Paula Cristóvão

Estimates of 2012/13 influenza vaccine effectiveness using the case test-negative control design with different influenza negative control groups

BACKGROUND In recent years several reports of influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) have been made early for public health decision. The majority of these studies use the case test-negative control design (TND), which has been showed to provide, under certain conditions, unbiased estimates of influenza VE. Nevertheless, discussions have been taken on the best influenza negative control group to use. The present study aims to contribute to the knowledge on this field by comparing influenza VE estimates using three test-negative controls: all influenza negative, non-influenza respiratory virus and pan-negative. METHODS Incident ILI patients were prospectively selected and swabbed by a sample of general practitioners. Cases were ILI patients tested positive for influenza and controls ILI patients tested negative for influenza. The influenza negative control group was divided into non-influenza virus control group and pan-negative control group. Data were collected on vaccination status and confounding factors. Influenza VE was estimated as one minus the odds ratio of been vaccinated in cases versus controls adjusted for confounding effect by logistic regression. RESULTS Confounder adjusted influenza VE against medically attended laboratory-confirmed influenza was 68.4% (95% CI: 20.7-87.4%) using all influenza negatives controls, 82.1% (95% CI: 47.6-93.9%) using non-influenza controls and 49.4% (95% CI: -44.7% to 82.3%) using pan-negative controls. CONCLUSIONS Influenza VE estimates differed according to the influenza negative control group used. These results are in accordance with the expected under the hypothesis of differential viral interference between influenza vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Given the wide importance of TND study further studies should be conducted in order to clarify the observed differences.

Cross-protection to new drifted influenza A(H3) viruses and prevalence of protective antibodies to seasonal influenza, during 2014 in Portugal

INTRODUCTION Immune profile for influenza viruses is highly changeable over time. Serological studies can assess the prevalence of influenza, estimate the risk of infection, highlight asymptomatic infection rate and can also provide data on vaccine coverage. The aims of the study were to evaluate pre-existing cross-protection against influenza A(H3) drift viruses and to assess influenza immunity in the Portuguese population. MATERIALS AND METHODS We developed a cross-sectional study based on a convenience sample of 626 sera collected during June 2014, covering all age groups, both gender and all administrative health regions of Portugal. Sera antibody titers for seasonal and new A(H3) drift influenza virus were evaluated by hemagglutination inhibition assay (HI). Seroprevalence to each seasonal influenza vaccine strain virus and to the new A(H3) drift circulating strain was estimated by age group, gender and region and compared with seasonal influenza-like illness (ILI) incidence rates before and after the study period. RESULTS Our findings suggest that seroprevalences of influenza A(H3) (39.9%; 95% CI: 36.2-43.8) and A(H1)pdm09 (29.7%; 95% CI: 26.3-33.4) antibodies were higher than for influenza B, in line with high ILI incidence rates for A(H3) followed by A(H1)pdm09, during 2013/2014 season. Low pre-existing cross-protection against new A(H3) drift viruses were observed in A(H3) seropositive individuals (46%). Both against influenza A(H1)pdm09 and A(H3) seroprotection was highest in younger than 14-years old. Protective antibodies against influenza B were highest in those older than 65years old, especially for B/Yamagata lineage, 33.3% (95% CI: 25.7-41.9). Women showed a high seroprevalence to influenza, although without statistical significance, when compared to men. A significant decreasing trend in seroprotection from north to south regions of Portugal mainland was observed. CONCLUSIONS Our results emphasize that low seroprotection increases the risk of influenza infection in the following winter season. Seroepidemiological studies can inform policy makers on the need for vaccination and additional preventive measures.