Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Self-Management Interventions for Adults Living with Heart Failure to Improve Patient-Important Outcomes: An Evidence Map of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Self-management interventions (SMIs) may enhance heart failure (HF) outcomes and address challenges associated with disease management. This study aims to review randomized evidence and identify knowledge gaps in SMIs for adult HF patients. Within the COMPAR-EU project, from 2010 to 2018, we conducted searches in the databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane, and PsycINFO. We performed a descriptive analysis using predefined categories and developed an evidence map of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We found 282 RCTs examining SMIs for HF patients, comparing two to four interventions, primarily targeting individual patients (97%) globally (34 countries, only 31% from an European country). These interventions involved support techniques such as information sharing (95%) and self-monitoring (62%), often through a mix of in-person and remote sessions (43%). Commonly assessed outcomes included quality of life, hospital admissions, mortality, exercise capacity, and self-efficacy. Few studies have focused on lower socio-economic or minority groups. Nurses (68%) and physicians (30%) were the primary providers, and most studies were at low risk of bias in generating a random sequence for participant allocation; however, the reporting was noticeably unclear of methods used to conceal the allocation process. Our analysis has revealed prevalent support techniques and delivery methods while highlighting methodological challenges. These findings provide valuable insights for researchers, clinicians, and policymakers striving to optimize SMIs for individuals living with HF.

GRADE guidance 23: considering cost-effectiveness evidence in moving from evidence to health-related recommendations.

BACKGROUND: This is the 23rd in a series of articles describing the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to grading the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations for systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and clinical guideline development. OBJECTIVES: We outline how resource utilization and cost-effectiveness analyses are integrated into health-related recommendations, using the GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Through iterative discussions and refinement, in-person, and online meetings, and through e-mail communication, we developed draft guidance to incorporate economic evidence in the formulation of health-related recommendations. We developed scenarios to operationalize the guidance. We presented a summary of the results to members of the GRADE Economic Evaluation Project Group. RESULTS: We describe how to estimate the cost of preventing (or achieving) an event to inform assessments of cost-effectiveness of alternative treatments, when there are no published economic evaluations. Evidence profiles and Summary of Findings tables based on systematic reviews of cost-effectiveness analyses can be created to provide top-level summaries of results and quality of multiple published economic evaluations. We also describe how this information could be integrated in GRADE's EtD frameworks to inform health-related recommendations. Three scenarios representing various levels of available cost-effectiveness evidence were used to illustrate the integration process. CONCLUSION: This GRADE guidance provides practical information for presenting cost-effectiveness data and its integration in the development of health-related recommendations, using the EtD frameworks.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Case Management in Advanced Heart Failure Patients Attended in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

AIMS: Nurse-led case management (CM) may improve quality of life (QoL) for advanced heart failure (HF) patients. No systematic review (SR), however, has summarized its effectiveness/cost-effectiveness. We aimed to evaluate the effect of such programs in primary care settings in advanced HF patients. We examined and summarized evidence on QoL, mortality, hospitalization, self-care, and cost-effectiveness. METHODS AND RESULTS: The MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Clinical Trials, WHO, Registry of International Clinical Trials, and Central Cochrane were searched up to March 2022. The Consensus Health Economic Criteria instrument to assess risk-of-bias in economic evaluations, Cochrane risk-of-bias 2 for clinical trials, and an adaptation of Robins-I for quasi-experimental and cohort studies were employed. Results from nurse-led CM programs did not reduce mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.15; participants = 1345; studies = 6; I2 = 47%). They decreased HF hospitalizations (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.91; participants = 1989; studies = 8; I2 = 0%) and all-cause ones (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.89; participants = 1012; studies = 5; I2 = 36%). QoL improved in medium-term follow-up (SMD 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.32; participants = 1228; studies = 8; I2 = 28%), and self-care was not statistically significant improved (SMD 0.66, 95% CI -0.84 to 2.17; participants = 450; studies = 3; I2 = 97%). A wide variety of costs ranging from USD 4975 to EUR 27,538 was observed. The intervention was cost-effective at ≤EUR 60,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse-led CM reduces all-cause hospital admissions and HF hospitalizations but not all-cause mortality. QoL improved at medium-term follow-up. Such programs could be cost-effective in high-income countries.

