Increasing uptake of live attenuated influenza vaccine among children in the United States, 2008–2014

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends annual influenza vaccination for all persons in the United States aged ≥6 months. On June 25, 2014, ACIP preferentially recommended live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) for healthy children aged 2–8 years [1]. Little is known about national LAIV uptake. To determine uptake of LAIV relative to inactivated influenza vaccine, we analyzed vaccination records from six immunization information system sentinel sites (approximately 10% of US population). LAIV usage increased over time in all sites. Among children 2–8 years of age vaccinated for influenza, exclusive LAIV usage in the collective sentinel site area increased from 20.1% (2008–09 season) to 38.0% (2013–14). During 2013–14, at least half of vaccinated children received LAIV in Minnesota (50.0%) and North Dakota (55.5%). Increasing LAIV usage suggests formulation acceptability, and this preexisting trend offers a favorable context for implementation of ACIP's preferential recommendation.     

Usage of quadrivalent influenza vaccine among children in the United States, 2013–14

Annual influenza vaccination is recommended for everyone ≥6 months in the U.S. During the 2013–14 influenza season, in addition to trivalent influenza vaccines, quadrivalent vaccines were available, protecting against two influenza A and two influenza B viruses. We analyzed 1,976,443 immunization records from six sentinel sites to compare influenza vaccine usage among children age 6 months–18 years. A total of 983,401 (49.8%) influenza vaccine doses administered were trivalent and 920,333 (46.6%) were quadrivalent (unknown type: 72,709). Quadrivalent vaccine administration varied by age and was least frequent among those <2 years of age.     

Trends in the uptake of pediatric measles-containing vaccine in the United States: A Disneyland effect?

BackgroundThe measles outbreak that began in December 2014 at the California Disneyland theme park in the United States (U.S.) received a high amount of media attention. Media attention can influence health-related behaviors. We investigated the effect of the Disneyland outbreak on measles-containing vaccine (MCV) uptake among U.S. children.MethodsWe used 2012–2017 National Immunization Survey-Child (NIS-Child) data to examine MCV uptake among U.S. children by 19 months of age. We classified MCV coverage among birth cohorts as exposed based on age at the time of the outbreak. A difference-in-differences design with adjustment for categorical birth cohort was implemented in base models to estimate the exposure effect on the outcomes, ≥1-dose MCV coverage or age at first MCV dose, with pneumococcal conjugate vaccination as a control. Primary analyses included this model adjusted for geographic region, maternal education, race/ethnicity, household income, and insurance status, and an exposure-interaction term with maternal education. All analyses included sampling weights.ResultsThe study population represented 34,471,357 children. In base models, the Disneyland outbreak was associated with a 1.0% (95% CI: 0.2%, 1.8%) increase in ≥1-dose MCV coverage and a 6.6 (95% CI: 4.8, 8.5)-day decrease in MCV administration age. In primary analyses, the outbreak was associated with a 3.9% (95% CI: 3.1%, 4.8%) increase in ≥1-dose MCV coverage among children of college-educated mothers, and a 3.2% (95% CI: 0.6%, 5.9%) decrease among children of mothers earning less than a high school degree. Decreases in MCV administration age ranging from 5.9 (95% CI: 3.3, 8.5) to 9.1 (95% CI: 6.8, 11.4) days were observed across maternal education categories.ConclusionsThe Disneyland outbreak was associated with differential effects on MCV coverage by maternal education and decreases in MCV administration age among U.S. children. These findings may provide useful insights to inform methods to address pediatric MCV undervaccination.     

