Relative vaccine effectiveness of MF59-adjuvanted vs high-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines for prevention of test-confirmed influenza hospitalizations during the 2017-2020 influenza seasons.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of MF59-adjuvanted trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (aTIV) vs high-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-TIV) for prevention of test-confirmed influenza emergency department visits and/or inpatient admissions ("ED/IP") and for IP admissions alone pooled across the 2017-2020 influenza seasons. Exploratory individual season analyses were also performed. METHODS: This retrospective test-negative design study included United States (US) adults age ≥65 years vaccinated with aTIV or HD-TIV who presented to an ED or IP setting with acute respiratory or febrile illness during the 2017-2020 influenza seasons. Test-positive cases and test-negative controls were grouped by vaccine received. The rVE of aTIV vs HD-TIV was evaluated using a combination of inverse probability of treatment weighting and logistic regression to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: Pooled analyses over the three seasons found no significant differences in the rVE of aTIV vs HD-TIV for prevention of test-confirmed influenza ED/IP (-2.5% [-19.6, 12.2]) visits and admissions or IP admissions alone (-1.6% [-22.5, 15.7]). The exploratory individual season analyses also showed no significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from the 2017-2020 influenza seasons indicates aTIV and HD-TIV are comparable for prevention of test-confirmed influenza ED/IP visits in US adults age ≥65 years.

Relative Vaccine Effectiveness of Cell- vs Egg-Based Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine Against Test-Confirmed Influenza Over 3 Seasons Between 2017 and 2020 in the United States.

Background: Influenza vaccine viruses grown in eggs may acquire egg-adaptive mutations that may reduce antigenic similarity between vaccine and circulating influenza viruses and decrease vaccine effectiveness. We compared cell- and egg-based quadrivalent influenza vaccines (QIVc and QIVe, respectively) for preventing test-confirmed influenza over 3 US influenza seasons (2017-2020). Methods: Using a retrospective test-negative design, we estimated the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of QIVc vs QIVe among individuals aged 4 to 64 years who had an acute respiratory or febrile illness and were tested for influenza in routine outpatient care. Exposure, outcome, and covariate data were obtained from electronic health records linked to pharmacy and medical claims. Season-specific rVE was estimated by comparing the odds of testing positive for influenza among QIVc vs QIVe recipients. Models were adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, influenza test date, and additional unbalanced covariates. A doubly robust approach was used combining inverse probability of treatment weights with multivariable regression. Results: The study included 31 824, 33 388, and 34 398 patients in the 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020 seasons, respectively; ∼10% received QIVc and ∼90% received QIVe. QIVc demonstrated superior effectiveness vs QIVe in prevention of test-confirmed influenza: rVEs were 14.8% (95% CI, 7.0%-22.0%) in 2017-2018, 12.5% (95% CI, 4.7%-19.6%) in 2018-2019, and 10.0% (95% CI, 2.7%-16.7%) in 2019-2020. Conclusions: This study demonstrated consistently superior effectiveness of QIVc vs QIVe in preventing test-confirmed influenza over 3 seasons characterized by different circulating viruses and degrees of egg adaptation.

Relative Effectiveness of the MF59®-Adjuvanted Influenza Vaccine Versus High-Dose and Non-Adjuvanted Influenza Vaccines in Preventing Cardiorespiratory Hospitalizations During the 2019-2020 US Influenza Season.

BACKGROUND: Adults ≥ 65 years of age have suboptimal influenza vaccination responses compared to younger adults due to age-related immunosenescence. Two vaccines were specifically developed to enhance protection: MF59-adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine (aIIV3) and high-dose egg-based trivalent influenza vaccine (HD-IIV3e). METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study conducted using US electronic medical records linked to claims data during the 2019-2020 influenza season, we compared the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of aIIV3 with HD-IIV3e and a standard-dose non-adjuvanted egg-based quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4e) for the prevention of cardiorespiratory hospitalizations, including influenza hospitalizations. We evaluated outcomes in the "any" diagnosis position and the "admitting" position on the claim. A doubly robust methodology using inverse probability of treatment weighting and logistic regression was used to adjust for covariate imbalance. rVE was calculated as 100 * (1 - ORadjusted). RESULTS: The study included 4,299,594 adults ≥ 65 years of age who received aIIV3, HD-IIV3e, or IIV4e. Overall, aIIV3 was associated with lower proportions of cardiorespiratory hospitalizations with diagnoses in any position compared to HD-IIV3e (rVE = 3.9% [95% CI, 2.7-5.0]) or IIV4e (9.0% [95% CI, 7.7-10.4]). Specifically, aIIV3 was more effective compared with HD-IIV3e and IIV4e in preventing influenza hospitalizations (HD-IIV3e: 9.7% [95% CI, 1.9-17.0]; IIV4e: 25.3% [95% CI, 17.7-32.2]). Consistent trends were observed for admitting diagnoses. CONCLUSION: Relative to both HD-IIV3e and IIV4e, aIIV3 provided improved protection from cardiorespiratory or influenza hospitalizations.

