Influenza vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed influenza in a vaccine-mismatched influenza B-dominant season

BackgroundThe 2017–2018 influenza season in Israel was characterized by the predominance of influenza B Yamagata, with a lesser circulation of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and influenza A(H3N2). We estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the inactivated influenza vaccine which was selected for use that season.MethodsEnd-of-season VE and 95% confidence intervals (CI) against laboratory-confirmed influenza-like illness (ILI) were estimated by means of the test-negative design. Age-specific VE analysis was carried out using a moving age interval.ResultsSpecimen were obtained from 1,453 community ILI patients; 610 (42.0%) were influenza-positive, among which 69.7% were B, 17.2% A(H1N1)pdm09 and 13.4% A(H3N2). A 98.6% of molecularly characterized influenza B belonged to the Yamagata lineage. Of the sampled individuals, 1320 were suitable for VE analysis. Of those vaccinated, 90.6% received the inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) containing a Victoria lineage influenza B-like virus. VE against influenza A differed by age, with the highest VE of 72.9% (95%CI 31.9–89.2%) observed in children 0.5–14 years old, while all ages VE was 46.6% (95%CI 10.4–68.2%). All ages VE against influenza B was 23.2% (95%CI −10.1–46.4%) with age-specific analysis showing non-significant VE estimates. Utilizing a moving age interval of 15 years, afforded a detailed age-specific insight into influenza VE against the influenza viruses circulating during the 2017–2018 season.ConclusionsThe moderate-high 2017–2018 influenza A VE among children and adolescents, supports seasonal influenza vaccination at a young age. The low VE against influenza B in Israel, is most likely the result of influenza B/TIV-mismatch.     

Influenza vaccine effectiveness: Maintained protection throughout the duration of influenza seasons 2010–2011 through 2013–2014

BackgroundFactors, such as age, comorbidities, vaccine type, herd immunity, previous influenza exposure, and antigenic shift may impact the immune response to the influenza vaccine, protection against circulating strains, and antibody waning. Evaluating vaccine effectiveness (VE) is important for informing timing of vaccine administration and evaluating overall vaccine benefit.MethodsVE was assessed using febrile respiratory illness surveillance among Department of Defense non-active duty beneficiaries from influenza seasons 2010–2011 through 2013–2014. Respiratory specimens were taken from participants meeting the case definition and tested by polymerase chain reaction for influenza. VE was calculated using logistic regression and by taking 1 minus the odds ratio of being vaccinated in the laboratory confirmed positive influenza cases versus laboratory confirmed negative controls.ResultsThis study included 1486 participants. We found an overall adjusted VE that provided significant and fairly consistent protection ranging from 54% to 67% during 0–180 days postvaccination. This VE dropped to −11% (95% confidence interval: −102% to 39%) during 181–365 days.ConclusionsOur study found moderate VE up to 6 months postvaccination. Since the influenza season starts at different times each year, optimal timing is difficult to predict. Consequently, early influenza vaccination may still offer the best overall protection.     

Negative impact of prior influenza vaccination on current influenza vaccination among people infected and not infected in prior season: A test-negative case-control study in Japan

BackgroundAccumulating evidences indicate that repeated influenza vaccination has negative impact on the vaccine effectiveness (VE). However no published studies considered past influenza infection when assessing the VE of repeated vaccination.MethodsProspective surveillance was conducted from 2009 to 2012 at a community hospital on a small island in Japan. The study included all outpatients with an influenza-like illness (ILI) who attended the hospital, and a rapid diagnostic test (RDT) was used to diagnose influenza A/B infection. The VE of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) against medically attended influenza A (MA-fluA) was estimated using a test-negative case-control study design. The influence of TIV in the prior season on VE in the current season was investigated in the context of MA-fluA during the prior season.ResultsDuring the three influenza seasons, 5838 ILI episodes (4127 subjects) were analysed. Subjects who had an episode of MA-fluA in the prior season were at a significantly lower risk of MA-fluA in the current season (adjusted odds ratio: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.30–0.50). The overall adjusted VE was 28% (95% CI, 14–40). VE was substantially lower in subjects vaccinated in the prior season compared to those who had not been vaccinated in prior season (19%; 95% CI: 0–35 vs 46%; 95% CI: 26–60, test for interaction, P value <0.05). In subjects who did not have MA-fluA in the prior season showed the attenuation of VE due to repeated vaccination (13%; 95% CI: −7 to 30 vs 44%; 95% CI: 24–59, test for interaction, P < 0.05). However this effect was not detected in subjects who had contracted MA-fluA in the prior season.ConclusionsNegative effects of repeated vaccination were significant among those without history of MA-fluA in the prior season.     

Seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness estimates: Development of a parsimonious case test negative model using a causal approach

BackgroundInfluenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) is increasingly estimated using the case-test negative study design. Cases have a symptom complex consistent with influenza and test positive for influenza, while non-cases have the same symptom complex but test negative. We aimed to determine a parsimonious logistic regression model for this study design when applied to patients in the community.MethodsTo determine the minimum covariate set required, we used a previously published systematic review to find covariates and restriction criteria commonly included in case-test negative logistic regression models. Covariates were assessed for inclusion using a directed acyclic graph. We used data from the Victorian Influenza Sentinel Practice Network from 2007 to 2013, excluding the pandemic year of 2009, to test the model. VE was estimated as (1 − adjusted OR) * 100%. Changes in model fit from addition of specified covariates were examined. Restriction criteria were examined using change in VE estimate. VE was estimated for each year, all years aggregated, and for influenza type and sub-type.ResultsUsing publicly available software, the directed acyclic graph indicated that covariates specifying age, time within the influenza season, immunocompromising comorbid conditions and year or study site, where applicable, were required for closure. The inclusion of sex was not required. Inclusions and exclusions were validated when testing the variables (when collected) with our data. Restriction by time between onset and swab was supported by the data. VE for all years aggregated was estimated as 53% (95%CI 38, 64). VE was estimated as 42% (95%CI 19, 59) for H3N2, 75% (95%CI 51, 88) for H1N1pdm09 and 63% (95%CI 38, 79) for influenza B.ConclusionTheoretical covariates specified by the directed acyclic graph were validated when tested against surveillance data. A parsimonious model using the case test negative design allows regular estimates of VE and aggregated estimates by year.     

Repeated seasonal influenza vaccination among elderly in Europe: Effects on laboratory confirmed hospitalised influenza

In Europe, annual influenza vaccination is recommended to elderly. From 2011 to 2014 and in 2015–16, we conducted a multicentre test negative case control study in hospitals of 11 European countries to measure influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) against laboratory confirmed hospitalised influenza among people aged ≥65 years. We pooled four seasons data to measure IVE by past exposures to influenza vaccination.We swabbed patients admitted for clinical conditions related to influenza with onset of severe acute respiratory infection ≤7 days before admission. Cases were patients RT-PCR positive for influenza virus and controls those negative for any influenza virus. We documented seasonal vaccination status for the current season and the two previous seasons.We recruited 5295 patients over the four seasons, including 465A(H1N1)pdm09, 642A(H3N2), 278 B case-patients and 3910 controls. Among patients unvaccinated in both previous two seasons, current seasonal IVE (pooled across seasons) was 30% (95%CI: −35 to 64), 8% (95%CI: −94 to 56) and 33% (95%CI: −43 to 68) against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2) and B respectively. Among patients vaccinated in both previous seasons, current seasonal IVE (pooled across seasons) was −1% (95%CI: −80 to 43), 37% (95%CI: 7–57) and 43% (95%CI: 1–68) against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2) and B respectively.Our results suggest that, regardless of patients’ recent vaccination history, current seasonal vaccine conferred some protection to vaccinated patients against hospitalisation with influenza A(H3N2) and B. Vaccination of patients already vaccinated in both the past two seasons did not seem to be effective against A(H1N1)pdm09. To better understand the effect of repeated vaccination, engaging in large cohort studies documenting exposures to vaccine and natural infection is needed.     

