Quantifying the potential role of unmeasured confounders: the example of influenza vaccination

Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in Preventing Laboratory-Confirmed Influenza Cases and Hospitalizations in Navarre, Spain, 2022-2023

We estimated influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) in preventing outpatient and hospitalized cases in the 2022-2023 season. A test-negative design included a representative sample of outpatients and all hospitalized patients with influenza-like illness (ILI) from October 2022 to May 2023 in Navarre, Spain. ILI patients were tested by PCR for influenza virus. Influenza vaccination status was compared between confirmed influenza cases and test-negative controls. Among 3321 ILI patients tested, IVE to prevent influenza cases was 34% (95% confidence interval (CI): 16 to 48) overall, 85% (95%CI: 63 to 94) against influenza B, and 28% (95%CI: 3 to 46) against A(H3N2). Among 558 outpatients, 222 (40%) were confirmed for influenza: 55% A(H3N2), 11% A(H1N1), and 31% B. Overall, IVE to prevent outpatient cases was 48% (95%CI: 8 to 70), 88% (95%CI: 3 to 98) against influenza B, and 50% (95%CI: -4 to 76) against A(H3N2). Of 2763 hospitalized patients, 349 (13%) were positive for influenza: 64% A(H3N2), 17% A(H1N1), and 8% B. IVE to prevent hospitalization was 24% (95%CI: -1 to 42) overall, 82% (95%CI: 49 to 93) against influenza B, and 16% (95%CI: -17 to 40) against A(H3N2). No IVE was observed in preventing influenza A(H1N1). IVE was high to prevent influenza B, moderate against A(H3N2) and null against A(H1N1). A lower proportion of influenza B cases may explain the smaller IVE in hospitalized patients than in outpatients. The null IVE against A(H1N1) was consistent with the observed antigenic drift and supports the new composition of the 2023-2024 influenza vaccine.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and influenza vaccination effect in preventing outpatient and inpatient influenza cases

Evidence of influenza vaccine effectiveness in preventing confirmed influenza among persons diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is scarce. We assessed the average effect of influenza vaccination in the current and prior seasons in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza in COPD patients. We carried out a pooled test-negative case–control design in COPD patients hospitalized or presented to primary healthcare centres with influenza-like illness who were tested for influenza in 2015/2016 to 2019/2020 seasons in Navarre, Spain. Influenza vaccination status in the current and 5 prior seasons was compared between confirmed-influenza cases and test-negative controls. Vaccination effect was compared between target patients for vaccination with and without COPD. Out of 1761 COPD patients tested, 542 (31%) were confirmed for influenza and 1219 were test-negative controls. Average effect for current-season vaccination in preventing influenza was 40% (95% CI 20–54%), and for vaccination in prior seasons only was 24% (95% CI –10 to 47%). Point estimates seemed higher in preventing outpatient cases (60% and 58%, respectively) than inpatient cases (37% and 19%, respectively), but differences were no statistically significant. Influenza vaccination effect was similar in target population with and without COPD (p = 0.339). Influenza vaccination coverage in control patients with COPD was 68.3%. A 13.7% of the influenza cases in patients with COPD could be prevented by extending the influenza vaccine coverage. Average effect of current-season influenza vaccination was moderate to prevent influenza in COPD persons. The increase of influenza vaccination coverage can still prevent COPD exacerbations.

Effect of influenza vaccination in patients with asthma

BACKGROUND:

Although annual influenza vaccination is recommended for persons with asthma, its effectiveness in this patient population is not well described. We evaluated the effect of influenza vaccination in the current and previous seasons in preventing influenza among people with asthma.

METHODS:

Using population health data from the Navarre region of Spain for the 2015/16 to 2019/20 influenza seasons, we conducted a test-negative case–control study to assess the effect of influenza vaccination in the current and 5 previous seasons. From patients presenting to hospitals and primary health care centres with influenza-like illness who underwent testing for influenza, we estimated the effects of influenza vaccination among patients with asthma overall and between those presenting as inpatients or outpatients, as well as between patients with and without asthma.

