• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Clin Infect Dis . Relative Effectiveness of the Cell-Derived Inactivated Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine Versus Egg-Derived Inactivated Quadrivalent

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Clin Infect Dis


. 2021 Jan 5;ciaa1944.
doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1944. Online ahead of print.
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 Boikos[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Lauren Fischer[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Dan O'Brien[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Joe Vasey[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Gregg C Sylvester[SUP] 3 [/SUP], James A Mansi[SUP] 1 [/SUP]



Affiliations

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 U.S. 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 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. Relative vaccine effectiveness (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% (0.9-7.0); 18-64 years, 6.5% (5.2-7.9); 18-49 years, 7.5% (5.7-9.3); 50-64 years, 5.6% (3.6-7.6); and ≥65 years, -2.2% (-5.4 to 0.9).
Conclusions: Adjusted analyses demonstrated statistically significantly greater reduction in influenza-related medical encounters in individuals vaccinated with ccIIV4 vs eIIV4 in the 2018-2019 U.S. influenza season. These results support ccIIV4 as a potentially more effective public health measure against influenza than an egg-based equivalent.

Keywords: cell-derived influenza vaccine; egg-derived influenza vaccine; influenza; quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine; relative vaccine effectiveness.
 
Back
Top Bottom