Literature DB >> 33400775

Relative Effectiveness of the Cell-derived Inactivated Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine Versus Egg-derived Inactivated Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccines in Preventing Influenza-related Medical Encounters During the 2018-2019 Influenza Season in the United States.

Constantina Boikos1, Lauren Fischer2, Dan O'Brien2, Joe Vasey2, Gregg C Sylvester3, James A Mansi1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The cell-propagated inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (ccIIV4) may offer improved protection in seasons where egg-derived influenza viruses undergo mutations that affect antigenicity. This study estimated the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of ccIIV4 versus egg-derived inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (eIIV4) in preventing influenza-related medical encounters in the 2018-2019 US season.
METHODS: A dataset linking primary care electronic medical records with medical claims data was used to conduct a retrospective cohort study among individuals ≥ 4 years old vaccinated with ccIIV4 or eIIV4 during the 2018-2019 season. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were derived from a doubly robust inverse probability of treatment-weighted approach adjusting for age, sex, race, ethnicity, geographic region, vaccination week, and health status. rVE was estimated by (1 - OR) × 100 and presented with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS: Following the application of inclusion/exclusion criteria, the study cohort included 2 125 430 ccIIV4 and 8 000 903 eIIV4 recipients. Adjusted analyses demonstrated a greater reduction in influenza-related medical encounters with ccIIV4 versus eIIV4, with the following rVE: overall, 7.6% (95% CI, 6.5-8.6); age 4-17 years, 3.9% (95% CI, .9-7.0); 18-64 years, 6.5% (95% CI, 5.2-7.9); 18-49 years, 7.5% (95% CI, 5.7-9.3); 50-64 years, 5.6% (95% CI, 3.6-7.6); and ≥65 years, -2.2% (95% CI, -5.4 to .9).
CONCLUSIONS: Adjusted analyses demonstrated statistically significantly greater reduction in influenza-related medical encounters in individuals vaccinated with ccIIV4 versus eIIV4 in the 2018-2019 US influenza season. These results support ccIIV4 as a potentially more effective public health measure against influenza than an egg-based equivalent.
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cell-derived influenza vaccine; egg-derived influenza vaccine; influenza; quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine; relative vaccine effectiveness

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33400775      PMCID: PMC8326580          DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1944

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Infect Dis        ISSN: 1058-4838            Impact factor:   9.079


Seasonal influenza is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality each year in the United States [1, 2]. Annual influenza vaccination is recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for all individuals aged 6 months and older without a contraindication to vaccination to help contain the impact of influenza on public health [3]. However, although influenza vaccines have an established safety record, their effectiveness varies each season. During traditional egg-based manufacturing of influenza vaccines, mutations can accumulate in the viral hemagglutinin protein in response to selective pressures in the egg environment [4]. These mutations can alter antigenicity and can contribute to reduced effectiveness of egg-derived influenza vaccines, occurring most frequently with the influenza A(H3N2) strain [2, 5–8]. In the US 2018–2019 season, the effectiveness of influenza vaccines was 44% (95% confidence interval [CI], 37–51) against A(H1N1)pdm09-related illnesses, but protection against A(H3N2)-related illnesses was limited (9% [95% CI, –4 to 20]) [9]. Emerging evidence suggests that egg-adapted mutations may have affected antigenicity of A(H3N2) viruses, which may explain the potential for lower vaccine effectiveness against A(H3N2) observed in the 2018–2019 season in the United States [10]. Replication of influenza viruses in cell culture prevents egg-adaptive mutations, resulting in a vaccine inclusive of influenza strains that are more antigenically faithful to the starting candidate virus [11-13]. The cell culture–derived, inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (ccIIV4) (Flucelvax Quadrivalent, Seqirus USA Inc., Summit, NJ) was approved in the United States in May 2016. Clinical studies have demonstrated that ccIIV4 has comparable immunogenicity to egg-derived vaccines [14], and several observational studies have demonstrated a trend toward increased effectiveness of cell culture–derived vaccines compared with egg-derived vaccines [15-19]. However, the cyclical nature of influenza virus circulation necessitates the estimation of actionable vaccine effectiveness each influenza season. Assessment of vaccine performance under real-world conditions provides critical information that may be used to inform vaccine regulation, policy, and product development. The objective of this analysis was, therefore, to conduct a large retrospective cohort study to assess the real-world effectiveness of ccIIV4 relative to egg-derived inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (eIIV4) in preventing influenza-related medical encounters during the 2018–2019 US influenza season.

