Efficacy of pneumococcal vaccination in adults: a meta-analysis

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.The burden of disease due to Streptococcus pneumoniae falls mainly on children, elderly people and people with underlying conditions such as HIV infection.¹ Pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines were developed more than 50 years ago and have progressed from 2-valent vaccines to the current 23-valent vaccine, which has been available since the early 1980s. The 23-valent vaccine includes serotypes accounting for 72%² to 95%³ of invasive pneumococcal disease, depending on the geographic area. In many industrialized countries, pneumococcal vaccination is currently recommended for people aged 65 years and older and for individuals aged 2–64 who are at increased risk of pneumococcal disease.^4–6Meta-analyses of controlled clinical trials have produced conflicting results of the efficacy of unconjugated pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine.^7–22 The lack of consistency between results reported from observational studies and controlled trials is another reason why the efficacy of the vaccine remains controversial. Empirical studies have shown that inadequate quality of clinical trials can lead to biases that distort their results.²³ For example, inadequate allocation concealment or failure to blind patients, caregivers or those assessing outcomes may exaggerate treatment effects.²³ Despite this, none of the previous reviews formally compared effect sizes in trials of high methodologic quality with effect sizes in trials of lower quality. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials examining the efficacy of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccination on clinical outcomes, taking the quality of trials into account.