tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017 Sep 9. pii: S1198-743X(17)30501-3. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2017.09.003. [Epub ahead of print]
[h=1]Estimation of seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness using data collected in primary care in France: comparison of the test-negative design and the screening method.[/h] Vilcu AM[SUP]1[/SUP], Souty C[SUP]2[/SUP], Enouf V[SUP]3[/SUP], Capai L[SUP]4[/SUP], Turbelin C[SUP]2[/SUP], Masse S[SUP]4[/SUP], Behillil S[SUP]3[/SUP], Valette M[SUP]5[/SUP], Guerrisi C[SUP]2[/SUP], Rossignol L[SUP]2[/SUP], Blanchon T[SUP]2[/SUP], Lina B[SUP]5[/SUP], Hanslik T[SUP]6[/SUP], Falchi A[SUP]7[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]
[h=3]Abstract[/h] [h=4]OBJECTIVES:[/h] In this study we discuss which method between the test-negative design and the screening method could provide more robust real-time and end-of-season vaccine effectiveness estimates, using data collected from routine influenza surveillance in primary care.
[h=4]METHODS:[/h] We used data collected during two influenza seasons (2014/15 and 2015/16). SCREENING METHOD: we estimated end-of-season vaccine effectiveness in preventing medically attended influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed influenza among the population at risk. Test-negative design: we estimated end-of-season vaccine effectiveness in preventing influenza among both the general and the at risk population. We estimated real-time vaccine effectiveness using both methods.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h] Screening method: the overall adjusted end-of-season vaccine effectiveness was 24% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 16 to 32) and 12% (95%CI: -16 to 33) during season 2014/15, and 53% (95%CI: 44 to 60) and 47% (95%CI: 23 to 64) during season 2015/16, in preventing ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza respectively. Test-negative design: the overall adjusted end-of-season vaccine effectiveness was -17% (95%CI: -79 to 24) and -38% (95%CI: -199 to 13) in 2014/15, and 10% (95%CI: -31 to 39) and 18% (95%CI: -33 to 50) in 2015/16, among the general and at risk population respectively. Real-time vaccine effectiveness estimates obtained through the test-negative design showed more variability across each season and lower precision than those estimated with the screening method.
[h=4]CONCLUSIONS:[/h] Although the worldwide use of the test-negative design allows for comparison of overall vaccine effectiveness estimates between countries, the screening method performs better in providing robust real-time vaccine effectiveness estimates among the population at risk.
Copyright ? 2017. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
[h=4]KEYWORDS:[/h] Influenza; primary care; surveillance; vaccine effectiveness; virology
PMID: 28899840 DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2017.09.003
[h=1]Estimation of seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness using data collected in primary care in France: comparison of the test-negative design and the screening method.[/h] Vilcu AM[SUP]1[/SUP], Souty C[SUP]2[/SUP], Enouf V[SUP]3[/SUP], Capai L[SUP]4[/SUP], Turbelin C[SUP]2[/SUP], Masse S[SUP]4[/SUP], Behillil S[SUP]3[/SUP], Valette M[SUP]5[/SUP], Guerrisi C[SUP]2[/SUP], Rossignol L[SUP]2[/SUP], Blanchon T[SUP]2[/SUP], Lina B[SUP]5[/SUP], Hanslik T[SUP]6[/SUP], Falchi A[SUP]7[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]
[h=3]Abstract[/h] [h=4]OBJECTIVES:[/h] In this study we discuss which method between the test-negative design and the screening method could provide more robust real-time and end-of-season vaccine effectiveness estimates, using data collected from routine influenza surveillance in primary care.
[h=4]METHODS:[/h] We used data collected during two influenza seasons (2014/15 and 2015/16). SCREENING METHOD: we estimated end-of-season vaccine effectiveness in preventing medically attended influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed influenza among the population at risk. Test-negative design: we estimated end-of-season vaccine effectiveness in preventing influenza among both the general and the at risk population. We estimated real-time vaccine effectiveness using both methods.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h] Screening method: the overall adjusted end-of-season vaccine effectiveness was 24% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 16 to 32) and 12% (95%CI: -16 to 33) during season 2014/15, and 53% (95%CI: 44 to 60) and 47% (95%CI: 23 to 64) during season 2015/16, in preventing ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza respectively. Test-negative design: the overall adjusted end-of-season vaccine effectiveness was -17% (95%CI: -79 to 24) and -38% (95%CI: -199 to 13) in 2014/15, and 10% (95%CI: -31 to 39) and 18% (95%CI: -33 to 50) in 2015/16, among the general and at risk population respectively. Real-time vaccine effectiveness estimates obtained through the test-negative design showed more variability across each season and lower precision than those estimated with the screening method.
[h=4]CONCLUSIONS:[/h] Although the worldwide use of the test-negative design allows for comparison of overall vaccine effectiveness estimates between countries, the screening method performs better in providing robust real-time vaccine effectiveness estimates among the population at risk.
Copyright ? 2017. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
[h=4]KEYWORDS:[/h] Influenza; primary care; surveillance; vaccine effectiveness; virology
PMID: 28899840 DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2017.09.003