METHODS

Study Design

A retrospective cohort study was conducted during the 2018–2019 influenza season using deidentified patient-level electronic medical records (EMRs) from primary care and specialty clinics linked with pharmacy and medical claims data. Data were evaluated for subjects ≥ 4 years of age who had a record of receiving either ccIIV4 or eIIV4 either in their EMRs or medical claims. The observation period was between 1 August 2018, and 18 May 2019. This study was designed, implemented, and reported in accordance with Good Pharmacoepidemiological Practice, applicable local regulations, and the ethical principles laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki. Study findings are reported in accordance with the Reporting of Studies Conducted using Observational Routinely Collected Health Data recommendations.

Data Sources and Linkage

A dataset integrating patient-level EMRs from Veradigm Health Insights (Allscripts Touchworks & Allscripts PRO, Chicago, IL; and Practice Fusion, Inc., San Francisco, CA) with pharmacy and medical claims data, where available (Komodo Health Inc., New York, NY), was used for the analysis. Each individual dataset was first required to meet the minimum Protected Health Information (PHI) data requirements. Research staff were not involved in preparation of datasets containing PHI or the actual running of the linkage algorithm. A third party (Datavant, San Francisco, CA) performed deidentification and linkage. The dataset underwent privacy certification to verify it contained no PHI and was evaluated and certified for Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliance by a third-party statistician.

Study Population

The study population included US residents ≥ 4 years of age with a record of receiving either eIIV4 or ccIIV4 during the 2018–2019 Northern Hemisphere influenza season in the EMRs or claims datasets and who had at least 1 record in their primary care EMR in the year before the recorded influenza immunization. Subjects were considered fully protected against influenza 14 days after recorded receipt of the seasonal influenza vaccine to allow for development of vaccine-specific immunity. Subjects were excluded from the cohort if they were ≥ 9 years of age and had received > 1 influenza vaccination during the study season, were < 9 years of age and had received > 2 influenza vaccinations during the study season, or had an influenza-related medical encounter during the study season before the vaccination date. This study was a noninterventional, retrospective study using a certified Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant database; as such, approval for this analysis by an institutional review board was not necessary.

Exposure Ascertainment

Current Procedural Terminology codes, codes for vaccines administered, and national drug codes (Supplementary Table 1) were used to identify potential study subjects if they had a record of immunization with either ccIIV4 or eIIV4 between 1 August 2018, and 28 February 2019, in either the EMR and/or claims components of the integrated dataset. The date of recorded immunization was considered the index date.

Outcome Ascertainment

The outcome of interest was the occurrence of an influenza-related medical encounter (hospital or primary care) ascertained using International Classification of Diseases codes for “influenza diagnosis” (as reported by the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center [AFHSC] Code Set B case definition, listed in Supplementary Table 2) [20]. Of note, a second, broader case definition was also used (AFHSC Code Set A for “influenza like illness”). This broader definition of influenza like illness had a lower positive predictive value (63%) compared with Code Set B (96%) in a validation study among a population of Armed Forces members and their dependents with laboratory-confirmed influenza as “gold standard” (Supplementary Table 2) [21] and thus was not used as the primary case definition; results from this analysis are reported as part of the Supplementary Data.

Covariates

Covariates of interest were identified a priori based on subject-matter expertise, biological plausibility, and published literature on influenza vaccination and were identified in the 12 months before the recorded date of immunization with ccIIV4 or eIIV4 (termed the “pre-index period”). Data were ascertained from each subject’s EMR on age, sex, race, ethnicity, health status (quantified using the Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI]) [22, 23], index date, and US geographic region (based on mutually exclusive US census regions: South, West, Northeast, Midwest, Other). Although all covariates were adjusted for as confounders, covariate balance between the exposure groups following per-protocol adjustment was assessed using standardized mean differences (SMDs) [24].