Influenza vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation with influenza in adults in Australia in 2014

We provide estimates of the influenza vaccine protection against hospitalisation with laboratory-confirmed influenza in the 2014 Australian season where the A/H1N1/pdm09 strain predominated. This was performed using a case-test negative study design as part of a national sentinel surveillance system in Australia. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as (1-OR) × 100% where the odds ratio of vaccination in cases vs test negative participants was estimated from a conditional logistic regression. Between April and November, 1692 adult patients were admitted with laboratory-confirmed influenza. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated from 1283 patients with influenza and 1116 test negative patients where vaccination status was ascertained. Vaccination was associated with a reduction in the risk of hospitalisation with influenza of 51.5% (95% CI: 41.6%, 59.7%) in all patients, and a reduction of 50.7% (95% CI: 40.1%, 59.3%) in the target population for vaccination. We estimate that the influenza vaccine was moderately protective against hospitalisation with laboratory-confirmed influenza during the 2014 influenza season in Australia.     

Influenza vaccine effectiveness against influenza-associated hospitalization in 2015/16 season,Beijing, China

BackgroundVaccination is recommended to prevent influenza virus infection and associated complications. This study aimed to estimate the influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) against hospitalization in the 2015/16 season in Beijing.MethodsPatients who were hospitalized in the 5 study hospitals between 1 Oct 2015 and 15 May 2016 were recruited. Influenza vaccination status was obtained for PCR-confirmed influenza patients and the selected controls who tested negative for the virus. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the influenza VE matching by calendar week, and adjusting for age, study sites, underlying medical conditions, smoking status, and hospital admissions over the past 12 months.ResultsThe overall VE was −37.9% (95% CI: −103.3, 6.5) against laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalization. The 2015–16 seasonal vaccine was had −61.9% (95% CI: −211.9, 15.9), −5.4% (95% CI: −108.1, 46.6) and −45.2% (95% CI: −152.6, 16.5) effectiveness to prevent infection from A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2) and influenza B, respectively.ConclusionsInfluenza vaccination did not show effective protection against hospitalization with influenza in 2015/16 season in Beijing.     

The European I-MOVE Multicentre 2013–2014 Case-Control Study. Homogeneous moderate influenza vaccine effectiveness against A(H1N1)pdm09 and heterogenous results by country against A(H3N2)

BackgroundIn the first five I-MOVE (Influenza Monitoring Vaccine Effectiveness in Europe) influenza seasons vaccine effectiveness (VE) results were relatively homogenous among participating study sites. In 2013–2014, we undertook a multicentre case-control study based on sentinel practitioner surveillance networks in six European Union (EU) countries to measure 2013–2014 influenza VE against medically-attended influenza-like illness (ILI) laboratory-confirmed as influenza. Influenza A(H3N2) and A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses co-circulated during the season.MethodsPractitioners systematically selected ILI patients to swab within eight days of symptom onset.We compared cases (ILI positive to influenza A(H3N2) or A(H1N1)pdm09) to influenza negative patients. We calculated VE for the two influenza A subtypes and adjusted for potential confounders. We calculated heterogeneity between sites using the I² index and Cochrane's Q test. If the I² was <50%, we estimated pooled VE as (1 minus the OR) × 100 using a one-stage model with study site as a fixed effect. If the I² was >49% we used a two-stage random effects model.ResultsWe included in the A(H1N1)pdm09 analysis 531 cases and 1712 controls and in the A(H3N2) analysis 623 cases and 1920 controls. For A(H1N1)pdm09, the Q test (p = 0.695) and the I² index (0%) suggested no heterogeneity of adjusted VE between study sites. Using a one-stage model, the overall pooled adjusted VE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm2009 was 47.5% (95% CI: 16.4–67.0).For A(H3N2), the I² was 51.5% (p = 0.067). Using a two-stage model for the pooled analysis, the adjusted VE against A(H3N2) was 29.7 (95% CI: −34.4–63.2).ConclusionsThe results suggest a moderate 2013–2014 influenza VE against A(H1N1)pdm09 and a low VE against A(H3N2). The A(H3N2) estimates were heterogeneous among study sites. Larger sample sizes by study site are needed to prevent statistical heterogeneity, decrease variability and allow for two-stage pooled VE for all subgroup analyses.     

