Vaccine effectiveness against severe laboratory-confirmed influenza in children: Results of two consecutive seasons in Italy

Menniti‐Ippolito, Francesca; Da, Roberto; Traversa, Giuseppe; Santuccio, Carmela; Felicetti, Patrizia; Tartaglia, Loriana; Trotta, Francesco; Pietro, Pasquale Di; Barabino, Paola; Renna, Salvatore; Riceputi, Laura; Tovo, Pier-Angelo; Gabiano, Clara; Urbino, Antonio; Baroero, Luca; Serre, Daniele Le; Virano, Silvia; Perilongo, Giorgio; Daverio, Marco; Gnoato, Elisa; Maretti, M; Galeazzo, Beatrice; Rubin, Giulia; Scanferla, Stefania; Dalt, Liviana Da; Stefani, Chiara; Zerbinati, Claudia; Chiappini, Elena; Sollai, Sara; Martino, Maurizio de; Mannelli, Francesco; Becciani, Sabrina; Giacalone, Martina; Montano, Simona; Remaschi, Giulia; Stival, Alessia; Furbetta, M; Abate, Piera; Leonardi, Ilaria; Pirozzi, Nicola; Raucci, Umberto; Reale, Antonino; Rossi, Rossella; Russo, Cristina; Mancinelli, Livia; Onori, Manuela; Concato, Carlo; Mores, Nadia; Romagnoli, Costantino; Chiaretti, Antonio; Compagnone, Adele; Riccardi, Riccardo; Delogu, Giovanni; Sali, Michela; Prete, Valentina Del; Tipo, Vincenzo; Dinardo, Michele; Auricchio, Fabiana; Polimeno, Teodoro; Sodano, Giuseppe; Maccariello, Alessandra; Rafaniello, Concetta; Fucà, Fortunata; Rosa, E. Di; Altavilla, Domenica; Mecchio, Anna; Arrigo, Teresa

doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.06.048

Cited by 18 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The majority of studies made VE estimates for patients of all ages (n=48; one excluded children <10y [85]), with the remainder targeted at adults (≥15y; n=12; 2 restricted to adults ≥50y [27, 87]), children (n=9 [19, 26, 29, 31, 47, 59, 62, 81, 94]), elderly (n=4 [51, 53, 72, 95]), children and adults aged 50+ (n=1 [84]), pregnant women (n=1 [89]), military (n=2 [28, 40]), healthcare workers (n=1 [42]) or people at high-risk or in a target group for vaccination (n=7 [14, 18, 20, 25, 43, 44, 52]).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Five studies did not include some kind of adjustment for age either because they used a stepwise model building approach [36, 40, 62, 92] or restricted the age group studied [72]. Age was usually specified as a categorical variable (n=67), the choices of which varied considerably, but was also used as a linear term (n=9 [12, 29, 47, 59, 80, 81, 108, 87, 88, 95]), cubic spline (n=2 [60, 97]), a matching variable (n=3 [14, 64]) and in one instance as a quadratic term [26]. …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Potential of the test-negative design for measuring influenza vaccine effectiveness: a systematic review

Sullivan¹,

Feng²,

Cowling³

2014

Expert Review of Vaccines

159

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY Background The test-negative design is a variant of the case control study being increasingly used to study influenza vaccine effectiveness. In these studies, patients with influenza-like illness are tested for influenza. Vaccine coverage is compared between those testing positive versus those testing negative to estimate vaccine effectiveness. Objectives We reviewed features in the design, analysis and reporting of 85 published test-negative studies. Data sources Studies were identified from PubMed, reference lists and email updates. Study eligibility All studies using the test-negative design reporting end-of-season estimates were included. Study appraisal Design features that may affect the validity and comparability of reported estimates were reviewed, including setting, study period, source population, case definition, exposure and outcome ascertainment and statistical model. Results There was considerable variation in the analytic approach, with 68 unique statistical models identified among the studies. Conclusion Harmonisation of analytic approaches may improve the potential for pooling vaccine effectiveness estimates.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential of the test-negative design for measuring influenza vaccine effectiveness: a systematic review