Statistical Methods

Per-protocol Analyses

A descriptive analysis was conducted to first evaluate patient characteristics at the time of immunization. Continuous and categorical variables were reported as mean ± standard deviation and proportional values, respectively. Unadjusted odd ratios (ORs) for the outcome of influenza-related medical encounters were estimated from a univariable model with exposure status as the only predictor variable. Adjusted ORs were derived from a weighted sample using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) [24]. First, propensity scores were calculated for each subject using a multivariable logit model adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, geographic region, week of vaccination, and CCI. Propensity scores were then used to create stabilized inverse probability of treatment weights. Weights were truncated at the third and 97th percentile weight to attenuate any extreme variability from outlier patients. Adjusted ORs were then estimated for the full study sample using a logistic regression model in the IPTW-weighted cohort. The rVE was calculated as 100 × (1 – ORadjusted) and is reported with 95% CIs. Analyses were conducted using SQL and SAS (version 9.4).

Missing Data

Categorical variables with missing or null values in the EMR were classified as “not reported” or “unknown,” whereas continuous counts of comorbidities or CCI were recoded as 0. Missing or out-of-range values were not imputed.

Additional Analyses

Subgroup Analyses

The rVE of ccIIV4 versus eIIV4 was reestimated in subgroups defined by age (≥4 years, ≥4 to ≤17 years, ≥18 to ≤49 years, ≥18 to ≤64 years, ≥50 to ≤64 years, and ≥65 years). Specifically, propensity scores were recalculated for each subject using a multivariable logit model with study covariates as predictor variables. As with the main analysis, the propensity scores were truncated at the third and 97th percentile and were then used to generate stabilized weights. Adjusted ORs for each age subgroup were subsequently estimated using a logistic regression model with vaccine type as the sole independent variable in the IPTW-weighted sample.

Sensitivity Analysis: Restricted Influenza Season

As a sensitivity analysis, the adjusted rVE was reestimated in a restricted observation window corresponding to adjacent calendar weeks with peak laboratory-confirmed influenza activity [25]. This alternative observation window was defined as 17 December 2018, to 7 April 2019 [26].

Post hoc Analyses

A post hoc analysis was conducted evaluating the effect of adjusting for health status as a summary measure using the CCI versus adjusting for each health condition individually. As such, adjusted rVEs were reestimated using propensity scores derived from the same set of covariates as in the main analysis, except that the CCI score as a single variable was replaced by 17 binary variables for the presence or absence of the following comorbidities: acquired immunodeficiency syndrome/human immunodeficiency virus, cerebrovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, dementia, diabetes with chronic complications, diabetes without chronic complications, hemiplegia or paraplegia, liver disease, any malignancy, metastatic tumor, mild liver disease, myocardial infarction, peptic ulcer disease, peripheral vascular disease, renal disease, and rheumatic disease. Last, following assessment of the per protocol IPTW approach using SMD graphs, a decision was made to re-run all analyses (both per protocol and post hoc) using a doubly robust adjustment methodology to account for any residual confounding from measured covariates [27]. Specifically, adjusted ORs for the overall population, and for subcohorts defined by age, were reestimated in an IPTW-weighted sample using a multivariable model that included all variables from the propensity score–generation model as covariates.

RESULTS

Study Subjects

Overall, 10 126 333 individuals were included in the study cohort; 2 125 430 (20.1%) had a record of receiving ccIIV4 and 8 000 903 (79.9%) received eIIV4 (Table 1). Subjects receiving ccIIV4 were, on average, 10 years older than eIIV4 recipients, whereas for both groups the majority of subjects were female and had a recorded race of white. A large proportion of individuals from both exposure groups were from the Southern geographic region, although the proportion of ccIIV4 recipients was greater (48.2% vs 36.0% of eIIV4 recipients). Nearly twice as many participants from the Midwest had a record of receiving eIIV4 (22.6%) as ccIIV4 (12.8%). Similar proportions of participants came from the Northeast and West (Table 2). Diabetes, chronic pulmonary disease, peripheral vascular disease, and cancer were the most common medical conditions in both exposure groups (Supplementary Table 3).
Table 1.

