Article

Observational methods in epidemiologic assessment of vaccine effectiveness.

National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance of Vaccine Preventable Diseases, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, NSW.
Communicable diseases intelligence 02/2002; 26(3):451-7.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Observational methods are important in the measurement of vaccine effectiveness (VE) as experimental designs cannot be used for measurement of vaccines already on the vaccination schedule. Furthermore, efficacy measured in clinical trials under ideal conditions may differ to effectiveness in the field under non-ideal conditions and in different populations. In addition to post-licensure surveillance, observational VE studies are particularly important when disease incidence does not predictably decrease with increased vaccine coverage, when high proportions of vaccine failure among reported cases suggest a problem with the vaccine or when issues arise that were not predicted in pre-licensure evaluations. Commonly used study types for evaluating VE include cohort studies, household contact studies, case-control studies, the screening method and case-cohort studies. There are many potential biases in all observational VE studies which should be considered in the study design and analysis stage. Of the five observational study types reviewed, cohort studies undertaken during an outbreak investigation offer the simplest means of VE estimation and is the preferred study design where the situation permits. Where this is not possible the screening method is the most economical and rapid method. It is essential that the effectiveness of all vaccination programs be evaluated. As new vaccines are introduced to the schedule, booster doses are added and the timing of doses changed, the role of observational methods in the evaluation of VE will become even more important. To date, few observational VE studies have been undertaken in Australia, suggesting the under-utilisation of these methods.

1 Bookmark
 · 
95 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: As international estimates of the effectiveness of post-exposure prophylaxis of measles vary, we sought to determine the effectiveness of post-exposure prophylaxis with either vaccine or immunoglobulin in susceptible persons with known measles contact. Data were obtained on all cases of measles notified in NSW between 1 March and 31 May 2006 and their contacts. The effectiveness of prophylaxis was calculated using the cohort method. During March to May 2006, 57 cases of measles were notified and 1760 measles contacts were identified, of which 553 were classified as susceptible. The calculated effectiveness of post-exposure prophylaxis with vaccine or immunoglobulin in preventing measles was 83.3% (95% CI: 27-96%). Post-exposure immunisation remains an effective tool for preventing secondary cases of measles.
    New South Wales Public Health Bulletin 01/2009; 20(5-6):81-5.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Zusammenfassung Influenzaviren haben eine hohe Variabilität. Entsprechend sollte jährlich mit einem aktuellen Impfstoff geimpft werden. Die Schutzwirkung hängt wesentlich von der Übereinstimmung der im Impfstoff enthaltenen Virusvarianten mit den tatsächlich zirkulierenden Varianten ab und kann von Saison zu Saison schwanken. Daher sind regelmäßige Studien zur Schutzwirkung der Impfung wichtig. Aufgrund des hohen Aufwandes kontrollierter Studien sind Schätzungen der Schutzwirkung anhand routinemäßig erhobener Daten, z. B. im Rahmen der Surveillance von Interesse. Wir vergleichen im vorliegenden Beitrag 2 Methoden zur Berechnung der Effektivität eines Impfstoffes: (1) die Screening-Methode (Ansatz 1), bei der Daten zur Impfrate in der Bevölkerung als Kontrollen verwendet werden; (2) die Methode 2 (Ansatz 2), die die gleichen laborbestätigten Influenzafalldaten wie Ansatz 1 betrachtet, aber als Kontrollen labornegative ILI-Erkrankte einsetzt. Die Sensitivität dieser Ansätze gegenüber als bedeutsam erachteten Confoundern wurde mithilfe einer Simulation abgeschätzt. Wir haben beide Methoden auf die in Deutschland im Rahmen der Surveillance durch die Arbeitsgemeinschaft Influenza (AGI) anfallenden Daten der Saison 2004/05 angewendet. Über alle Altersgruppen sind die mit beiden Methoden geschätzten Schutzraten gering, aber mit anderen Beobachtungen aus der Literatur vergleichbar. Unterschiede bei den Altersgruppen zwischen den Methoden und deutliche Unterschiede zwischen einzelnen Altersgruppen innerhalb einer Methode müssen im Zusammenhang mit dem kleinen Stichprobenumfang in den Altersraten gesehen werden, können jedoch auch als Hinweis auf bisher nicht berücksichtigte Confounder gewertet werden. Die absoluten Schätzwerte der Schutzraten sollten daher sehr vorsichtig interpretiert werden, aber eine relative Betrachtung über die verschiedenen Saisons ist sinnvoll.
    Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz 01/2006; 49(3):287-295. · 0.72 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abundant, indirect epidemiological evidence indicates that influenza contributes to all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospitalisations with studies showing increases in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and death during the influenza season. To investigate whether influenza is a significant and unrecognised underlying precipitant of AMI. Case-control study. Tertiary referral hospital in Sydney, Australia, during 2008 to 2010. Cases were inpatients with AMI and controls were outpatients without AMI at a hospital in Sydney, Australia. Primary outcome was laboratory evidence of influenza. Secondary outcome was baseline self-reported acute respiratory tract infection. Of 559 participants, 34/275 (12.4%) cases and 19/284 (6.7%) controls had influenza (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.09 to 3.54); half were vaccinated. None were recognised as having influenza during their clinical encounter. After adjustment, influenza infection was no longer a significant predictor of recent AMI. However, influenza vaccination was significantly protective (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.85), with a vaccine effectiveness of 45% (95% CI 15% to 65%). Recent influenza infection was an unrecognised comorbidity in almost 10% of hospital patients. Influenza did not predict AMI, but vaccination was significantly protective but underused. The potential population health impact of influenza vaccination, particularly in the age group 50-64 years, who are at risk for AMI but not targeted for vaccination, should be further explored. Our data should inform vaccination policy and cardiologists should be aware of missed opportunities to vaccinate individuals with ischaemic heart disease against influenza.
    Heart (British Cardiac Society) 08/2013; · 5.01 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
77 Downloads
Available from
May 30, 2014