More work needed on decision analysis for shared decision-making: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To explore and characterize published evidence on the ways decision analysis has been used to inform shared decision-making. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: For this scoping review, we searched five bibliographic databases (from inception until February 2021), reference lists of included studies, trial registries, a thesis database and websites of relevant interest groups. Studies were eligible if they evaluated the application of decision analysis in a shared decision-making encounter. Pairs of reviewers independently screened and selected studies for inclusion, extracted study information using a data extraction form developed by the research team and assessed risk of bias for all studies with an experimental or quasi-experimental design. Data were narratively synthesized. RESULTS: We identified 27 studies that varied greatly with regard to their patient population, design, content and delivery. A range of outcomes were evaluated to explore the effectiveness and acceptability of decision analytic interventions, with little information about the implementation process. Most studies found that decision analysis was broadly beneficial. CONCLUSION: Despite the compelling rationale on the potential for decision analysis to support shared decision-making, rigorous randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these interventions' effectiveness, while qualitative studies should seek to understand their potential implementation.

GRADE Guidelines 30: the GRADE approach to assessing the certainty of modeled evidence-An overview in the context of health decision-making.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study is to present the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) conceptual approach to the assessment of certainty of evidence from modeling studies (i.e., certainty associated with model outputs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Expert consultations and an international multidisciplinary workshop informed development of a conceptual approach to assessing the certainty of evidence from models within the context of systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and health care decisions. The discussions also clarified selected concepts and terminology used in the GRADE approach and by the modeling community. Feedback from experts in a broad range of modeling and health care disciplines addressed the content validity of the approach. RESULTS: Workshop participants agreed that the domains determining the certainty of evidence previously identified in the GRADE approach (risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency, imprecision, reporting bias, magnitude of an effect, dose-response relation, and the direction of residual confounding) also apply when assessing the certainty of evidence from models. The assessment depends on the nature of model inputs and the model itself and on whether one is evaluating evidence from a single model or multiple models. We propose a framework for selecting the best available evidence from models: 1) developing de novo, a model specific to the situation of interest, 2) identifying an existing model, the outputs of which provide the highest certainty evidence for the situation of interest, either "off-the-shelf" or after adaptation, and 3) using outputs from multiple models. We also present a summary of preferred terminology to facilitate communication among modeling and health care disciplines. CONCLUSION: This conceptual GRADE approach provides a framework for using evidence from models in health decision-making and the assessment of certainty of evidence from a model or models. The GRADE Working Group and the modeling community are currently developing the detailed methods and related guidance for assessing specific domains determining the certainty of evidence from models across health care-related disciplines (e.g., therapeutic decision-making, toxicology, environmental health, and health economics).

Efficacy and safety of dupilumab for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: A systematic review for the EAACI biologicals guidelines.

This systematic review evaluates the efficacy, safety and economic impact of dupilumab compared to standard of care for uncontrolled moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs and health economic evaluations. Critical and important AD-related outcomes were considered. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. Seven RCTs including 1845 subjects >12 years treated with dupilumab 16 to 52 weeks were evaluated. For adults, there is high certainty that dupilumab decreases SCORAD (MD -30,72; 95% CI -34,65% to -26,79%) and EASI-75 (RR 3.09; 95% CI 2.45 to 3.89), pruritus (RR 2.96; 95% CI 2.37 to 3.70), rescue medication (RR 3.46; 95% CI 2.79 to 4.30), sleep disturbance (MD -7.29; 95% CI -8.23 to -6.35) and anxiety/depression (MD -3.08; 95% CI -4.41 to -1.75) and improves quality of life (MD -4.80; 95% CI -5.55 to -4.06). The efficacy for adolescents is similar. Dupilumab-related adverse events (AEs) slightly increase (low certainty). The evidence for dupilumab-related serious AE is uncertain. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranged from 28 500 £ (low certainty) to 124 541 US$ (moderate certainty). More data on long-term safety are needed both for children and for adults, together with more efficacy data in the paediatric population. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42020153645).