Subject Selection in the 2018–2019 Influenza Season

CriteriaSubjects, Overall N (%)Stepwise Change (%)
1. Patient received influenza vaccine between 1 August 2018, and 28 February 201914 734 352 (100.0)-
2. Patient is ≥4 years of age at time of immunization14 211 914 (96.5)96.5
3. Patient does not have >1 influenza immunization during the influenza season unless they are <9 years of age13 848 844 (94.0)97.4
4. Patient does not have an influenza-related medical encounter in the influenza season before immunization13 808 250 (93.7)99.7
5. Patient has a transcript record in the study EMR at least 1 year before immunization date10 126 333 (68.7)73.3
 ccIIV42 125 430 (14.4)21.0
 eIIV48 000 903 (54.3)79.0

Abbreviations: ccIIV3, cell culture–derived inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine; eIIV3, egg-derived inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine; EMR, electronic medical record.

Table 2.

Subject Demographics at Baseline

CharacteristicccIIV4 (n = 2 125 430)eIIV4 (n = 8 000 903)
Mean age, y ± SD53.2 ± 18.242.8 ± 21.8
 4–17 y, n (%)78 602 (3.7)1 628 038 (20.3)
 18–49 y, n (%)700 729 (33.0)2 641 268 (33.0)
 50–64 y, n (%)828 460 (39.0)2 743 654 (34.3)
 ≥65 y, n (%)517 639 (24.4)987 943 (12.3)
Female, n (%)1 301 982 (61.3)4 714 325 (58.9)
Race and ethnicity, n (%)
 White895 550 (42.1)3 557 664 (44.5)
 Black or African American111 817 (5.3)417 032 (5.2)
 Other219 028 (10.3)825 930 (10.3)
 Race not reported899 035 (42.3)3 200 277 (40.0)
 Hispanic ethnicity126 116 (5.9)574 828 (7.2)
 Non-Hispanic ethnicity1 619 011 (76.2)5 887 982 (73.6)
 Ethnicity not reported380 303 (17.9)1 538 093 (19.2)
Geographic region, n (%)
 Northeast392 918 (18.5)1 455 385 (18.2)
 Midwest271 470 (12.8)1 809 363 (22.6)
 South1 024 956 (48.2)2 880 898 (36.0)
 West325 562 (15.3)1 496 358 (18.7)
 Not reported/other110 524 (5.2)358 899 (4.5)
 CCI ± SD.5 ± 1.1.4 ± 1.0

Abbreviations: ccIIV3, cell culture–derived inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine; CCI, Charlson comorbidity index; eIIV3, egg-derived inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine; SD, standard deviation.

Subject Selection in the 2018–2019 Influenza Season Abbreviations: ccIIV3, cell culture–derived inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine; eIIV3, egg-derived inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine; EMR, electronic medical record. Subject Demographics at Baseline Abbreviations: ccIIV3, cell culture–derived inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine; CCI, Charlson comorbidity index; eIIV3, egg-derived inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine; SD, standard deviation.

