Background: Pneumococcal disease causes substantial morbidity and mortality, including among adults. Adult pneumococcal vaccines help to prevent these burdens, but they are underused. Accounting for the full benefits of adult pneumococcal vaccination may promote more rational resource allocation decisions with respect to adult pneumococcal vaccines.
Objectives: Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we conducted a systematic review to assess the extent to which the literature has empirically captured (e.g., through measurement or modeling) the full benefits of adult pneumococcal vaccination.
Methods: We systematically searched PubMed and Embase to identify studies published between January 1, 2010 and April 10, 2016 that examine adult pneumococcal vaccination. We included articles if they captured any health or economic benefit of an adult pneumococcal vaccine administered to adults age ≥ 50 or ≥ 18 in risk groups. Finally, we summarized the literature by categorizing the types of benefits captured, the perspective taken, and the strength of the evidence presented. Our protocol is number 42016038335 in the PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews.
Results: We identified 5,857 papers and included 150 studies for analysis. While most capture health gains and healthcare cost savings, far fewer studies consider additional benefit categories, such as productivity gains. However, the studies with a broader approach still exhibit significant limitations; for example, many present only abstracts, while others offer no new measurements. Studies that examine the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine focus more on broad economic benefits, but still have limitations.
Conclusions: This review highlights the need for more robust empirical accounting of the full benefits of adult pneumococcal vaccination. Literature outside this realm indicates that these broad benefits may be substantial. Failing to investigate the full benefits may lead society to undervalue vaccines' contributions and therefore underinvest in their development and adoption.