Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV) reduce nasopharyngeal carriage of vaccine type (VT) pneumococci, an important driver of vaccine programs’ overall benefits. The dosing schedule that best reduces carriage is unclear.
We performed a systematic review of English language publications from 1994 to 2010 (supplemented post hoc with studies from 2011) reporting PCV effects on VT carriage to assess variability in effect by dosing schedule.
We identified 32 relevant studies (36 citations) from 12,980 citations reviewed. Twenty-one (66%) evaluated PCV7; none used PCV10 or PCV13. Five studies evaluated 2 primary doses and 13 three primary doses. After the first year of life, 14 evaluated 3-dose primary series with PCV booster (3+1), seven 3 doses plus 23-valent polysaccharide booster “3+1PPV23,” five “3+0,” four “2+1,” three “2+1PPV23” and two “2+0.” Four studies directly compared schedules. From these, 3 primary doses reduced VT carriage more than 2 doses at 1–7 months following the series (1 study significant; 2 borderline). In a study, the 2+1 schedule reduced VT carriage more than 2+0 at 18, but not at 24 months of age. One study of a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine booster showed no effect. All 16 clinical trials with unvaccinated controls and 11 observational studies with before-after designs showed reduction in VT carriage.
The available literature demonstrates VT-carriage reduction for 2+0, 2+1, 3+0 and 3+1 PCV schedules, but not for 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine booster. Comparisons between schedules show that 3 primary doses and a 2+1 schedule may reduce carriage more than 2 primary doses and a 2+0 schedule, respectively.
PCV7 and PCV10 were initially licensed for 3 primary doses plus a booster (3+1 schedule), and PCV7, PCV10 and PCV13 were later granted licenses in Europe and elsewhere for schedules using 2 primary doses plus a booster (2+1).
We examined the larger set of literature regarding PCV dosing schedules to address the following key policy questions regarding direct effects of vaccine on VT carriage: (1) What is the evidence that a 3-dose primary series is superior or inferior to a 2-dose primary series? (2) If only 3 doses are used, is there any evidence to prefer a 2+1 or a 3+0 schedule? (3) What is the evidence that a schedule including a booster dose is superior to one without a booster dose? and (4) Is there evidence to support the choice of PCV or PPV23 as a booster dose?
This analysis is part of a larger project describing the impact of PCV dosing schedules on IPD, immunogenicity, NP carriage, pneumonia and indirect effects.
Citations recovered through the literature search went through several stages of independent review to determine their eligibility, as described elsewhere (Methods Appendix
We abstracted core information on the following: number of children in a “study arm”; PCV manufacturer, valency and conjugate protein; co-administered vaccines; country; age at each dose and date of study and publication. Additional data abstracted for the direct effect of PCV on VT NP carriage included age at each NP specimen collection.
We included data published from randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized trials, surveillance databases and observational studies of PCV schedules on VT carriage. We included all PCV products (denoted as PCV with a number indicating the valency, eg, PCV7). We excluded studies with all vaccination series beginning after 12 months of life, studies that only reported data before or after PCV introduction but not for both periods and studies that did not report direct PCV effects on VT carriage.
We included PCV schedules with 2 primary doses only (2+0), 2 primary doses plus a PCV booster (2+1) or a PPV23 booster (2+1PPV23), 3 primary doses only (3+0) and 3 primary doses plus a PCV booster (3+1) or a PPV23 booster (3+1PPV23).
Because the included studies used various designs and methods, we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. Thus, we summarized the data across studies in descriptive analyses to provide an overview of the amount and variability of data by schedule. Each study was divided into arms, defined as a unique combination of vaccine schedule, age at NP specimen collection and vaccine product used. Studies could have multiple arms. VT was defined as each study defined it, based on the product used. No studies included PCV products with serotype 19A; none classified 19A as VT. Two PCV7 studies included serotype 6A as a VT.