Overall rVE

Among ccIIV4 recipients, 1.6% reported an influenza-related medical encounter compared with 2.4% in the eIIV4 cohort. The unadjusted rVE for ccIIV4 vs eIIV4 for the overall cohort was 33.2% (95% CI, 32.4–33.9), and the per-protocol IPTW-adjusted rVE was 22.2% (95% CI, 21.4–23.1) (Supplementary Figure 1). For age subcohorts, the IPTW adjusted rVE was 5.9% (95% CI, 2.9–8.8) for subjects ≥ 4 to ≤17 years, 6.5% (95% CI, 5.2–7.9) for ≥18 to ≤64 years, 7.5% (95% CI, 5.6–9.3) for ≥18 to ≤49, 5.5% (95% CI, 3.5–7.5) for ≥50 to ≤64, and –2.3% (95% CI, –5.5 to .9) for ≥65 years (Supplementary Figure 1). SMDs for all covariates in the IPTW-weighted exposure groups are presented in Supplementary Figure 2. Several variables had SMDs > 0.1, the accepted threshold for negligible imbalances between comparison groups using the IPTW methodology, necessitating a post hoc doubly robust IPTW analysis to account for remaining imbalances in observed confounders between the exposure groups [15, 28]. After post hoc doubly robust adjustment, the rVE for ccIIV4 versus eIIV4 was 7.6% (95% CI, 6.5–8.6) for the overall cohort, 3.9% (95% CI, .9–7.0) for subjects 4–17 years, 7.5% (95% CI, 5.7–9.3) for 18–49 years, 5.6% (95% CI, 3.6–7.6) for 50–64 years, 6.5% (95% CI, 5.2–7.9) for 18–64 years, and –2.2% (95% CI, –5.4 to .9) for ≥65 years (Figure 1). Results using the broader definition of influenza-related medical encounters (AFHSC Code Set A) are presented in Supplementary Figure 3.
Figure 1.

Relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of ccIIV4 compared with eIIV4 among individuals ≥4 years in the 2018–2019 influenza season using doubly robust IPTW adjustment methodology. Abbreviations: ccIIV4, cell culture–derived inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine; CI, confidence interval; eIIV4, egg-derived inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine; IPTW, inverse probability of treatment weighting.

Relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of ccIIV4 compared with eIIV4 among individuals ≥4 years in the 2018–2019 influenza season using doubly robust IPTW adjustment methodology. Abbreviations: ccIIV4, cell culture–derived inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine; CI, confidence interval; eIIV4, egg-derived inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine; IPTW, inverse probability of treatment weighting.

Sensitivity Analyses

The per-protocol IPTW-adjusted rVE during peak influenza activity was 23.1% (95% CI, 22.2–24.1). rVE by age subcohorts is shown in Supplementary Figure 4A. In the doubly robust post hoc analysis conducted within the restricted influenza season, the overall rVE was 8.4% (95% CI, 7.3–9.5), and results favored ccIIV4 in all age subgroups except ≥65 years. However, the results in this subcohort were not statistically significant (Figure 2).
Figure 2.

rVE of ccIIV4 vs eIIV4 using doubly robust adjustment methodology during restricted season with peak influenza activity between 1 August 2018 and 7 April 2019. Abbreviations: ccIIV4, cell culture–derived inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine; CI, confidence interval; eIIV4, egg-derived inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine; rVE, relative vaccine effectiveness.

rVE of ccIIV4 vs eIIV4 using doubly robust adjustment methodology during restricted season with peak influenza activity between 1 August 2018 and 7 April 2019. Abbreviations: ccIIV4, cell culture–derived inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine; CI, confidence interval; eIIV4, egg-derived inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine; rVE, relative vaccine effectiveness. In the post hoc sensitivity analysis adjusting for health status using individual variables rather than the CCI (Supplementary Table 3), the per-protocol IPTW-adjusted rVE for ccIIV4 versus eIIV4 was 18.9% (95% CI, 18.0–19.8) (Supplementary Figure 5A); the rVE from the post hoc doubly robust IPTW was 7.1% (95% CI, 6.1–8.3) in the overall cohort of subjects ≥ 4 years of age (Supplementary Figure 5B). Results within subgroups defined by age were generally similar to those from the overall study population.