High-dose influenza vaccine use among patients receiving hemodialysis in the United States, 2010–2013

BackgroundStandard influenza vaccines may be of limited benefit to patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). These patients may benefit from high-dose influenza vaccine, currently indicated for patients aged ≥65 years. Studies in other populations have demonstrated that high-dose vaccine elicits a stronger immunological response. We compared vaccine uptake in the United States and predictors of receipt for high-dose and standard influenza vaccines.MethodsUsing data from the United States Renal Data System (2010–2013), we conducted a cohort study of 421,482 adult patients on hemodialysis. We examined temporal trends in uptake of high-dose or standard trivalent influenza vaccine each influenza season, and used multivariate logistic regression to assess the association between individual-level variables (e.g., demographics, comorbidities) and facility-level variables (e.g., facility size and type) with vaccine receipt.ResultsThe proportion of patients with ESRD who were vaccinated with any influenza vaccine increased from 68.3% in 2010 to 72.4% in 2013. High-dose vaccines were administered to 0.9% of patients during the study period, and 16.7% of high-dose vaccines were administered to patients <65 years of age. Among patients aged ≥65 years, older patients (>79 vs. 65–69 years: OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.19–1.41) and patients at hospital-based versus free-standing dialysis facilities (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 2.13–2.45) were more likely to receive high-dose vaccine, while blacks (vs. whites [OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.61–0.71]) and patients with longer duration of ESRD (>9 vs. 0 years: OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55–0.78) were less likely to receive the high-dose vaccine.ConclusionsWhile the overall influenza vaccination rate has increased, use of high-dose vaccine among patients with ESRD was very low. Being an older patient, living in the Midwest, and receiving care at hospital-based facilities were the strongest predictors of receiving high-dose vaccine.     

Assessment of influenza vaccine effectiveness in a sentinel surveillance network 2010–13, United States

BackgroundInfluenza vaccines are now widely used to reduce the burden of annual epidemics of influenza virus infections. Influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) is monitored annually to determine VE against each season's circulating influenza strains in different groups such as children, adults and the elderly. Few prospective surveillance programs are available to evaluate influenza VE against medically attended illness for patients of all ages in the United States.MethodsWe conducted surveillance of patients with acute respiratory illnesses in 101 clinics across the US during three consecutive influenza seasons. We analyzed laboratory testing results for influenza virus, self-reported vaccine history, and patient characteristics, defining cases as patients who tested positive for influenza virus and controls as patients who tested negative for influenza virus. Comparison of influenza vaccination coverage among cases versus controls, adjusted for potential confounders, was used to estimate VE as one minus the adjusted odds ratio multiplied by 100%.ResultsWe included 10,650 patients during three influenza seasons from August 2010 through December 2013, and estimated influenza VE in children 6m–5y of age (58%; 95% CI: 49%–66%), children 6–17y (45%; 95% CI: 34%–53%), adults 18–49y (36%; 95% CI: 24%, 46%), and adults ≥50y (34%, 95% CI: 13%, 51%). VE was higher against influenza A(H1N1) compared to A(H3N2) and B.ConclusionsOur estimates of moderate influenza VE confirm the important role of vaccination in protecting against medically attended influenza virus infection.     

The faces of influenza vaccine recommendation: A Literature review of the determinants and barriers to health providers’ recommendation of influenza vaccine in pregnancy

IntroductionWHO recommends influenza vaccination for pregnant women and health providers (HPs), yet global uptake for both is persistently low. Research suggests that HPs greatly influence uptake of influenza vaccine in pregnant women. Our review studies HPs’ recommendation of influenza vaccine to pregnant women, determinants and barriers to recommendation, and the role that HPs may play in global influenza vaccine coverage.MethodsWe undertook a comprehensive global review of literature relating to HPs’ recommendation of seasonal influenza vaccines to pregnant women and the determinants and barriers to recommendation and how this may vary by country and context. We evaluated data from each study including frequency of HP recommendation, vaccine coverage, determinants and barriers to recommendation, and the odds of recommending. We tracked the frequency of determinants and barriers to recommendation in heat maps and organized data by world regions and income classifications.ResultsFrom 32 studies in 15 countries, we identified 68 determinants or barriers to HPs’ recommendation. Recommendation rates were highest (77%) in the Americas and lowest in South East Asia (18%). A HP’s own influenza vaccine status was a main determinant of recommendation in multiple country contexts and from different provider types. Financial barriers to recommendation were present in higher-income countries and policy-related barriers were highlighted in lower-income countries. HP perceptions of safety, efficacy, and the utility of vaccine were the most frequently cited barriers, relevant in almost every context.ConclusionsHP recommendation is important to influenza vaccine implementation in pregnant women. A HP’s own status is an important recommendation determinant in multiple contexts. Vaccine program implementation plans should consider the impact of HPs' knowledge, awareness and vaccine confidence on their own uptake and recommendation practices, as well as on the uptake among pregnant women. Addressing safety and efficacy concerns is relevant in all contexts for HPs and pregnant women.     