A clinical and economic assessment of adjuvanted trivalent versus standard egg-derived quadrivalent influenza vaccines among older adults in the United States during the 2018-19 and 2019-20 influenza seasons.

BACKGROUND: Clinical evidence supports use of enhanced influenza vaccines in older adults. Few economic outcome studies have compared adjuvanted trivalent inactivated (aIIV3) and standard egg-derived quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV4e). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted leveraging deidentified US hospital data linked to claims data during the 2018-19 and 2019-20 influenza seasons. Relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) was compared in adults aged ≥ 65 years receiving aIIV3 or IIV4e using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and Poisson regression. An economic assessment quantified potential real-world cost savings. RESULTS: The study included 715,807 aIIV3 and 320,991 IIV4e recipients in the 2018-19 and 844,169 aIIV3 and 306,270 IIV4e recipients in the 2019-20 influenza seasons. aIIV3 was significantly more effective than IIV4e in preventing cardiorespiratory disease (2018-19 rVE = 6.2%; and 2019-20 rVE = 6.0%) and respiratory disease (2018-19 rVE = 8.9%; and 2019-20 rVE = 10.1%). During the 2018-19 influenza season cardiorespiratory hospitalization cost savings for the aIIV3 population were $392 M, and $221 M for the 2019-20 season. Respiratory hospitalization cost savings for the aIIV3 population were $145 M and $97 M, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that aIIV3 provides clinical and economic advantages versus IIV4e in the elderly.

Flu vaccines do not work as well in older adults due to the aging of their immune system. One approach to improving vaccine efficacy is the addition of a substance, or adjuvant, to the vaccine in order to boost an individual's immune response. This study evaluated an adjuvanted vaccine compared to an unadjuvanted vaccine for preventing cardiorespiratory hospitalizations and hospitalization costs. The findings demonstrated that the adjuvanted flu vaccine, compared to the unadjuvanted vaccine, prevented more hospitalizations and greatly reduced associated hospital costs.

Comparative Effectiveness of Bivalent (Original/Omicron BA.4/BA.5) COVID-19 Vaccines in Adults.

The emergence of Omicron variants coincided with declining vaccine-induced protection against SARS-CoV-2. Two bivalent mRNA vaccines, mRNA-1273.222 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 Bivalent (Pfizer-BioNTech), were developed to provide greater protection against the predominate circulating variants by including mRNA that encodes both the ancestral (original) strain and BA.4/BA.5. We estimated their relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) in preventing COVID-19-related outcomes in the US using a nationwide dataset linking primary care electronic health records and pharmacy/medical claims data. The study population (aged ≥18 years) received either vaccine between 31 August 2022 and 28 February 2023. We used propensity score weighting to adjust for baseline differences between groups. We estimated the rVE against COVID-19-related hospitalizations (primary outcome) and outpatient visits (secondary) for 1,034,538 mRNA-1273.222 and 1,670,666 BNT162b2 Bivalent vaccine recipients, with an adjusted rVE of 9.8% (95% confidence interval: 2.6-16.4%) and 5.1% (95% CI: 3.2-6.9%), respectively, for mRNA-1273.222 versus BNT162b2 Bivalent. The incremental relative effectiveness was greater among adults ≥ 65; the rVE against COVID-19-related hospitalizations and outpatient visits in these patients was 13.5% (95% CI: 5.5-20.8%) and 10.7% (8.2-13.1%), respectively. Overall, we found greater effectiveness of mRNA-1273.222 compared with the BNT162b2 Bivalent vaccine in preventing COVID-19-related hospitalizations and outpatient visits, with increased benefits in older adults.

