Assessment of the Variability in Influenza A(H1N1) Vaccine Effectiveness Estimates Dependent on Outcome and Methodological Approach

Estimation of Influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) varies with study design, clinical outcome 10 considered and statistical methodology used. By estimating VE using differing outcomes and 11 statistical methods on the same cohort of individuals the variability in the estimates produced can 12 be better understood. The Pandemic Influenza Primary Care Reporting (PIPeR) cohort of approximately 193,000 individuals 14 was used to estimate pandemic VE in Scotland during season 2009-10. VE results for three 15 outcomes; influenza related consultations, virological confirmed influenza and death were 16 considered. Use of individualised records allowed all models to be adjusted for age, sex, 17 deprivation, risk status relating to chronic illnesses, seasonal vaccination status and a marker of the 18 individual’s propensity to consult. For the consultation and death outcomes, VE was calculated by 19 comparing consultation rates in the unvaccinated and vaccinated groups, adjusted for the listed 20 factors, using both Cox and Poisson regression models. For the consultation outcome, the 21 unvaccinated group was split into individuals before vaccination and those never vaccinated to allow 22 for potential differences in the health seeking behaviour of these groups. For the virology outcome 23 estimates were calculated using a generalised additive logistic regression model. All models were 24 adjusted for time. Vaccine effect was demonstrated for the influenza-like illness consultation outcome using the Cox 26 model (VE=49% 95% CI (19%, 67%)) with lower estimates from the model splitting the before and 27 never vaccinated groups (VE=34.2% with 95% CI (-0.5%, 58.9%)). Vaccine effect was also illustrated 28 for overall mortality (VE=40% (95% CI 18%, 56%)) and a virological confirmed subset of symptomatic 29 individuals (VE=60% (95% CI -38%, 89%))

Using surveillance data to estimate pandemic vaccine effectiveness against laboratory confirmed influenza A(H1N1)2009 infection : two case-control studies, Spain, season 2009-2010

Background: Physicians of the Spanish Influenza Sentinel Surveillance System report and systematically swab patients attended to their practices for influenza-like illness (ILI). Within the surveillance system, some Spanish regions also participated in an observational study aiming at estimating influenza vaccine effectiveness (cycEVA study). During the season 2009-2010, we estimated pandemic influenza vaccine effectiveness using both the influenza surveillance data and the cycEVA study. Methods: We conducted two case-control studies using the test-negative design, between weeks 48/2009 and 8/2010 of the pandemic season. The surveillance-based study included all swabbed patients in the sentinel surveillance system. The cycEVA study included swabbed patients from seven Spanish regions. Cases were laboratory-confirmed pandemic influenza A(H1N1)2009. Controls were ILI patients testing negative for any type of influenza. Variables collected in both studies included demographic data, vaccination status, laboratory results, chronic conditions, and pregnancy. Additionally, cycEVA questionnaire collected data on previous influenza vaccination, smoking, functional status, hospitalisations, visits to the general practitioners, and obesity. We used logistic regression to calculate adjusted odds ratios (OR), computing pandemic influenza vaccine effectiveness as (1-OR *100. Results: We included 331 cases and 995 controls in the surveillance-based study and 85 cases and 351 controls in the cycEVA study. We detected nine (2.7%) and two (2.4%) vaccine failures in the surveillance-based and cycEVA studies, respectively. Adjusting for variables collected in surveillance database and swabbing month, pandemic influenza vaccine effectiveness was 62% (95% confidence interval (CI): -5; 87). The cycEVA vaccine effectiveness was 64% (95%CI: -225; 96) when adjusting for common variables with the surveillance system and 75% (95%CI: -293; 98) adjusting for all variables collected. Conclusion: Point estimates of the pandemic influenza vaccine effectiveness suggested a protective effect of the pandemic vaccine against laboratory-confirmed influenza A(H1N1)2009 in the season 2009-2010. Both studies were limited by the low vaccine coverage and the late start of the vaccination campaign. Routine influenza surveillance provides reliable estimates and could be used for influenza vaccine effectiveness studies in future seasons taken into account the surveillance system limitations

Difference in expression between AQP1 and AQP5 in porcine endometrium and myometrium in response to steroid hormones, oxytocin, arachidonic acid, forskolin and cAMP during the mid-luteal phase of the estrous cycle and luteolysis

