Effectiveness of 2 Influenza Vaccines in Nationwide Cohorts of Finnish 2-Year-Old Children in the Seasons 2015-2016 Through 2017-2018

被引:13
作者
Baum, Ulrike [1 ]
Kulathinal, Sangita [2 ]
Auranen, Kari [3 ,4 ]
Nohynek, Hanna [5 ]
机构
[1] Finnish Inst Hlth & Welf, Dept Publ Hlth Solut, Helsinki, Finland
[2] Univ Helsinki, Dept Math & Stat, Helsinki, Finland
[3] Univ Turku, Dept Math & Stat, Turku, Finland
[4] Univ Turku, Dept Clin Med, Turku, Finland
[5] Finnish Inst Hlth & Welf, Dept Hlth Secur, Helsinki, Finland
关键词
vaccine effectiveness; influenza; children; cohort study; Finland;
D O I
10.1093/cid/ciaa050
中图分类号
R392 [医学免疫学]; Q939.91 [免疫学];
学科分类号
100102 ;
摘要
Background. From 2015-2016 through 2017-2018, injectable, trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV3) and a nasal spray, tetravalent live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4) were used in parallel in Finland. To understand how well vaccination with each vaccine type protected children against influenza under real-life conditions, vaccine effectiveness in 2-year-olds was estimated for all 3 seasons. Methods. Each season, a nationwide register-based cohort study was conducted. The study population comprised 60 088, 60 860, and 60 345 children in 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018, respectively. Laboratory-confirmed influenza was the study outcome. Seasonal influenza vaccination with either LAIV4 or IIV3 was the time-dependent exposure of interest. Vaccine effectiveness was defined as 1 minus the hazard ratio comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated children. Results. From 2015-2016 through 2017-2018, the effectiveness of LAIV4 against influenza of any virus type was estimated at 54.2% (95% confidence interval, 32.2-69.0%), 20.3% (-12.7%, 43.6%), and 30.5% (10.9-45.9%); the corresponding effectiveness of IIV3 was 77.2% (48.9-89.8%), 24.5% (-29.8%, 56.1%), and -20.1% (-61.5%, 10.7%). Neither influenza vaccine clearly excelled in protecting children. The LAIV4 effectiveness against type B was greater than against type A and greater than the IIV3 effectiveness against type B. Conclusions. To understand how influenza vaccines could be improved, vaccine effectiveness must be analyzed by vaccine and virus type. Effectiveness estimates also expressing overall protection levels are needed to guide individual and programmatic decision-making processes. Supported by this analysis, the vaccination program in Finland now recommends LAIV4 and injectable, tetravalent inactivated influenza vaccines replacing IIV3.
引用
收藏
页码:E255 / E261
页数:7
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]   Letter to the editor: Potential causes of the decreased effectiveness of the influenza A(H1N1) pdm09 strain in live attenuated influenza vaccines [J].
Ambrose, C. S. ;
Bright, H. ;
Mallory, R. .
EUROSURVEILLANCE, 2016, 21 (45) :34-35
[2]   Establishing and maintaining the National Vaccination Register in Finland [J].
Baum, U. ;
Sundman, J. ;
Jaaskelainen, S. ;
Nohynek, H. ;
Puumalainen, T. ;
Jokinen, J. .
EUROSURVEILLANCE, 2017, 22 (17) :45-53
[3]  
Baum U, 2018, SCAND J PUBLIC HEALT, P1
[4]   Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness: Defining the H3N2 Problem [J].
Belongia, Edward A. ;
McLean, Huong Q. .
CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2019, 69 (10) :1817-1823
[5]   Effectiveness of Live Attenuated vs Inactivated Influenza Vaccines in Children During the 2012-2013 Through 2015-2016 Influenza Seasons in Alberta, Canada A Canadian Immunization Research Network (CIRN) Study [J].
Buchan, Sarah A. ;
Booth, Stephanie ;
Scott, Allison N. ;
Simmonds, Kimberley A. ;
Svenson, Lawrence W. ;
Drews, Steven J. ;
Russell, Margaret L. ;
Crowcroft, Natasha S. ;
Loeb, Mark ;
Warshawsky, Bryna F. ;
Kwong, Jeffrey C. .
JAMA PEDIATRICS, 2018, 172 (09)
[6]  
European Medicines Agency, Guideline on influenza vaccines: non-clinical and clinical module
[7]  
Francis T., 1960, P AM PHILOS SOC, V104, P572, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0016-0032(38)92229-X
[8]  
Ikonen N, 2018, INFLUENSSAKAUSI SUOM
[9]  
Ikonen N, 2016, INFLUENSSAKAUSI SUOM
[10]  
Ikonen N, 2017, INFLUENSSAKAUSI SUOM