• 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.

Estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness in primary care in Scotland vary with clinical or laboratory endpoint and method-Experience across the 20

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Vaccine. 2013 Aug 6. pii: S0264-410X(13)01042-6. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.07.056. [Epub ahead of print]
Estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness in primary care in Scotland vary with clinical or laboratory endpoint and method-Experience across the 2010/11 season.
Kavanagh K, Robertson C, McMenamin J.
Source

University of Strathclyde, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, 26 Richmond Street, Glasgow G1 1XH, United Kingdom. Electronic address: kim.kavanagh@strath.ac.uk.
Abstract
AIM:

This study examines estimation of seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) for a cohort of patients attending general practice in Scotland in 2010/11. The study focuses on the variation in estimation of VE for both virological and clinical consultation outcomes and understanding the dependency on date of analysis during the season, methodological approach and the effect of use of a propensity score model.
METHODS:

For the clinical outcomes, three methodological approaches were considered; adjusted Poisson multi-level modelling splitting consultations in vaccinated individuals into those before and after vaccination, adjusted Cox proportional hazards modelling and finally the screening method. For the virological outcome, the test-negative case-control study design was employed.
RESULTS:

VE was highest for the most specific outcomes of ILI (Poisson end-of-season VE=47% (95% CI: -69%, 83%); Cox VE=34% (95% CI: -64%, 73.2%); Screening VE=52.8% (95% CI: 3.8%, 76.8%)) and a virological diagnosis (VE=54% (95% CI: -37%, 85%)). Using the Cox approach, adjusted for propensity score only gave VE=46.5% (95% CI: -30.4%, 78.0%).
CONCLUSION:

Our approach illustrated the ability to achieve relatively consistent estimates of seasonal influenza VE using both specific and less specific outcomes. Construction of a propensity score and use for bias adjustment increased the estimate of ILI VE estimated from the Cox model and made estimates more similar to the Poisson approach, which models differences in consultation behaviour of vaccinated individuals more inherently in its structure. VE estimation for the same data was found to vary by methodology which should be noted when comparing results from different studies and countries.

Copyright ? 2013. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
KEYWORDS:

Seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness

PMID:
23933371
[PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23933371
 
Back
Top Bottom