tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Expert Rev Vaccines. 2019 Nov 1. doi: 10.1080/14760584.2019.1688151. [Epub ahead of print] [h=1]Moderate influenza vaccine effectiveness against A(H1N1)pdm09 virus, and low effectiveness against A(H3N2) subtype, 2018/19 season in Italy.[/h]
Bellino S[SUP]1[/SUP], Bella A[SUP]1[/SUP], Puzelli S[SUP]1[/SUP], Di Martino A[SUP]1[/SUP], Facchini M[SUP]1[/SUP], Punzo O[SUP]1[/SUP], Pezzotti P[SUP]1[/SUP], Castrucci MR[SUP]1[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h] 1 Department of Infectious Diseases, National Institute of Health (Istituto Superiore di Sanit?), Rome, Italy.
[h=3]Abstract[/h] Background: Influenza vaccines are updated every year to match the vaccine strains with currently circulating viruses; consequently influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) has to be assessed annually.Research design and methods: A test-negative case-control study was conducted within the context of the Italian sentinel influenza surveillance network to estimate IVE by age group, virus subtype, and vaccine brand in medically attended laboratory-confirmed influenza.Results: In Italy, the 2018/19 influenza season was characterized by the co-circulation of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and A(H3N2) viruses. The adjusted IVE estimate in preventing influenza was moderate (44.8%, 95% CI: 18.8 to 62.5) against A(H1N1)pdm09, whereas there was no evidence of effectiveness (1.8%, 95% CI: -37.8 to 30.1) in persons affected by A(H3N2). IVE against A(H1N1)pdm09 decreased with age ranging from 65.7% to 13.1% among children/adolescents and elderly, respectively; moreover results suggest that Vaxigrip Tetra? was more effective against A(H1N1)pdm09 compared to Fluarix Tetra? [62.5% (95% CI: 34.3 to 78.6) vs 24.5% (95% CI: -40.6 to 59.6)]. Low effectiveness (35.2%, 95% CI: -50.8 to 72.1) against A(H3N2) was detected only in the elderly immunized with Fluad?.Conclusions: Findings suggest that influenza vaccines were low to moderately effective, probably due to a mismatch between circulating and vaccine strains.
[h=4]KEYWORDS:[/h] Influenza vaccine effectiveness; Italy; National Influenza Surveillance Network; Test-negative case-control study
PMID: 31674847 DOI: 10.1080/14760584.2019.1688151
Bellino S[SUP]1[/SUP], Bella A[SUP]1[/SUP], Puzelli S[SUP]1[/SUP], Di Martino A[SUP]1[/SUP], Facchini M[SUP]1[/SUP], Punzo O[SUP]1[/SUP], Pezzotti P[SUP]1[/SUP], Castrucci MR[SUP]1[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h] 1 Department of Infectious Diseases, National Institute of Health (Istituto Superiore di Sanit?), Rome, Italy.
[h=3]Abstract[/h] Background: Influenza vaccines are updated every year to match the vaccine strains with currently circulating viruses; consequently influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) has to be assessed annually.Research design and methods: A test-negative case-control study was conducted within the context of the Italian sentinel influenza surveillance network to estimate IVE by age group, virus subtype, and vaccine brand in medically attended laboratory-confirmed influenza.Results: In Italy, the 2018/19 influenza season was characterized by the co-circulation of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and A(H3N2) viruses. The adjusted IVE estimate in preventing influenza was moderate (44.8%, 95% CI: 18.8 to 62.5) against A(H1N1)pdm09, whereas there was no evidence of effectiveness (1.8%, 95% CI: -37.8 to 30.1) in persons affected by A(H3N2). IVE against A(H1N1)pdm09 decreased with age ranging from 65.7% to 13.1% among children/adolescents and elderly, respectively; moreover results suggest that Vaxigrip Tetra? was more effective against A(H1N1)pdm09 compared to Fluarix Tetra? [62.5% (95% CI: 34.3 to 78.6) vs 24.5% (95% CI: -40.6 to 59.6)]. Low effectiveness (35.2%, 95% CI: -50.8 to 72.1) against A(H3N2) was detected only in the elderly immunized with Fluad?.Conclusions: Findings suggest that influenza vaccines were low to moderately effective, probably due to a mismatch between circulating and vaccine strains.
[h=4]KEYWORDS:[/h] Influenza vaccine effectiveness; Italy; National Influenza Surveillance Network; Test-negative case-control study
PMID: 31674847 DOI: 10.1080/14760584.2019.1688151