Nevil Pierse1, Heath Kelly2, Mark G Thompson3, Ange Bissielo4, Sarah Radke5, Q Sue Huang6, Michael G Baker7, Nikki Turner8. 1. The University of Otago, Wellington, PO Box 7343, Wellington South 6242, New Zealand. Electronic address: nevil.pierse@otago.ac.nz. 2. The Australian National University, Canberra 0200, ACT Australia; Victorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. Electronic address: Heath.Kelly@mh.org.au. 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA. Electronic address: isq8@cdc.gov. 4. Institute of Environmental Science and Research, Upper Hutt Wellington, New Zealand. Electronic address: Ange.Bissielo@esr.cri.nz. 5. The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Victoria St West, Auckland, New Zealand. Electronic address: s.radke@auckland.ac.nz. 6. Institute of Environmental Science and Research, Upper Hutt Wellington, New Zealand. Electronic address: sue.huang@esr.cri.nz. 7. The University of Otago, Wellington, PO Box 7343, Wellington South 6242, New Zealand. Electronic address: michael.baker@otago.ac.nz. 8. The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Victoria St West, Auckland, New Zealand. Electronic address: n.turner@auckland.ac.nz.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to estimate the protection afforded by inactivated influenza vaccine, in both community and hospital settings, in a well characterised urban population in Auckland during 2014. METHODS: We used two different comparison groups, all patients who tested negative for influenza and only those patients who tested negative for influenza and had a non-influenza respiratory virus detected, to calculate the vaccine effectiveness in a test negative study design. Estimates were made separately for general practice outpatient consultations and hospitalised patients, stratified by age group and by influenza type and subtype. Vaccine status was confirmed by electronic record for general practice patients and all respiratory viruses were detected by real time polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: 1039 hospitalised and 1154 general practice outpatient consultations met all the study inclusion criteria and had a respiratory sample tested for influenza and other respiratory viruses. Compared to general practice patients, hospitalised patients were more likely to be very young or very old, to be Māori or Pacific Islander, to have a low income and to suffer from chronic disease. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) adjusted for age and other participant characteristics using all influenza negative controls was 42% (95% CI: 16 to 60%) for hospitalised and 56% (95% CI: 35 to 70%) for general practice patients. The vaccine appeared to be most effective against the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 strain with an adjusted VE of 62% (95% CI:38 to 77%) for hospitalised and 59% (95% CI:36 to 74%) for general practice patients, using influenza virus negative controls. Similar results found when patients testing positive for a non-influenza respiratory virus were used as the control group. CONCLUSION: This study contributes to validation of the test negative design and confirms that inactivated influenza vaccines continue to provide modest but significant protection against laboratory-confirmed influenza.
BACKGROUND: We aimed to estimate the protection afforded by inactivated influenza vaccine, in both community and hospital settings, in a well characterised urban population in Auckland during 2014. METHODS: We used two different comparison groups, all patients who tested negative for influenza and only those patients who tested negative for influenza and had a non-influenza respiratory virus detected, to calculate the vaccine effectiveness in a test negative study design. Estimates were made separately for general practice outpatient consultations and hospitalised patients, stratified by age group and by influenza type and subtype. Vaccine status was confirmed by electronic record for general practice patients and all respiratory viruses were detected by real time polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: 1039 hospitalised and 1154 general practice outpatient consultations met all the study inclusion criteria and had a respiratory sample tested for influenza and other respiratory viruses. Compared to general practice patients, hospitalised patients were more likely to be very young or very old, to be Māori or Pacific Islander, to have a low income and to suffer from chronic disease. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) adjusted for age and other participant characteristics using all influenza negative controls was 42% (95% CI: 16 to 60%) for hospitalised and 56% (95% CI: 35 to 70%) for general practice patients. The vaccine appeared to be most effective against the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 strain with an adjusted VE of 62% (95% CI:38 to 77%) for hospitalised and 59% (95% CI:36 to 74%) for general practice patients, using influenza virus negative controls. Similar results found when patients testing positive for a non-influenza respiratory virus were used as the control group. CONCLUSION: This study contributes to validation of the test negative design and confirms that inactivated influenza vaccines continue to provide modest but significant protection against laboratory-confirmed influenza.
Authors: Huiying Chua; Shuo Feng; Joseph A Lewnard; Sheena G Sullivan; Christopher C Blyth; Marc Lipsitch; Benjamin J Cowling Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Marc Rondy; Nathalie El Omeiri; Mark G Thompson; Alain Levêque; Alain Moren; Sheena G Sullivan Journal: J Infect Date: 2017-09-18 Impact factor: 6.072
Authors: Sarah A Buchan; Hannah Chung; Michael A Campitelli; Natasha S Crowcroft; Jonathan B Gubbay; Timothy Karnauchow; Kevin Katz; Allison J McGeer; J Dayre McNally; David Richardson; Susan E Richardson; Laura C Rosella; Andrew Simor; Marek Smieja; Dat Tran; George Zahariadis; Jeffrey C Kwong Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-11-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Nathalie El Omeiri; Eduardo Azziz-Baumgartner; Mark G Thompson; Wilfrido Clará; Mauricio Cerpa; Rakhee Palekar; Sara Mirza; Alba María Ropero-Álvarez Journal: Vaccine Date: 2017-06-23 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: S G Sullivan; K S Carville; M Chilver; J E Fielding; K A Grant; H Kelly; A Levy; N P Stocks; S S Tempone; A K Regan Journal: Epidemiol Infect Date: 2016-04-29 Impact factor: 4.434
Authors: Angela Domínguez; Núria Soldevila; Diana Toledo; Pere Godoy; Elena Espejo; Maria Amelia Fernandez; José María Mayoral; Jesús Castilla; Mikel Egurrola; Sonia Tamames; Jenaro Astray; María Morales-Suárez-Varela Journal: Euro Surveill Date: 2017-08-24