The Journal of infectious diseases · 2013
Effectiveness of monovalent 2009 pandemic influenza A virus subtype H1N1 and 2010-2011 trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines in Wisconsin during the 2010-2011 influenza season.
СтатьяПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bateman Allen C, Kieke Burney A, Irving Stephanie A, Meece Jennifer K, Shay David K, Belongia Edward A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The 2009 influenza A virus subtype H1N1 (A[H1N1]pdm09) did not exhibit antigenic drift during the 2010-2011 influenza season, providing an opportunity to investigate the duration of protection after vaccination. We estimated the independent effects of 2010-2011 seasonal trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) and A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine for preventing medically attended influenza A virus infection during the 2010-2011 season.
METHODS: Individuals were tested for influenza A virus by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) after a clinical encounter for acute respiratory illness. Case-control analyses compared participants with rRT-PCR-confirmed influenza A virus infection and test-negative controls. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated separately for monovalent pandemic vaccine and TIV and was calculated as 100 × [1 - adjusted odds ratio], where the odds ratio was adjusted for potential confounders.
RESULTS: The effectiveness of TIV against influenza A virus infection was 63% (95% confidence interval [CI], 37%-78%). The effectiveness of TIV against A(H1N1)pdm09 infection was 77% (95% CI, 44%-90%). Monovalent vaccine administered between October 2009 and April 2010 was not protective during the 2010-2011 season, with an effectiveness of -1% (95% CI, -146% to 59%) against A(H1N1)pdm09 infection.
CONCLUSIONS: Monovalent vaccine provided no sustained protection against A(H1N1)pdm09 infection during the 2010-2011 season. This waning effectiveness supports the need for annual revaccination, even in the absence of antigenic drift in A(H1N1)pdm09.
METHODS: Individuals were tested for influenza A virus by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) after a clinical encounter for acute respiratory illness. Case-control analyses compared participants with rRT-PCR-confirmed influenza A virus infection and test-negative controls. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated separately for monovalent pandemic vaccine and TIV and was calculated as 100 × [1 - adjusted odds ratio], where the odds ratio was adjusted for potential confounders.
RESULTS: The effectiveness of TIV against influenza A virus infection was 63% (95% confidence interval [CI], 37%-78%). The effectiveness of TIV against A(H1N1)pdm09 infection was 77% (95% CI, 44%-90%). Monovalent vaccine administered between October 2009 and April 2010 was not protective during the 2010-2011 season, with an effectiveness of -1% (95% CI, -146% to 59%) against A(H1N1)pdm09 infection.
CONCLUSIONS: Monovalent vaccine provided no sustained protection against A(H1N1)pdm09 infection during the 2010-2011 season. This waning effectiveness supports the need for annual revaccination, even in the absence of antigenic drift in A(H1N1)pdm09.