BACKGROUND: Recently, we demonstrated in vitro that AQP1 and AQP5 in the porcine uterus are regulated by steroid hormones (P4, E2), arachidonic acid (AA), forskolin (FSK) and cAMP during the estrous cycle. However, the potential of the porcine separated uterine tissues, the endometrium and myometrium, to express these AQPs remains unknown. Thus, in this study, the responses of AQP1 and AQP5 to P4, E2 oxytocin (OT), AA, FSK and cAMP in the porcine endometrium and myometrium were examined during the mid-luteal phase of the estrous cycle and luteolysis.METHODS: Real-time PCR and western blot analysis.RESULTS: Progesterone up-regulated the expression of AQP1/AQP5 mRNAs and proteins in the endometrium and myometrium, especially during luteolysis. Similarly, E2 also stimulated the expression of both AQPs, but only in the endometrium. AA led to the upregulation of AQP1/AQP5 in the endometrium during luteolysis. In turn, OT increased the expression of AQP1/AQP5 mRNAs and proteins in the myometrium during mid-luteal phase. Moreover, a stimulatory effect of forskolin and cAMP on the expression of AQP1/AQP5 mRNAs and proteins in the endometrium and myometrium dominated during luteolysis, but during the mid-luteal phase their influence on the expression of these AQPs was differentiated depending on the type of tissue and the incubation duration.CONCLUSIONS: These results seem to indicate that uterine tissues; endometrium and myometrium, exhibit their own AQP expression profiles in response to examined factors. Moreover, the responses of AQP1/AQP5 at mRNA and protein levels to the studied factors in the endometrium and myometrium are more pronounced during luteolysis. This suggests that the above effects of the studied factors are connected with morphological and physiological changes taking place in the pig uterus during the estrous cycle.</p

Predicting the Epidemic Sizes of Influenza A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B: A Statistical Method

Using weekly influenza surveillance data from the US CDC, Edward Goldstein and colleagues develop a statistical method to predict the sizes of epidemics caused by seasonal influenza strains. This method could inform decisions about the most appropriate vaccines or drugs needed early in the influenza season

Cross-Lineage Influenza B and Heterologous Influenza A Antibody Responses in Vaccinated Mice: Immunologic Interactions and B/Yamagata Dominance

The annually reformulated trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) includes both influenza A/subtypes (H3N2 and H1N1) but only one of two influenza B/lineages (Yamagata or Victoria). In a recent series of clinical trials to evaluate prime-boost response across influenza B/lineages, influenza-naïve infants and toddlers originally primed with two doses of 2008–09 B/Yamagata-containing TIV were assessed after two doses of B/Victoria-containing TIV administered in the subsequent 2009–10 and 2010–11 seasons. In these children, the Victoria-containing vaccines strongly recalled antibody to the initiating B/Yamagata antigen but induced only low B/Victoria antibody responses. To further evaluate this unexpected pattern of cross-lineage vaccine responses, we conducted additional immunogenicity assessment in mice. In the current study, mice were primed with two doses of 2008–09 Yamagata-containing TIV and subsequently boosted with two doses of 2010–11 Victoria-containing TIV (Group-Yam/Vic). With the same vaccines, we also assessed the reverse order of two-dose Victoria followed by two-dose Yamagata immunization (Group-Vic/Yam). The Group-Yam/Vic mice showed strong homologous responses to Yamagata antigen. However, as previously reported in children, subsequent doses of Victoria antigen substantially boosted Yamagata but induced only low antibody response to the immunizing Victoria component. The reverse order of Group-Vic/Yam mice also showed low homologous responses to Victoria but subsequent heterologous immunization with even a single dose of Yamagata antigen induced substantial boost response to both lineages. For influenza A/H3N2, homologous responses were comparably robust for the differing TIV variants and even a single follow-up dose of the heterologous strain, regardless of vaccine sequence, substantially boosted antibody to both strains. For H1N1, two doses of 2008–09 seasonal antigen significantly blunted response to two doses of the 2010–11 pandemic H1N1 antigen. Immunologic interactions between influenza viruses considered antigenically distant and in particular the cross-lineage influenza B and dominant Yamagata boost responses we have observed in both human and animal studies warrant further evaluation

Effectiveness of the AS03-Adjuvanted Vaccine against Pandemic Influenza Virus A/(H1N1) 2009 – A Comparison of Two Methods; Germany, 2009/10

