The efficacy of influenza vaccine for healthy children: A meta-analysis evaluating potential sources of variation in efficacy estimates including study quality

Section of Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Medicine and Aging Sciences, University G. d'Annunzio, Chieti, Italy.
The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal (Impact Factor: 3.14). 02/2007; 26(2):97-106. DOI: 10.1097/
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Two systematic reviews evaluating influenza vaccine efficacy in healthy children have recently been published. Although quantitative summary estimates were similar, authors' conclusions were quite contrasting. We carried out another meta-analysis reevaluating study inclusion criteria and using metaregression techniques in addition to sensitivity and subgroups analyses to evaluate potential sources of heterogeneity of efficacy estimates, including methodologic quality of studies.
Only randomized clinical studies assessing the efficacy of influenza vaccine in healthy children/adolescents (age < or =18 years) for preventing naturally occurring influenza and/or acute otitis media cases were included. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random effects model. The methodologic quality of each study was assessed using 3 systems: Chalmers scale, Jadad scale and Schulz components (randomization, allocation concealment and double-blinding).
The overall vaccination efficacy was 36% (95% confidence interval: 31-40%) against clinically diagnosed illnesses (evaluated by 19 randomized clinical studies for a total of 247,517 children); 67% (51-78%) against laboratory-confirmed cases (18 trials, n = 8574); and 51% (21-70%) against acute otitis media (11 trials, n = 11,349). Significant sources of between-study heterogeneity were participants' age and study quality both directly correlated with the efficacy. When the analysis was performed excluding USSR studies, the overall efficacy of the vaccine in preventing clinical cases substantially increased (from 36% to 61%).
These findings may indicate that the vaccine efficacy might be greater than the overall estimates. Although no safety and cost considerations are addressed in this analysis, the present findings support vaccination as a possible option for the prevention of influenza in healthy children and adolescents.

1 Follower
  • Source
    • "For instance, Jefferson et al. (2007) find a vaccine efficacy rate of 80 percent in healthy adults. Meanwhile, the results for children and older ages are lower: systematic review of the evidence yields an efficacy of 62 percent for children under 18 (Manzoli, et al. 2007) and an efficacy of 58 percent for adults over the age of 65 (Govaert, et al. 1994). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study provides causal evidence on the health and economic consequences of a broad-scope vaccination program. The Ontario Influenza Immunization Campaign (introduced in 2001) expanded the scope of vaccine coverage to the full population. By using the timing of this campaign and exogenous variation in vaccine quality, I am able to causally link higher vaccination rates to decreases in lost work-time, hospitalization, and death. Results indicate that, when vaccine quality is high, the campaign resulted in higher gains for Ontario relative to other provinces and in short, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Results also suggest significant positive health externalities for the elderly.
    American Economic Journal Applied Economics 01/2014; 6(1). DOI:10.1257/app.6.1.38 · 2.76 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Based on current evidence, the most efficacious method of immunostimulation in the respiratory tract for children, are two vaccines against invasive pneumococcal strains and seasonal flu virus. According to two recent meta-analyses with the conjugated pneumococcal vaccine (PCV) [44] [45] and seasonal influenza vaccine [46], both vaccines have been proven to significantly reduce the incidence of complicated otitis media, pneumonia, and overall childhood mortality rates [44] [45] [46], significantly exceeding their initial, design-specific purpose. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Parents of children suffering from recurrent respiratory infections can be persuaded by advertisements to pressure their family physicians and pediatricians for "immune-stimulating enhancements". However, the evidence base behind these immune stimulants is usually lacking. Often there is no peer-reviewed studies available that support claims made by "immune-booster" supplements. In this review, we critically analyze most of the marketed immuno-active drugs (including vitamin preparations, dietary supplements, homeopathic remedies, Ecchinacea, bacterial lysates, and probiotics) and identify the necessity to exclude an immunodeficiency in every child suffering from recurrent respiratory tract infections.
    Paediatric Respiratory Reviews 10/2013; DOI:10.1016/j.prrv.2013.10.006 · 2.22 Impact Factor
  • Source
Show more


Available from