Attitudes,believes, determinants and organisational barriers behind the low seasonal influenza vaccination uptake in healthcare workers – A cross-sectional survey

BackgroundSeasonal influenza threatens hospitalised patients and residents of nursing homes annually. Due to age and chronic disease their protection following immunisation is diminished. Additional immunisation of direct contacts and in particular healthcare workers (HCWs) has proven added value. As vaccination coverage in HCWs remains low, we aimed to gain insight in the factors behind the demotivation for influenza vaccination.MethodsAttitudes and believes towards influenza vaccination and socio-demographic and professional determinants were surveyed in 5141 Belgian HCWs from 13 hospitals and 14 nursing homes. Additionally, influenza campaign coordinators of the participating healthcare institutions were interviewed about the factors of success/failure in their campaigns.ResultsThe mean vaccination coverage registered by the participating healthcare institutions was 40.4% in the hospitals and 45.3% in the nursing homes. Overall, up to 90% of HCWs found it important not to infect their patients. However, only 20% of non-vaccinated HCWs considered influenza vaccination a duty to not harm their patients. Up to 40% of unvaccinated staff believed they could get influenza after vaccination and that vaccination weakens their immune system. Also, only about 20% of unvaccinated staff thought to have a high chance of getting influenza. Reasons for unvaccinated staff to get vaccinated in the future are self-protection and protection of family members. Factors that positively influenced vaccination coverage are encouragement by supervisors (OR, hospitals: 7.1, p < 0.001; nursing homes: 7.5, p < 0.001) and well-organized vaccination campaigns with on-site vaccination. Factors that negatively affected vaccination coverage are misconceptions about influenza and its vaccine (OR, range 0.1–0.7, p < 0.001 for most misconceptions) and underestimation of the risk of contracting influenza by patients or HCWs (OR of perceived susceptibility, range 2.1–5.1, p < 0.001 for most factors).ConclusionThere is a need for guidance for the organization of seasonal influenza campaigns, in which education, communication and easy accessible vaccination are promoted.     

Misinformation about vaccine safety and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines among adults and 5–11-year-olds in the United States

Despite increasing rates of vaccination for COVID-19 in the US, hesitancy continues to be a barrier to the full immunization of the eligible population. Hesitancy appears to be particularly pronounced among adults deciding whether to recommend that children be vaccinated against COVID-19. In this research, we tested whether embrace of misinformation about the safety of vaccination is associated with hesitancy to vaccinate oneself and to recommend vaccination of a 5–11-year-old child for COVID-19. In a national probability panel created in April 2021, we assessed belief in both general vaccination misinformation and misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines, in particular. As hypothesized, belief in general vaccination misinformation predicted the uptake in reported vaccination among adults through September 2021, and likelihood to recommend COVID-19 vaccination of children aged 5–11 in January 2022, three months after the approval of that vaccine. In addition, misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines that arose over time correlated highly with more general vaccination misinformation. For both outcomes, general vaccine misinformation predicted vaccination hesitancy beyond concerns about the health risks of contracting COVID-19 for one’s family and children ages 5–11. The findings indicate that continued efforts are needed to bolster beliefs about the safety of authorized and approved vaccines of many types and not just those for COVID-19. Some strategies to achieve this objective are suggested.     