During the autumn wave of the pandemic influenza virus A/(H1N1) 2009 (pIV) the German population was offered an AS03-adjuvanted vaccine. The authors compared results of two methods calculating the effectiveness of the vaccine (VE). The test-negative case-control method used data from virologic surveillance including influenza-positive and negative patients. An innovative case-series methodology explored data from all nationally reported laboratory-confirmed influenza cases. The proportion of reported cases occurring in vaccinees during an assumed unprotected phase after vaccination was compared with that occurring in vaccinees during their assumed protected phase. The test-negative case-control method included 1,749 pIV cases and 2,087 influenza test-negative individuals of whom 6 (0.3%) and 36 (1.7%), respectively, were vaccinated. The case series method included data from 73,280 cases. VE in the two methods was 79% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 35–93%; P = 0.007) and 87% (95% CI = 78–92%; P<0.001) for individuals less than 14 years of age and 70% (95% CI = −45%–94%, P = 0.13) and 74% (95% CI = 64–82%; P<0.001) for individuals above the age of 14. Both methods yielded similar VE in both age groups; and VE for the younger age group seemed to be higher

Seasonal Influenza Vaccine and Protection against Pandemic (H1N1) 2009-Associated Illness among US Military Personnel

INTRODUCTION: A novel A/H1N1 virus is the cause of the present influenza pandemic; vaccination is a key countermeasure, however, few data assessing prior seasonal vaccine effectiveness (VE) against the pandemic strain of H1N1 (pH1N1) virus are available. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Surveillance of influenza-related medical encounter data of active duty military service members stationed in the United States during the period of April-October 2009 with comparison of pH1N1-confirmed cases and location and date-matched controls. Crude odds ratios (OR) and VE estimates for immunized versus non-immunized were calculated as well as adjusted OR (AOR) controlling for sex, age group, and history of prior influenza vaccination. Separate stratified VE analyses by vaccine type (trivalent inactivated [TIV] or live attenuated [LAIV]), age groups and hospitalization status were also performed. For the period of April 20 to October 15, 2009, a total of 1,205 cases of pH1N1-confirmed cases were reported, 966 (80%) among males and over one-half (58%) under 25 years of age. Overall VE for service members was found to be 45% (95% CI, 33 to 55%). Immunization with prior season's TIV (VE = 44%, 95% CI, 32 to 54%) as well as LAIV (VE = 24%, 95% CI, 6 to 38%) were both found to be associated with protection. Of significance, VE against a severe disease outcome was higher (VE = 62%, 95% CI, 14 to 84%) than against milder outcomes (VE = 42%, 95% CI, 29 to 53%). CONCLUSION: A moderate association with protection against clinically apparent, laboratory-confirmed Pandemic (H1N1) 2009-associated illness was found for immunization with either TIV or LAIV 2008-09 seasonal influenza vaccines. This association with protection was found to be especially apparent for severe disease as compared to milder outcome, as well as in the youngest and older populations. Prior vaccination with seasonal influenza vaccines in 2004-08 was also independently associated with protection

Association between the 2008–09 Seasonal Influenza Vaccine and Pandemic H1N1 Illness during Spring–Summer 2009: Four Observational Studies from Canada

In three case-control studies and a household transmission cohort, Danuta Skowronski and colleagues find an association between prior seasonal flu vaccination and increased risk of 2009 pandemic H1N1 flu

Effectiveness of influenza vaccine against laboratory-confirmed influenza, in the late 2011-2012 season in Spain, among population targeted for vaccination

Background: In Spain, the influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) was estimated in the last three seasons using the observational study cycEVA conducted in the frame of the existing Spanish Influenza Sentinel Surveillance System. The objective of the study was to estimate influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically attended, laboratory-confirmed influenza-like illness (ILI) among the target groups for vaccination in Spain in the 2011-2012 season. We also studied influenza VE in the early (weeks 52/2011-7/2012) and late (weeks 8-14/2012) phases of the epidemic and according to time since vaccination. Methods: Medically attended patients with ILI were systematically swabbed to collect information on exposure, laboratory outcome and confounding factors. Patients belonging to target groups for vaccination and who were swabbed 4 months, respectively, since vaccination. A decrease in VE with time since vaccination was only observed in individuals aged ≥ 65 years. Regarding the phase of the season, decreasing point estimates were only observed in the early phase, whereas very low or null estimates were obtained in the late phase for the shortest time interval. Conclusions: The 2011-2012 influenza vaccine showed a low-to-moderate protective effect against medically attended, laboratory-confirmed influenza in the target groups for vaccination, in a late season and with a limited match between the vaccine and circulating strains. The suggested decrease in influenza VE with time since vaccination was mostly observed in the elderly population. The decreasing protective effect of the vaccine in the late part of the season could be related to waning vaccine protection because no viral changes were identified throughout the season