Cargando…

Comparison of local influenza vaccine effectiveness using two methods

BACKGROUND: In some settings, research methods to determine influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) may not be appropriate because of cost, time constraints, or other factors. Administrative database analysis of viral testing results and vaccination history may be a viable alternative. This study compa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Balasubramani, G.K., Zimmerman, Richard K, Eng, Heather, Lyons, Jason, Clarke, Lloyd, Nowalk, Mary Patricia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier Ltd. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7825890/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33485643
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.01.013
_version_ 1783640414251646976
author Balasubramani, G.K.
Zimmerman, Richard K
Eng, Heather
Lyons, Jason
Clarke, Lloyd
Nowalk, Mary Patricia
author_facet Balasubramani, G.K.
Zimmerman, Richard K
Eng, Heather
Lyons, Jason
Clarke, Lloyd
Nowalk, Mary Patricia
author_sort Balasubramani, G.K.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In some settings, research methods to determine influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) may not be appropriate because of cost, time constraints, or other factors. Administrative database analysis of viral testing results and vaccination history may be a viable alternative. This study compared VE estimates from outpatient research and administrative databases. METHODS: Using the test-negative, case-control design, data for 2017–2018 and 2018–2019 influenza seasons were collected using: 1) consent, specimen collection, RT-PCR testing and vaccine verification using multiple methods; and 2) an administrative database of outpatients with a clinical respiratory viral panel combined with electronic immunization records. Odds ratios for likelihood of influenza infection by vaccination status were calculated using multivariable logistic regression. VE = (1 − aOR) × 100. RESULTS: Research participants were significantly younger (P < 0.001), more often white (69% vs. 59%; P < 0.001) than non-white and less frequently enrolled through the emergency department (35% vs. 72%; P < 0.001) than administrative database participants. VE was significant against all influenza and influenza A in each season and both seasons combined (37–49%). Point estimate differences between methods were evident, with higher VE in the research database, but insignificant due to low sample sizes. When enrollment sites were separately analyzed, there were significant differences in VE estimates for all influenza (66% research vs. 46% administrative P < 0.001) and influenza A (67% research vs. 49% administrative; P < 0.001) in the emergency department. CONCLUSIONS: The selection of the appropriate method for determining influenza vaccine effectiveness depends on many factors, including sample size, subgroups of interest, etc., suggesting that research estimates may be more generalizable. Other advantages of research databases for VE estimates include lack of clinician-related selection bias for testing and less misclassification of vaccination status. The advantages of the administrative databases are potentially shorter time to VE results and lower cost.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7825890
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Elsevier Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78258902021-01-25 Comparison of local influenza vaccine effectiveness using two methods Balasubramani, G.K. Zimmerman, Richard K Eng, Heather Lyons, Jason Clarke, Lloyd Nowalk, Mary Patricia Vaccine Article BACKGROUND: In some settings, research methods to determine influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) may not be appropriate because of cost, time constraints, or other factors. Administrative database analysis of viral testing results and vaccination history may be a viable alternative. This study compared VE estimates from outpatient research and administrative databases. METHODS: Using the test-negative, case-control design, data for 2017–2018 and 2018–2019 influenza seasons were collected using: 1) consent, specimen collection, RT-PCR testing and vaccine verification using multiple methods; and 2) an administrative database of outpatients with a clinical respiratory viral panel combined with electronic immunization records. Odds ratios for likelihood of influenza infection by vaccination status were calculated using multivariable logistic regression. VE = (1 − aOR) × 100. RESULTS: Research participants were significantly younger (P < 0.001), more often white (69% vs. 59%; P < 0.001) than non-white and less frequently enrolled through the emergency department (35% vs. 72%; P < 0.001) than administrative database participants. VE was significant against all influenza and influenza A in each season and both seasons combined (37–49%). Point estimate differences between methods were evident, with higher VE in the research database, but insignificant due to low sample sizes. When enrollment sites were separately analyzed, there were significant differences in VE estimates for all influenza (66% research vs. 46% administrative P < 0.001) and influenza A (67% research vs. 49% administrative; P < 0.001) in the emergency department. CONCLUSIONS: The selection of the appropriate method for determining influenza vaccine effectiveness depends on many factors, including sample size, subgroups of interest, etc., suggesting that research estimates may be more generalizable. Other advantages of research databases for VE estimates include lack of clinician-related selection bias for testing and less misclassification of vaccination status. The advantages of the administrative databases are potentially shorter time to VE results and lower cost. Elsevier Ltd. 2021-02-22 2021-01-21 /pmc/articles/PMC7825890/ /pubmed/33485643 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.01.013 Text en © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
spellingShingle Article
Balasubramani, G.K.
Zimmerman, Richard K
Eng, Heather
Lyons, Jason
Clarke, Lloyd
Nowalk, Mary Patricia
Comparison of local influenza vaccine effectiveness using two methods
title Comparison of local influenza vaccine effectiveness using two methods
title_full Comparison of local influenza vaccine effectiveness using two methods
title_fullStr Comparison of local influenza vaccine effectiveness using two methods
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of local influenza vaccine effectiveness using two methods
title_short Comparison of local influenza vaccine effectiveness using two methods
title_sort comparison of local influenza vaccine effectiveness using two methods
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7825890/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33485643
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.01.013
work_keys_str_mv AT balasubramanigk comparisonoflocalinfluenzavaccineeffectivenessusingtwomethods
AT zimmermanrichardk comparisonoflocalinfluenzavaccineeffectivenessusingtwomethods
AT engheather comparisonoflocalinfluenzavaccineeffectivenessusingtwomethods
AT lyonsjason comparisonoflocalinfluenzavaccineeffectivenessusingtwomethods
AT clarkelloyd comparisonoflocalinfluenzavaccineeffectivenessusingtwomethods
AT nowalkmarypatricia comparisonoflocalinfluenzavaccineeffectivenessusingtwomethods