DISCUSSION

In this analysis of more than 10 million vaccinated individuals, ccIIV4 was statistically significantly more effective than egg-derived eIIV4 in preventing influenza-related medical encounters in individuals ≥ 4 years in the 2018–2019 US influenza season. Results remained statistically significant and directionally similar in age subgroups except for the cohort of individuals ≥ 65 years of age, where nonstatistically significant results preclude definitive conclusions. An MF59-adjuvanted vaccine and a high-dose nonadjuvanted vaccine were developed specifically to address the impact of immunosenescence in adults ≥ 65 years of age by providing enhanced levels of protection against influenza. Cell-based influenza vaccine technology may offer advantages over the standard influenza manufacturing process, including being more scalable and offering faster production [29]. Furthermore, the propagation of influenza vaccine viruses in mammalian cells rather than embryonated chicken eggs eliminates the opportunities for adaptive viral mutations to occur and maintains viral antigenicity, which supports the improved effectiveness of ccIIV4 observed in this study [19]. Results from the current analysis are not unexpected given the observed egg-adaptive amino acid changes in the hemagglutinin protein of egg-derived viruses identified within a subset of A(H3N2) viruses assessed in the 2018–2019 US season [10]. It is widely accepted that egg adaptation, particularly for A(H3N2) and B influenza viruses, could affect vaccine effectiveness [9, 30, 31]. The 2017–2018 season was generally dominated by A(H3N2) viruses and was the first season in which the seed virus for the A(H3N2) antigen for the cell-cultured vaccine did not undergo any egg passage. Alternatively, the 2018–2019 influenza season in the United States was dominated by 2 waves of influenza virus circulation: influenza A(H1N1) viruses from October 2018 to mid-February 2019 and influenza A(H3N2) viruses from February through May 2019. The absolute vaccine effectiveness during the 2018–2019 season was 29% (95% CI, 21–35) as reported by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, likely because of an apparent mismatch between circulating A(H3N2) strains and vaccine virus strains [2, 9, 10, 31]. Furthermore, in the 2018–2019 season, the seed virus used to produce the A(H1N1)pdm09 antigens for the cell-cultured vaccine was egg grown, whereas the seed viruses for the A(H3N2) and B antigens were cell grown. Thus, the A(H3N2) vaccine-circulating strain mismatch coupled with the fact that the seed viruses for the cell-cultured and egg-based A(H1N1)pdm09 antigens were both produced using egg-based seed viruses may explain why we did not observe a higher rVE for the cell-cultured vaccine in the 2018–2019 season compared to the 2017–2018 season [19]. This trend is similar to that reported by Izurieta et al for these 2 US seasons [15, 32]. Overall, the general conclusions of this study support the trend in published literature that ccIIV4 may be more effective compared with eIIV4 in seasons affected by egg adaptation of egg-derived vaccine-strain viruses [15, 16, 19, 32–34]. The use of a large integrated dataset provided a more complete, accurate, and well-rounded picture of an individual’s health status and service utilization in comparison to the use of EMRs or claims data alone. Although validation of information in subjects’ EMRs and claims was not possible, exposure, outcome, and covariate information was ascertained retrospectively from the integrated database in the same manner for both vaccine cohorts, limiting the possibility of differential covariate misclassification between the exposure groups. Additionally, doubly robust adjustment methodology was implemented in all analyses, which further controlled for residual confounding. The conclusions from the main analysis were either confirmed or supported by planned sensitivity analyses and post hoc evaluations. Nonetheless, results must be interpreted in light of several limitations. First, the study outcome was not laboratory confirmed. However, consistent results were observed when the observation window was limited to the weeks of peak influenza circulation with highest laboratory-confirmed influenza activity (Figure 2) [20]. A descriptive evaluation of the overlap between the incidence of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–reported, laboratory-confirmed influenza and the incidence of influenza-related medical encounters (AFHSC Code Set B) in the integrated dataset was also conducted. Concordance between trends was observed (Supplementary Figure 6), supporting the use of the diagnostic AFHSC Code Set B in evaluations of influenza. Another limitation of this study was that the analyses did not specifically adjust for frailty. However, this limitation would most likely only affect a subset of the study population ≥ 65 years of age. Furthermore, the present study population included individuals for whom at least some pharmacy and medical claims data were available, thus limiting the study cohort to insured individuals but not requiring healthcare resource utilization beyond the index vaccination. Finally, despite the adoption of a doubly robust adjustment methodology to control for measured confounders, unmeasured confounding is a potential source of bias in all observational research. It is particularly prominent in studies using routinely collected data because these data are not specifically collected for research purposes.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study demonstrate that individuals ≥ 4 years of age vaccinated with ccIIV4 had statistically significantly fewer influenza-related medical encounters compared to individuals vaccinated with egg-derived eIIV4 in the 2018–2019 influenza season in the United States. Findings from this study provide further evidence supporting ccIIV4 as a potentially more effective public health measure against influenza than an egg-derived equivalent [15, 16, 19, 33, 34].