RESULTS:

Of 1032 patients who had asthma and were tested, we confirmed that 421 had influenza and the remaining 611 were test-negative controls. We found that the average effect of influenza vaccination was 43% (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40 to 0.80) for current-season vaccination regardless of previous doses, and 38% (adjusted OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.96) for vaccination in previous seasons only. Effects were similar for outpatients and inpatients. Among patients with asthma and confirmed influenza, current-season vaccination did not reduce the odds of hospital admission (adjusted OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.18). Influenza vaccination effects were similar for patients with and without asthma.

INTERPRETATION:

We estimated that, on average, current or previous influenza vaccination of people with asthma prevented almost half of influenza cases. These results support recommendations that people with asthma receive influenza vaccination.

Effect of Influenza Vaccination in Preventing Laboratory-Confirmed Influenza Hospitalization in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

People with diabetes are at high risk of severe influenza complications. The influenza vaccination effect among diabetic patients remains inconclusive. We estimated the average effect of influenza vaccination status in the current and prior seasons in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalization in diabetic patients.

METHODS

Patients attended in hospitals and primary healthcare centers with influenza-like illness were tested for influenza from the 2013-2014 to 2018-2019 seasons in Navarre, Spain. A test-negative case-control design in diabetic inpatients compared the influenza vaccination status in the current and 5 prior seasons between laboratory-confirmed influenza cases and negative controls. Vaccination status of influenza-confirmed cases was compared between diabetic inpatients and outpatients. Influenza vaccination effect was compared between diabetic patients and older (≥ 60 years) or chronic nondiabetic patients.

RESULTS

Of 1670 diabetic inpatients tested, 569 (34%) were confirmed for influenza and 1101 were test-negative controls. The average effect in preventing influenza hospitalization was 46% (95% confidence interval [CI], 28%-59%) for current-season vaccination and 44% (95% CI, 20%-61%) for vaccination in prior seasons only in comparison to unvaccinated patients in the current and prior seasons. Among diabetic patients with confirmed influenza, current-season vaccination reduced the probability of hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, .15-.79). In diabetic patients, vaccination effect against influenza hospitalizations was not inferior to that in older or chronic nondiabetic patients.

CONCLUSIONS

On average, influenza vaccination of diabetic population reduced by around half the risk of influenza hospitalization. Vaccination in prior seasons maintained a notable protective effect. These results reinforce the recommendation of influenza vaccination for diabetic patients.

Influenza vaccination in the elderly: 25 years follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. No impact on long-term mortality

Influenza vaccination is proven effective in preventing influenza. However, long-term effects on mortality have never been supported by direct evidence. In this study we assessed the long-term outcome of influenza vaccination on mortality in the elderly by conducting a 25-year follow-up study of a RCT on the efficacy of influenza vaccination as baseline. The RCT had been conducted in the Netherlands 5 years before vaccination was recommended for those aged >65 and 17 years before recommending it for those aged >60. The RCT included 1838 community-dwelling elderly aged ≥ 60 that had received an intramuscular injection with the inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (n = 927) or placebo (n = 911) during the 1991/1992 winter. In our follow-up study, outcomes included all-cause mortality, influenza-related mortality and seasonal mortality. Unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated by Cox regression and sub-hazard ratios (SHRs) by competing risk models. Secondary analyses included subgroup analyses by age and disease status. The vital status up to January 1, 2017 was provided in 1800/1838 (98%) of the cases. Single influenza vaccination did not reduce all-cause mortality when compared to placebo (adjusted HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85−1.05). Also, no differences between vaccination and placebo group were shown for underlying causes of death or seasonal mortality. In those aged 60–64, median survival increased with 20.1 months (95% CI 2.4–37.9), although no effects on all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.72−1.03) could be demonstrated in survival analysis. In conclusion, this study did not demonstrate a statistically significant effect following single influenza vaccination on long-term mortality in community-dwelling elderly in general. We propose researchers designing future studies on influenza vaccination in the elderly to fit these studies for longer-term follow-up, and suggest age-group comparisons in observational research.

