39
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Estimates of Pandemic Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in Europe, 2009–2010: Results of Influenza Monitoring Vaccine Effectiveness in Europe (I-MOVE) Multicentre Case-Control Study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Results from a European multicentre case-control study reported by Marta Valenciano and colleagues suggest good protection by the pandemic monovalent H1N1 vaccine against pH1N1 and no effect of the 2009–2010 seasonal influenza vaccine on H1N1.

          Abstract

          Background

          A multicentre case-control study based on sentinel practitioner surveillance networks from seven European countries was undertaken to estimate the effectiveness of 2009–2010 pandemic and seasonal influenza vaccines against medically attended influenza-like illness (ILI) laboratory-confirmed as pandemic influenza A (H1N1) (pH1N1).

          Methods and Findings

          Sentinel practitioners swabbed ILI patients using systematic sampling. We included in the study patients meeting the European ILI case definition with onset of symptoms >14 days after the start of national pandemic vaccination campaigns. We compared pH1N1 cases to influenza laboratory-negative controls. A valid vaccination corresponded to >14 days between receiving a dose of vaccine and symptom onset. We estimated pooled vaccine effectiveness (VE) as 1 minus the odds ratio with the study site as a fixed effect. Using logistic regression, we adjusted VE for potential confounding factors (age group, sex, month of onset, chronic diseases and related hospitalizations, smoking history, seasonal influenza vaccinations, practitioner visits in previous year). We conducted a complete case analysis excluding individuals with missing values and a multiple multivariate imputation to estimate missing values. The multivariate imputation ( n = 2902) adjusted pandemic VE (PIVE) estimates were 71.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 45.6–85.5) overall; 78.4% (95% CI 54.4–89.8) in patients <65 years; and 72.9% (95% CI 39.8–87.8) in individuals without chronic disease. The complete case ( n = 1,502) adjusted PIVE were 66.0% (95% CI 23.9–84.8), 71.3% (95% CI 29.1–88.4), and 70.2% (95% CI 19.4–89.0), respectively. The adjusted PIVE was 66.0% (95% CI −69.9 to 93.2) if vaccinated 8–14 days before ILI onset. The adjusted 2009–2010 seasonal influenza VE was 9.9% (95% CI −65.2 to 50.9).

          Conclusions

          Our results suggest good protection of the pandemic monovalent vaccine against medically attended pH1N1 and no effect of the 2009–2010 seasonal influenza vaccine. However, the late availability of the pandemic vaccine and subsequent limited coverage with this vaccine hampered our ability to study vaccine benefits during the outbreak period. Future studies should include estimation of the effectiveness of the new trivalent vaccine in the upcoming 2010–2011 season, when vaccination will occur before the influenza season starts.

          Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

          Editors' Summary

          Background

          Following the World Health Organization's declaration of pandemic phase six in June 2009, manufacturers developed vaccines against pandemic influenza A 2009 (pH1N1). On the basis of the scientific opinion of the European Medicines Agency, the European Commission initially granted marketing authorization to three pandemic vaccines for use in European countries. During the autumn of 2009, most European countries included the 2009–2010 seasonal influenza vaccine and the pandemic vaccine in their influenza vaccination programs.

          The Influenza Monitoring Vaccine Effectiveness in Europe network (established to monitor seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccine effectiveness) conducted seven case-control and three cohort studies in seven European countries in 2009–2010 to estimate the effectiveness of the pandemic and seasonal vaccines. Data from the seven pilot case-control studies were pooled to provide overall adjusted estimates of vaccine effectiveness.

          Why Was This Study Done?

          After seasonal and pandemic vaccines are made available to populations, it is necessary to estimate the effectiveness of the vaccines at the population level during every influenza season. Therefore, this study was conducted in European countries to estimate the pandemic influenza vaccine effectiveness and seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness against people presenting to their doctor with influenza-like illness who were confirmed (by laboratory tests) to be infected with pH1N1.

          What Did the Researchers Do and Find?

          The researchers conducted a multicenter case-control study on the basis of practitioner surveillance networks from seven countries—France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Romania, Portugal, and Spain. Patients consulting a participating practitioner for influenza-like illness had a nasal or throat swab taken within 8 days of symptom onset. Cases were swabbed patients who tested positive for pH1N1. Patients presenting with influenza-like illness whose swab tested negative for any influenza virus were controls.

