Vaccine Effectiveness of non-adjuvanted and adjuvanted trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines in the prevention of influenza-related hospitalization in older adults: A pooled analysis from the Serious Outcomes Surveillance (SOS) Network of the Canadian Immunization Research Network (CIRN).

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccines prevent influenza-related morbidity and mortality; however, suboptimal vaccine effectiveness (VE) of non-adjuvanted trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (naTIV) or quadrivalent formulations in older adults prompted the use of enhanced products such as adjuvanted TIV (aTIV). Here, the VE of aTIV is compared to naTIV for preventing influenza-associated hospitalization among older adults. METHODS: A test-negative design study was used with pooled data from the 2012 to 2015 influenza seasons. An inverse probability of treatment (IPT)-weighted logistic regression estimated the Odds Ratio (OR) for laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalization. VE was calculated as (1-OR)*100% with accompanying 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Of 7,101 adults aged ≥ 65, 3,364 received naTIV and 526 received aTIV. The overall VE against influenza hospitalization was 45.9% (95% CI: 40.2%-51.1%) for naTIV and 53.5% (42.8%-62.3%) for aTIV. No statistically significant differences in VE were found between aTIV and naTIV by age group or influenza season, though a trend favoring aTIV over naTIV was noted. Frailty may have impacted VE in aTIV recipients compared to those receiving naTIV, according to an exploratory analysis; VE adjusted by frailty was 59.1% (49.6%-66.8%) for aTIV and 44.8% (39.1%-50.0%) for naTIV. The overall relative VE of aTIV to naTIV against laboratory-confirmed influenza hospital admission was 25% (OR 0.75; 0.61-0.92), demonstrating statistically significant benefit favoring aTIV. CONCLUSIONS: Adjusting for frailty, aTIV showed statistically significantly better protection than naTIV against influenza-associated hospitalizations in older adults. In future studies, it is important to consider frailty as a significant confounder of VE.

Social vulnerability and survival across levels of frailty in the Honolulu-Asia Aging Study.

PURPOSE: we evaluated mortality risk in relation to social vulnerability across levels of frailty among a cohort of older Japanese-American men. METHODS: in secondary analysis of the Honolulu-Asia Aging Study (HAAS), participants (n = 3,271) were aged 72-93 years at baseline. A frailty index (FI) created using 58 potential health deficits to quantify participants' frailty level at baseline, with four frailty strata: 0.0 < FI ≤ 0.1 (n = 1,074); 0.1 < FI ≤ 0.20 (n = 1,549); 0.2 < FI ≤ 0.30 (n = 472); FI > 0.3 (n = 176). Similarly, a social vulnerability index was created using 19 self-reported social deficits. Cox proportional hazard modelling was employed to estimate the impact of social vulnerability across the four levels of frailty, accounting for age, smoking, alcohol use and variation in health deficits within each frailty level. RESULTS: for the fittest participants, social vulnerability was associated with mortality (hazards ratio (HR) = 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.01, 1.07; P value = 0.008). Similarly, for those considered at risk for frailty, each social deficit was associated with a 5% increased risk of mortality. For frail individuals, the Cox regression analyses indicated that social vulnerability was not significantly associated with mortality (0.2 < FI ≤ 0.3: HR = 1.016, 95% CI = 0.98, 1.06; P value = 0.442; FI > 0.3: HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.93, 1.04). CONCLUSIONS: for the fittest and at-risk HAAS participants, the accumulation of social deficits was associated with significant increases in mortality risk. For frail individuals (FI > 0.20), the estimation of mortality risk may depend more so on intrinsic factors related to their health.