COVID-19 vaccine booster doses provide increased protection against COVID-19 hospitalization compared with previously vaccinated individuals: Interim findings from the REFORCO-Brazil real-world effectiveness study during Delta and Omicron.

BACKGROUND: Although COVID-19 booster vaccination is widely recommended, there is limited long-term, population-level, real-world evidence on the magnitude of improved protection against severe COVID-19 conferred by boosting with monovalent COVID-19 vaccines developed against ancestral SARS-CoV-2, especially in low- or middle-income countries. We present interim results from the first large-scale assessment of the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of first and second booster doses against severe COVID-19 in a low-/middle-income country. METHODS: REFORCO-Brazil is an ongoing, test-negative case-control study (NCT05697705) utilizing Brazil national severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) surveillance and vaccination data. In SARS hospitalizations from August 1, 2021 to July 31, 2022, we matched test-positive (via SARS-CoV-2 antigen/reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction [RT-PCR]) cases and test-negative case-controls (via RT-PCR) based on admission date, preceding vaccinations, and age. We evaluated the rVEs of four monovalent COVID-19 vaccines (AZD1222, Ad26.COV2.S, CoronaVac, and BNT162b2) as second boosters compared with any first boosters received ≥4 months previously, and as first boosters compared with primary-series vaccinations completed ≥4 months previously. RESULTS: The overall rVE of second boosters, from 5668 (2238 test-positive) evaluated hospitalizations, was 24.7 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 12.6-35.1); the overall rVE of first boosters, from 30,272 (12,063 test-positive) hospitalizations, was 46.8 % (95 % CI: 43.3-50.0). The rVEs of AZD1222 and BNT162b2 were similar: 29.4 % (95 % CI: 8.6-45.5) and 25.5 % (95 % CI: 4.2-42.2), respectively, for second boosters; and 42.5 % (95 % CI: 28.0-54.0) and 50.8 % (95 % CI: 47.5-54.0), respectively, for first boosters. In general, rVEs were higher in elderly (≥80 years) and immunocompromised/high-risk individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the use of AZD1222 and other adenoviral/mRNA vaccine boosters to maintain protection against COVID-19 hospitalization from Omicron subvariants, including in elderly and immunocompromised individuals at increased risk of accelerated waning or severe outcomes.

Relative Effectiveness of the Cell-Based Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine in Preventing Cardiorespiratory Hospitalizations in Adults Aged 18-64 Years During the 2019-2020 US Influenza Season.

Background: The mammalian cell-based quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4c) has advantages over egg-based quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4e), as production using cell-derived candidate viruses eliminates the opportunity for egg adaptation. This study estimated the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of IIV4c versus IIV4e in preventing cardiorespiratory hospitalizations during the 2019-2020 US influenza season. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using electronic medical records linked to claims data of US individuals aged 18-64 years. We assessed rVE against cardiorespiratory hospitalizations and against subcategories of this outcome, including influenza, pneumonia, myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke, and respiratory hospitalizations. We used a doubly robust inverse probability of treatment weighting and logistic regression model to obtain odds ratios (ORs; odds of outcome among IIV4c recipients/odds of outcome among IIV4e recipients) adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, geographic region, vaccination week, health status, frailty, and healthcare resource utilization. rVE was calculated as 100(1 - ORadjusted). Results: In total, 1 491 097 individuals (25.2%) received IIV4c, and 4 414 758 (74.8%) received IIV4e. IIV4c was associated with lower odds of cardiorespiratory (rVE, 2.5% [95% confidence interval, 0.9%-4.1%]), respiratory (3.7% [1.5%-5.8%]), and influenza (9.3% [0.4%-17.3%]) hospitalizations among adults 18-64 years of age. No difference was observed for the other outcomes. Conclusions: This real-world study conducted for the 2019-2020 season demonstrated that vaccination with IIV4c was associated with fewer cardiorespiratory, respiratory, and influenza hospitalizations compared with IIV4e.

Relative Effectiveness of BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and Ad26.COV2.S Vaccines and Homologous Boosting in Preventing COVID-19 in Adults in the US.

