Vaccine effectiveness of recombinant and standard dose influenza vaccines against outpatient illness during 2018–2019 and 2019–2020 calculated using a retrospective test-negative design

Newer influenza vaccine formulations have entered the market, but real-world effectiveness studies are not widely conducted until there is sufficient uptake. We conducted a retrospective test-negative case-control study to determine relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of recombinant influenza vaccine or RIV4, compared with standard dose vaccines (SD) in a health system with significant RIV4 uptake. Using the electronic medical record (EMR) and the Pennsylvania state immunization registry to confirm influenza vaccination, VE against outpatient medically attended visits was calculated. Immunocompetent outpatients ages 18–64 years seen in hospital-based clinics or emergency departments who were tested for influenza using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays during the 2018–2019 and 2019–2020 influenza seasons were included. Propensity scores with inverse probability weighting were used to adjust for potential confounders and determine rVE. Among this mostly white and female cohort of 5,515 individuals, 510 were vaccinated with RIV4 and 557 were vaccinated with SD, with the balance of 4,448 (81%) being unvaccinated. Adjusted influenza VE estimates were 37% overall (95% CI = 27, 46), 40% (95% CI = 25, 51) for RIV4 and 35% (95% CI = 20, 47) for standard dose vaccines. Overall, rVE of RIV4 compared to SD was not significantly higher (11%; 95% CI = −20, 33). Influenza vaccines were moderately protective against medically attended outpatient influenza during the 2018–2019 and 2019–2020 seasons. Although the point estimates are higher for RIV4, the large confidence intervals around VE estimates suggest this study was underpowered to detect significant rVE of individual vaccine formulations

Exploring the potential public health benefits of universal influenza vaccine

Background: Broadly protective, long-lasting universal influenza vaccines are under development in response to low-moderate seasonal vaccine effectiveness, frequent genetic changes in circulating viruses and extended turnaround for vaccine manufacture. Because a long-lasting vaccine might be less effective than a seasonal vaccine that has been matched to current circulating strains, the public health impact of its introduction should be evaluated. Methods: A modified agent-based model (ABM) examined multi-year effects of a universal vaccine among 18 to 49-year-olds, given in Year 1 only. The proportion of vaccinated 18 to 49-year-olds who received universal vaccine was varied from 0% to 100%. Model parameters were drawn from US databases and the medical literature. Outcomes were 4-year cumulative and annual influenza cases as well as annual cases averted/100,000 population for 3 age groups, 0–17 years, 18–49 years and 50+ years. Results: In Year 1 when universal vaccine was given to 50% or 100% of all vaccinated 18 to 49-year-olds, more influenza cases occurred, compared to no universal vaccine, but fewer cases occurred in Years 2–4 as overall protection increased. Cumulative averted cases over 4 years in 18 to 49-year-olds were 892/100,000 and 1,687/100,000 population for the 50% and 100% universal vaccine for 18 to 49-year-olds scenarios, respectively, with additional benefits to children and older adults through indirect effects. Conclusions: In ABM, the universal vaccine with a conservative VE estimate given once to 18 to 49-year-olds reduced influenza cases among all age groups in Years 2–4 following its introduction. Reduced influenza burden may occur sooner if VE of universal vaccines exceeds that assumed in these models

Using the 4 pillars™ practice transformation program to increase adult influenza vaccination and reduce missed opportunities in a randomized cluster trial

Abstract Background An evidence-based, step-by-step guide, the 4 Pillars™ Practice Transformation Program, was the foundation of an intervention to increase adult immunizations in primary care and was tested in a randomized controlled cluster trial. The purpose of this study is to report changes in influenza immunization rates and on factors related to receipt of influenza vaccine. Methods Twenty five primary care practices were recruited in 2013, stratified by city (Houston, Pittsburgh), location (rural, urban, suburban) and type (family medicine, internal medicine), and randomized to the intervention (n = 13) or control (n = 12) in Year 1 (2013-14). A follow-up intervention occurred in Year 2 (2014-15). Demographic and vaccination data were derived from de-identified electronic medical record extractions. Results A cohort of 70,549 adults seen in their respective practices (n = 24 with 1 drop out) at least once each year was followed. Baseline mean age was 55.1 years, 35 % were men, 21 % were non-white and 35 % were Hispanic. After one year, both intervention and control arms significantly (P < 0.001) increased influenza vaccination, with average increases of 2.7 to 6.5 percentage points. In regression analyses, likelihood of influenza vaccination was significantly higher in sites with lower percentages of patients with missed opportunities (P < 0.001) and, after adjusting for missed opportunities, the intervention further improved vaccination rates in Houston (lower baseline rates) but not Pittsburgh (higher baseline rates). In the follow-up intervention, the likelihood of vaccination increased for both intervention sites and those that reduced missed opportunities (P < 0.005). Conclusions Reducing missed opportunities across the practice increases likelihood of influenza vaccination of adults. The 4 Pillars™ Practice Transformation Program provides strategies for reducing missed opportunities to vaccinate adults. Trial registration This study was registered as a clinical trial on 03/20/2013 at ClinicalTrials.gov, Clinical Trial Registry Number: NCT01868334 , with a date of enrollment of the first participant to the trial of April 1, 2013