Sullivan¹,

Feng²,

Cowling³

2014

Expert Review of Vaccines

159

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Influenza vaccine effectiveness (%) was estimated as (1-aOR) × 100, 11, 12 where aOR was the adjusted odds ratio for influenza vaccination from the final regression model.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association Between Hospitalization With Community-Acquired Laboratory-Confirmed Influenza Pneumonia and Prior Receipt of Influenza Vaccination

Grijalva

Zhu

Williams

et al. 2015

JAMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Importance Few studies have evaluated the relationship between influenza vaccination and pneumonia, a serious complication of influenza infection. Objective Assess the association between influenza vaccination status and hospitalization for community-acquired laboratory-confirmed influenza pneumonia. Design, Setting and Participants The Etiology of Pneumonia in the Community (EPIC) study was a prospective observational multicenter study of hospitalizations for community-acquired pneumonia conducted from January 2010 through June 2012 in four US sites. We used EPIC study data from patients ≥6 months of age with laboratory-confirmed influenza infection and verified vaccination status during the influenza seasons, and excluded patients with recent hospitalization, from chronic care residential facilities, and with severe immunosuppression. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios, comparing the odds of vaccination between influenza-positive (cases) and influenza-negative (controls) pneumonia patients, controlling for demographics, co-morbidities, season, study site and timing of disease onset. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. Exposure Influenza vaccination, verified through record review. Outcome Influenza pneumonia, confirmed by real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction performed on nasal/oropharyngeal swabs. Results Overall, 2767 patients hospitalized for pneumonia were eligible for the study; 162 (5.9%) were influenza positive. Twenty-eight (17%) of 162 cases with influenza-associated pneumonia and 766 (29%) of 2605 controls with influenza-negative pneumonia had been vaccinated. The adjusted odds ratio of prior influenza vaccination between cases and controls was 0.43 (95% CI 0.28–0.68 [estimated vaccine effectiveness 56.7% (95% CI 31.9–72.5)]). Conclusions and relevance Among children and adults hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia, those with laboratory confirmed influenza-associated pneumonia, compared to those with pneumonia not associated with influenza, had lower odds of having received influenza vaccination.

show abstract

“…Influenza B lineage mismatch could result in partial/incomplete protection of individuals when IIV3s are deployed; the effect of B lineage mismatch on VE is illustrated by the examples summarized in Table 1. [48][49][50] In contrast to VE studies as explained above, randomized and blinded controlled trials provide well-controlled relatively unbiased estimates of the effect of IIVs on the risk of acquiring influenza (i.e., vaccine efficacy). A recent meta-analysis of 34 randomized controlled trials evaluated the impact of lineage mismatch on vaccine efficacy against laboratory-confirmed influenza.…”

Section: Burden Of Influenza B In Europementioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence update: GlaxoSmithKline’s inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccines

Bekkat-Berkani

Ray

Jain³

et al. 2015

Expert Review of Vaccines

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inactivated trivalent influenza vaccines (IIV3s) are designed to protect against illness caused by two influenza A virus subtypes and one influenza B virus lineage. They may provide inadequate protection due to the co-circulation of viruses from two antigenically distinct influenza B lineages. Incorporating strains from both B lineages as in inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccines (IIV4s) reduces this risk. We summarize the evidence supporting two IIV4s manufactured by GSK Vaccines. Compared to IIV3s, these two IIV4s demonstrated noninferior immunogenicity against the shared influenza strains and superior immunogenicity for the strain of the additional B lineage, particularly in subjects who were seronegative for that B strain. One IIV4's efficacy in children aged 3-8 years was 55.4% against influenza of any severity and 73.1% against moderateto-severe influenza. Both IIV4s were well-tolerated with a similar safety profile to IIV3s. These IIV4s are more likely than IIV3s to protect against the added influenza B strain. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Vaccine effectiveness against severe laboratory-confirmed influenza in children: Results of two consecutive seasons in Italy

Cited by 18 publications

References 14 publications

Potential of the test-negative design for measuring influenza vaccine effectiveness: a systematic review

Potential of the test-negative design for measuring influenza vaccine effectiveness: a systematic review

Association Between Hospitalization With Community-Acquired Laboratory-Confirmed Influenza Pneumonia and Prior Receipt of Influenza Vaccination

Evidence update: GlaxoSmithKline’s inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About