4.5 Article

Influenza vaccine effectiveness in Italy: Age, subtype-specific and vaccine type estimates 2014/15 season

期刊

VACCINE
卷 34, 期 27, 页码 3102-3108

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.04.072

关键词

Influenza; Vaccine effectiveness; Test negative case-control studies

资金

  1. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) [ECDC/2014/026]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The 2014/15 influenza season in Europe was characterised by the circulation of influenza A(H3N2) viruses with an antigenic and genetic mismatch from the vaccine strain A/Texas/50/2012(H3N2) recommended for the Northern hemisphere for the 2014/15 season. Italy, differently from other EU countries where most of the subtyped influenza A viruses were H3N2, experienced a 2014/15 season characterized by an extended circulation of two influenza viruses: A(H1N1)pdm09 and A(H3N2), that both contributed substantially to morbidity. Within the context of the existing National sentinel influenza surveillance system (InfluNet) a test-negative case-control study was established in order to produce vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates. The point estimates VE were adjusted by age group (<5; 5-15; 15-64; 65+ years), the presence of at least one chronic condition, target group for vaccination and need help for walking or bathing. In Italy, adjusted estimates of the 2014/15 seasonal influenza VE against medically attended influenza-like illness (ILI) laboratory-confirmed as influenza for all age groups were 6.0% (95%CI:-36.5 to 35.2%), 43.6% (95%CI: -3.7 to 69.3%),-84.5% (95%CI: (-190.4 to-17.2%) and 50.7% (95% CI:-2.5 to 76.3%) against any influenza virus, A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2) and B, respectively. These results suggest evidence of good VE against A(H1N1)pdm09 and B viruses in Italy and evidence of lack of VE against A(H3N2) virus due to antigenic and genetic mismatch between circulating A(H3N2) and the respective 2014/15 vaccine strain. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据