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

Sugaya, Norio; Shinjoh, Masayoshi; Nakata, Yuji; Tsunematsu, Kenichiro; Yamaguchi, Yoshio; Komiyama, Osamu; Takahashi, Hiroki; Mitamura, Keiko; Narabayashi, Atsushi; Takahashi, Tsuyoshi

doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.01.024

Cited by 42 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our bias correction methods may open a possibility of wider use of clinical data especially in settings where rapid tests are routinely used for diagnosis. For example, rapid influenza diagnostic tests are routinely used for outpatient clinics and hospitals in Japan, and such clinical data have facilitated a number of TND studies [28][29][30][31][32][33]. Such studies based on rapid tests could benefit from our methods, as it would provide strong support for the validity of their estimates.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bias correction methods for test-negative designs in the presence of misclassification

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The test-negative design (TND) has become a standard approach for vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies. However, previous studies suggested that it may be more vulnerable than other designs to misclassification of disease outcome caused by imperfect diagnostic tests. This could be a particular limitation in VE studies where simple tests (e.g. rapid influenza diagnostic tests) are used for logistical convenience. To address this issue, we derived a mathematical representation of the TND with imperfect tests, then developed a bias correction framework for possible misclassification. TND studies usually include multiple covariates other than vaccine history to adjust for potential confounders; our methods can also address multivariate analyses and be easily coupled with existing estimation tools. We validated the performance of these methods using simulations of common scenarios for vaccine efficacy and were able to obtain unbiased estimates in a variety of parameter settings. 10 A. Endo et al.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bias correction methods for test-negative designs in the presence of misclassification

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These results, especially the effect on type B influenza virus, were different from those shown in foreign reports. [19][20][21] The seasonal variation in vaccine effectiveness was generally consistent with the degree of antigenic match between viruses isolated from patients and vaccine strains. 22 Several reasons could be given for the lower effectiveness of the vaccine against type B influenza virus in this study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

Evaluation of the field-protective effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccine among Korean children aged < 5 years during the 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 influenza seasons: a cohort study

Kang

Lim

et al. 2018

Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: A field effectiveness evaluation of the influenza vaccine among children younger than five years is important due to the high burden of influenza in this age group. The epidemiology of influenza virus changes rapidly each year. Moreover, the development of a new type of influenza vaccine is accelerating, necessitating a new field effectiveness evaluation. Methods: This multi-center, open-label cohort study was conducted in the northern part of Seoul from December 2014 to May 2015 and in Gyeong-gi Province from December 2015 to May 2016. The cohort comprised an influenza vaccinated group and non-vaccinated group. During the influenza seasons, we conducted influenza rapid tests and polymerase chain reaction assays for individuals with suspected influenza and checked for the presence of influenza virus. We calculated the influenza vaccine effectiveness by comparing the incidence rates of influenza between the vaccinated and non-vaccinated groups. Results: During the 2014-2015 season, the field effectiveness of the influenza vaccine was 38.4%. In particular, the vaccine effectiveness against type A influenza virus was 50.7%. During the 2015-2016 season, the vaccine effectiveness reached 23.8% and the vaccine effectiveness against type A influenza virus was 48.5%. The vaccine effectiveness against influenza B virus was markedly reduced in both seasons. Conclusion: The influenza vaccine was supposed to be effective against influenza A, but may have a limited effectiveness against influenza B among Korean children aged < 5 years.

show abstract

“…The OR was calculated using the Wald test. First, the crude VE was calculated and then adjusted for the sex, age group, presence of comorbidities, and month of onset of ILI (5)(6)(7)(8)(9). In each age group, the VE was adjusted for the sex, presence of comorbidities, and month of onset of ILI.…”

Section: Test-negative Case-control Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Japan, reports describing the efficacy of quadrivalent influenza vaccines using a TNS have been increasing (5)(6)(7)(8). However, each of these studies was focused on only children or only adults.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimation of the Effectiveness of Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccines by Distinguishing Between Influenza A (H1N1) pdm09 and Influenza A (H3N2) Using Rapid Influenza Diagnostic Tests During the 2018-2019 Season

Ando

2020

Intern. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To estimate the effectiveness of quadrivalent influenza vaccines during the 2018-2019 season for influenza A (H1N1) pdm09 and A (H3N2) in all age groups. Methods A test-negative case-control study was performed. Patients A total of 1,331 participants were divided into 4 groups (younger children: ! 6 years, older children: 7-15 years, younger adults: 16-64 years, and older adults: " 65 years). Results For all children, the adjusted vaccine effectiveness (VE) was significant against any influenza [41.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 19.7-57.2%)], total A [A (H1N1) pdm09 and (H3N2); 38.3% (95% CI: 15.1-55.1%)], and A [H3N2; 39.8% (95% CI: 13.8-57.9%)]. In younger children, the adjusted VE against any influenza was 44.8% (95% CI: 14.1-64.5%) and against total A was 43.8% (95% CI: 12.5-63.9%). For all adults, the adjusted VE was significant against any influenza was 42.3% (95% CI: 17.9-59.5%); total A, 39.3% (95% CI: 13.5-57.4%); A (H1N1) pdm09, 56.7% (95% CI: 19.1-76.8%); and A (H3N2), 33.2% (95% CI: 1.5-54.6%). In younger adults, the adjusted VE against any influenza was 43.4% (95% CI: 17.3-61.2%), total A, 41.7% (95% CI: 14.4-60.3%); A (H1N1) pdm09, 56.2% (95% CI: 14.9-77.5%); and A (H3N2), 34.5% (95% CI: 0.3-56.9%). In both older children and older adults, no significant VE was observed. Conclusion This study is the first to report on the VE against all types of influenza in all age groups using a rapid influenza diagnostic test. The VE varied with both age and influenza subtype.

show abstract

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

Cited by 42 publications

References 21 publications

Bias correction methods for test-negative designs in the presence of misclassification

Bias correction methods for test-negative designs in the presence of misclassification

Evaluation of the field-protective effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccine among Korean children aged < 5 years during the 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 influenza seasons: a cohort study

Estimation of the Effectiveness of Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccines by Distinguishing Between Influenza A (H1N1) pdm09 and Influenza A (H3N2) Using Rapid Influenza Diagnostic Tests During the 2018-2019 Season

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About