A multi-country investigation of influenza vaccine coverage in pregnant individuals, 2010–2016

BackgroundMany countries recommend influenza vaccination during pregnancy. Despite this recommendation, influenza vaccine among pregnant individuals remains under-utilized and uptake varies by country. Factors associated with influenza vaccine uptake during pregnancy may also vary across countries.MethodsAs members of the Pregnancy Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network (PREVENT), five sites from four countries (Australia, Canada, Israel, and the United States) retrospectively identified cohorts of individuals aged 18–50 years who were pregnant during pre-defined influenza seasons. Influenza vaccine coverage estimates were calculated for the 2010–11 through 2015–16 northern hemisphere and the 2012 through 2015 southern hemisphere influenza seasons, by site. Sites used electronic health records, administrative data, and immunization registries to collect information on pregnancy, health history, demographics, and vaccination status. Each season, vaccination coverage was calculated as the percentage of individuals who received influenza vaccine among the individuals in the cohort that season. Characteristics were compared between those vaccinated and unvaccinated, by site.ResultsMore than two million pregnancies were identified over the study period. Influenza vaccination coverage ranged from 5% to 58% across sites and seasons. Coverage increased consistently over the study period at three of the five sites (Western Australia, Alberta, and Israel), and was highest in all seasons at the United States study site (39–58%). Associations with vaccination varied by country and across seasons; where available, parity >0, presence of a high-risk medical condition, and urban residence were consistently associated with increased likelihood of vaccination.ConclusionsThough increasing, uptake of influenza vaccine among pregnant individuals remains lower than recommended. Coverage varied substantially by country, suggesting an ongoing need for targeted strategies to improve influenza vaccine uptake in this population.     

Early smallpox vaccine manufacturing in the United States: Introduction of the “animal vaccine” in 1870, establishment of “vaccine farms”, and the beginnings of the vaccine industry

For the first 80–90 years after Jenner’s discovery of vaccination in 1796, the main strategy used to disseminate and maintain the smallpox vaccine was arm-to-arm vaccination, also known as Jennerian or humanized vaccination. A major advance occurred after 1860 with the development of what was known as “animal vaccine”, which referred to growing vaccine material from serial propagation in calves before use in humans. The use of “animal vaccine” had several advantages over arm-to-arm vaccination: it would not transmit syphilis or other human diseases, it ensured a supply of vaccine even in the absence of the spontaneous occurrence of cases of cowpox or horsepox, and it allowed the production of large amounts of vaccine. The “animal vaccine” concept was introduced in the United States in 1870 by Henry Austin Martin. Very rapidly a number of “vaccine farms” were established in the U.S. and produced large quantities of “animal vaccine”. These “vaccine farms” were mostly established by medical doctors who saw an opportunity to respond to an increasing demand of smallpox vaccine from individuals and from health authorities, and to make a profit. The “vaccine farms” evolved from producing only smallpox “animal vaccine” to manufacturing several other biologics, including diphtheria- and other antitoxins. Two major incidents of tetanus contamination happened in 1901, which led to the promulgation of the Biologics Control Act of 1902. The US Secretary of the Treasury issued licenses to produce and sell biologicals, mainly vaccines and antitoxins. Through several mergers and acquisitions, the initial biologics licensees eventually evolved into some of the current major American industrial vaccine companies. An important aspect that was never clarified was the source of the vaccine stocks used to manufacture the smallpox “animal vaccines”. Most likely, different smallpox vaccine stocks were repeatedly introduced from Europe, resulting in polyclonal vaccines that are now recognized as “variants” more appropriately than “strains”. Further, clonal analysis of modern “animal vaccines” indicate that they are probably derived from complex recombinational events between different strains of vaccinia and horsepox. Modern sequencing technologies are now been used by us to study old smallpox vaccine specimens in an effort to better understand the origin and evolution of the vaccines that were used to eradicate the smallpox.     

