• Journal Article

Reply to Strutton et al.: Response to “Outcomes and costs associated with PHiD-CV, a new protein D conjugate pneumococcal vaccine, in four countries”

Citation

Talbird, S., Knerer, G., Hausdorff, W., Taylor, T., & Frostad, C. R. (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. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.06.117

Abstract

We thank Strutton et al. for highlighting important issues for decision makers in their recent Letter to the Editor [1] 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. [1] questioned in their letter.