Background: Few head-to-head comparisons have been performed on the real-world effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) booster vaccines. We evaluated the relative effectiveness (rVE) of a primary series of mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2 and Ad26.COV2.S and a homologous mRNA booster against any medically attended, outpatient, and hospitalized COVID-19. Methods: A data set linking primary care electronic medical records with medical claims data was used for this retrospective cohort study of US patients age ≥18 years vaccinated with a primary series between February and October 2021 (Part 1) and a homologous mRNA booster between October 2021 and January 2022 (Part 2). Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were derived from 1:1 matching adjusted across potential covariates. rVE was (1 - HRadjusted) × 100. Additional analysis was performed across regions and age groups. Results: Following adjustment, Part 1 rVE for mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2 was 23% (95% CI, 22%-25%), 23% (95% CI, 22%-25%), and 19% (95% CI, 14%-24%), while the rVE for mRNA-1273 vs Ad26.COV2.S was 50% (95% CI, 48%-51%), 50% (95% CI, 48%-52%), and 57% (95% CI, 53%-61%) against any medically attended, outpatient, and hospitalized COVID-19, respectively. The adjusted rVE in Part 2 for mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2 was 14% (95% CI, 10%-18%), 13% (95% CI, 8%-17%), and 19% (95% CI, 1%-34%) against any medically attended, outpatient, and hospitalized COVID-19, respectively. rVE against medically attended COVID-19 was higher in adults age ≥65 years (35%; 95% CI, 24%-47%) than in those age 18-64 years (13%; 95% CI, 9%-17%) after the booster. Conclusions: In this study, mRNA-1273 was more effective than BNT162b2 or Ad26.COV2.S following a primary series during the Delta-dominant period and more effective than BNT162b2 as a booster during the Omicron-dominant period.

The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against severe cases and deaths in Brazil from 2021 to 2022: a registry-based study.

Background: Brazil started the COVID-19 mass vaccination in January 2021 with CoronaVac and ChAdOx1, followed by BNT162b2 and Ad26.COV2.S vaccines. By the end of 2021, more than 317 million vaccine doses were administered in the adult population. This study aimed at estimating the effectiveness of the primary series of COVID-19 vaccination and booster shots in protecting against severe cases and deaths in Brazil during the first year of vaccination. Methods: A cohort dataset of over 158 million vaccination and severe cases records linked from official national registries was analyzed via a mixed-effects Poisson model, adjusted for age, state of residence, time after immunization, and calendar time to estimate the absolute vaccine effectiveness of the primary series of vaccination and the relative effectiveness of the booster. The method permitted analysis of effectiveness against hospitalizations and deaths, including in the periods of variant dominance. Findings: Vaccine effectiveness against severe cases and deaths remained over 25% and 50%, respectively, after 19 weeks from primary vaccination of BNT162b2, ChAdOx1, or CoronaVac vaccines. The boosters conferred greater protection than the primary series of vaccination, with heterologous boosters providing marginally greater protection than homologous. The effectiveness against hospitalization during the Omicron dominance in the 60+ years old population started at 61.7% (95% CI, 26.1-86.2) for ChAdOx1, 95.6% (95% CI, 82.4-99.9) for CoronaVac, and 72.3% (95% CI, 51.4-87.4) for the BNT162b2 vaccine. Interpretation: This study provides real-world evidence of the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in Brazil, including during the Omicron wave, demonstrating protection even after waning effectiveness. Comparisons of the effectiveness among different vaccines require caution due to potential bias effects related to age groups, periods in the pandemic, and eventual behavioural changes. Funding: Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ), Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ), Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), Departamento de Ciência e Tecnologia da Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovação e Insumos Estratégicos em Saúde do Ministério da Saúde do Brasil (DECIT/SCTIE/MS).

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.

