Measuring waning protection from seasonal influenza vaccination during nine influenza seasons, Ontario, Canada, 2010/11 to 2018/19.

BackgroundWaning immunity from seasonal influenza vaccination can cause suboptimal protection during peak influenza activity. However, vaccine effectiveness studies assessing waning immunity using vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals are subject to biases.AimWe examined the association between time since vaccination and laboratory-confirmed influenza to assess the change in influenza vaccine protection over time.MethodsUsing linked laboratory and health administrative databases in Ontario, Canada, we identified community-dwelling individuals aged ≥ 6 months who received an influenza vaccine before being tested for influenza by RT-PCR during the 2010/11 to 2018/19 influenza seasons. We estimated the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for laboratory-confirmed influenza by time since vaccination (categorised into intervals) and for every 28 days.ResultsThere were 53,065 individuals who were vaccinated before testing for influenza, with 10,264 (19%) influenza-positive cases. The odds of influenza increased from 1.05 (95% CI: 0.91-1.22) at 42-69 days after vaccination and peaked at 1.27 (95% CI: 1.04-1.55) at 126-153 days when compared with the reference interval (14-41 days). This corresponded to 1.09-times increased odds of influenza every 28 days (aOR = 1.09; 95% CI: 1.04-1.15). Individuals aged 18-64 years showed the greatest decline in protection against influenza A(H1N1) (aORper 28 days = 1.26; 95% CI: 0.97-1.64), whereas for individuals aged ≥ 65 years, it was against influenza A(H3N2) (aORper 28 days = 1.20; 95% CI: 1.08-1.33). We did not observe evidence of waning vaccine protection for individuals aged < 18 years.ConclusionsInfluenza vaccine protection wanes during an influenza season. Understanding the optimal timing of vaccination could ensure robust protection during seasonal influenza activity.

Exploring indirect protection associated with influenza immunization - A systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Influenza causes significant annual morbidity and mortality, particularly in older adults, for whom influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) is also lower. Immunizing one group (e.g., children) against influenza may indirectly protect another group (e.g., older adults) against influenza and its complications. METHODS: We updated previous systematic reviews on indirect protection against influenza by searching MEDLINE and EMBASE for relevant human studies published until January 4, 2017. We abstracted and critically appraised English language publications that reported or provided information to calculate indirect VE against influenza, as a percentage, in non-institutional settings. We developed a term called 'estimated actual protection' to explore the relationship between indirect protection and the product of direct VE and relative vaccine coverage. We calculated estimated actual protection for a subset of studies that reported coverage and indirect VE for: laboratory-confirmed influenza; outpatient care for respiratory illness; influenza-associated emergency visits; or influenza-associated hospitalizations. We ran linear mixed models to compare estimated actual protection against indirect VE for the four outcomes, and graphed the data. RESULTS: Of 2320 unique records identified, we abstracted and appraised 26 articles describing 24 studies. The majority of included studies reported at least one outcome suggesting that immunizing one group reduced influenza-related outcomes in another group. Critical appraisal of the abstracted studies identified recurring methodological weaknesses, such as lack of laboratory-confirmed influenza. Our exploratory analyses of 18 studies indicated a positive but not statistically significant relationship between estimated actual protection and indirect protection for each of the four outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review and exploratory analyses suggest influenza immunization provides some level of indirect protection. However, our critical appraisal highlights the need for a standardized and consistently applied approach to measuring indirect protection against influenza to fill existing knowledge gaps. Additionally, the concept of estimated actual protection requires validation.

The impact of repeated vaccination on influenza vaccine effectiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Conflicting results regarding the impact of repeated vaccination on influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) may cause confusion regarding the benefits of receiving the current season's vaccine. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from database inception to August 17, 2016, for observational studies published in English that reported VE against laboratory-confirmed influenza for the following four vaccination groups: current season only, prior season only, both seasons, and neither season. We pooled differences in VE (∆VE) between vaccination groups by influenza season and type/subtype using a random-effects model. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42016037241). RESULTS: We identified 3435 unique articles, reviewed the full text of 634, and included 20 for meta-analysis. Compared to prior season vaccination only, vaccination in both seasons was associated with greater protection against influenza H1N1 (∆VE = 25%; 95% CI 14%, 35%) and B (∆VE = 18%; 95% CI 3%, 33%), but not H3N2 (∆VE = 7%; 95% CI - 7%, 21%). Compared to no vaccination for either season, individuals who received the current season's vaccine had greater protection against H1N1 (∆VE = 62%; 95% CI 51%, 70%), H3N2 (∆VE = 45%; 95% CI 35%, 53%), and B (∆VE = 64%; 95% CI 57%, 71%). We observed no differences in VE between vaccination in both seasons and the current season only for H1N1 (∆VE = 3%; 95% CI - 8%, 13%), but less protection against influenza H3N2 (∆VE = - 20%; 95% CI - 36%, - 4%), and B (∆VE = - 11%; 95% CI - 20%, - 2%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results support current season vaccination regardless of prior season vaccination because VE for vaccination in the current season only is higher compared to no vaccination in either season for all types/subtypes, and for H1N1 and influenza B, vaccination in both seasons provides better VE than vaccination in the prior season only. Although VE was lower against H3N2 and B for individuals vaccinated in both seasons compared to those vaccinated in the current season only, it should be noted that past vaccination history cannot be altered and this comparison disregards susceptibility to influenza during the prior season among those vaccinated in the current season only. In addition, our results for H3N2 were particularly influenced by the 2014-2015 influenza season and the impact of repeated vaccination for all types/subtypes may vary from season to season. It is important that future VE studies include vaccination history over multiple seasons to evaluate repeated vaccination in more detail.

Retraction Note: The impact of repeated vaccination on influenza vaccine effectiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The authors have retracted this article, The impact of repeated vaccination on influenza vaccine effectiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Effectiveness of Live Attenuated vs Inactivated Influenza Vaccines in Children During the 2012-2013 Through 2015-2016 Influenza Seasons in Alberta, Canada: A Canadian Immunization Research Network (CIRN) Study.

Importance: Recent observational studies report conflicting results regarding the effectiveness of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV), particularly against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of LAIV and inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) against laboratory-confirmed influenza. Design, Setting, and Participants: A test-negative study to estimate influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) using population-based, linked, individual-level laboratory, health administrative, and immunization data. Data were obtained from 10 169 children and adolescents aged 2 to 17 years (children) who were tested for influenza in inpatient or outpatient settings during periods when influenza was circulating based on a threshold level of 5% weekly test positivity for the province during the 4 influenza seasons spanning from November 11, 2012, to April 30, 2016, in Alberta, Canada. Logistic regression was used to estimate VE by vaccine type, influenza season, and influenza type and subtype. The relative effectiveness of each vaccine type was assessed by comparing the odds of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection for LAIV recipients with that for IIV recipients. Exposures: The primary exposure was receipt of LAIV or IIV before testing for influenza. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was influenza case status as determined by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction testing. Results: A total of 10 779 respiratory specimens (from 10 169 children) collected and tested for influenza during the 4 influenza seasons were included, with 53.4% from males; the mean (SD) age was 7.0 (4.6) years. Across the 4 influenza seasons, 3161 children tested positive for influenza. Combining the 4 influenza seasons, the adjusted VE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 was 69% (95% CI, 56%-78%) for LAIV compared with 79% (95% CI, 70%-86%) for IIV. Vaccine effectiveness against influenza A(H3N2) was 36% (95% CI, 14%-53%) for LAIV and 43% (95% CI, 22%-59%) for IIV. Against influenza B, VE was 74% (95% CI, 62%-82%) for LAIV and 56% (95% CI, 41%-66%) for IIV. There were no significant differences in the odds of influenza infection for LAIV recipients compared with IIV recipients except for influenza B during the 2015-2016 season, when LAIV recipients had lower odds of infection than IIV recipients (odds ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.17-0.76). Conclusions and Relevance: There was no evidence to support the lack of effectiveness of LAIV against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09. These results support administration of either vaccine type in this age group.

The impact of repeated vaccination on influenza vaccine effectiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Conflicting results regarding the impact of repeated vaccination on influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) may cause confusion regarding the benefits of receiving the current season's vaccine. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from database inception to August 17, 2016, for observational studies published in English that reported VE against laboratory-confirmed influenza for four vaccination groups, namely current season only, prior season only, both seasons, and neither season. We pooled differences in VE (∆VE) between vaccination groups by influenza season and type/subtype using a random effects model. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42016037241). RESULTS: We identified 3435 unique articles, reviewed the full text of 634, and included 20 for meta-analysis. Compared to prior season vaccination only, vaccination in both seasons was associated with greater protection against influenza H1N1 (∆VE = 26%; 95% CI, 15% to 36%) and B (∆VE = 24%; 95% CI, 7% to 42%), but not H3N2 (∆VE = 10%; 95% CI, -6% to 25%). Compared to no vaccination for either season, individuals who received the current season's vaccine had greater protection against H1N1 (∆VE = 61%; 95% CI, 50% to 70%), H3N2 (∆VE = 41%; 95% CI, 33% to 48%), and B (∆VE = 62%; 95% CI, 54% to 68%). We observed no differences in VE between vaccination in both seasons and the current season only for H1N1 (∆VE = 4%; 95% CI, -7% to 15%), H3N2 (∆VE = -12%; 95% CI, -27% to 4%), or B (∆VE = -8%; 95% CI, -17% to 1%). CONCLUSIONS: From the patient perspective, our results support current season vaccination regardless of prior season vaccination. We found no overall evidence that prior season vaccination negatively impacts current season VE. It is important that future VE studies include vaccination history over multiple seasons in order to evaluate repeated vaccination in more detail.

Canada's National Advisory Committee on Immunization: Celebrating 50 years.

Vaccines have saved more lives than any other innovation in modern medicine. National immunization committees play a vital role in the development of evidence-based recommendations for the use of vaccines. The present article describes the evolution and work of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization in Canada as the group marks its 50th anniversary. The article also provides insight into the future challenges that the committee is likely to face.

Les vaccins ont sauvé plus de vies que n'importe quelle autre innovation de la médecine moderne. Les comités nationaux d'immunisation jouent un rôle essentiel dans la préparation de recommandations fondées sur des données probantes relatives à l'utilisation des vaccins. Le présent article décrit l'évolution et le travail du Comité consultatif national de l'immunisation du Canada, qui célèbre son cinquantième anniversaire. Il contient également un aperçu des prochains défis que le comité devra probablement relever.

Canada's National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI): evidence-based decision-making on vaccines and immunization.

The National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) provides medical, scientific, and public health advice on the use of vaccines in Canada. This article describes the structure and processes of NACI, as well as its approach to evidence-based decision-making. In a rapidly evolving and complex immunization environment, NACI has faced challenges in its endeavour to make thorough and timely evidence-based recommendations. Making population-level recommendations without formally considering the full spectrum of public health science (e.g. cost-effectiveness) presents difficulties in the implementation of NACI's recommendations. Although an improved and more transparent evidence-based NACI decision-making process is now in place, this is continuing to evolve with a current review of structures and processes underway to further improve effectiveness and efficiencies.