Supplementary Data

Supplementary materials are available at Clinical Infectious Diseases online. Consisting of data provided by the authors to benefit the reader, the posted materials are not copyedited and are the sole responsibility of the authors, so questions or comments should be addressed to the corresponding author. Click here for additional data file.
  27 in total

1.  Assessment of ICD-9-based case definitions for influenza-like illness surveillance.

Authors:  Angelia A Eick-Cost; Devin J Hunt
Journal:  MSMR       Date:  2015-09

2.  Comparison of vaccine effectiveness against influenza hospitalization of cell-based and egg-based influenza vaccines, 2017-2018.

Authors:  Katia J Bruxvoort; Yi Luo; Bradley Ackerson; Hilary C Tanenbaum; Lina S Sy; Ashesh Gandhi; Hung Fu Tseng
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2019-08-22       Impact factor: 3.641

3.  Relative Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccines Among the United States Elderly, 2018-2019.

Authors:  Hector S Izurieta; Yoganand Chillarige; Jeffrey Kelman; Yuqin Wei; Yun Lu; Wenjie Xu; Michael Lu; Douglas Pratt; Michael Wernecke; Thomas MaCurdy; Richard Forshee
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  2020-06-29       Impact factor: 5.226

4.  Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data.

Authors:  Hude Quan; Vijaya Sundararajan; Patricia Halfon; Andrew Fong; Bernard Burnand; Jean-Christophe Luthi; L Duncan Saunders; Cynthia A Beck; Thomas E Feasby; William A Ghali
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Comparing Influenza Vaccine Types: The Path Toward Improved Influenza Vaccine Strategies.

Authors:  Brendan Flannery; Alicia M Fry
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  2019-09-13       Impact factor: 7.759

6.  Immunogenicity and safety of a cell culture-based quadrivalent influenza vaccine in adults: A Phase III, double-blind, multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority study.

Authors:  Stephan Bart; Kevin Cannon; Darrell Herrington; Richard Mills; Eduardo Forleo-Neto; Kelly Lindert; Ahmed Abdul Mateen
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2016-06-20       Impact factor: 3.452

7.  Update: Influenza Activity in the United States During the 2018-19 Season and Composition of the 2019-20 Influenza Vaccine.

Authors:  Xiyan Xu; Lenee Blanton; Anwar Isa Abd Elal; Noreen Alabi; John Barnes; Matthew Biggerstaff; Lynnette Brammer; Alicia P Budd; Erin Burns; Charisse N Cummings; Shikha Garg; Rebecca Kondor; Larisa Gubareva; Krista Kniss; Sankan Nyanseor; Alissa O'Halloran; Melissa Rolfes; Wendy Sessions; Vivien G Dugan; Alicia M Fry; David E Wentworth; James Stevens; Daniel Jernigan
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  2019-06-21       Impact factor: 17.586

8.  Relative Effectiveness of the Cell-Cultured Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine Compared to Standard, Egg-derived Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccines in Preventing Influenza-like Illness in 2017-2018.

Authors:  Constantina Boikos; Gregg C Sylvester; John S Sampalis; James A Mansi
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2020-12-17       Impact factor: 9.079

9.  Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  Retrospective Assessment of the Antigenic Similarity of Egg-Propagated and Cell Culture-Propagated Reference Influenza Viruses as Compared with Circulating Viruses across Influenza Seasons 2002-2003 to 2017-2018.

