tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Vaccine
In Press, Uncorrected Proof - Note to users
doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.10.069 | How to Cite or Link Using DOI
Permissions & Reprints
Short communication
Comparison of multiple estimates of efficacy for influenza vaccine☆☆☆
Mark Loeba, b, c, d, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Margaret L. Russelle, Kevin Fonsecaf, Richard Webbyg, Stephen D. Walterc
a Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
b Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
c Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
d Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
e Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
f Provincial Laboratory for Public Health and Department of Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
g St. Jude Children's Research Hospital and WHO Collaborating Center, Memphis, TN, United States
Received 9 March 2011; revised 20 October 2011; Accepted 26 October 2011. Available online 7 November 2011.
Abstract
Influenza vaccine trials typically report vaccine efficacy for infection-confirmed symptomatic illness. Data on indirect vaccine efficacy for susceptibility, the degree of vaccine protection to susceptibles, or indirect vaccine efficacy for illness given infection, are sparse. Using inactivated influenza vaccine randomized trial data, we calculated indirect vaccine efficacy for susceptibility of 20% [95% CI 9?30] and indirect vaccine efficacy for illness among infected persons 12% [95% CI 2?22], values inferior to a direct vaccine efficacy for infection-confirmed symptomatic illness of 55% [95% CI −21 to 84] and an indirect effect of 61% [95% CI 8?83]. Such data reveal variance in protective efficacy of the vaccine for multi-dimensional direct and indirect efficacy measures.
Highlights
► Sparse data exist on indirect estimates of influenza vaccine efficacy. ► Indirect vaccine efficacy for susceptibility was 20%. ► Indirect vaccine efficacy for illness given infection was 12%. ► These were inferior to efficacy for infection-confirmed symptomatic illness. ► There is variance in protective efficacy for various indirect efficacy measures.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X11017063
In Press, Uncorrected Proof - Note to users
doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.10.069 | How to Cite or Link Using DOI
Permissions & Reprints
Short communication
Comparison of multiple estimates of efficacy for influenza vaccine☆☆☆
Mark Loeba, b, c, d, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Margaret L. Russelle, Kevin Fonsecaf, Richard Webbyg, Stephen D. Walterc
a Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
b Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
c Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
d Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
e Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
f Provincial Laboratory for Public Health and Department of Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
g St. Jude Children's Research Hospital and WHO Collaborating Center, Memphis, TN, United States
Received 9 March 2011; revised 20 October 2011; Accepted 26 October 2011. Available online 7 November 2011.
Abstract
Influenza vaccine trials typically report vaccine efficacy for infection-confirmed symptomatic illness. Data on indirect vaccine efficacy for susceptibility, the degree of vaccine protection to susceptibles, or indirect vaccine efficacy for illness given infection, are sparse. Using inactivated influenza vaccine randomized trial data, we calculated indirect vaccine efficacy for susceptibility of 20% [95% CI 9?30] and indirect vaccine efficacy for illness among infected persons 12% [95% CI 2?22], values inferior to a direct vaccine efficacy for infection-confirmed symptomatic illness of 55% [95% CI −21 to 84] and an indirect effect of 61% [95% CI 8?83]. Such data reveal variance in protective efficacy of the vaccine for multi-dimensional direct and indirect efficacy measures.
Highlights
► Sparse data exist on indirect estimates of influenza vaccine efficacy. ► Indirect vaccine efficacy for susceptibility was 20%. ► Indirect vaccine efficacy for illness given infection was 12%. ► These were inferior to efficacy for infection-confirmed symptomatic illness. ► There is variance in protective efficacy for various indirect efficacy measures.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X11017063