Sarah A Buchan1,2, Stephanie Booth3,4, Allison N Scott3, Kimberley A Simmonds4,5, Lawrence W Svenson3,4,6, Steven J Drews7,8, Margaret L Russell4, Natasha S Crowcroft1,9,10, Mark Loeb11, Bryna F Warshawsky12,13, Jeffrey C Kwong1,2,9,14,15. 1. Division of Epidemiology, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Primary Care & Population Health Research Program, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Analytics and Performance Reporting Branch, Alberta Ministry of Health, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 4. Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 5. Research and Innovation Branch, Alberta Ministry of Health, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 6. Division of Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 7. Diagnostic Virology, Provincial Laboratory (ProvLab) for Public Health, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 8. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 9. Applied Immunization Research and Evaluation, Public Health Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 10. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 11. Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 12. Communicable Diseases, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Public Health Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 13. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada. 14. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 15. Toronto Western Family Health Team, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
Importance: Recent observational studies report conflicting results regarding the effectiveness of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV), particularly against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of LAIV and inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) against laboratory-confirmed influenza. Design, Setting, and Participants: A test-negative study to estimate influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) using population-based, linked, individual-level laboratory, health administrative, and immunization data. Data were obtained from 10 169 children and adolescents aged 2 to 17 years (children) who were tested for influenza in inpatient or outpatient settings during periods when influenza was circulating based on a threshold level of 5% weekly test positivity for the province during the 4 influenza seasons spanning from November 11, 2012, to April 30, 2016, in Alberta, Canada. Logistic regression was used to estimate VE by vaccine type, influenza season, and influenza type and subtype. The relative effectiveness of each vaccine type was assessed by comparing the odds of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection for LAIV recipients with that for IIV recipients. Exposures: The primary exposure was receipt of LAIV or IIV before testing for influenza. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was influenza case status as determined by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction testing. Results: A total of 10 779 respiratory specimens (from 10 169 children) collected and tested for influenza during the 4 influenza seasons were included, with 53.4% from males; the mean (SD) age was 7.0 (4.6) years. Across the 4 influenza seasons, 3161 children tested positive for influenza. Combining the 4 influenza seasons, the adjusted VE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 was 69% (95% CI, 56%-78%) for LAIV compared with 79% (95% CI, 70%-86%) for IIV. Vaccine effectiveness against influenza A(H3N2) was 36% (95% CI, 14%-53%) for LAIV and 43% (95% CI, 22%-59%) for IIV. Against influenza B, VE was 74% (95% CI, 62%-82%) for LAIV and 56% (95% CI, 41%-66%) for IIV. There were no significant differences in the odds of influenza infection for LAIV recipients compared with IIV recipients except for influenza B during the 2015-2016 season, when LAIV recipients had lower odds of infection than IIV recipients (odds ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.17-0.76). Conclusions and Relevance: There was no evidence to support the lack of effectiveness of LAIV against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09. These results support administration of either vaccine type in this age group.
Importance: Recent observational studies report conflicting results regarding the effectiveness of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV), particularly against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of LAIV and inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) against laboratory-confirmed influenza. Design, Setting, and Participants: A test-negative study to estimate influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) using population-based, linked, individual-level laboratory, health administrative, and immunization data. Data were obtained from 10 169 children and adolescents aged 2 to 17 years (children) who were tested for influenza in inpatient or outpatient settings during periods when influenza was circulating based on a threshold level of 5% weekly test positivity for the province during the 4 influenza seasons spanning from November 11, 2012, to April 30, 2016, in Alberta, Canada. Logistic regression was used to estimate VE by vaccine type, influenza season, and influenza type and subtype. The relative effectiveness of each vaccine type was assessed by comparing the odds of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection for LAIV recipients with that for IIV recipients. Exposures: The primary exposure was receipt of LAIV or IIV before testing for influenza. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was influenza case status as determined by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction testing. Results: A total of 10 779 respiratory specimens (from 10 169 children) collected and tested for influenza during the 4 influenza seasons were included, with 53.4% from males; the mean (SD) age was 7.0 (4.6) years. Across the 4 influenza seasons, 3161 children tested positive for influenza. Combining the 4 influenza seasons, the adjusted VE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 was 69% (95% CI, 56%-78%) for LAIV compared with 79% (95% CI, 70%-86%) for IIV. Vaccine effectiveness against influenza A(H3N2) was 36% (95% CI, 14%-53%) for LAIV and 43% (95% CI, 22%-59%) for IIV. Against influenza B, VE was 74% (95% CI, 62%-82%) for LAIV and 56% (95% CI, 41%-66%) for IIV. There were no significant differences in the odds of influenza infection for LAIV recipients compared with IIV recipients except for influenza B during the 2015-2016 season, when LAIV recipients had lower odds of infection than IIV recipients (odds ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.17-0.76). Conclusions and Relevance: There was no evidence to support the lack of effectiveness of LAIV against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09. These results support administration of either vaccine type in this age group.
