Estimation of Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness from Routine Surveillance Data

Abstract

BackgroundInfluenza vaccines are reviewed each year, and often changed, in an effort to maintain their effectiveness against drifted influenza viruses. There is however no regular review of influenza vaccine effectiveness during, or at the end of, Australian influenza seasons. It is possible to use a case control method to estimate vaccine effectiveness from surveillance data when all patients in a surveillance system are tested for influenza and their vaccination status is known.Methodology/Principal FindingsInfluenza-like illness (ILI) surveillance is conducted during the influenza season in sentinel general practices scattered throughout Victoria, Australia. Over five seasons 2003–7, data on age, sex and vaccination status were collected and nose and throat swabs were offered to patients presenting within three days of the onset of their symptoms. Swabs were tested using a reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. Those positive for influenza were sent to the World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza where influenza virus culture and strain identification was attempted. We used a retrospective case control design in five consecutive influenza seasons, and estimated influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) for patients of all ages to be 53% (95% CI 38–64), but 41% (95% CI 19–57) adjusted for age group and year. The adjusted VE for all adults aged at least 20 years, the age groups for whom a benefit of vaccination could be shown, was 51% (95% CI 34–63). Comparison of VE estimates with vaccine and circulating strain matches across the years did not reveal any significant differences.Conclusions/SignificanceThese estimates support other field studies of influenza vaccine effectiveness, given that theoretical considerations suggest that these values may underestimate true effectiveness, depending on test specificity and the ratio of the influenza ILI attack rate to the non-influenza ILI attack rate. Incomplete recording of vaccination status and under-representation of children in patients from whom a swab was collected limit the data. Improvements have been implemented for prospective studies.

Male Circumcision: An Appraisal of Current Instrumentation

“…Follow-up analyses have indicated an increase in the 60% protective effect seen in the Kenyan trial to 65% at 3.5 years and 4.5 years In the Ugandan trial by 5 years the protective effect had increased to 73% . Such a level of protection is similar to that afforded by influenza vaccines (Fiore et al, 2007;Kelly et al, 2009). Even higher protection (80%) was found in the analysis of data from 18 sub-Saharan African countries (Gebremedhin, 2010).…”

Pandemic H1N1 influenza surveillance in Victoria, Australia, April – September, 2009

“…By the peak of the pandemic in late June, the pandemic strain comprised at least 95% of all weekly notifications from the GPSS [11]. The proportion of all notifications positive for influenza from the GPSS was 39% [12], not substantially different to the proportion of 37% positives for the years 2003 to 2007 [13].…”

Influenza vaccine effectiveness assessment through sentinel virological data in three post-pandemic seasons

“…6 It is possible to use a negative case control method to estimate vaccine effectiveness from sentinel surveillance data when all patients in a surveillance system are tested for influenza and their vaccination status is known. 7 Influenza sentinel surveillance data collection relies on morbidity and virological indicators from primary care reporting of ILI (Influenza-like Illness) cases by the sentinel surveillance physicians' network. In Catalonia influenza surveillance is based on well-established network of sentinel practitioners (PIDIRAC: Daily Acute Respiratory Infection Surveillance of Catalonia) 8 that includes general practitioners (GPs) and pediatricians who report cases of acute respiratory infections (ARI) or influenza like illness to the Public Health Agency of Catalonia coordinating centre.…”