4.5 Article

Field seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness Evaluation of the screening method using different sources of data during the 2010/2011 French influenza season

期刊

HUMAN VACCINES & IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS
卷 9, 期 11, 页码 2453-2459

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.4161/hv.25513

关键词

vaccine effectiveness; general practitioners; influenza; vaccination coverage; target groups

资金

  1. Sanofi Pasteur

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Thanks to the screening method, we estimated among target groups the 2010/2011 field vaccine effectiveness (FVE) against laboratory confirmed influenza cases seen in general practice. We also compared the values of FVE estimations obtained by using three sources of the population vaccination coverage (VC) based on three different methodologies: (1) administrative data from the main social security scheme (Caisse Nationale d'Assurance Maladie des Travailleurs Salaries-CNAMTS) covering about 85% of the French population, (2) a cross-sectional national telephone survey in the general population, and (3) a declarative survey in the population seen in a one-day general practitioner (GP) consultations. The FVE estimates among target groups were stratified by age (<65 y old with reported chronic illness; >= 65 y old and overall). Using the VC of the CNAMTS, the FVE of the 2010/2011 seasonal trivalent vaccine against laboratory confirmed infection with any influenza virus was 59% (95% Confidence Interval, 17 to 81). It was 85% (17 to 99) and 50% (-16 to 80) for A(H1N1)pdm09 and B influenza infections, respectively. The values of FVE using the influenza VC obtained in a sample of the general population and of the population of GPs' patients were 73% (45 to 87) and 82% (63 to 92), respectively. We estimated a moderate influenza FVE in preventing confirmed influenza viruses in target groups by using the VC of the CNAMTS. We also observed that the screening method generates FVE values dependent on the choice of the source of VC and thus should be used cautiously.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据