The UpPriority tool was developed to guide the prioritization of clinical guideline questions for updating.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to develop a pragmatic tool to prioritize clinical guideline (CG) questions for updating, the UpPriority tool. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The development of this tool consisted of the following: (1) establishment of the working group, (2) generation of the initial version, (3) optimization of the tool (including an initial feasibility test, semistructured interviews, Delphi consensus survey, second feasibility test, external review, and pilot test), and (4) approval of the final version. RESULTS: A total of 87 participants including methodologists, clinicians, and other relevant stakeholders contributed to the development of the UpPriority tool. The tool consists of six items: (1) impact of outdated recommendations on safety, (2) availability of new relevant evidence, (3) context relevance of the clinical question, (4) methodological applicability of the clinical question, (5) user's interest, and (6) impact on access to health care. The UpPriority tool includes detailed guidance for using the tool and rating each item (using a 7-point Likert scale), for calculating and ranking the questions, and for summarizing results. CONCLUSION: The UpPriority tool could be useful for standardizing prioritization processes when updating CGs and for fostering more efficient use of resources in the CG field.

Efficacy and safety of treatment with dupilumab for severe asthma: A systematic review of the EAACI guidelines-Recommendations on the use of biologicals in severe asthma.

Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against interleukin-4 receptor α, is approved as add-on maintenance treatment for inadequately controlled type 2 severe asthma. This systematic review evaluated the efficacy, safety and economic impact of dupilumab compared to standard of care for uncontrolled severe asthma. PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs and health economic evaluations. Critical and important asthma-related outcomes were evaluated. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. Three RCTs including 2735 subjects >12 years old and 24-52 weeks of follow-up were included. Dupilumab reduced with high certainty severe asthma exacerbations (Incidence rate ratio 0.51; 95% CI 0.45-0.59) and the percentage use of oral corticosteroid use (mean difference (MD) -28.2 mg/d; 95% CI -40.7 to -15.7). Asthma control (ACQ-5), quality of life (AQLQ) and rescue medication use [puffs/d] improved, without reaching the minimal important clinical difference: ACQ-5 MD -0.28 (95% CI -0.39 to -0.17); AQLQ MD +0.28 (95% CI 0.20-0.37); and rescue medication MD -0.35 (95% CI -0.73 to +0.02). FEV1 increased (MD +0.15; 95% CI +0.11 to +0.18) (moderate certainty). There was an increased rate of dupilumab-related adverse events (AEs) (moderate certainty) and of drug-related serious AEs (low certainty). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of dupilumab versus standard therapy was 464 000$/QALY (moderate certainty). More data on long-term safety are needed both for children and for adults, together with more efficacy data in the paediatric population.

Efficacy and safety of treatment with biologicals (benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and reslizumab) for severe eosinophilic asthma. A systematic review for the EAACI Guidelines - recommendations on the use of biologicals in severe asthma.

Five biologicals have been approved for severe eosinophilic asthma, a well-recognized phenotype. Systematic reviews (SR) evaluated the efficacy and safety of benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and reslizumab (alphabetical order) compared to standard of care for severe eosinophilic asthma. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to identify RCTs and health economic evaluations, published in English. Critical and important asthma-related outcomes were evaluated for each of the biologicals. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. 19 RCTs (three RCTs for benralizumab, three RCTs for dupilumab, three RCTs for mepolizumab, five RCTs for omalizumab and five RCTs for reslizumab), including subjects 12 to 75 years old (except for omalizumab including also subjects 6-11 years old), ranging from 12 to 56 weeks were evaluated. All biologicals reduce exacerbation rates with high certainty of evidence: benralizumab incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.53 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.72), dupilumab (IRR) 0.43 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.59), mepolizumab IRR 0.49 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.66), omalizumab (IRR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.77) and reslizumab (IRR) 0.46 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.58). Benralizumab, dupilumab and mepolizumab reduce the daily dose of oral corticosteroids (OCS) with high certainty of evidence. All evaluated biologicals probably improve asthma control, QoL and FEV1 , without reaching the minimal important difference (moderate certainty). Benralizumab, mepolizumab and reslizumab slightly increase drug-related adverse events (AE) and drug-related serious AE (low to very low certainty of evidence). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year value is above the willingness to pay threshold for all biologicals (moderate certainty). Potential savings are driven by decrease in hospitalizations, emergency and primary care visits. There is high certainty that all approved biologicals reduce the rate of severe asthma exacerbations and for benralizumab, dupilumab and mepolizumab for reducing OCS. There is moderate certainty for improving asthma control, QoL, FEV1 . More data on long-term safety are needed together with more efficacy data in the paediatric population.