Authors:  Sankarasubramanian Rajaram; Pirada Suphaphiphat; Josephine van Boxmeer; Mendel Haag; Brett Leav; Ike Iheanacho; Kristin Kistler; Raúl Ortiz de Lejarazu
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-07-28       Impact factor: 3.390

View more
  10 in total

1.  [Health Technology Assessment (HTA) of the introduction of influenza vaccination for Italian children with Fluenz Tetra®].

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

2.  Integrating Electronic Medical Records and Claims Data for Influenza Vaccine Research.

Authors:  Constantina Boikos; Mahrukh Imran; Simon De Lusignan; Justin R Ortiz; Peter A Patriarca; James A Mansi
Journal:  Vaccines (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-06

3.  Review of Analyses Estimating Relative Vaccine Effectiveness of Cell-Based Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine in Three Consecutive US Influenza Seasons.

Authors:  Constantina Boikos; Ian McGovern; Deborah Molrine; Justin R Ortiz; Joan Puig-Barberà; Mendel Haag
Journal:  Vaccines (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-03

4.  Comparison of N-linked glycosylation on hemagglutinins derived from chicken embryos and MDCK cells: a case of the production of a trivalent seasonal influenza vaccine.

Authors:  Jingqi Li; Sixu Liu; Yanlin Gao; Shuaishuai Tian; Yu Yang; Ningning Ma
Journal:  Appl Microbiol Biotechnol       Date:  2021-05-03       Impact factor: 4.813

5.  A Real-World Clinical and Economic Analysis of Cell-Derived Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine Compared to Standard Egg-Derived Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccines During the 2019-2020 Influenza Season in the United States.

Authors:  Victoria Divino; Vamshi Ruthwik Anupindi; Mitch DeKoven; Joaquin Mould-Quevedo; Stephen I Pelton; Maarten J Postma; Myron J Levin
Journal:  Open Forum Infect Dis       Date:  2021-12-04       Impact factor: 3.835

6.  Validation of International Classification of Diseases criteria to identify severe influenza hospitalizations.

Authors:  Brittney M Snyder; Megan F Patterson; Tebeb Gebretsadik; Pingsheng Wu; Tan Ding; Rees L Lee; Kathryn M Edwards; Lindsay A Somerville; Thomas J Braciale; Justin R Ortiz; Tina V Hartert
Journal:  Influenza Other Respir Viruses       Date:  2022-01-04       Impact factor: 4.380

7.  Relative Effectiveness of Cell-based Versus Egg-based Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccines in Children and Adolescents in the United States During the 2019-2020 Influenza Season.

Authors:  Mahrukh Imran; Justin R Ortiz; Huong Q McLean; Lauren Fisher; Dan O'Brien; Machaon Bonafede; James A Mansi; Constantina Boikos
Journal:  Pediatr Infect Dis J       Date:  2022-06-04       Impact factor: 3.806

8.  Modelling the Economic Impact of lnfluenza Vaccine Programs with the Cell-Based Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine and Adjuvanted Trivalent Influenza Vaccine in Canada.

Authors:  Van Hung Nguyen; Bertrand Roy
Journal:  Vaccines (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-04

Review 9.  Relative Effectiveness of Cell-Cultured versus Egg-Based Seasonal Influenza Vaccines in Preventing Influenza-Related Outcomes in Subjects 18 Years Old or Older: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Joan Puig-Barberà; Sonia Tamames-Gómez; Pedro Plans-Rubio; José María Eiros-Bouza
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-01-12       Impact factor: 3.390

10.  Effectiveness of the Cell-Derived Inactivated Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine in Individuals at High Risk of Influenza Complications in the 2018-2019 United States Influenza Season.

Authors:  Constantina Boikos; Mahrukh Imran; Van Hung Nguyen; Thierry Ducruet; Gregg C Sylvester; James A Mansi
Journal:  Open Forum Infect Dis       Date:  2021-04-02       Impact factor: 3.835

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.