Absolute and Relative Vaccine Effectiveness of Primary and Booster Series of COVID-19 Vaccines (mRNA and Adenovirus Vector) Against COVID-19 Hospitalizations in the United States, December 2021-April 2022.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies are increasingly reporting relative VE (rVE) comparing a primary series plus booster doses with a primary series only. Interpretation of rVE differs from traditional studies measuring absolute VE (aVE) of a vaccine regimen against an unvaccinated referent group. We estimated aVE and rVE against COVID-19 hospitalization in primary-series plus first-booster recipients of COVID-19 vaccines. Methods: Booster-eligible immunocompetent adults hospitalized at 21 medical centers in the United States during December 25, 2021-April 4, 2022 were included. In a test-negative design, logistic regression with case status as the outcome and completion of primary vaccine series or primary series plus 1 booster dose as the predictors, adjusted for potential confounders, were used to estimate aVE and rVE. Results: A total of 2060 patients were analyzed, including 1104 COVID-19 cases and 956 controls. Relative VE against COVID-19 hospitalization in boosted mRNA vaccine recipients versus primary series only was 66% (95% confidence interval [CI], 55%-74%); aVE was 81% (95% CI, 75%-86%) for boosted versus 46% (95% CI, 30%-58%) for primary. For boosted Janssen vaccine recipients versus primary series, rVE was 49% (95% CI, -9% to 76%); aVE was 62% (95% CI, 33%-79%) for boosted versus 36% (95% CI, -4% to 60%) for primary. Conclusions: Vaccine booster doses increased protection against COVID-19 hospitalization compared with a primary series. Comparing rVE measures across studies can lead to flawed interpretations of the added value of a new vaccination regimen, whereas difference in aVE, when available, may be a more useful metric.

Relative Effectiveness of Cell-Based Versus Egg-Based Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccines in Adults During the 2019-2020 Influenza Season in the United States.

Background: Mutations occurring during egg-based influenza vaccine production may affect vaccine effectiveness. The mammalian cell-based quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4c) demonstrated improved protection relative to egg-based vaccines in prior seasons. This study estimated the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of IIV4c versus standard-dose egg-based quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4e) in preventing influenza-related medical encounters (IRMEs) in the 2019-2020 US influenza season. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using a dataset linking electronic medical records with medical and pharmacy claims data among individuals ≥18 years vaccinated with IIV4c or IIV4e during 2019-2020. A doubly robust inverse probability of treatment weighting model was used to obtain odds ratios (ORs) adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, region, vaccination week, health status, frailty, and baseline healthcare resource utilization. rVE was calculated by (1 - OR) × 100. An exploratory analysis evaluated IRMEs in inpatient and outpatient settings separately. Results: The final study cohort included 1 499 215 IIV4c and 4 126 263 IIV4e recipients ≥18 years of age. Fewer IRMEs were reported in individuals with recorded IIV4c versus IIV4e. The rVE for IIV4c versus IIIV4e for any IRME was 9.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.9%-11.1%). Inpatient and outpatient rVEs were 5.7% (95% CI, 2.1%-9.2%) and 11.4% (95% CI, 9.5%-13.3%), respectively. In age subgroup analyses, rVEs favored IIV4c except in adults aged ≥65 years. Conclusions: Adults vaccinated with IIV4c had a lower risk of IRMEs versus IIV4e recipients in the 2019-2020 US influenza season. These results support IIV4c as a potentially more effective public health measure against influenza than egg-based vaccines.

Relative Vaccine Effectiveness of Adjuvanted Trivalent Influenza Vaccine over Three Consecutive Influenza Seasons in the United States.

Traditional influenza vaccines may be less immunogenic in adults ≥65 years of age due to immunosenescence. Two influenza vaccines-MF59®-adjuvanted trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV3) and high-dose influenza vaccine (HD-IIV3)-were developed to overcome this problem. We summarize estimates of the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of aIIV3 vs. HD-IIV3 and aIIV3 vs. standard, egg-based quadrivalent influenza vaccines (IIV4e) during the 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020 US influenza seasons using the same underlying electronic medical record and linked claims dataset for all three seasons. The primary outcome was influenza-related medical encounters (IRMEs), defined by diagnostic codes specific to influenza (ICD J09*-J11*). rVE was estimated using propensity score methods adjusting for demographics and health status. rVE estimates demonstrated consistent benefit for aIIV3 over IIV4e in the overall and at-risk populations. Relative to HD-IIV3, aIIV3 provided improved benefit in the overall study population and comparable benefit in the at-risk population across each season.

