Title |
Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness against Hospitalisation with Confirmed Influenza in the 2010–11 Seasons: A Test-negative Observational Study
|
---|---|
Published in |
PLOS ONE, July 2013
|
DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0068760 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Allen C. Cheng, Mark Holmes, Louis B. Irving, Simon G. A. Brown, Grant W. Waterer, Tony M. Korman, N. Deborah Friedman, Sanjaya Senanayake, Dominic E. Dwyer, Stephen Brady, Grahame Simpson, Richard Wood-Baker, John Upham, David Paterson, Christine Jenkins, Peter Wark, Paul M. Kelly, Tom Kotsimbos |
Abstract |
Immunisation programs are designed to reduce serious morbidity and mortality from influenza, but most evidence supporting the effectiveness of this intervention has focused on disease in the community or in primary care settings. We aimed to examine the effectiveness of influenza vaccination against hospitalisation with confirmed influenza. We compared influenza vaccination status in patients hospitalised with PCR-confirmed influenza with patients hospitalised with influenza-negative respiratory infections in an Australian sentinel surveillance system. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated from the odds ratio of vaccination in cases and controls. We performed both simple multivariate regression and a stratified analysis based on propensity score of vaccination. Vaccination status was ascertained in 333 of 598 patients with confirmed influenza and 785 of 1384 test-negative patients. Overall estimated crude vaccine effectiveness was 57% (41%, 68%). After adjusting for age, chronic comorbidities and pregnancy status, the estimated vaccine effectiveness was 37% (95% CI: 12%, 55%). In an analysis accounting for a propensity score for vaccination, the estimated vaccine effectiveness was 48.3% (95% CI: 30.0, 61.8%). Influenza vaccination was moderately protective against hospitalisation with influenza in the 2010 and 2011 seasons. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Spain | 1 | 2% |
United States | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 59 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 23% |
Researcher | 8 | 13% |
Student > Master | 8 | 13% |
Other | 5 | 8% |
Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
Other | 9 | 15% |
Unknown | 12 | 20% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 44% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 8% |
Mathematics | 2 | 3% |
Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 3% |
Psychology | 2 | 3% |
Other | 6 | 10% |
Unknown | 17 | 28% |