Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12105/7032
Using surveillance data to estimate pandemic vaccine effectiveness against laboratory confirmed influenza A(H1N1)2009 infection: two case-control studies, Spain, season 2009-2010
Savulescu, Camelia ISCIII | Jimenez Jorge, Silvia ISCIII | Mateo-Ontañon, Salvador de ISCIII | Pozo Sánchez, Francisco ISCIII | Casas, Inmaculada ISCIII | Perez-Breña, Pilar ISCIII | Galmés, Antonia | Vanrell, Juana M | Rodriguez, Carolina | Vega, Tomas | Martinez, Ana | Torner, Nuria | Ramos, Julián M | Serrano, Maria C | Castilla, Jesús | Cenoz, Manuel García | Altzibar, Jone M | Arteagoitia, Jose M | Quiñones, Carmen | Perucha, Milagros | Larrauri, Amparo ISCIII
BMC Public Health. 2011 Nov 30;11:899.
BACKGROUND: Physicians of the Spanish Influenza Sentinel Surveillance System report and systematically swab patients attended to their practices for influenza-like illness (ILI). Within the surveillance system, some Spanish regions also participated in an observational study aiming at estimating influenza vaccine effectiveness (cycEVA study). During the season 2009-2010, we estimated pandemic influenza vaccine effectiveness using both the influenza surveillance data and the cycEVA study. METHODS: We conducted two case-control studies using the test-negative design, between weeks 48/2009 and 8/2010 of the pandemic season. The surveillance-based study included all swabbed patients in the sentinel surveillance system. The cycEVA study included swabbed patients from seven Spanish regions. Cases were laboratory-confirmed pandemic influenza A(H1N1)2009. Controls were ILI patients testing negative for any type of influenza. Variables collected in both studies included demographic data, vaccination status, laboratory results, chronic conditions, and pregnancy. Additionally, cycEVA questionnaire collected data on previous influenza vaccination, smoking, functional status, hospitalisations, visits to the general practitioners, and obesity. We used logistic regression to calculate adjusted odds ratios (OR), computing pandemic influenza vaccine effectiveness as (1-OR)*100. RESULTS: We included 331 cases and 995 controls in the surveillance-based study and 85 cases and 351 controls in the cycEVA study. We detected nine (2.7%) and two (2.4%) vaccine failures in the surveillance-based and cycEVA studies, respectively. Adjusting for variables collected in surveillance database and swabbing month, pandemic influenza vaccine effectiveness was 62% (95% confidence interval (CI): -5; 87). The cycEVA vaccine effectiveness was 64% (95%CI: -225; 96) when adjusting for common variables with the surveillance system and 75% (95%CI: -293; 98) adjusting for all variables collected. CONCLUSION: Point estimates of the pandemic influenza vaccine effectiveness suggested a protective effect of the pandemic vaccine against laboratory-confirmed influenza A(H1N1)2009 in the season 2009-2010. Both studies were limited by the low vaccine coverage and the late start of the vaccination campaign. Routine influenza surveillance provides reliable estimates and could be used for influenza vaccine effectiveness studies in future seasons taken into account the surveillance system limitations.
Adolescent | Adult | Case-Control Studies | Female | Humans | Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype | Influenza Vaccines | Influenza, Human | Male | Middle Aged | Spain | Young Adult | Outcome Assessment (Health Care) | Population Surveillance
Files in this item