GRADE Guidelines 28: Use of GRADE for the assessment of evidence about prognostic factors: rating certainty in identification of groups of patients with different absolute risks.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to provide guidance on the use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to determine certainty in estimates of association between prognostic factors and future outcomes. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We developed our guidance through an iterative process that involved review of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of prognostic factors, consultation with members, feedback, presentation, and discussion at the GRADE Working Group meetings. RESULTS: For questions of prognosis, a body of observational evidence (potentially including patients enrolled in randomized controlled trials) begins as high certainty in the evidence. The five domains of GRADE for rating down certainty in the evidence, that is, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and publication bias, as well as the domains for rating up, also apply to estimates of associations between prognostic factors and outcomes. One should determine if their ratings do not consider (noncontextualized) or consider (contextualized) the clinical context as this will may result in variable judgments on certainty of the evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The same principles GRADE proposed for bodies of evidence addressing treatment and overall prognosis work well in assessing individual prognostic factors, both in noncontextualized and contextualized settings.

Comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of self-management interventions in four high-priority chronic conditions in Europe (COMPAR-EU): a research protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Population ageing and increasing chronic illness burden have sparked interest in innovative care models. While self-management interventions (SMIs) are drawing increasing attention, evidence of their efficacy is mostly based on pairwise meta-analysis, generally derived from randomised controlled trials comparing interventions versus a control or no intervention. As such, relevant efficacy data for comparisons among different SMIs that can be applied to specific chronic conditions are missing. Therefore, the relevance of the available evidence for decision-making at clinical, organisational and policy levels is limited. AIM: To identify, compare and rank the most effective and cost-effective SMIs for adults with four high-priority chronic conditions: type 2 diabetes, obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,and heart failure. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: All activities will be conducted as part of the cost-effectiveness of self-management interventions in four high-priority chronic conditions in Europe(COMPAR-EU, Comparing effectiveness of self-management interventions in 4 high priority chronic diseases inEurope) Project, an European Union (EU)-funded project designed to bridge the gap between current knowledge and practice on SMIs. In the first phase of the project, we will develop and validate a taxonomy, and a Core Outcome Set for each condition. These activities will inform a series of systematic review and network meta-analysis about the effectiveness of SMIs. We will also perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of the most effective SMIs and an evaluation of contextual factors. We will finally develop tailored decision-making tools for the different relevant stakeholders. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the local ethics committee (University Institute for Primary Care Research - IDIAP Jordi Gol). All patients and other stakeholders will provide informed consent prior to participation. This project has been funded by the EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no. 754936). Results will be of interest to relevant stakeholder groups (patients, professionals, managers, policymakers and industry), and will be disseminated in a tailored multi-pronged approach that will include deployment of an interactive platform.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading in digital mammography screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Double reading is the strategy of choice for mammogram interpretation in screening programmes. It remains, however, unknown whether double reading is still the strategy of choice in the context of digital mammography. Our aim was to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading versus single reading of digital mammograms in screening programmes. METHODS: We performed a systematic review by searching the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases up to April 2017. We used the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) tool and CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) checklist to assess the methodological quality of the diagnostic studies and economic evaluations, respectively. A proportion's meta-analysis approach, 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI) and test of heterogeneity (P values) were used for pooled results. Costs are expressed US$ PPP (United States Dollar purchasing power parities). The PROSPERO ID of this Systematic Review's protocol is CRD42014013804. RESULTS: Of 1473 potentially relevant hits, four high-quality studies were included. The pooled cancer detection rate of double reading was 6.01 per 1000 screens (CI: 4.47‰-7.77‰), and it was 5.65 per 1000 screens (CI: 3.95‰-7.65‰) for single reading (P=0.76). The pooled proportion of false-positives of double reading was 47.03 per 1000 screens (CI: 39.13‰-55.62‰) and it was 40.60 per 1000 screens (CI: 38.58‰-42.67‰) for single reading (P=0.12). One study reported, for double reading, an ICER (Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio) of 16,684 Euros (24,717 US$ PPP; 2015 value) per detected cancer. Single reading+CAD (computer-aided-detection) was cost-effective in Japan. CONCLUSION: The evidence of benefit for double reading compared to single reading for digital mammography interpretation is scarce. Double reading seems to increase operational costs, have a not significantly higher false-positive rate, and a similar cancer detection rate.

