adults if they had an existing program for children.

We agree that the major area of debate and uncertainty concerning meta-analyses of clinical trials relates to efficacy against invasive pneumococcal disease and that the results of such analyses are greatly dependent on the selection of trials for inclusion. On this point, we queried the basis reported by Huss and colleagues for excluding 2 studies 3,4 from their meta-analysis and including another. 5 It is unfortunate that these concerns were not addressed in their letter. For the reasons given in our commentary, we suspect the inclusion or exclusion of these 3 studies to be methodologic errors in the meta-analysis undertaken by Huss and colleagues.

Prevention of invasive pneumococcal disease is the primary purpose of vaccination programs with polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine in adults. We contended that the World Health Organization had considered the findings of the meta-analysis by Huss and colleagues in its recent position paper on the use of pneumococcal vaccine in adults but that its recommendations had remained “virtually unchanged.” 6 We accept the points of clarification by Huss and colleagues on the subtle wording changes they identified, but by our reading the World Health Organization falls well short of calling for cessation of existing polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine programs for adults in its recent position paper. In their letter, Huss and colleagues appear to have moved away from this suggestion, which we think is appropriate given the evidence provided in their review.

Rather than demonstrating a lack of convincing evidence of efficacy after 60 years of research on the polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine, we think the study by Huss and colleagues further highlights the limitations of the available clinical trial data when assessing the vaccine’s impact against rare events like invasive pneumococcal disease. The most recent and best quality clinical trials, as determined by Huss and colleagues, were conducted largely among populations with chronic illness or severe immunosuppression or both. In these trials there were very few cases of invasive pneumococcal disease: 7 cases of definitive pneumococcal pneumonia from 2 studies and 44 cases of bacteremia from 6 studies (most of which were among HIV-infected adults in Uganda).

As we stated in our commentary, the World Health Organization’s position is that the data from randomized trials, meta-analyses of randomized trials and most observational studies are consistent with a protective effect against invasive pneumococcal disease among healthy adults and, to a lesser extent, among adults aged 65 years and older. 6 We welcome calls to investigate new approaches with new vaccines, but on the basis of the evidence provided by Huss and colleagues, we see no compelling rationale for excluding polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine from these considerations.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None declared.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Andrews R, Moberley SA. The controversy over the efficacy of pneumococcal vaccine. CMAJ 2009;180:18–9.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Huss A, Scott P, Stuck AE, et al. Efficacy of pneumococcal vaccination in adults: a meta-analysis. CMAJ 2009;180:48–58.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    Kaufman P. Pneumonia in old age. Arch Intern Med 1947;79:518–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. 4.↵
    Riley ID, Tarr PI, Andrews M, et al. Immunization with a polyvalent pneumococcal vaccine. Reduction of adult respiratory mortality in a New Guinea Highlands community. Lancet 1977;1:1338–41.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Honkanen PO, Keistinen T, Miettinen L, et al. Incremental effectiveness of pneumococcal vaccine on simultaneously administered influenza vaccine in preventing pneumonia and pneumococcal pneumonia among persons aged 65 years or older. Vaccine 1999;17:2493–500.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    World Health Organization. 23-Valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine: WHO position paper. Wkly Epidemiol Rec 2008;83:373–84 Available: www.who.int/wer/2008/wer8342.pdf (accessed 2009 Apr. 9).
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 180 (11)
CMAJ
Vol. 180, Issue 11
26 May 2009
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Efficacy of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Efficacy of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine
Ross M. Andrews, Sarah A. Moberley
CMAJ May 2009, 180 (11) 1135; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1090019

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Efficacy of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine
Ross M. Andrews, Sarah A. Moberley
CMAJ May 2009, 180 (11) 1135; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1090019
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • The commentators respond:
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Coexisting failures do not diminish the stature of a giant
  • Dare we hope
  • Highlighting obesity as a risk factor for endometrial cancer
Show more Letters

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Vaccination
    • Respiratory medicine
    • Drugs: immunologic

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

Powered by HighWire