H Keipp Talbot1, Hui Nian2, Qingxia Chen2, Yuwei Zhu2, Kathryn M Edwards3, Marie R Griffin4. 1. Departments of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States. Electronic address: Keipp.talbot@vanderbilt.edu. 2. Departments of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States. 3. Departments of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States. 4. Departments of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States; Departments of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States; Mid-South Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center and Clinical Research Center of Excellence, VA TN Valley Health Care System, Nashville, TN, United States.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Previous influenza vaccine effectiveness studies were criticized for their failure to control for frailty. This study was designed to see if the test-negative study design overcomes this bias. METHODS: Adults ≥ 50 years of age with respiratory symptoms were enrolled from November 2006 through May 2012 during the influenza season (excluding the 2009-2010 H1N1 pandemic season) to perform yearly test-negative control influenza vaccine effectiveness studies in Nashville, TN. At enrollment, both a nasal and throat swab sample were obtained and tested for influenza by RT-PCR. Frailty was calculated using a modified Rockwood Index that included 60 variables ascertained in a retrospective chart review giving a score of 0 to 1. Subjects were divided into three strata: non frail (≤ 0.08), pre-frail (> 0.08 to < 0.25), and frail (≥ 0.25). Vaccine effectiveness was calculated using the formula [1-adjusted odds ratio (OR)] × 100%. Adjusted ORs for individual years and all years combined were estimated by penalized multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 1023 hospitalized adults enrolled, 866 (84.7%) participants had complete immunization status, molecular influenza testing and covariates to calculate frailty. There were 83 influenza-positive cases and 783 test-negative controls overall, who were 74% white, 25% black, and 59% female. The median frailty index was 0.167 (Interquartile: 0.117, 0.267). The frailty index was 0.167 (0.100, 0.233) for the influenza positive cases compared to 0.183 (0.133, 0.267) for influenza negative controls (p = 0.07). Vaccine effectiveness estimates were 55.2% (95%CI: 30.5, 74.2), 60.4% (95%CI: 29.5, 74.4), and 54.3% (95%CI: 28.8, 74.0) without the frailty variable, including frailty as a continuous variable, and including frailty as a categorical variable, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Using the case positive test negative study design to assess vaccine effectiveness, our measure of frailty was not a significant confounder as inclusion of this measure did not significantly change vaccine effectiveness estimates.
INTRODUCTION: Previous influenza vaccine effectiveness studies were criticized for their failure to control for frailty. This study was designed to see if the test-negative study design overcomes this bias. METHODS: Adults ≥ 50 years of age with respiratory symptoms were enrolled from November 2006 through May 2012 during the influenza season (excluding the 2009-2010 H1N1 pandemic season) to perform yearly test-negative control influenza vaccine effectiveness studies in Nashville, TN. At enrollment, both a nasal and throat swab sample were obtained and tested for influenza by RT-PCR. Frailty was calculated using a modified Rockwood Index that included 60 variables ascertained in a retrospective chart review giving a score of 0 to 1. Subjects were divided into three strata: non frail (≤ 0.08), pre-frail (> 0.08 to < 0.25), and frail (≥ 0.25). Vaccine effectiveness was calculated using the formula [1-adjusted odds ratio (OR)] × 100%. Adjusted ORs for individual years and all years combined were estimated by penalized multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 1023 hospitalized adults enrolled, 866 (84.7%) participants had complete immunization status, molecular influenza testing and covariates to calculate frailty. There were 83 influenza-positive cases and 783 test-negative controls overall, who were 74% white, 25% black, and 59% female. The median frailty index was 0.167 (Interquartile: 0.117, 0.267). The frailty index was 0.167 (0.100, 0.233) for the influenza positive cases compared to 0.183 (0.133, 0.267) for influenza negative controls (p = 0.07). Vaccine effectiveness estimates were 55.2% (95%CI: 30.5, 74.2), 60.4% (95%CI: 29.5, 74.4), and 54.3% (95%CI: 28.8, 74.0) without the frailty variable, including frailty as a continuous variable, and including frailty as a categorical variable, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Using the case positive test negative study design to assess vaccine effectiveness, our measure of frailty was not a significant confounder as inclusion of this measure did not significantly change vaccine effectiveness estimates.
Authors: Lisa A Jackson; Michael L Jackson; Jennifer C Nelson; Kathleen M Neuzil; Noel S Weiss Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2005-12-20 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: E Kissling; M Valenciano; Jm Falcao; A Larrauri; K Widgren; D Pitigoi; B Oroszi; B Nunes; C Savulescu; A Mazick; E Lupulescu; B Ciancio; A Moren Journal: Euro Surveill Date: 2009-11-05
Authors: Jessica L Halliley; Shuya Kyu; James J Kobie; Edward E Walsh; Ann R Falsey; Troy D Randall; John Treanor; Changyong Feng; Ignacio Sanz; F Eun-Hyung Lee Journal: Vaccine Date: 2010-03-16 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Xu Yao; Robert G Hamilton; Nan-ping Weng; Qian-Li Xue; Jay H Bream; Huifen Li; Jing Tian; Shu-Hui Yeh; Barbara Resnick; Xiyan Xu; Jeremy Walston; Linda P Fried; Sean X Leng Journal: Vaccine Date: 2011-05-10 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: H Keipp Talbot; Marie R Griffin; Qingxia Chen; Yuwei Zhu; John V Williams; Kathryn M Edwards Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2011-01-10 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Evan W Orenstein; Gaston De Serres; Michael J Haber; David K Shay; Carolyn B Bridges; Paul Gargiullo; Walter A Orenstein Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2007-04-02 Impact factor: 7.196
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: Caroline A Presley; Jonathan Chipman; Jea Young Min; Carlos G Grijalva; Robert A Greevy; Marie R Griffin; Christianne L Roumie Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2019-07-12 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Nathalie Loeb; Melissa K Andrew; Mark Loeb; George A Kuchel; Laura Haynes; Janet E McElhaney; Chris P Verschoor Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Allison Nicole Scott; Sarah A Buchan; Jeffrey C Kwong; Steven J Drews; Kimberley A Simmonds; Lawrence W Svenson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-09-30 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Richard G Pebody; Fiona Warburton; Nick Andrews; Mary Sinnathamby; Ivelina Yonova; Arlene Reynolds; Chris Robertson; Simon Cottrell; Muhammad Sartaj; Rory Gunson; Matthew Donati; Catherine Moore; Joanna Ellis; Simon de Lusignan; Jim McMenamin; Maria Zambon Journal: Euro Surveill Date: 2018-09