The built environment and risk of obesity in the United States: Racial–ethnic disparities

Using data from the 2003–2008 waves of the continuous National Health Nutrition Examination Survey merged with the 2000 census and GIS-based data, this study conducted genderspecific analyses to explore whether neighborhood built environment attributes are significant correlates of obesity risk and mediators of obesity disparities by race–ethnicity. Results indicate that the built environment is a significant correlate of obesity risk but is not much of a mediator of obesity disparities by race–ethnicity. Neighborhood walkability, density, and distance to parks are significant covariates of obesity risks net of individual and neighborhood controls. Gender differences are found for some of these associations.     

Factors associated with perceptions of influenza vaccine safety and effectiveness among adults,United States, 2017–2018

BackgroundAnnual vaccination against seasonal influenza is widely recognized as the primary intervention method in preventing morbidity and mortality from influenza, but coverage among adults is suboptimal in the United States. Safety and effectiveness perceptions regarding vaccines are consistently cited as factors that influence adults’ decisions to accept or reject vaccination. Therefore, we conducted this analysis in order to understand sociodemographic, attitude, and knowledge factors associated with these perceptions for influenza vaccine among adults in three different age groups.MethodsProbability-based Internet panel surveys using nationally representative samples of adults aged ≥19 years in the United States were conducted during February–March of 2017 and 2018. We asked respondents if they believed the influenza vaccine was safe and effective. We calculated prevalence ratios using chi-square and pairwise t-tests to determine associations between safety and effectiveness beliefs and sociodemographic variables for adults aged 19–49, 50–64, and ≥65 years.ResultsSurvey completion rates were 58.2% (2017) and 57.2% (2018); we analyzed 4597 combined responses. Overall, most adults reported the influenza vaccine was safe (86.3%) and effective (73.0%). However, fewer younger adults reported positive perceptions compared with older age groups. Respondents who believed the vaccine was safe also reported it was effective.ConclusionsGenerally, adults perceived the influenza vaccine as safe and effective. Considering this, any improvements to these perceptions would likely be minor and have a limited effect on coverage. Future research to understand why, despite positive perceptions, adults are still choosing to forego the vaccine may be informative.     

Three-season effectiveness of inactivated influenza vaccine in preventing influenza illness and hospitalization in children in Japan, 2013–2016

ObjectivesWe assessed the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) in children 6 months to 15 years of age in 2015/16 season. In addition, based on the data obtained during the three seasons from 2013 to 2016, we estimated the three-season VE in preventing influenza illness and hospitalization.MethodsOur study was conducted according to a test-negative case-control design (TNCC) and as a case-control study based on influenza rapid diagnostic test results.ResultsDuring 2015/16 season, the quadrivalent IIV was first used in Japan. The adjusted VE in preventing influenza illness was 49% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 42–55%) against any type of influenza, 57% (95% CI: 50–63%) against influenza A and 34% (95% CI: 23–44%) against influenza B. The 3-season adjusted VE was 45% (95% CI: 41–49%) against influenza virus infection overall (N = 12,888), 51% (95% CI: 47–55%) against influenza A (N = 10,410), and 32% (95% CI: 24–38%) against influenza B (N = 9232). An analysis by age groups showed low or no significant VE in infants or adolescents. By contrast, VE was highest in the young group (1–5 years old) and declined with age thereafter. The 3-season adjusted VE in preventing hospitalization as determined in a case-control study was 52% (95% CI: 42–60%) for influenza A and 28% (95% CI: 4–46%) for influenza B, and by TNCC design, it was 54% (95% CI: 41–65%) for influenza A and 34% (95% CI: 6–54%) for influenza B.ConclusionWe demonstrated not only VE in preventing illness, but also VE in preventing hospitalization based on much larger numbers of children than previous studies.     