          Individuals were considered vaccinated if they had received a dose of the vaccine more than 14 days before the date of onset of influenza-like illness and unvaccinated if they were not vaccinated at all, or if the vaccine was given less than 15 days before the onset of symptoms. The researchers analyzed pandemic influenza vaccination effectiveness in those vaccinated less than 8 days, those vaccinated between and including 8 and 14 days, and those vaccinated more than 14 days before onset of symptoms compared to those who had never been vaccinated.

          The researchers used modeling (taking account of all potential confounding factors) to estimate adjusted vaccine effectiveness and stratified the adjusted pandemic influenza vaccine effectiveness and the adjusted seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness in three age groups (<15, 15–64, and ≥65 years of age).

          The adjusted results suggest that the 2009–2010 seasonal influenza vaccine did not protect against pH1N1 illness. However, one dose of the pandemic vaccines used in the participating countries conferred good protection (65.5%–100% according to various stratifications performed) against pH1N1 in people who attended their practitioner with influenza-like illness, especially in people aged <65 years and in those without any chronic disease. Furthermore, good pandemic influenza vaccine effectiveness was observed as early as 8 days after vaccination.

          What Do These Findings Mean?

          The results of this study provide early estimates of the pandemic influenza vaccine effectiveness suggesting that the monovalent pandemic vaccines have been effective. The findings also give an indication of the vaccine effectiveness for the Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 strain included in the 2010–2011 seasonal vaccines, although specific vaccine effectiveness studies will have to be conducted to verify if similar good effectiveness are observed with 2010–2011 trivalent vaccines. However, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution because of limitations in the pandemic context (late timing of the studies, low incidence, low vaccine coverage leading to imprecise estimates) and potential biases due the study design, confounding factors, and missing values. The researchers recommend that in future season studies, the sample size per country should be enlarged in order to allow for precise pooled and stratified analyses.

          Additional Information

          Please access these websites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000388.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Effectiveness of inactivated influenza vaccines varied substantially with antigenic match from the 2004-2005 season to the 2006-2007 season.

          We estimated the effectiveness of inactivated influenza vaccines for the prevention of laboratory-confirmed, medically attended influenza during 3 seasons with variable antigenic match between vaccine and patient strains. Patients were enrolled during or after a clinical encounter for acute respiratory illness. Influenza infection was confirmed by culture or reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Case-control analyses were performed that used data from patients who were ill without influenza (hereafter, "test-negative control subjects") and data from asymptomatic control subjects from the population (hereafter, "traditional control subjects"). Vaccine effectiveness (VE) was estimated as [100 x (1-adjusted odds ratio)]. Influenza isolates were antigenically characterized. Influenza was detected in 167 (20%) of 818 patients in 2004-2005, in 51 (14%) of 356 in 2005-2006, and in 102 (11%) of 932 in 2006-2007. Analyses that used data from test-negative control subjects showed that VE was 10% (95% confidence interval [CI], -36% to 40%) in 2004-2005, 21% (95% CI, -52% to 59%) in 2005-2006, and 52% (95% CI, 22% to 70%) in 2006-2007. Using data from traditional control subjects, VE for those seasons was estimated to be 5% (95% CI, -52% to 40%), 11% (95% CI, -96% to 59%), and 37% (95% CI, -10% to 64%), respectively; confidence intervals included 0. The percentage of viruses that were antigenically matched to vaccine strains was 5% (3 of 62) in 2004-2005, 5% (2 of 42) in 2005-2006, and 91% (85 of 93) in 2006-2007. Influenza VE varied substantially across 3 seasons and was highest when antigenic match was optimal. VE estimates that used data from test-negative control subjects were consistently higher than those that used data from traditional control subjects.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Trial of 2009 influenza A (H1N1) monovalent MF59-adjuvanted vaccine.

