4.7 Article

Intraseason Waning of Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness

期刊

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 68, 期 10, 页码 1623-1630

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciy770

关键词

influenza; vaccine effectiveness; waning; negative-control outcome

资金

  1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health [1R01AI107721-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. In the United States, it is recommended that healthcare providers offer influenza vaccination by October, if possible. However, if the vaccine's effectiveness soon begins to wane, the optimal time for vaccination may be somewhat later. We examined whether the effectiveness of influenza vaccine wanes during the influenza season with increasing time since vaccination. Methods. We identified persons who were vaccinated with inactivated influenza vaccine from 1 September 2010 to 31 March 2017 and who were subsequently tested for influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) by a polymerase chain reaction test. Test-confirmed influenza was the primary outcome and days-since-vaccination was the predictor of interest in conditional logistic regression. Models were adjusted for age and conditioned on calendar day and geographic area. RSV was used as a negative-control outcome. Results. Compared with persons vaccinated 14 to 41 days prior to being tested, persons vaccinated 42 to 69 days prior to being tested had 1.32 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11 to 1.55) times the odds of testing positive for any influenza. The odds ratio (OR) increased linearly by approximately 16% for each additional 28 days since vaccination. The OR was 2.06 (95% CI, 1.69 to 2.51) for persons vaccinated 154 or more days prior to being tested. No evidence of waning was found for RSV. Conclusions. Our results suggest that effectiveness of inactivated influenza vaccine wanes during the course of a single season. These results may lead to reconsideration of the optimal timing of seasonal influenza vaccination.

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