Guías de práctica clínica: evolución, metodología de elaboración y definiciones actuales / Clinical practice guidelines: evolution, methodology of elaboration and current definitions

Las guías de práctica clínica son una de las principales herramientas utilizadas por los sistemas de salud modernos y por los profesionales de la salud que practican una medicina basada en evidencias. Son instrumentos usados en beneficio del paciente y con un impacto positivo para los sistemas de salud. Su desarrollo ha ido evolucionando hasta convertirse en instrumentos confiables y de uso generalizado, siendo varios los conceptos que se han incorporado en la formulación de recomendaciones en salud: eficacia, seguridad, costo-efectividad, equidad y enfoque centralizado en la persona. Además, el desarrollo de metodologías propuestas para su elaboración y evaluación de calidad: AGREE, ADAPTE, GRADE entre otras. En el presente ensayo se hace una revisión de los aspectos relacionados a su evolución, metodología de elaboración y las definiciones actuales para su uso como herramientas en la práctica de la medicina basada en evidencias

Clinical practice guidelines are one of the main tools used by modern health systems and health professionals who practice evidence-based medicine. They are instruments used to benefit the patient and have a positive impact on health systems. Its development has evolved into reliable and widely used tools, and several concepts have been included in health recommendations: effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, equity and a person-centered approach. Also, development of methodologies proposed for its elaboration and quality evaluation: AGREE, ADAPTE, GRADE among others. This paper reviews the aspects of the evolution of clinical practice guideline, methodology of elaboration and the current definition for its use as tools for the practice of evidence-based medicine

Cost-effectiveness analysis of 10- and 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines in Peru.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of introducing the 10-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV10) versus the 13-valent PCV (PCV13) to the National Immunization Schedule in Peru for prevention of pneumococcal disease (PD) in children <5 years of age. METHODS: The integrated TRIVAC vaccine cost-effectiveness model from the Pan American Health Organization's ProVac Initiative (version 2.0) was applied from the perspective of the Government of Peru. Twenty successive cohorts of children from birth to 5 years were evaluated. Clinical outcomes were pneumococcal pneumonia (PP), pneumococcal meningitis (PM), pneumococcal sepsis (PS) and acute otitis media from any causes (AOM). Measures included prevention of cases, neurological sequelae (NS), auditory sequelae (AS), deaths and disability adjusted life years (DALYs). A sensitivity analyses was also performed. FINDINGS: For the 20 cohorts, net costs with PCV10 and PCV13 were US$ 363.26 million and US$ 408.26 million, respectively. PCV10 prevented 570,273 AOM; 79,937 PP; 2217 PM; 3049 PS; 282 NS; 173 AS; and 7512 deaths. PCV13 prevented 419,815 AOM; 112,331 PN; 3116 PM; 4285 PS; 404 NS; 248 AS; and 10,386 deaths. Avoided DALYs were 226,370 with PCV10 and 313,119 with PCV13. Saved treatment costs were US$ 37.39 million with PCV10 and US$ 47.22 million with PCV13. Costs per DALY averted were US$ 1605 for PCV10, and US$ 1304 for PCV13. Sensitivity analyses showed similar results. PCV13 has an extended dominance over PCV10. CONCLUSION: Both pneumococcal vaccines are cost effective in the Peruvian context. Although the net cost of vaccination with PCV10 is lower, PCV13 prevented more deaths, pneumococcal complications and sequelae. Costs per each prevented DALY were lower with PCV13. Thus, PCV13 would be the preferred policy; PCV10 would also be reasonable (and cost-saving relative to the status quo) if for some reason 13-valent were not feasible.