            The 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus has emerged to cause the first pandemic of the 21st century. Development of effective vaccines is a public health priority. We conducted a single-center study, involving 176 adults, 18 to 50 years of age, to test the monovalent influenza A/California/2009 (H1N1) surface-antigen vaccine, in both MF59-adjuvanted and nonadjuvanted forms. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive two intramuscular injections of vaccine containing 7.5 microg of hemagglutinin on day 0 in each arm or one injection on day 0 and the other on day 7, 14, or 21; or two 3.75-microg doses of MF59-adjuvanted vaccine, or 7.5 or 15 microg of nonadjuvanted vaccine, administered 21 days apart. Antibody responses were measured by means of hemagglutination-inhibition assay and a microneutralization assay on days 0, 14, 21, and 42 after injection of the first dose. The most frequent local and systemic reactions were pain at the injection site and muscle aches, noted in 70% and 42% of subjects, respectively; reactions were more common with the MF59-adjuvanted vaccine than with nonadjuvanted vaccine. Three subjects reported fever, with a temperature of 38 degrees C or higher, after either dose. Antibody titers, expressed as geometric means, were higher at day 21 among subjects who had received one dose of MF59-adjuvanted vaccine than among those who had received one dose of nonadjuvanted vaccine (P<0.001 by the microneutralization assay). By day 21, hemagglutination-inhibition and microneutralization antibody titers of 1:40 or more were seen in 77 to 96% and 92 to 100% of subjects receiving MF59-adjuvanted vaccine, respectively, and in 63 to 72% and 67 to 76% of those receiving nonadjuvanted vaccine, respectively. By day 42, after two doses of vaccine, hemagglutination-inhibition and microneutralization antibody titers of 1:40 or more were seen in 92 to 100% and 100% of recipients of MF59-adjuvanted vaccine, respectively, and in 74 to 79% and 78 to 83% of recipients of nonadjuvanted vaccine, respectively. Monovalent 2009 influenza A (H1N1) MF59-adjuvanted vaccine generates antibody responses likely to be associated with protection after a single dose is administered. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00943358). Copyright 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Immune response after a single vaccination against 2009 influenza A H1N1 in USA: a preliminary report of two randomised controlled phase 2 trials.

              Data are needed from large clinical trials of paediatric, adult, and elderly people to find the appropriate antigen dose and vaccination schedule for the 2009 pandemic influenza A H1N1. We therefore report preliminary safety and immunogenicity results after one injection of a licensed monovalent pandemic H1N1 vaccine in the USA. We randomly assigned healthy children (aged 6-35 months and 3-9 years) and adults (18-64 years and >or=65 years) to vaccine containing per dose 7.5 microg (children and adults), 15 microg (children and adults), or 30 microg (adults only) haemagglutinin in two placebo-controlled, observer-masked, multicentre phase 2 studies done in the USA. Participants were allocated with an interactive voice-response system or computer-generated randomisation lists with opaque scratchable patches. Primary outcome was haemagglutination inhibition antibody response 21 days after the first of two planned vaccinations (interim analysis of studies in progress). Analyses were by full-analysis set. The trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT00953524 and NCT00952419. 410 of 423 children and 724 of 750 adults given an active vaccine, and 50 of 51 children and 95 of 99 adults given placebo were assessed for immunogenicity on day 21. After active vaccination, 45 of 101 (45%; 95% CI 35-55) to 47 of 94 (50%; 40-61) infants aged 6-35 months, 75 of 109 (69%; 59-77) to 80 of 106 (75%; 66-83) 3-9-year-old children, 134 of 141 (95%; 90-98) to 144 of 144 (100%; 98-100) of 18-64-year-old adults, and 93 of 100 (93%; 86-96) to 93 of 98 (95%; 89-98) elderly adults were seroprotected (proportion with titres >or=1:40). No vaccine-related serious adverse events occurred. Injection-site and systemic reactions were reported by up to about 50% of every age and vaccine group, with no noticeable differences between vaccine and placebo groups. One dose of vaccine was highly immunogenic in adults, suggesting that it afforded sufficient protection against this pandemic influenza A H1N1 virus. Two doses of vaccine will probably be needed in children younger than 9 years. Safety and reactogenicity of the vaccine were acceptable and similar to those of seasonal vaccine. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                PLoS Med
                PLoS
                plosmed
                PLoS Medicine
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                1549-1277
                1549-1676
                January 2011
                January 2011
                11 January 2011
                02 February 2011
                : 8
                : 1
                : e1000388
                Affiliations
                [1 ]EpiConcept, Paris, France
                [2 ]Réseau des GROG/Open Rome, Paris, France
                [3 ]National Center for Epidemiology, Budapest, Hungary
                [4 ]Health Protection Surveillance Centre, Dublin, Ireland
                [5 ]European Programme for Intervention Epidemiology Training (EPIET), European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Stockholm, Sweden
                [6 ]National Centre for Epidemiology, Surveillance and Health Promotion, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Roma, Italy
                [7 ]Instituto Nacional de Saúde Dr Ricardo Jorge, Lisbon, Portugal
                [8 ]Cantacuzino Institute, National Institute of Research – Development for Microbiology and Immunology, Bucharest, Romania
                [9 ]Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie Carol Davila, Bucharest, Romania
                [10 ]National Centre for Epidemiology, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain
                [11 ]European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), Stockholm, Sweden
                George Washington University, United States of America
                Author notes