Clinical trial registry number:NTR6179.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly

BACKGROUND

The consequences of influenza in the elderly (those age 65 years or older) are complications, hospitalisations, and death. The primary goal of influenza vaccination in the elderly is to reduce the risk of death among people who are most vulnerable. This is an update of a review published in 2010. Future updates of this review will be made only when new trials or vaccines become available. Observational data included in previous versions of the review have been retained for historical reasons but have not been updated because of their lack of influence on the review conclusions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (efficacy, effectiveness, and harm) of vaccines against influenza in the elderly.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 11), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register; MEDLINE (1966 to 31 December 2016); Embase (1974 to 31 December 2016); Web of Science (1974 to 31 December 2016); CINAHL (1981 to 31 December 2016); LILACS (1982 to 31 December 2016); WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 1 July 2017); and ClinicalTrials.gov (1 July 2017).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing efficacy against influenza (laboratory-confirmed cases) or effectiveness against influenza-like illness (ILI) or safety. We considered any influenza vaccine given independently, in any dose, preparation, or time schedule, compared with placebo or with no intervention. Previous versions of this review included 67 cohort and case-control studies. The searches for these trial designs are no longer updated.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We rated the certainty of evidence with GRADE for the key outcomes of influenza, ILI, complications (hospitalisation, pneumonia), and adverse events. We have presented aggregate control group risks to illustrate the effect in absolute terms. We used them as the basis for calculating the number needed to vaccinate to prevent one case of each event for influenza and ILI outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified eight RCTs (over 5000 participants), of which four assessed harms. The studies were conducted in community and residential care settings in Europe and the USA between 1965 and 2000. Risk of bias reduced our certainty in the findings for influenza and ILI, but not for other outcomes.Older adults receiving the influenza vaccine may experience less influenza over a single season compared with placebo, from 6% to 2.4% (risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.66; low-certainty evidence). We rated the evidence as low certainty due to uncertainty over how influenza was diagnosed. Older adults probably experience less ILI compared with those who do not receive a vaccination over the course of a single influenza season (3.5% versus 6%; RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.73; moderate-certainty evidence). These results indicate that 30 people would need to be vaccinated to prevent one person experiencing influenza, and 42 would need to be vaccinated to prevent one person having an ILI.The study providing data for mortality and pneumonia was underpowered to detect differences in these outcomes. There were 3 deaths from 522 participants in the vaccination arm and 1 death from 177 participants in the placebo arm, providing very low-certainty evidence for the effect on mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.11 to 9.72). No cases of pneumonia occurred in one study that reported this outcome (very low-certainty evidence). No data on hospitalisations were reported. Confidence intervaIs around the effect of vaccines on fever and nausea were wide, and we do not have enough information about these harms in older people (fever: 1.6% with placebo compared with 2.5% after vaccination (RR 1.57, 0.92 to 2.71; moderate-certainty evidence)); nausea (2.4% with placebo compared with 4.2% after vaccination (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.74 to 4.12; low-certainty evidence)).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Older adults receiving the influenza vaccine may have a lower risk of influenza (from 6% to 2.4%), and probably have a lower risk of ILI compared with those who do not receive a vaccination over the course of a single influenza season (from 6% to 3.5%). We are uncertain how big a difference these vaccines will make across different seasons. Very few deaths occurred, and no data on hospitalisation were reported. No cases of pneumonia occurred in one study that reported this outcome. We do not have enough information to assess harms relating to fever and nausea in this population.The evidence for a lower risk of influenza and ILI with vaccination is limited by biases in the design or conduct of the studies. Lack of detail regarding the methods used to confirm the diagnosis of influenza limits the applicability of this result. The available evidence relating to complications is of poor quality, insufficient, or old and provides no clear guidance for public health regarding the safety, efficacy, or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older. Society should invest in research on a new generation of influenza vaccines for the elderly.

Predictors of seasonal influenza vaccination among older adults in Thailand

Background

In advance of a large influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) cohort study among older adults in Thailand, we conducted a population-based, cross-sectional survey to measure vaccine coverage and identify factors associated with influenza vaccination among older Thai adults that could bias measures of vaccine effectiveness.

Method

We selected adults ≥65 years using a two-stage, stratified, cluster sampling design. Functional status was assessed using the 10-point Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES); scores ≥3 indicated vulnerability. Questions about attitudes towards vaccination were based on the Health Belief Model. The distance between participants’ households and the nearest vaccination clinic was calculated. Vaccination status was determined using national influenza vaccination registry. Prevalence ratios (PR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using log-binomial multivariable models accounting for the sampling design.

