IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0019621.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Field Effectiveness of Pandemic and 2009-2010 Seasonal Vaccines against 2009-2010 A(H1N1) Influenza: Estimations from Surveillance Data in France

Author

Listed:
  • Camille Pelat
  • Alessandra Falchi
  • Fabrice Carrat
  • Anne Mosnier
  • Isabelle Bonmarin
  • Clément Turbelin
  • Sophie Vaux
  • Sylvie van der Werf
  • Jean Marie Cohen
  • Bruno Lina
  • Thierry Blanchon
  • Thomas Hanslik

Abstract

Background: In this study, we assess how effective pandemic and trivalent 2009-2010 seasonal vaccines were in preventing influenza-like illness (ILI) during the 2009 A(H1N1) pandemic in France. We also compare vaccine effectiveness against ILI versus laboratory-confirmed pandemic A(H1N1) influenza, and assess the possible bias caused by using non-specific endpoints and observational data. Methodology and Principal Findings: We estimated vaccine effectiveness by using the following formula: VE = (PPV-PCV)/(PPV(1-PCV)) × 100%, where PPV is the proportion vaccinated in the population and PCV the proportion of vaccinated influenza cases. People were considered vaccinated three weeks after receiving a dose of vaccine. ILI and pandemic A(H1N1) laboratory-confirmed cases were obtained from two surveillance networks of general practitioners. During the epidemic, 99.7% of influenza isolates were pandemic A(H1N1). Pandemic and seasonal vaccine uptakes in the population were obtained from the National Health Insurance database and by telephonic surveys, respectively. Effectiveness estimates were adjusted by age and week. The presence of residual biases was explored by calculating vaccine effectiveness after the influenza period. The effectiveness of pandemic vaccines in preventing ILI was 52% (95% confidence interval: 30–69) during the pandemic and 33% (4–55) after. It was 86% (56–98) against confirmed influenza. The effectiveness of seasonal vaccines against ILI was 61% (56–66) during the pandemic and 19% (−10–41) after. It was 60% (41–74) against confirmed influenza. Conclusions: The effectiveness of pandemic vaccines in preventing confirmed pandemic A(H1N1) influenza on the field was high, consistently with published findings. It was significantly lower against ILI. This is unsurprising since not all ILI cases are caused by influenza. Trivalent 2009-2010 seasonal vaccines had a statistically significant effectiveness in preventing ILI and confirmed pandemic influenza, but were not better in preventing confirmed pandemic influenza than in preventing ILI. This lack of difference might be indicative of selection bias.

Suggested Citation

  • Camille Pelat & Alessandra Falchi & Fabrice Carrat & Anne Mosnier & Isabelle Bonmarin & Clément Turbelin & Sophie Vaux & Sylvie van der Werf & Jean Marie Cohen & Bruno Lina & Thierry Blanchon & Thomas, 2011. "Field Effectiveness of Pandemic and 2009-2010 Seasonal Vaccines against 2009-2010 A(H1N1) Influenza: Estimations from Surveillance Data in France," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(5), pages 1-12, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0019621
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0019621
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0019621
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0019621&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0019621?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0019621. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.