A real-world study evaluating the relative vaccine effectiveness of a cell-based quadrivalent influenza vaccine compared to egg-based quadrivalent influenza vaccine in the US during the 2017–18 influenza season

BackgroundCell-based influenza vaccine manufacturing reduces egg adaptations that can decrease vaccine effectiveness. We evaluated the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of cell-based quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIVc) compared to standard-dose egg-based quadrivalent influenza vaccines (QIVe-SD) against influenza-related and serious respiratory events among subjects 4–64 years of age during the 2017–18 influenza season.MethodsA retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using administrative claims data in the US (IQVIA PharMetrics Plus® database). Subjects vaccinated with QIVc or QIVe-SD from 8/2017–1/2018 were identified (date of vaccination termed the index date). Influenza-related hospitalizations/ER visits, all-cause hospitalizations and serious respiratory hospitalizations/ER visits were assessed post-vaccination. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and Poisson regression were used to evaluate the adjusted rVE of QIVc compared to QIVe-SD. In a subgroup analysis, rVE was assessed for several subgroups of interest (4–17, 18–64 and 50–64 years, and subjects with ≥1 high-risk condition). In a secondary economic analysis, annualized all-cause costs over the follow-up were compared using propensity score matching (PSM) and generalized estimating equation (GEE) models.ResultsThe study sample comprised 555,538 QIVc recipients and 2,528,524 QIVe-SD recipients. Prior to adjustment, QIVc subjects were older and had higher total costs in the 6-months pre-index. Following IPTW-adjustment and Poisson regression, QIVc was more effective in reducing influenza-related hospitalizations/ER visits, all-cause hospitalizations, and hospitalizations/ER visits related to asthma/COPD/bronchial events and other respiratory events compared to QIVe-SD. Similar trends were generally observed in the subgroup analysis. Following PSM adjustment and GEE regression, QIVe-SD was associated with significantly higher annualized all-cause total costs compared to QIVc, driven by higher costs for outpatient medical services and inpatient hospitalizations.ConclusionsAfter adjustment for confounders and selection bias, QIVc reduced influenza-related hospitalizations/ER visits, all-cause hospitalizations, and serious respiratory hospitalizations/ER visits compared to QIVe-SD. QIVc was associated with significantly lower all-cause total costs.     

Predictors of reported influenza vaccination in HIV-infected women in the United States, 2006–2007 and 2007–2008 seasons

ObjectiveTo estimate the cumulative incidence of self-reported influenza vaccination (“vaccination coverage”) and investigate predictors in HIV-infected women.MethodsIn an ongoing cohort study of HIV-infected women in five US cities, data from two influenza seasons (2006–2007 n = 1209 and 2007–2008 n = 1161) were used to estimate crude and adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) and 95% confidence intervals ([,]) from Poisson regression with robust variance models using generalized estimating equations (GEE).ResultsIn our study, 55% and 57% of HIV-infected women reported vaccination during the 2006–2007 and 2007–2008 seasons, respectively. Using data from both seasons, older age, non-smoking status, CD4 T-lymphocyte (CD4) count ≥ 200 cells/mm³, and reporting at least one recent healthcare visit was associated with increased vaccination coverage. In the 2007–2008 season, a belief in the protection of the vaccine (aPR = 1.38 [1.18, 1.61]) and influenza vaccination in the previous season (aPR = 1.66 [1.44, 1.91]) most strongly predicted vaccination status.ConclusionInterventions to reach unvaccinated HIV-infected women should focus on changing beliefs about the effectiveness of influenza vaccination and target younger women, current smokers, those without recent healthcare visits, or a CD4 count < 200 cells/mm³.     

Influenza vaccine effectiveness among patients with high-risk medical conditions in the United States, 2012–2016