Result

We enrolled 581 participants, of whom 60% were female, median age was 72 years, 41% had at least one chronic underlying illness, 24% met the criteria for vulnerable, and 23% did not leave the house on a daily basis. Influenza vaccination rate was 34%. In multivariable models, no variable related to functional status was associated with vaccination. The strongest predictors of vaccination were distance to the nearest vaccination center (PR 3.0, 95% CI 1.7–5.1 for participants in the closest quartile compared to the furthest), and high levels of a perception of benefits of influenza vaccination (PR 2.8, 95% CI 1.4–5.6) and cues to action (PR 2.7, 95% CI 1.5–5.1).

Conclusion

Distance to vaccination clinics should be considered in analyses of influenza VE studies in Thailand. Strategies that emphasize benefits of vaccination and encourage physicians to recommend annual influenza vaccination could improve influenza vaccine uptake among older Thai adults. Outreach to more distant and less mobile older adults may also be required to improve influenza vaccination coverage.

Evaluating different physician's prescribing preference based instrumental variables in two primary care databases: a study of inhaled long-acting beta2-agonist use and the risk of myocardial infarction

PURPOSE

Instrumental variable (IV) analysis with physician's prescribing preference (PPP) as IV is increasingly used in pharmacoepidemiology. However, it is unclear whether this IV performs consistently across databases. We aimed to evaluate the validity of different PPPs in a study of inhaled long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) use and myocardial infarction (MI).

METHODS

Information on adults with asthma and/or COPD and at least one prescription of beta2-agonist, or muscarinic antagonist was extracted from the CPRD (UK) and the Mondriaan (Netherlands) databases. LABA exposure was considered time-fixed or time-varying. We measured PPPs using previous LABA prescriptions of physicians or proportion of LABA prescriptions per practice. Correlation (r) and standardized difference (SDif) were used to assess assumption of IV analysis.

RESULTS

For time-fixed LABA, the IV based on 10 previous prescriptions outperformed the other IVs regarding strength of the IV (r ≥ 0.15) and balance of confounders between IV categories (SDif < 0.10). None of the IVs we considered appeared to be valid for time-varying LABA. In CPRD (n = 490,499), which included approximately 18 times more subjects than Mondriaan (n = 27,459), IVs appeared more valid. LABA was not associated with MI; hazard ratios ranged from 0.86 to 1.18 for conventional analysis, and from 0.61 to 1.24 for the IV analyses with apparent valid IVs.

CONCLUSIONS

The validity of physician's prescribing preference as IV strongly depends on how this IV is defined and in which database it is applied. Hence, general recommendations cannot be made, other than to generate several plausible IVs, assess their validity, and report the estimate(s) from apparently valid IVs.

Understanding inconsistency in the results from observational pharmacoepidemiological studies: the case of antidepressant use and risk of hip/femur fractures

PURPOSE

Results from observational studies on the same exposure-outcome association may be inconsistent because of variations in methodological factors, clinical factors or health care systems. We evaluated the consistency of results assessing the association between antidepressant use and the risk of hip/femur fractures in three European primary care databases using two different study designs.

METHODS

Cohort and nested case control studies were conducted in three European primary care databases (Spanish BIFAP, Dutch Mondriaan and UK THIN) to assess the association between use of antidepressants and hip/femur fracture. A common protocol and statistical analysis plan was applied to harmonize study design and conduct between data sources.

RESULTS

Current use of antidepressants was consistently associated with a 1.5 to 2.5-fold increased risk of hip/femur fractures in all data sources with both designs, with estimates for SSRIs generally higher than those for TCAs. In general, risk estimates in Mondriaan, the smallest data source, were higher compared to the other data sources. This difference may be partially explained by an interaction between SSRI and age in Mondriaan. Adjustment for GP-recorded lifestyle factors and matching on general practice had negligible impact on adjusted relative risk estimates.

CONCLUSION

We found a consistent increased risk of hip/femur fracture with current use of antidepressants across different databases and different designs. Applying similar pharmacoepidemiological study methods resulted in similar risks for TCA use and some variation for SSRI use. Some of these differences may express real (or natural) variance in the exposure-outcome co-occurrences.