Influenza vaccine effectiveness in Italy: Age,subtype-specific and vaccine type estimates 2014/15 season

The 2014/15 influenza season in Europe was characterised by the circulation of influenza A(H3N2) viruses with an antigenic and genetic mismatch from the vaccine strain A/Texas/50/2012(H3N2) recommended for the Northern hemisphere for the 2014/15 season. Italy, differently from other EU countries where most of the subtyped influenza A viruses were H3N2, experienced a 2014/15 season characterized by an extended circulation of two influenza viruses: A(H1N1)pdm09 and A(H3N2), that both contributed substantially to morbidity.Within the context of the existing National sentinel influenza surveillance system (InfluNet) a test-negative case-control study was established in order to produce vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates. The point estimates VE were adjusted by age group (<5; 5–15; 15–64; 65+ years), the presence of at least one chronic condition, target group for vaccination and need help for walking or bathing. In Italy, adjusted estimates of the 2014/15 seasonal influenza VE against medically attended influenza-like illness (ILI) laboratory-confirmed as influenza for all age groups were 6.0% (95%CI: −36.5 to 35.2%), 43.6% (95%CI: −3.7 to 69.3%), −84.5% (95%CI: (−190.4 to −17.2%) and 50.7% (95% CI: −2.5 to 76.3%) against any influenza virus, A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2) and B, respectively. These results suggest evidence of good VE against A(H1N1)pdm09 and B viruses in Italy and evidence of lack of VE against A(H3N2) virus due to antigenic and genetic mismatch between circulating A(H3N2) and the respective 2014/15 vaccine strain.     

The 2015–2016 influenza epidemic in Beijing,China: Unlike elsewhere,circulation of influenza A(H3N2) with moderate vaccine effectiveness

BackgroundWhile the 2015–2016 influenza season in the northern hemisphere was dominated by A(H1N1)pdm09 and B/Victoria viruses, in Beijing, China, there was also significant circulation of influenza A(H3N2) virus. In this report we estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) against influenza A(H3N2) and other circulating viruses, and describe further characteristics of the 2015–2016 influenza season in Beijing.MethodsWe estimated VE of the 2015–2016 trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV) against laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection using the test-negative study design. The effect of prior vaccination on current VE was also examined.ResultsOf 11,000 eligible patients included in the study, 2969 (27.0%) were influenza positive. Vaccination coverage was 4.2% in both cases and controls. Adjusted VE against all influenza was 8% (95% CI: −16% to 27%): 18% (95% CI: −38% to 52%) for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, 54% (95% CI: 16% to 74%) for influenza A(H3N2), and −8% (95% CI: −40% to 18%) for influenza B/Victoria. The overall VE for receipt of 2015–2016 vaccination only, 2014–2015 vaccination only, and vaccinations in both seasons was −15% (95% CI: −63% to 19%), −25% (95% CI: −78% to 13%), and 18% (95% CI: −11% to 40%), respectively.ConclusionsOverall the 2015–2016 TIV was protective against influenza infection in Beijing, with higher VE against the A(H3N2) viruses compared to A(H1N1)pdm09 and B viruses.     

Influenza vaccine effectiveness in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza in outpatient settings: A test-negative case-control study in Beijing,China, 2016/17 season

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to estimate influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) for the 2016/17 epidemic of co-circulating influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and A(H3N2) viruses in Beijing, the capital of China.MethodsThe surveillance-based study included all swabbed patients through influenza virological surveillance, between November 2016 and April 2017. A test-negative case-control design was used to estimate influenza VE against medically-attended laboratory-confirmed influenza in outpatient settings. Cases were influenza-like illness (ILI) patients who tested positive for influenza, and controls were influenza negative patients.ResultsA total of 10,496 ILI patients were enrolled and swabbed. Among them, 735 tested positive for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, 1851 for A(H3N2), and 40 for type B. Of the 45 randomly selected specimens out of 1851 influenza A(H3N2) viruses, 2(4.4%) belonged to the H3N2 3C.2a1 clade, and 43(95.6%) belonged to A/Hong Kong/4801/2014-like 3C.2a clade. Among the 43 viruses of the 3C.2a clade, 32 viruses clustered in one subgroup carrying T131K, R142K and R261Q substitutions. The adjusted VE against all influenza was low at 25% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0–43%), with 54% (95%CI: 22–73%) for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, and 2% (95%CI: −35% to 29%) for influenza A(H3N2).ConclusionsOur study suggested a moderate VE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, but low VE against influenza A(H3N2) in Beijing, 2016/17 season. Amino acid substitutions in the hemagglutinin may contribute to the low VE against influenza A(H3N2) for this season.     

