RESUMO
Several studies have reported the waning effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. This study aims to demonstrate the applicability of the screening method for estimating vaccine effectiveness (VE) in a pandemic. We report VE in Hungary, estimated with the screening method, in 2021, covering a period of Alpha and the Delta variant, including the booster dose roll-out. Hungary is in a unique position to use six different vaccines in the same population. All vaccines provided a high level of protection initially, which declined over time. While the picture is different in each age group, the waning of immunity is apparent for all vaccines, especially in the younger age groups and the Sinopharm, Sputnik-V, and AstraZeneca vaccines, which performed similarly. This is clearly reversed by booster doses, more prominent for those three vaccines, where the decline in protection is more evident. Overall, two vaccines, Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, tend to produce the best results in all age groups, even with waning immunity considered. Using the screening method in future pandemic waves is worthwhile, especially in countries struggling with a lack of resources or when there is a need to deliver VE results within a short timeframe due to urgent decision-making.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: In the first five I-MOVE (Influenza Monitoring Vaccine Effectiveness in Europe) influenza seasons vaccine effectiveness (VE) results were relatively homogenous among participating study sites. In 2013-2014, we undertook a multicentre case-control study based on sentinel practitioner surveillance networks in six European Union (EU) countries to measure 2013-2014 influenza VE against medically-attended influenza-like illness (ILI) laboratory-confirmed as influenza. Influenza A(H3N2) and A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses co-circulated during the season. METHODS: Practitioners systematically selected ILI patients to swab within eight days of symptom onset. We compared cases (ILI positive to influenza A(H3N2) or A(H1N1)pdm09) to influenza negative patients. We calculated VE for the two influenza A subtypes and adjusted for potential confounders. We calculated heterogeneity between sites using the I(2) index and Cochrane's Q test. If the I(2) was <50%, we estimated pooled VE as (1 minus the OR)×100 using a one-stage model with study site as a fixed effect. If the I(2) was >49% we used a two-stage random effects model. RESULTS: We included in the A(H1N1)pdm09 analysis 531 cases and 1712 controls and in the A(H3N2) analysis 623 cases and 1920 controls. For A(H1N1)pdm09, the Q test (p=0.695) and the I(2) index (0%) suggested no heterogeneity of adjusted VE between study sites. Using a one-stage model, the overall pooled adjusted VE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm2009 was 47.5% (95% CI: 16.4-67.0). For A(H3N2), the I(2) was 51.5% (p=0.067). Using a two-stage model for the pooled analysis, the adjusted VE against A(H3N2) was 29.7 (95% CI: -34.4-63.2). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest a moderate 2013-2014 influenza VE against A(H1N1)pdm09 and a low VE against A(H3N2). The A(H3N2) estimates were heterogeneous among study sites. Larger sample sizes by study site are needed to prevent statistical heterogeneity, decrease variability and allow for two-stage pooled VE for all subgroup analyses.