Methods to control for unmeasured confounding in pharmacoepidemiology: an overview

Background Unmeasured confounding is one of the principal problems in pharmacoepidemiologic studies. Several methods have been proposed to detect or control for unmeasured confounding either at the study design phase or the data analysis phase. Aim of the Review To provide an overview of commonly used methods to detect or control for unmeasured confounding and to provide recommendations for proper application in pharmacoepidemiology. Methods/Results Methods to control for unmeasured confounding in the design phase of a study are case only designs (e.g., case-crossover, case-time control, self-controlled case series) and the prior event rate ratio adjustment method. Methods that can be applied in the data analysis phase include, negative control method, perturbation variable method, instrumental variable methods, sensitivity analysis, and ecological analysis. A separate group of methods are those in which additional information on confounders is collected from a substudy. The latter group includes external adjustment, propensity score calibration, two-stage sampling, and multiple imputation. Conclusion As the performance and application of the methods to handle unmeasured confounding may differ across studies and across databases, we stress the importance of using both statistical evidence and substantial clinical knowledge for interpretation of the study results.

Effectiveness of the trivalent influenza vaccine in Navarre, Spain, 2010-2011: a population-based test-negative case-control study

BACKGROUND

Some studies have evaluated vaccine effectiveness in preventing outpatient influenza while others have analysed its effectiveness in preventing hospitalizations. This study evaluates the effectiveness of the trivalent influenza vaccine in preventing outpatient illness and hospitalizations from laboratory-confirmed influenza in the 2010-2011 season.

METHODS

We conducted a nested case-control study in the population covered by the general practitioner sentinel network for influenza surveillance in Navarre, Spain. Patients with influenza-like illness in hospitals and primary health care were swabbed for influenza testing. Influenza vaccination status and other covariates were obtained from health care databases. Using logistic regression, the vaccination status of laboratory-confirmed influenza cases was compared with that of test-negative controls, adjusting for age, sex, comorbidity, outpatient visits in the previous 12 months, health care setting, time between symptom onset and swabbing, period and A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccination. Effectiveness was calculated as (1-odds ratio)x100.

RESULTS

The 303 confirmed influenza cases (88% for A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza) were compared with the 286 influenza test-negative controls. The percentage of persons vaccinated against influenza was 4.3% and 15.7%, respectively (p<0.001). The adjusted estimate of effectiveness was 67% (95% CI: 24%, 86%) for all patients and 64% (95% CI: 8%, 86%) in those with an indication for vaccination (persons age 60 or older or with major chronic conditions). Having received both the 2010-2011 seasonal influenza vaccine and the 2009-2010 pandemic influenza vaccine provided 87% protection (95% CI: 30%, 98%) as compared to those not vaccinated.

CONCLUSION

The 2010-2011 seasonal influenza vaccine had a moderate protective effect in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza.

Effectiveness of adjuvanted influenza vaccination in elderly subjects in northern Italy

Although vaccination against influenza is recommended for elderly and high-risk patients in many countries, efficacy in the elderly has been suboptimal. The MF59 adjuvanted trivalent inactivated vaccine (ATIV) was developed to increase the immune response of elderly subjects to influenza vaccination, but its effectiveness has not yet been well documented. This prospective, observational study evaluated the relative effectiveness of ATIV versus nonadjuvanted trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV) in individuals at least 65 years of age in Lombardy, northern Italy. Hospitalizations for influenza or pneumonia (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, codes 480–487) during the 2006–2007, 2007–2008, and 2008–2009 influenza seasons were identified from administrative databases. Stratified and regression analyses, including the propensity score to adjust for confounding, as well as generalized estimating equations to account for repeated vaccination, were used. Overall, 107,661 records were evaluated, contributing 170,988 person-seasons of observation. Since ATIV is preferentially recommended for more frail individuals, subjects vaccinated with ATIV were older and had more functional impairment and comorbidities. In the primary analysis, risk of hospitalization for influenza or pneumonia was 25% lower for ATIV relative to TIV (relative risk = 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.57, 0.98). To the extent that there is residual bias, ATIV is likely to be even more protective than this result suggests.