Effectiveness of 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) vaccines: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundThe clinical effectiveness of monovalent influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccines has not been comprehensively summarised. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess vaccine effectiveness (VE) for adjuvanted and unadjuvanted vaccines.MethodsWe searched healthcare databases and grey literature from 11 June 2009 to 12 November 2014. Two researchers independently assessed titles and abstracts to identify studies for full review. Random effects meta-analyses estimated the pooled effect size of vaccination compared to placebo or no vaccination for crude and adjusted odds ratios (OR) to prevent laboratory confirmed influenza illness (LCI) and related hospitalization. VE was calculated as (1-pooled OR) 1 100. Narrative synthesis was undertaken where meta-analysis was not possible.ResultsWe identified 9229 studies of which 38 at moderate risk of bias met protocol eligibility criteria; 23 were suitable for meta-analysis. Pooled adjusted VE against LCI with adjuvanted and unadjuvanted vaccines both reached statistical significance (adjuvanted: VE = 80%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 59–90%; unadjuvanted: VE = 66%; 95% CI 47–78%); in planned secondary analyses, VE in adults often failed to reach statistical significance and pooled point estimates were lower than observed in children. Overall pooled adjusted VE against hospitalization was 61% (95% CI 14–82%); in planned secondary analyses, adjusted VE attained statistical significance in adults aged 18–64 years and children for adjuvanted vaccines. Adjuvanted vaccines were significantly more effective in children compared to adults for both outcomes.ConclusionsAdjuvanted and unadjuvanted monovalent influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccines were both effective in preventing LCI. Overall, the vaccines were also effective against influenza-related hospitalization. For both outcomes adjuvanted vaccines were more effective in children than in adults.     

Concurrent and cross-season protection of inactivated influenza vaccine against A(H1N1)pdm09 illness among young children: 2012–2013 case–control evaluation of influenza vaccine effectiveness

In 2012–2013, we examined 1729 laboratory-confirmed A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza cases matched 1:1 with healthy controls and estimated influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) for trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3) to be 67% (95% confidence interval = 58–74%) for ages 8 months to 6 years old. Among children aged 8–35 months old, VE for fully vaccinated children (73%, 60–81%) was significantly higher than VE for partially vaccinated children (55%, 33–70%). Significant cross-season protection from prior IIV3 was noted, including VE of 31% (8–48%) from IIV3 received in 2010–2011 against influenza illness in 2012––2013 without subsequent boosting doses.     

Evaluating the case-positive,control test-negative study design for influenza vaccine effectiveness for the frailty bias

IntroductionPrevious 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.MethodsAdults ≥ 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionsUsing 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.     

Near real-time surveillance for Guillain-Barré syndrome after influenza vaccination among the Medicare population, 2010/11 to 2013/14

BackgroundGuillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is a serious acute demyelinating disease that causes weakness and paralysis. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began collaborating with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to develop near real-time vaccine safety surveillance capabilities in 2006 and has been monitoring for the risk of GBS after influenza vaccination for every influenza season since 2008.MethodsWe present results from the 2010/11 to 2013/14 influenza seasons using the Updating Sequential Probability Ratio Test (USPRT), with an overall 1-sided α of 0.05 apportioned equally using a constant alpha-spending plan among 20 consecutive weekly tests, 5 ad hoc tests, and a 26th final end of season test. Observed signals were investigated using the self-controlled risk interval (SCRI) design.ResultsOver 15 million people were vaccinated in each influenza season. In the 2010/11 influenza season, we observed an elevated GBS risk during the season, with an end of season SCRI analysis finding a nonsignificant increased risk (RR = 1.25, 95% CI: 0.96–1.63). A sensitivity analysis applying the positive predictive value of the ICD-9 code for GBS from the 2009/10 season estimated a RR = 1.98 (95% CI: 1.42–2.76). Although the 2010/11 influenza vaccine suggested an increased GBS risk, surveillance of the identical vaccine in the 2011/12 influenza season did not find an increased GBS risk after vaccination. No signal was observed in the subsequent three influenza seasons.ConclusionsConducting near real-time surveillance using USPRT has proven to be an excellent method for near real-time GBS surveillance after influenza vaccination, as demonstrated by our surveillance efforts during the 2010/11–2013/14 influenza seasons. In the 2010/2011 influenza season, in addition to the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, using near real-time surveillance we were able to observe a signal early in the influenza season and the method has now become routine.     

