4.7 Article

Effectiveness of Partial and Full Influenza Vaccination Among Children Aged <9 Years in Hong Kong, 2011-2019

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 220, 期 10, 页码 1568-1576

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiz361

关键词

-

资金

  1. Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region [17105414, T11-705/14N]
  2. Health and Medical Research Fund [hks-19-e20]
  3. National Institute of General Medical Sciences, through the Harvard Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics [U54 GM088558]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Two doses of influenza vaccination are recommended for previously unvaccinated children aged <9 years, and receipt of 1 dose is sometimes termed partial vaccination. We assessed the effectiveness of partial and full influenza vaccination in preventing influenza-associated hospitalization among children in Hong Kong. Methods. Using the test-negative design we enrolled 23 187 children aged <9 years admitted to hospitals with acute respiratory illness from September 2011 through March 2019. Vaccination and influenza status were recorded. Fully vaccinated children included those vaccinated with 2 doses or, if previously vaccinated, those vaccinated with 1 dose. Partially vaccinated children included those who should have received 2 doses but only received 1 dose. We estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE) by using conditional logistic regression models matched on epidemiological week. Results. Overall VE estimates among fully and partially vaccinated children were 73% (95% confidence interval, 69%-77%) and 31% (95% confidence interval, 8%-48%), respectively. A consistently higher VE was observed in children fully vaccinated against each influenza virus type/subtype. The effectiveness of partial vaccination did not vary by age group. Conclusions. Partial vaccination was significantly less effective than full vaccination. Our study supports the current recommendation of 2 doses of influenza vaccination in previously unvaccinated children <9 years of age.

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

4.7
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