Functional status of older nursing home residents can affect the efficacy of influenza vaccination

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of influenza vaccination in older nursing home residents is frequently overestimated due to frailty selection bias. Limited data exist to examine this issue.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study from December 2009 to November 2010 to evaluate the efficacy of influenza vaccination in old nursing home residents with respect to their functional status. Participants were stratified according to the Barthel Index (BI) into good functioning (GF; BI > 60), intermediate functioning (IF; BI = 5-60), and poor functioning (PF; BI = 0). Participants were vaccinated by monovalent H1N1 2009 and trivalent seasonal influenza vaccinations (H1N1-TIV), TIV alone, or remained unvaccinated by choice. The associations between all-cause mortality, vaccination efficacy, and functional status were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 711 older nursing home residents were enrolled (GF group: N = 230; IF group: N = 246; PF group: N = 235). At 12 months, H1N1-TIV recipients had the lowest all-cause mortality, whereas unvaccinated residents had the highest all-cause mortality in all three functional status groups. In the comparison between H1N1-TIV recipients and TIV alone recipients, the hazard ratios (HRs) of all-cause mortality were lower in the GF group and higher in the PF group (GF group: HR 0.30 [0.07-0.95], p < .05; IF group: HR 0.40 [0.18-0.86], p < .05; PF group: HR 0.53 [0.28-0.99], p < .05). The same observation was found in comparison between other vaccination statuses (H1N1-TIV vs unvaccinated and TIV alone vs unvaccinated).

CONCLUSIONS

Influenza vaccination was associated with reduced all-cause mortality in older nursing home residents with different functional statuses. Vaccine efficacy in reducing mortality declined with increasingly impaired functional status.

The potential effect of temporary immunity as a result of bias associated with healthy users and social determinants on observations of influenza vaccine effectiveness; could unmeasured confounding explain observed links between seasonal influenza vaccine and pandemic H1N1 infection?

BACKGROUND

Five observational studies from Canada found an association between seasonal influenza vaccine receipt and increased risk of pandemic influenza H1N1 2009 infection. This association remains unexplained. Although uncontrolled confounding has been suggested as a possible explanation, the nature of such confounding has not been identified. Observational studies of influenza vaccination can be affected by confounding due to healthy users and the influence of social determinants on health. The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence that these two potential confounders may have in combination with temporary immunity, using stratified tables. The hypothesis is that respiratory virus infections may activate a temporary immunity that provides short-term non-specific protection against influenza and that the relationship with being a healthy user or having a social determinant may result in confounding.

METHODS

We simulated the effect of confounding on vaccine effectiveness assuming that this could result from both social determinants and healthy user effects as they both influence the risk of seasonal influenza and non-influenza respiratory virus infections as well as the likelihood of being vaccinated. We then examined what impact this may have had on measurement of seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness against pandemic influenza.

RESULTS

In this simulation, failure to adjust for healthy users and social determinants would result in an erroneously increased risk of pandemic influenza infection associated with seasonal influenza vaccination. The effect sizes were not however large.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that unmeasured healthy user effects and social determinants could result in an apparent association between seasonal influenza vaccine and pandemic influenza infection by virtue of being related to temporary immunity. Adjustment for social determinants of health and the healthy user effects are required in order to improve the quality of observational studies of influenza vaccine effectiveness.

Balance measures for propensity score methods: a clinical example on beta-agonist use and the risk of myocardial infarction

PURPOSE

Propensity score (PS) methods aim to control for confounding by balancing confounders between exposed and unexposed subjects with the same PS. PS balance measures have been compared in simulated data but limited in empirical data. Our objective was to compare balance measures in clinical data and assessed the association between long-acting inhalation beta-agonist (LABA) use and myocardial infarction.

METHODS

We estimated the relationship between LABA use and myocardial infarction in a cohort of adults with a diagnosis of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder from the Utrecht General Practitioner Research Network database. More than two thousand PS models, including information on the observed confounders age, sex, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder status, were applied. The balance of these confounders was assessed using the standardised difference (SD), Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) distance and overlapping coefficient. Correlations between these balance measures were calculated. In addition, simulation studies were performed to assess the correlation between balance measures and bias.

RESULTS

LABA use was not related to myocardial infarction after conditioning on the PS (median heart rate = 1.14, 95%CI = 0.47-2.75). When using the different balance measures for selecting a PS model, similar associations were obtained. In our empirical data, SD and KS distance were highly correlated balance measures (r = 0.92). In simulations, SD, KS distance and overlapping coefficient were similarly correlated to bias (e.g. r = 0.55, r = 0.52 and r = -0.57, respectively, when conditioning on the PS).