Improving influenza and Tdap vaccination during pregnancy: A cluster-randomized trial of a multi-component antenatal vaccine promotion package in late influenza season

BackgroundEvidence-based interventions to improve influenza vaccine coverage among pregnant women are needed, particularly among those who remain unvaccinated late into the influenza season. Improving rates of antenatal tetanus, diphtheria and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccination is also needed.PurposeTo test the effectiveness of a practice-, provider-, and patient-focused influenza and Tdap vaccine promotion package on improving antenatal influenza and Tdap vaccination in the obstetric setting.MethodsA cluster-randomized trial among 11 obstetric practices in Georgia was conducted in 2012–2013. Intervention practices adopted the intervention package that included identification of a vaccine champion, provider-to-patient talking points, educational brochures, posters, lapel buttons, and iPads loaded with a patient-centered tutorial. Participants were recruited from December 2012–April 2013 and included 325 unvaccinated pregnant women in Georgia. Random effects regression models were used to evaluate primary and secondary outcomes.ResultsData on antenatal influenza and Tdap vaccine receipt were obtained for 300 (92.3%) and 291 (89.5%) women, respectively. Although antenatal influenza and Tdap vaccination rates were higher in the intervention group than the control group, improvements were not significant (For influenza: risk difference (RD) = 3.6%, 95% confidence interval (CI): −4.0%, 11.2%; for Tdap: RD = 1.3%, 95% CI: −10.7%, 13.2%). While the majority of intervention package components were positively associated with antenatal vaccine receipt, a provider's recommendation was the factor most strongly associated with actual receipt, regardless of study group or vaccine.ConclusionsThe intervention package did not significantly improve antenatal influenza or Tdap vaccine coverage. More research is needed to determine what motivates women remaining unvaccinated against influenza late into the influenza season to get vaccinated. Future research should quantify the extent to which clinical interventions can bolster a provider's recommendation for vaccination. This study is registered with clinicaltrials.gov, study ID NCT01761799.     

Effectiveness of the current and prior influenza vaccinations in Northern Spain, 2018–2019

BackgroundThe population targeted for influenza vaccination can be repeatedly vaccinated over successive seasons, and vaccines received in previous seasons may retain preventive effect. This study aims to estimate the effectiveness of inactivated influenza vaccines received in the current and prior seasons in the 2018–2019 season.MethodsInfluenza-like illness patients attended by sentinel general practitioners or admitted to hospitals in Navarre, Spain, were tested for influenza. Vaccination status in the current and three prior seasons was obtained from the vaccination registry. The test-negative design was used to estimate the vaccine effectiveness.ResultsA total of 381 influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 cases, 341 A(H3N2) cases and 1222 controls were analysed. As compared to individuals unvaccinated in the current and three prior seasons, the influenza vaccine effectiveness against A(H1N1)pdm09 was 57% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 40%, 70%) for current season vaccination regardless of prior doses and 48% (95%CI: 14%, 68%) for vaccination in prior seasons but not in the current season. These estimates were 12% (95%CI: −23%, 37%) and 27% (95%CI: −22%, 56%), respectively, against influenza A(H3N2). Individuals vaccinated with the two A(H1N1)pdm09 strains in influenza vaccines since 2009, A/Michigan/45/2015 and A/California/07/2009, had higher protection (68%; 95%CI: 53%, 77%) than those vaccinated with A/Michigan/45/2015 only (29%, p = 0.020) or with A/California/07/2009 only (34%, p = 0.005).ConclusionThese results suggest moderate effectiveness of influenza vaccination against A(H1N1)pdm09 and low effectiveness against A(H3N2) influenza in the 2018–2019 season. Vaccination in prior seasons maintained a notable protective effect. Strains included in previous vaccines were as effective as the current vaccine strain, and both added their effects against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09.