Revision sistematica de intercambiabilidad de las vacunas conjugadas contra neumococo / Systematic review of the interchangeability of conjugate vaccines against pneumococcus

ANTECEDENTES: Las vacunas conjugadas han demostrado ser efectivas en reducir la incidencia de enfermedad invasiva ocasionada por Streptococo Pneumoniae. La primera vacuna de este tipo en ser aprobada para su uso consto de 7 serotipos. Actualmente se encuentran disponibles otros dos tipos de vacunas una de 10 serotipos, y otra de 13 serotipos. Diversos países han introducido estas nuevas vacunas en sus programas con el fin de mejorar la protección a serotipos de neumococo no incorporados previamente. Esto ha conllevado a cohortes de infantes en los que se ha debido dar un intercambio del tipo de vacuna con el que se empezó el esquema de inmunización. OBJETIVO: Iidentificar la evidencia disponible en cuanto al intercambio entre VNC7, VNC10 o VNC13 en cualquiera de las dosis del esquema de vacunación en niños menores de dos años. MÉTODOS: Se realizó una búsqueda con términos pre-especificados en las bases de datos incluidos en Ovid/Medline, Embase y Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; en el periodo de Enero de 1995 a Agosto del 2013, no se incluyeron presentaciones a congresos o reuniones científicas. Se incluyeron estudios experimentales aleatorizados, cuasi experimentales o de cohortes que evalúen la respuesta inmunológica posterior al intercambio del tipo de vacuna conjugada con que se inició el esquema de vacunación. Se excluyeron estudios que se evalúen el uso de vacunas de 9 u 11 serotipos. La respuesta inmune se evaluó a través de la concentración media geométrica de inmunoglobulina G (IgG) específica para cada serotipo, así como en base a la proporción de sujetos con niveles ≥0.35 µ/mL o su equivalente. La actividad funcional antibacteriana se evaluó mediante la prueba de opsonofagocitacion (PO) en base a sus títulos medios geométricos (TMG) para cada serotipo o la proporción de sujetos con títulos ≥1:8. RESULTADOS: Se identificaron 2004 citas en la búsqueda en las bases de datos electrónicas y mediante referencias secundarias, se identificaron un total de 7 estudios para revisión a texto completo, de los cuales finalmente cuatro estudios para ser incluidos en la revisión. Intercambio de la dosis de refuerzo, esquema 3+1: Se identificaron dos estudios, que evaluaron el cambio en la dosis de refuerzo de VNC7 a VNC10 o VNC13 respectivamente. Comparado con el grupo que permaneció en VNC7 los que cambiaron de tipo de vacuna mostraron CMG menores para los serotipos 6B, 14 y 23F en el caso de VNC10; así como para el serotipo 9V y 14 con VNC13. Sin embargo >90% de sujetos lograron cifras ≥0.35 µ/mL de CMG de IgG sero- especifico o su equivalente. Intercambio de las dosis infantiles, esquema 2+1: Se identificó un solo estudio que evaluó el cambio de VNC7 a VNC13, el cual consto de dos grupos, el primero recibió VNC13 en la segunda dosis infantil y el segundo grupo solo recibió VNC13 en el refuerzo. Tras la segunda dosis infantil se observaron niveles menores en relación a los otros serotipos en el mismo grupo para el serotipo 6B y 23F los cuales mostraron un incremento marcado tras la dosis de refuerzo. Aunque los resultados fueron consistentes con lo observado previamente para este tipo de esquema, el estudio no incluyo un grupo control ni reporto proporción de sujetos con niveles ≥0.35 µ/mL de IgG seroespecifico. Intercambio de dosis refuerzo más dosis adicional de captura, esquema 3+1+1: Se encontró un estudio que evaluó en sujetos que iniciaron el esquema de vacunación con VNC7, e uso de VNC13 en el refuerzo y la adición de una dosis de captura. Los resultados se reportaron posteriores a la segunda dosis de VNC13, se observó que tras la dosis de captura todos los serotipos comunes y no comunes alcanzaron un porcentaje de sujetos con CMG de IgG ≥0.35 µ/mL superior al 95%. CONCLUCIONES: Se cuenta con información de intercambio de vacunas neumocicas conjugadas para un esquema similar al peruano solo para el cambio de VNC7 a VNC13, con desenlaces inmunológicos similares a lo observado para este tipo de esquema cuando no se da intercambio del tipo de vacuna con el que inicio. En tanto no se encontraron estudios que evalúen el intercambio entre VNC10 y VNC13, recomendamos para este caso de forma análoga a lo estipulado por el comité técnico de la Organización Mundial de Salud: que el esquema de vacunación debe completarse con el tipo de vacuna neumococica conjugada con el que se inició; de no ser esto factible y en vista que retrasar el calendario de inmunización conlleva un riesgo mayor, puede considerarse el intercambio de vacunas.(AU)