                ICMJE criteria for authorship read and met: M Valenciano, E Kissling, JM Cohen, B Oroszi, AS Barret, C Rizzo, B Nunes, D Pitigoi, AL Cámara, A Mosnier, JK Horvath, J O Donnell, A Bella, R Guiomar, E Lupulescu, C Savulescu, BC Ciancio, P Kramarz, A Moren. Agree with the manuscript s results and conclusions: M Valenciano, E Kissling, JM Cohen, B Oroszi, AS Barret, C Rizzo, B Nunes, D Pitigoi, AL Cámara, A Mosnier, JK Horvath, J O Donnell, A Bella, R Guiomar, E Lupulescu, C Savulescu, BC Ciancio, P Kramarz, A Moren. Designed the experiments/the study: M Valenciano, JM Cohen, C Rizzo, B Nunes, D Pitigoi, AL Cámara, A Mosnier, J O Donnell, R Guiomar, E Lupulescu, C Savulescu, BC Ciancio, P Kramarz, A Moren. Analyzed the data: E Kissling, JM Cohen, AS Barret, C Rizzo, D Pitigoi, A Moren. Collected data/did experiments for the study: JM Cohen, B Oroszi, AS Barret, C Rizzo, B Nunes, D Pitigoi, AL Cámara, A Mosnier, JK Horvath, J O Donnell, A Bella, R Guiomar, E Lupulescu, C Savulescu. Enrolled patients: JM Cohen, C Rizzo, D Pitigoi, A Mosnier, A Bella, E Lupulescu. Wrote the first draft of the paper: M Valenciano. Contributed to the writing of the paper: M Valenciano, E Kissling, JM Cohen, B Oroszi, AS Barret, B Nunes, D Pitigoi, AL Cámara, A Mosnier, JK Horvath, J O Donnell, R Guiomar, E Lupulescu, C Savulescu, BC Ciancio, P Kramarz, A Moren. Coordinated the study at the national level: B Oroszi, C Rizzo, B Nunes, D Pitigoi, A Larrauri Cámara, J O'Donnell. Participated in protocol writing: M Valenciano, A Moren. Contributed to reviewing the data analysis: M Valenciano, A Moren. Wrote first draft and revised the overall manuscript with co-author inputs: M Valenciano. Participated in protocol writing: E Kissling. Adapted GROG network database to I-MOVE design: JM Cohen. Coordinated GROG Network during pandemic phase: JM Cohen. Coordinated the Sentinel network (réseau des GROG) in charge of patient enrollment: A Mosnier. Reviewed drafts of the article: J O'Donnell. Performed the laboratory diagnosis of the influenza virus infection: R Guiomar. Conceived the idea of a European network for monitoring influenza vaccine effectiveness: BC Ciancio.

                Article
                10-PLME-RA-5070R3
                10.1371/journal.pmed.1000388
                3019108
                21379316
                a6b899f1-c9ed-4c3a-9e56-e79c96ab0114
                Valenciano et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
                History
                : 25 May 2010
                : 22 November 2010
                Page count
                Pages: 12
                Categories
                Research Article
                Infectious Diseases/Epidemiology and Control of Infectious Diseases
                Public Health and Epidemiology/Immunization
                Public Health and Epidemiology/Infectious Diseases

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article