Comparative effectiveness of adjuvanted versus high-dose seasonal influenza vaccines for older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: MF59-adjuvanted standard-dose and nonadjuvanted high-dose seasonal influenza vaccines have been developed to protect the elderly at high risk of severe complications. This study aimed to summarize the available evidence on the comparative efficacy/effectiveness of these two vaccines. METHODS: A systematic literature review of experimental and observational studies were conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. When possible, the extracted effect sizes were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: Ten studies were identified. Of these, no head-to-head randomized controlled trials were identified. All available studies had retrospective cohort design and large sample sizes, were conducted in the United States between the 2016-2017 and 2019-2020 seasons, and were at moderate risk of bias. Relative effectiveness estimates were limited to nonlaboratory-confirmed clinical end points, such as medical encounters including hospitalizations. Although most pooled relative effectiveness estimates were close to null, few statistically significant pooled effect sizes were small in magnitude, moved in opposite directions, and depended on the study sponsor and specificity of influenza-related outcomes. CONCLUSION: At present, MF59-adjuvanted standard-dose and nonadjuvanted high-dose vaccines appear to have similar effectiveness in preventing seasonal influenza in the elderly, and no conclusive recommendations on the preference of one vaccine over another could be drawn.

Review of Analyses Estimating Relative Vaccine Effectiveness of Cell-Based Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine in Three Consecutive US Influenza Seasons.

The adaptation of influenza seed viruses in egg culture can result in a variable antigenic vaccine match each season. The cell-based quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4c) contains viruses grown in mammalian cell lines rather than eggs. IIV4c is not subject to egg-adaptive changes and therefore may offer improved protection relative to egg-based vaccines, depending on the degree of match with circulating influenza viruses. We summarize the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of IIV4c versus egg-based quadrivalent influenza vaccines (IIV4e) to prevent influenza-related medical encounters (IRMEs) from three retrospective observational cohort studies conducted during the 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020 US influenza seasons using the same underlying electronic medical record dataset for all three seasons-with the addition of linked medical claims for the latter two seasons. We identified IRMEs using diagnostic codes specific to influenza disease (ICD J09*-J11*) from the records of over 10 million people. We estimated rVE using propensity score methods adjusting for age, sex, race, ethnicity, geographic location, week of vaccination, and health status. Subgroup analyses included specific age groups. IIV4c consistently had higher relative effectiveness than IIV4e across all seasons assessed, which were characterized by different dominant circulating strains and variable antigenic drift or egg adaptation.

Relative Effectiveness of MF59 Adjuvanted Trivalent Influenza Vaccine vs Nonadjuvanted Vaccines During the 2019-2020 Influenza Season.

Background: Age-related immunosenescence may impair the immune response to vaccination in older adults. Adjuvanted influenza vaccines are designed to overcome immune senescence in older adults. This study estimated the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of MF59-adjuvanted trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV3) vs egg-derived quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4e) and high-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV3) in preventing influenza-related medical encounters in the 2019-2020 US season. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used electronic medical records linked to pharmacy and medical claims data. The study population included adults age ≥65 years with a record of aIIV3, IIV4e, or HD-IIV3 vaccination. A doubly robust inverse probability of treatment weighting model was used to derive adjusted odds ratios (ORs). rVE was calculated by (1 - ORadjusted)*100 and was determined overall and separately for age subgroups. An exploratory analysis evaluated the outcome separately in inpatient and outpatient settings. Results: Subjects received aIIV3 (n = 936 508), IIV3e (n = 651 034), and HD-IIV3 (n = 1 813 819), and influenza-related medical encounters were recorded in 0.5%, 0.9%, and 0.7% of each cohort, respectively. Overall, the rVE of aIIV3 was 27.5% (95% CI, 24.4% to 30.5%) vs IIV4e and 13.9% (95% CI, 10.7% to 17.0%) vs HD-IIV3. aIIV3 had a more favorable rVE in inpatient and outpatient settings. Findings remained consistent across age subgroups and during alternative seasonal dates. Conclusions: Adults age ≥65 years vaccinated with aIIV3 had fewer influenza-related medical encounters compared with IIV4e or HD-IIV3 during the 2019-2020 US influenza season.

Influence of disease attenuation on relative influenza vaccine effectiveness by vaccine type.