For clinical trials, we abstracted the difference in VT-carriage prevalence with confidence intervals (CI) between vaccinated children and controls. If not reported, we calculated the difference in carriage between vaccinated children and controls. We separated clinical trials into those that directly compared NP effects of various schedules and trials that evaluated effects only between a given schedule and unvaccinated controls. We separated these latter trials into those that examined carriage early (during the first year of life or prior to any booster dose given in the study) and late (after the first year of life or after any booster dose given in the study).
For pre- and postvaccine introduction observational studies among age groups targeted for vaccination, we calculated percent change in VT carriage by defining the baseline prevalence as the mean of all data points reported prior to introduction. In cases where only the postintroduction VT-carriage prevalence over a period was provided, we calculated percent change from the baseline prevalence to the reported prevalence and assigned it to the median year of the date range provided. When possible, the year of vaccine introduction was excluded from these calculations. We used Microsoft Access 2003 and 2007 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA) for data abstraction and SAS 9.2 and 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) for analyses. Statistical significance was defined as
Of 12,980 citations reviewed, 145 had carriage data; of these, 36 met inclusion criteria for VT carriage among children targeted to receive the vaccine (
Characteristics of Included Study Families (n = 32)
Literature search results for carriage citations identified from search strategy, as strategy as detailed in the Methods Appendix.
Among the 32 studies, 4 directly compared VT-carriage reduction among dosing regimens. The first study, conducted in Fiji, compared 0, 1, 2 and 3 PCV7 doses (given at 14 weeks, 6 and 14 weeks or 6, 10 and 14 weeks, respectively) with and without a PPV23 booster at 12 months.
Ten clinical trials evaluated 2- and 3-dose primary regimens during the first year of life compared with control subjects who received either placebo or no vaccine. Two trials examined both regimens
Difference in VT carriage prevalence between vaccinated and unvaccinated or placebo groups for clinical trials by primary dosing series (2 or 3 doses) for carriage assessed in the first year of life.
Two trials examined the VT-carriage effect of 3 primary doses but provided results that could not be compared with other studies. One, a clinical trial in Iceland, examined 81 children who received PCV8 conjugated to diphtheria or tetanus toxoid given in 3 primary doses (3, 4 and 6 months) and 40 unvaccinated controls.
Thirteen clinical trials (14 citations) assessed VT carriage with samples taken after the first year of life (
Difference in VT-carriage prevalence between vaccinated and unvaccinated or placebo groups for clinical trials by dosing series for carriage assessed after the first year of life.
Results by schedule from 11 observational, pre/postvaccine introduction studies (13 citations) are shown in
Percent of vaccine-type carriage among children in pre-post trend studies over time by schedule. Year of PCV introduction is denoted as year 0. Studies, which include the primary citation and any supplemental citations, are identified by country, age group in years of children at time of NP specimen collection, and by first author's last name (with reference number in brackets).
Additional observational studies met inclusion criteria but were not comparable to other studies because of their unique designs. A cohort study from Korea evaluated the effect of a 3+1 schedule (given at 2, 4, 6 and 16.5 months), following PCV7 private-market introduction.
Finally, a pre/postintroduction study from France also included a sub-analysis examining the effect of the booster dose.
We found that all schedules reviewed—2+0, 2+1, 2+1PPV23, 3+0, 3+1 and 3+1PPV23—reduced carriage of VTs of pneumococcus compared with no PCV. However, the strength of evidence supporting each schedule varies and effects differ among the schedules. First, in studies with direct comparisons of 2 versus 3 primary doses, 3 doses result in a greater reduction in VT carriage compared with 2 doses at 1–7 months following the primary series.
Very little evidence is available on VT-carriage prevalence after the first year of life in children who received a 2-dose schedule without a booster dose. Both clinical trials that evaluated 2+0 schedules after the first year of life demonstrated reductions in VT carriage.
