共查询到5条相似文献,搜索用时 0 毫秒
1.
Test-negative (TN) studies have become the most widely used study design for the estimation of influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) and are easily incorporated into existing influenza surveillance networks. We seek to determine the bias of TN-based VE estimates during a pandemic using a dynamic probability model. The model is used to evaluate and compare the bias of VE estimates under various sources of bias when vaccination occurs after the beginning of an outbreak, such as during a pandemic. The model includes two covariates (health status and health awareness), which may affect the probabilities of vaccination, developing influenza and non-influenza acute respiratory illness (ARI), and seeking medical care. Specifically, we evaluate the bias of VE estimates when (1) vaccination affects the probability of developing a non-influenza ARI; (2) vaccination affects the probability of seeking medical care; (3) a covariate (e.g. health status) is related to both the probabilities of vaccination and developing an ARI; and (4) a covariate (e.g. health awareness) is related to both the probabilities of vaccination and of seeking medical care. We considered two outcomes against which the vaccine is supposed to protect: symptomatic influenza and medically-attended influenza.When vaccination begins during an outbreak, we found that the effect of delayed onset of vaccination is unpredictable. VE estimates from TN studies were biased regardless of the source of bias present. However, if the core assumption of the TN design is satisfied, that is, if vaccination does not affect the probability of non-influenza ARI, then TN-based VE estimates against medically-attended influenza will only suffer from small (<0.05) to moderate bias (≥0.05 and <0.10). These results suggest that if sources of bias listed above are ruled out, TN studies are a valid study design for the estimation of VE during a pandemic. 相似文献
2.
目的评价流感减毒活疫苗(LAIV)预防2~17岁儿童季节性流感的保护效果。方法通过Web of Science、PubMed和ScienceDirect数据库,检索2003年1月至2018年11月期间发表的、研究设计为病例对照的、关于研究LAIV预防儿童季节性流感保护效果的相关文献,采用Stata 13.1软件对纳入文献进行Meta分析。结果共纳入文献14篇,均为检测阴性设计(Test-negative design,TND)研究。结果显示LAIV预防儿童季节性流感的保护效果为49%(95%CI:40%~57%)。亚组分析发现:LAIV预防A(H1N1)pdm09型、A(H3N2)型和B型流感的保护效果分别为35%(95%CI:5%~56%)、35%(95%CI:21%~46%)和71%(95%CI:55%~82%);三价LAIV和四价LAIV在儿童中的保护效果分别为56%(95%CI:48%~63%)和44%(95%CI:27%~57%);LAIV在欧洲地区和北美洲地区的保护效果分别为65%(95%CI:47%~77%)和46%(95%CI:36%~55%)。结论LAIV对2~17岁儿童季节性流感具有一定的预防作用。 相似文献
3.
《Vaccine》2020,38(14):2893-2903
Vaccination remains the most effective way to prevent influenza infection, albeit vaccine effectiveness (VE) varies by year. Compared to other age groups, children and elderly adults have the highest risk of developing influenza-related complications and requiring hospitalization. During the last years, “test negative design” (TND) studies have been implemented in order to estimate influenza VE. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize the findings of TND studies reporting influenza VE against laboratory-confirmed influenza-related hospitalization in children aged 6 months to 17 years. We searched the PubMed and Embase databases and identified 2615 non-duplicate studies that required detailed review. Among them, 28 met our inclusion criteria and we performed a random-effects meta-analysis using adjusted VE estimates. In our primary analysis, influenza vaccine offered significant protection against any type influenza-related hospitalization (57.48%; 95% CI 49.46–65.49). When we examined influenza VE per type and strain, VE was higher against H1N1 (74.07%; 95% CI: 54.85–93.30) and influenza B (50.87%; 95% CI: 41.75–59.98), and moderate against H3N2 (40.77%; 95% CI: 25.65–55.89). Notably, influenza vaccination offered higher protection in children who were fully vaccinated (61.79%; 95% CI: 54.45–69.13), compared to those who were partially vaccinated (33.91%; 95% CI: 21.12 – 46.69). Also, influenza VE was high in children less than 5 years old (61.71%; 95% CI: 49.29–74.12) as well as in children 6–17 years old (54.37%; 95% CI: 35.14–73.60). In conclusion, in the pediatric population, influenza vaccination offered significant protection against influenza-related hospitalization and complete annual vaccination should be encouraged. 相似文献
4.
《Vaccine》2022,40(22):3018-3026
BackgroundWe have reported the vaccine effectiveness of inactivated influenza vaccine in children aged 6 months to 15 years between the 2013/14 and 2018/19 seasons. Younger (6–11 months) and older (6–15 years old) children tended to have lower vaccine effectiveness. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether the recent vaccine can be recommended to all age groups.MethodsThe overall adjusted vaccine effectiveness was assessed from the 2013/14 until the 2020/21 season using a test-negative case-control design based on rapid influenza diagnostic test results. Vaccine effectiveness was calculated by influenza type and by age group (6–11 months, 1–2, 3–5, 6–12, and 13–15 years old) with adjustments including influenza seasons.ResultsA total of 29,400 children (9347, 4435, and 15,618 for influenza A and B, and test-negatives, respectively) were enrolled. The overall vaccine effectiveness against influenza A, A(H1N1)pdm09, and B was significant (44% [95% confidence interval (CI), 41–47], 63% [95 %CI, 51–72], and 37% [95 %CI, 32–42], respectively). The vaccine was significantly effective against influenza A and B, except among children 6 to 11 months against influenza B. The age group with the highest vaccine effectiveness was 1 to 2 years old with both influenza A and B (60% [95 %CI, 55–65] and 52% [95 %CI, 41–61], respectively). Analysis for the 2020/21 season was not performed because no cases were reported.ConclusionsThis is the first report showing influenza vaccine effectiveness by age group in children for several seasons, including immediately before the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) era. The fact that significant vaccine effectiveness was observed in nearly every age group and every season shows that the recent vaccine can still be recommended to children for the upcoming influenza seasons, during and after the COVID-19 era. 相似文献
5.
Annette K. Regan James E. Fielding Monique B. Chilver Kylie S. Carville Cara A. Minney-Smith Kristina A. Grant Chloe Thomson Trish Hahesy Yi-Mo Deng Nigel Stocks Sheena G. Sullivan 《Vaccine》2019,37(19):2634-2641