Benefit conferred by "enhanced" influenza vaccines is often measured by relative vaccine effectiveness, (rVE), which compares disease risk among groups of people who received alternative vaccines. Differences in attenuation of illness severity by vaccine types could manifest as differences in rVE. Using a simulated VE study and cohort of adults aged ≥ 65 years, we examined how rVE varied with assumptions about attenuation of disease severity conferred by standard and enhanced vaccines and how this variation could lead to differing estimates of rVE for prevention of moderate (i.e., outpatient) versus severe (i.e., inpatient) influenza illness. We found that if enhanced vaccines attenuated severe illness more than moderate illness, then rVE observed against severe disease could be higher than rVE observed against moderate disease. Thus, if differences in disease attenuation by vaccine type occurs, estimates of rVE may vary for influenza outcomes of differing levels of severity.

A Real-World Clinical and Economic Analysis of Cell-Derived Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine Compared to Standard Egg-Derived Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccines During the 2019-2020 Influenza Season in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Cell-derived influenza vaccines are not subject to egg-adaptive mutations that have potential to decrease vaccine effectiveness. This retrospective analysis estimated the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of cell-derived quadrivalent influenza vaccine (IIV4c) compared to standard egg-derived quadrivalent influenza vaccines (IIV4e) among recipients aged 4-64 years in the United States during the 2019-2020 influenza season. METHODS: The IQVIA PharMetrics Plus administrative claims database was utilized. Study outcomes were assessed postvaccination through the end of the study period (7 March 2020). Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was implemented to adjust for covariate imbalance. Adjusted rVE against influenza-related hospitalizations/emergency room (ER) visits and other clinical outcomes was estimated through IPTW-weighted Poisson regression models for the IIV4c and IIV4e cohorts and for the subgroup with ≥1 high-risk condition. Sensitivity analyses modifying the outcome assessment period as well as a doubly-robust analysis were also conducted. IPTW-weighted generalized linear models were used to estimate predicted annualized all-cause costs. RESULTS: The final sample comprised 1 150 134 IIV4c and 3 924 819 IIV4e recipients following IPTW adjustment. IIV4c was more effective in preventing influenza-related hospitalizations/ER visits as well as respiratory-related hospitalizations/ER visits compared to IIV4e. IIV4c was also more effective for the high-risk subgroup and across the sensitivity analyses. IIV4c was also associated with significantly lower annualized all-cause total costs compared to IIV4e (-$467), driven by lower costs for outpatient medical services and inpatient hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: IIV4c was significantly more effective in preventing influenza-related hospitalizations/ER visits compared to IIV4e and was associated with significantly lower all-cause costs.

Relative Effectiveness of Cell-Cultured versus Egg-Based Seasonal Influenza Vaccines in Preventing Influenza-Related Outcomes in Subjects 18 Years Old or Older: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Avian mutations in vaccine strains obtained from embryonated eggs could impair vaccine effectiveness. 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 influenza 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; applied exclusion criteria, evaluated risk of bias of the evidence, and performed heterogeneity, publication bias, qualitative, quantitative and sensitivity analyses. All estimates were computed using 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. 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% (-2% 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.

Comparing the Clinical and Economic Outcomes Associated with Adjuvanted versus High-Dose Trivalent Influenza Vaccine among Adults Aged ≥ 65 Years in the US during the 2019-20 Influenza Season-A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

The burden of influenza is disproportionally higher among older adults. We evaluated the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of adjuvanted trivalent (aIIV3) compared to high-dose trivalent influenza vaccine (HD-IIV3e) against influenza and cardio-respiratory disease (CRD)-related hospitalizations/ER visits among adults ≥65 years during the 2019-2020 influenza season. Economic outcomes were also compared. A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using prescription, professional fee claims, and hospital data. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for confounding. IPTW-adjusted Poisson regression was used to evaluate the adjusted rVE of aIIV3 versus HD-IIV3e. All-cause and influenza-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs were examined post-IPTW. Recycled predictions from generalized linear models were used to estimate adjusted costs. Adjusted analysis showed that aIIV3 (n = 798,987) was similarly effective compared to HD-IIV3e (n = 1,655,979) in preventing influenza-related hospitalizations/ER visits (rVE 3.1%; 95% CI: -2.8%; 8.6%), hospitalizations due to any cause (-0.7%; 95% CI: -1.6%; 0.3%), and any CRD-related hospitalization/ER visit (0.9%; 95% CI: 0.01%; 1.7%). Adjusted HCRU and annualized costs were also statistically insignificant between the two cohorts. The adjusted clinical and economic outcomes evaluated in this study were comparable between aIIV3 and HD-IIV3e during the 2019-2020 influenza season.