BackgroundAnnual influenza vaccination has been recommended for persons with high-risk conditions since the 1960s. However, few estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) for persons with high-risk conditions are available.MethodsData from the U.S. Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network from 2012 to 2016 were analyzed to compare VE of standard-dose inactivated vaccines against medically-attended influenza among patients aged ≥6 months with and without high-risk medical conditions. Patients with acute respiratory illness were tested for influenza by RT-PCR. Presence of high-risk conditions and vaccination status were obtained from medical records. VE by influenza virus type/subtype and age group was calculated for patients with and without high-risk conditions using the test-negative design. Interaction terms were used to test for differences in VE by high-risk conditions.ResultsOverall, 9643 (38%) of 25,369 patients enrolled during four influenza seasons had high-risk conditions; 2213 (23%) tested positive for influenza infection. For all ages, VE against any influenza was lower among patients with high-risk conditions (41%, 95% CI: 35–47%) than those without (48%, 95% CI: 43–52%; P-for-interaction = 0.02). For children aged <18 years, VE against any influenza was 51% (95% CI: 39–61%) and 52% (95% CI: 39–61%) among those with and without high-risk conditions, respectively (P-for-interaction = 0.54). For adults aged ≥18 years, VE against any influenza was 38% (95% CI: 30–45%) and 44% (95% CI: 38–50%) among those with and without high-risk conditions, respectively (P-for-interaction = 0.21). For both children aged <18 and adults aged ≥18 years, VEs against illness related to influenza A(H3N2), A(H1N1)pdm09, and influenza B virus infection were similar among those with and without high-risk conditions.ConclusionsInfluenza vaccination provided protection against medically-attended influenza among patients with high-risk conditions, at levels approaching those observed among patients without high-risk conditions. Results from our analysis support recommendations of annual vaccination for patients with high-risk conditions.     

Rotavirus vaccine and intussusception: how much risk will parents in the United States accept to obtain vaccine benefits?

Postlicensure surveillance of a newly licensed rotavirus vaccine suggested an increased risk of intussusception. Little was known about the amount of risk parents would tolerate to obtain the vaccine's benefits or the extent to which risk would reduce the price parents would pay for the vaccine. Parents of infants aged 12 months or younger were asked to accept or reject two hypothetical vaccines associated with varying degrees of risk. Parents chose from a list the amount they would pay for two additional hypothetical vaccines, with and without a risk of intussuception. The authors conducted face-to-face surveys in September 1999 among a convenience sample of parents in three US cities. Of 405 eligible parents, 260 (64%) participated. To achieve a 90% acceptance rate, the vaccine could be associated with no more than 1,794 (95% confidence interval: 1,551, 2,025) cases of intussusception in a fully vaccinated, national cohort of infants. The median willingness to pay for three vaccine doses, when vaccination was associated with 1,400 cases of intussusception, was $36 (95% confidence interval: $28, $46) compared with $110 (95% confidence interval: $96, $126) for the risk-free vaccine. The most important aspect of this study may be the methodology to assess how parents balance the benefits and risks of childhood vaccines.     

Seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness against influenza in 2012–2013: A hospital-based case-control study in Lithuania

Background

Due to scarce information on seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness (SIVE) against severe clinical influenza outcomes in risk populations, we conducted a case-control study to assess its effects against laboratory-confirmed influenza in hospitalized patients during the 2012–2013 influenza season.

Methods

We conducted a test-negative case-control study among ≥18 years old patients with influenza-like illness (ILI) hospitalized in two Lithuanian hospitals. Cases were influenza A(H1N1), A(H3) or influenza B positive by RT-PCR, and controls were influenza negative. Additional demographic and clinical data to assess the role of confounding were collected. SIVE and its confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated by using multivariate logistic regression as (1 − OR) × 100%.

Results

The sample consisted of 185 subjects. Seasonal influenza vaccine uptake was 5%. Among 111 (60%) influenza positive cases, 24.3% were A(H1N1), 10.8% were A(H3) and 24.3% were influenza B cases. Unadjusted SIVE was 79% (95% CI −6% to 96%) and after the adjustment it increased to 86% (95% CI 19% to 97%).

Conclusions

Seasonal influenza vaccination in 2012–2013 was associated with reduced occurrence of laboratory-confirmed influenza, but due to low sample size the estimate of SIVE is imprecise. Given high prevalence of influenza in hospitalized ILI cases and low influenza vaccination coverage, there is a need to increase influenza vaccination rates.