More evidence is needed regarding the optimal timing of the doses in a 3-dose schedule, but available evidence supports the use of both 2+1 and 3+0 schedules. While no published studies directly compare the impact of 2+1 and 3+0 schedules on VT carriage, both schedules reduce VT carriage compared with no PCV use. A study of 2+1, 3+0 and 3+1 schedules using PCV7 from Israel was done and has been published in part.
Some evidence suggests that schedules with PCV boosters may provide additional reductions in VT carriage.
Determining the relative benefit for NP-carriage reductions of 1 schedule over another is difficult. Limited data are available from studies with direct comparisons between schedules. Few are conducted in regions where child mortality is high, and some studies were in the setting of catch-up campaigns, which would blur the measured effect of the primary schedule. These limitations should be considered when assessing the potential benefits of particular schedules. For example, while 2+1 schedules reduced VT carriage in 2 observational studies, it is important to note that 1 study was conducted among vaccinated children in the setting of a private-market introduction,
This analysis focused on VT carriage and did not address the effect of dosing schedules on all pneumococcal carriage or non-VT carriage, as the impact on VT carriage is the most important factor for policy makers when deciding which dosing schedules to recommend. Most studies show that PCV does not affect the overall prevalence of all-serotype pneumococcal carriage,
This analysis has several strengths and limitations. The strengths of this analysis are its comprehensive nature with the diversity of countries and study designs included. Very few NP studies directly compare schedules, and this analysis allows for all of the supporting evidence for each of these regimens to be considered. However, the analysis is limited because fully differentiating the relative magnitude of the impact on VT carriage of each schedule is not possible. Geographic region, socioeconomic level and other factors affect carriage of pneumococci and thus confound our ability to compare magnitudes of impact across studies. Additionally, we were unable to account for vaccine coverage in the target populations or the presence of catch-up campaigns due to limited information in the study reports.
In conclusion, 2+0, 2+1, 3+0 and 3+1 schedules all reduce pneumococcal VT carriage. Importantly, the evidence indicates that 3 primary doses may reduce VT carriage more than 2 primary doses; that both 2+1 and 3+0 schedules are effective; PCV booster doses may be helpful, especially in the setting of 2 primary doses and the use of PPV23 boosters after a PCV schedule does not further reduce VT carriage. Our analysis supports recent recommendations by the Pan American Health Organization and the World Health Organization for the use of 3 doses of PCV and the acceptability to be administered either as 3+0 or 2+1 schedule.
The authors acknowledge the tremendous support for abstracting data from the following: Becky Roberts, Karrie-Ann Toews and Carolyn Wright from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Respiratory Diseases Branch; Catherine Bozio, Rose Chang, Jamie Felzer, Amy Fothergill, Sara Gelb, Kristen Hake, Sydney Hubbard, Grace Hunte and Shuling Liu from Emory University Rollins School of Public Health; and Bethany Baer, Subash Chandir, Stephanie Davis, Sylvia Kauffman, Min Joo Kwak, Paulami Naik and Meena Ramakrishnan from The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and T. Scott Johnson from Biostatistics Consulting
Accepted for publication August 13, 2013.
Support for this project was provided by Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH) through funding from the GAVI Alliance. The views expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the views of CDC, GAVI, PATH or IVAC. M.D.K. has received support from Novartis for participation on a Data and Safety Monitoring Board, meeting travel reimbursement from Pfizer and grant support from Merck. D.G.’s laboratory performs contract and or collaborative research for/with Pfizer, GlaxosmithKline, Merck, Novartis and Sanofi Pasteur. D.G. has received travel or honorarium support for participation in external expert committees for Merck, Sanofi Pasteur, Pfizer and GlaxosmithKline. K.O.B. received grant support from Pfizer, GlaxosmithKline and has received travel or honorarium support for participation in external expert committees for Merck, Aventis-pasteur and GlaxosmithKline. The authors have no other funding or conflicts of interest to disclose.
Address for correspondence: Katherine E. Fleming-Dutra, MD, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, Mailstop C-25, Atlanta, GA 30333. E-mail: