4.5 Review

Change in the efficacy of influenza vaccination after repeated inoculation under antigenic mismatch: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

VACCINE
Volume 36, Issue 7, Pages 949-957

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.01.023

Keywords

Influenza vaccine; Antigenic match; Repeated vaccination; Natural infection; Children

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To examine the effects of repeated influenza vaccination on medically-attended influenza (MAI) and acute respiratory illness (ARI) risk according to the antigenic matching between vaccine and circulating virus strains. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized studies that compared the risk of MAI and ARI between subjects who had been vaccinated for two consecutive seasons (multiple vaccine group) and those who had been vaccinated in the current season and not in the previous season (single vaccine group). Results: Of 1467 articles identified, eight studies covering ten seasons were included in meta-analyses. Six studies assessed efficacy against MAI in children, yielding the risk ratios (RR) of 2.04 (95% CI 1.29-3.22) when circulating strains mismatched vaccine strains, and 0.64 (0.33-1.22) when circulating strains matched vaccine strains. When stratified by vaccine types, the reduced efficacy was significant for live attenuated influenza vaccine only. Three studies investigated efficacy against ARI in children, with the RR of 0.96 (0.81-1.15). The results on adults and the elderly were scarce. Conclusions: Influenza vaccine efficacy against mismatch strains was lower in repeatedly vaccinated children as compared with those vaccinated for the current season only. The scarcity of available studies may call for further randomized controlled trials on repeated influenza vaccination. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available