Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael T Osterholm ◽  
Nicholas S Kelley ◽  
Alfred Sommer ◽  
Edward A Belongia
Author(s):  
Joan Puig-Barberà ◽  
Sonia Tamames-Gómez ◽  
Pedro Plans-Rubio ◽  
José María Eirós-Bouza

Avian mutations in vaccine strains obtained from embryonated eggs could impair vaccine effec-tiveness. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the adjusted relative vaccine effectiveness (arVE) of seed cell-cultured influenza vaccines (ccIV) compared to egg-based influ-enza vaccines (eIV) in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza related outcomes (IRO) or IRO by clinical codes, in subjects 18 and over. We completed the literature search in January 2021; ap-plied exclusion criteria, evaluated risk of bias of the evidence, and performed heterogeneity, pub-lication bias, qualitative, quantitative and sensitivity analyses. All estimates were computed us-ing a random approach. International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, CRD42021228290. We identified 12 publications that reported 26 adjusted arVE results. Five publications reported 13 laboratory confirmed arVE and seven reported 13 code-ascertained arVE. Nine publications with 22 results were at low risk of bias. Heterogeneity was explained by season and risk of bias. We found a significant 11% (8 to 14%) adjusted arVE favoring ccIV in preventing any IRO in the 2017-2018 influenza season. The arVE was 3% (-01 to 7%) in the 2018-2019 influenza season. We found moderate evidence of a significant advantage of the ccIV in preventing IRO, compared to eIV, in a well-matched A(H3N2) predominant season.


2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriela J Prutsky ◽  
Juan Pablo Domecq ◽  
Tarig Elraiyah ◽  
Zhen Wang ◽  
Lisa A Grohskopf ◽  
...  

Thorax ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 71 (Suppl 3) ◽  
pp. A155.1-A155 ◽  
Author(s):  
E Vasileiou ◽  
A Sheikh ◽  
C Butler ◽  
K El Ferkh ◽  
CR Simpson

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 590
Author(s):  
Lai ◽  
Lin ◽  
Ho ◽  
Chen ◽  
Lee

The study compared immunogenicity and safety between alternative higher-dose and standard-dose trivalent vaccines in immunocompromised individuals. A literature search was performed using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception until March 2019 to identify studies comparing the immunogenicity of alternative higher-dose (including high-dose, double-dose, and booster-dose vaccines) and standard-dose trivalent influenza vaccines in patients who underwent transplantation or chemotherapy. Effect estimates from the individual studies were derived and calculated using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effect model. The protocol for this systematic review is registered with PROSPERO (number CRD42019129220). Eight relevant studies involving 1020 patients were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The meta-analysis demonstrated that the higher-dose strategy provided had significantly superior seroconversion and seroprotection for A/H1N1 strains than the standard dose. Regarding H3N2 and B strains, no differences in immunogenicity responses were noted. No differences in safety were observed between the vaccination strategies. Alternative higher-dose vaccination strategies appear to associate with superior immunogenicity responses for A/H1N1 strains, and the strategies were generally well tolerated in immunocompromised populations. Future studies should clarify the optimal timing, frequency and dose of vaccination and assess whether these strategies improve vaccine immunogenicity and clinical outcomes.


2013 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivana Lukšić ◽  
Sarah Clay ◽  
Rachel Falconer ◽  
Dražen Pulanić ◽  
Igor Rudan ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document