Authors: Suzanne E Ohmit; Joshua G Petrie; Ryan E Malosh; Emileigh Johnson; Rachel Truscon; Barbara Aaron; Casey Martens; Caroline Cheng; Alicia M Fry; Arnold S Monto Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Kanti Pabbaraju; Sallene Wong; Anita A Wong; Greg D Appleyard; Linda Chui; Xiao-Li Pang; Stephanie K Yanow; Kevin Fonseca; Bonita E Lee; Julie D Fox; Jutta K Preiksaitis Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2009-09-02 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Mark Loeb; Margaret L Russell; Vanessa Manning; Kevin Fonseca; David J D Earn; Gregory Horsman; Khami Chokani; Mark Vooght; Lorne Babiuk; Lisa Schwartz; Binod Neupane; Pardeep Singh; Stephen D Walter; Eleanor Pullenayegum Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Richard K Zimmerman; Mary Patricia Nowalk; Jessie Chung; Michael L Jackson; Lisa A Jackson; Joshua G Petrie; Arnold S Monto; Huong Q McLean; Edward A Belongia; Manjusha Gaglani; Kempapura Murthy; Alicia M Fry; Brendan Flannery Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2016-10-04 Impact factor: 20.999
Authors: Richard Pebody; Fiona Warburton; Joanna Ellis; Nick Andrews; Alison Potts; Simon Cottrell; Jillian Johnston; Arlene Reynolds; Rory Gunson; Catherine Thompson; Monica Galiano; Chris Robertson; Rachel Byford; Naomh Gallagher; Mary Sinnathamby; Ivelina Yonova; Sameera Pathirannehelage; Matthew Donati; Catherine Moore; Simon de Lusignan; Jim McMenamin; Maria Zambon Journal: Euro Surveill Date: 2016-09-22
Authors: Lisa A Grohskopf; Leslie Z Sokolow; Sonja J Olsen; Joseph S Bresee; Karen R Broder; Ruth A Karron Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2015-08-07 Impact factor: 17.586
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: Sara Boccalini; Elena Pariani; Giovanna Elisa Calabrò; Chiara DE Waure; Donatella Panatto; Daniela Amicizia; Piero Luigi Lai; Caterina Rizzo; Emanuele Amodio; Francesco Vitale; Alessandra Casuccio; Maria Luisa DI Pietro; Cristina Galli; Laura Bubba; Laura Pellegrinelli; Leonardo Villani; Floriana D'Ambrosio; Marta Caminiti; Elisa Lorenzini; Paola Fioretti; Rosanna Tindara Micale; Davide Frumento; Elisa Cantova; Flavio Parente; Giacomo Trento; Sara Sottile; Andrea Pugliese; Massimiliano Alberto Biamonte; Duccio Giorgetti; Marco Menicacci; Antonio D'Anna; Claudia Ammoscato; Emanuele LA Gatta; Angela Bechini; Paolo Bonanni Journal: J Prev Med Hyg Date: 2021-09-10
Authors: David Jackson; Max Pitcher; Chris Hudson; Nick Andrews; Jo Southern; Joanna Ellis; Katja Höschler; Richard Pebody; Paul J Turner; Elizabeth Miller; Maria Zambon Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Maireid B Bull; Haogao Gu; Fionn N L Ma; Liyanage P Perera; Leo L M Poon; Sophie A Valkenburg Journal: Sci Adv Date: 2022-04-06 Impact factor: 14.957
Authors: Kristen D C Lewis; Justin R Ortiz; Mohammed Z Rahman; Min Z Levine; Larisa Rudenko; Peter F Wright; Jacqueline M Katz; Len Dally; Mustafizur Rahman; Irina Isakova-Sivak; Natalia A Ilyushina; Victoria Matyushenko; Alicia M Fry; Stephen E Lindstrom; Joseph S Bresee; W Abdullah Brooks; Kathleen M Neuzil Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2019-08-16 Impact factor: 9.079