Effectiveness of the 2010–11 seasonal trivalent influenza vaccine in Spain: cycEVA study

Jiménez-Jorge, Silvia; Savulescu, Camelia; Pozo, Francisco; Mateo, Salvador de; Casas, Inmaculada; Ledesma, Juan; Larrauri, Amparo

doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.03.048

Cited by 52 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Eighteen studies met the eligibility criteria [4,13,[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]. Of these, one study was restricted to hospitalized patients and was therefore excluded from the meta-analysis [31].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Repeated annual influenza vaccination and vaccine effectiveness: review of evidence

Belongia

Skowronski

McLean

et al. 2017

Expert Review of Vaccines

234

185

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Studies in the 1970s and 1980s signaled concern that repeated influenza vaccination could affect vaccine protection. The antigenic distance hypothesis provided a theoretical framework to explain variability in repeat vaccination effects based on antigenic similarity between successive vaccine components and the epidemic strain. Areas covered: A meta-analysis of vaccine effectiveness studies from 2010-11 through 2014-15 shows substantial heterogeneity in repeat vaccination effects within and between seasons and subtypes. When negative effects were observed, they were most pronounced for H3N2, especially in 2014-15 when vaccine components were unchanged and antigenically distinct from the epidemic strain. Studies of repeated vaccination across multiple seasons suggest that vaccine effectiveness may be influenced by more than one prior season. In immunogenicity studies, repeated vaccination blunts the hemagglutinin antibody response, particularly for H3N2. Expert commentary: Substantial heterogeneity in repeated vaccination effects is not surprising given the variation in study populations and seasons, and the variable effects of antigenic distance and immunological landscape in different age groups and populations. Caution is required in the interpretation of pooled results across multiple seasons, since this can mask important variation in repeat vaccination effects between seasons. Multi-season clinical studies are needed to understand repeat vaccination effects and guide recommendations. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Repeated annual influenza vaccination and vaccine effectiveness: review of evidence

Belongia

Skowronski

McLean

et al. 2017

Expert Review of Vaccines

234

185

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Instead, no prevailing effectiveness was found for vaccination with either unadjuvanted inactivated (VE -1, 95%CI -146–59) or live attenuated monovalent (VE -13, 95%CI -265–65) pandemic vaccines in 2009–10 against A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza during the season 2010–11 in the US [22]. In other studies, intermediate 28–66% residual VE estimates for pandemic vaccine 2009–10 in all age groups was found in areas that used mainly AS03-adjuvanted vaccines [24], [25], [27]. VE of 56% was seen in Australian adults for an unadjuvanted, inactivated, split-virus vaccine about 7 months after pandemic vaccination [26].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…However, the 95% confidence intervals for the VE for different combinations of Pandemrix and TIV overlapped. Several other studies show that vaccination with both monovalent pandemic vaccine 2009–2010 and TIV 2010–11 yield higher point estimates for protection than either of the vaccines alone [23]–[24], [27], although the confidence intervals overlap and different results have also been found [22], [28]. The VE of the TIV 2010–11 only against A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza could not be reliably assessed, since this group included only 30 individuals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Effectiveness of Pandemic and Seasonal Influenza Vaccines in Preventing Laboratory-Confirmed Influenza in Adults: A Clinical Cohort Study during Epidemic Seasons 2009–2010 and 2010–2011 in Finland

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundOne dose of pandemic influenza vaccine Pandemrix (GlaxoSmithKline) was offered to the entire population of Finland in 2009–10. We conducted a prospective clinical cohort study to determine the vaccine effectiveness in preventing febrile laboratory-confirmed influenza infection during the influenza season 2009–10 and continued the study in 2010–11.MethodsIn total, 3,518 community dwelling adults aged 18–75 years living in Tampere city were enrolled. The participants were not assigned to any vaccination regimen, but they could participate in the study regardless of their vaccination status or intention to be vaccinated with the pandemic or seasonal influenza vaccine. They were asked to report if they received Pandemrix in 2009–10 and/or trivalent influenza vaccine in 2010–11. Vaccinations were verified from medical records. The participants were instructed to report all acute symptoms of respiratory tract infection with fever (at least 38°C) and pneumonias to the study staff. Nasal and oral swabs were obtained within 5–7 days after symptom onset and influenza-specific RNA was identified by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction.ResultsIn 2009–10, the estimated vaccine effectiveness was 81% (95%CI 30–97). However, the vaccine effectiveness could not be estimated reliably, because only persons in prioritized groups were vaccinated before/during the first pandemic wave and many participants were enrolled when they already had the symptoms of A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza infection. In 2010–11, 2,276 participants continued the follow-up. The vaccine effectiveness, adjusted for potential confounding factors was 81% (95%CI 41–96) for Pandemrix only and 88% (95%CI 63–97) for either Pandemrix or trivalent influenza vaccine 2010–11 or both, respectively.ConclusionVaccination with an AS03-adjuvanted pandemic vaccine in 2009–10 was still effective in preventing A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza during the following epidemic season in 2010–11.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01024725. NCT01206114.

show abstract

“…Durante la fase piloto 2008-09 16 se demostró la viabilidad del estudio siendo una etapa crucial para afrontar el reto que supuso la estimación de la efectividad de la vacuna estacional 2009-10 y la monovalente pandémica durante la pandemia de 2009 18 . Posteriormente el estudio cycEVA se consolidó a lo largo de las tres ediciones post-pandémicas [19][20][21][22] .…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

“…Además se han generado respuestas a interrogantes actuales relacionados con la inmunidad: efectividad de la vacunas pandémicas 18 , duración del efecto protector de la vacuna, influencia de la circulación de cepas discordantes 20 y efecto de las vacunaciones antigripales repetidas temporada tras temporada 19 .…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Estudio cycEVA: casos y controles para la estimación de la efectividad de la vacuna antigripal en España, 2008-2013

Jiménez-Jorge

Ontañón

Savulescu

et al. 2014

Rev. Esp. Salud Publica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effectiveness of the 2010–11 seasonal trivalent influenza vaccine in Spain: cycEVA study

Cited by 52 publications

References 26 publications

Repeated annual influenza vaccination and vaccine effectiveness: review of evidence

Repeated annual influenza vaccination and vaccine effectiveness: review of evidence

Effectiveness of Pandemic and Seasonal Influenza Vaccines in Preventing Laboratory-Confirmed Influenza in Adults: A Clinical Cohort Study during Epidemic Seasons 2009–2010 and 2010–2011 in Finland

Estudio cycEVA: casos y controles para la estimación de la efectividad de la vacuna antigripal en España, 2008-2013

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About