We thank Strutton et al. for highlighting important issues for decision makers in their recent Letter to the Editor  and welcome the opportunity to clarify the methods we used to develop our health economic analysis for the 10-valent pneumococcal Haemophilus influenzae protein D conjugate vaccine (PHiD-CV; Synflorix). We will address our colleagues’ points regarding why we did not include the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV-13; Prevenar) as a comparator; why we used the 2+1 regimen for some countries; and what the bases for our assumptions were regarding equal indirect effects of vaccination with PHiD-CV relative to PCV-7, PHiD-CV effectiveness against invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and pneumonia, PHiD-CV effectiveness against acute otitis media (AOM) and myringotomy, and the evidence for including cross-protection that Strutton et al.  questioned in their letter.
Reply to Strutton et al.
Response to “Outcomes and costs associated with PHiD-CV, a new protein D conjugate pneumococcal vaccine, in four countries”
Talbird, S., Knerer, G., Hausdorff, W., Taylor, T., & Frostad, CR. (2011). Reply to Strutton et al. Response to “Outcomes and costs associated with PHiD-CV, a new protein D conjugate pneumococcal vaccine, in four countries”. Vaccine, 29(44), 7591-7592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.06.117