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend using the SD or the KS distance to quantify the balance of confounder distributions when applying PS methods.

Predictors of pneumococcal vaccination among older adults with pneumonia: findings from the Community Acquired Pneumonia Impact Study

Background

The incidence of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) almost triples for older adults aged 65 years or older. In Canada, CAP is a leading cause of hospital admissions and mortality. Although CAP is very prevalent, complications due to CAP may be reduced with the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV). The purpose of this study was to identify predictors of pneumococcal vaccination among community-dwelling older adults with clinically diagnosed CAP.

Methods

A telephone survey was used to collect detailed information from adults aged 60 years and older with clinically diagnosed CAP. This was a community wide study with participants being recruited from all radiology clinics in one Ontario community.

Results

The most important predictors of pneumococcal vaccination among older adults included: getting an influenza vaccine within the past year (OR 14.5, 95% CI 4.27 to 49.0); at least weekly contact with a friend (OR 3.97, 95% CI 1.71 to 9.24); having one or more co-morbidities/chronic conditions (OR 3.64, 95% CI 1.60 to 8.28); being 70 years of age or older (OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.21 to 5.40); having health problems that limited physical activities (OR 5.37, 95% CI 1.49 to 19.3); having little or no bodily pain (OR 2.90, 95% CI 1.25 to 6.73); and reporting having spiritual values or religious faith (OR 3.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 11.67).

Conclusions

A wide range of factors, including demographic, co-morbidity, quality of life, social support and lifestyle were found to be associated with pneumococcal vaccination status among older adults with clinically diagnosed CAP. The findings from this study could inform future pneumococcal immunization strategies by identifying individuals who are least likely to receive the PPV.

Sensitivity analysis for an unmeasured confounder: a review of two independent methods

One of the main purposes of epidemiological studies is to estimate causal effects. Causal inference should be addressed by observational and experimental studies. A strong constraint for the interpretation of observational studies is the possible presence of unobserved confounders (hidden biases). An approach for assessing the possible effects of unobserved confounders may be drawn up through the use of a sensitivity analysis that determines how strong the effects of an unmeasured confounder should be to explain an apparent association, and which should be the characteristics of this confounder to exhibit such an effect. The purpose of this paper is to review and integrate two independent sensitivity analysis methods. The two methods are presented to assess the impact of an unmeasured confounder variable: one developed by Greenland under an epidemiological perspective, and the other developed from a statistical standpoint by Rosenbaum. By combining (or merging) epidemiological and statistical issues, this integration became a more complete and direct sensitivity analysis, encouraging its required diffusion and additional applications. As observational studies are more subject to biases and confounding than experimental settings, the consideration of epidemiological and statistical aspects in sensitivity analysis strengthens the causal inference.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly

BACKGROUND

Vaccines have been the main global weapon to minimise the impact of influenza in the elderly for the last four decades and are recommended worldwide for individuals aged 65 years or older. The primary goal of influenza vaccination in the elderly is to reduce the risk of complications among persons who are most vulnerable.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing influenza, influenza-like illness (ILI), hospital admissions, complications and mortality in the elderly. To identify and appraise comparative studies evaluating the effects of influenza vaccines in the elderly. To document types and frequency of adverse effects associated with influenza vaccines in the elderly.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 4); MEDLINE (January 1966 to October Week 1 2009); EMBASE (1974 to October 2009) and Web of Science (1974 to October 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cohort and case-control studies assessing efficacy against influenza (laboratory-confirmed cases) or effectiveness against influenza-like illness (ILI) or safety. Any influenza vaccine given independently, in any dose, preparation or time schedule, compared with placebo or with no intervention was considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We grouped reports first according to the setting of the study (community or long-term care facilities) and then by level of viral circulation and vaccine matching. We further stratified by co-administration of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV) and by different types of influenza vaccines. We analysed the following outcomes: influenza, influenza-like illness, hospital admissions, complications and deaths.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 studies. Overall we identified 100 data sets. We identified one RCT assessing efficacy and effectiveness. Although this seemed to show an effect against influenza symptoms it was underpowered to detect any effect on complications (1348 participants). The remainder of our evidence base included non-RCTs. Due to the general low quality of non-RCTs and the likely presence of biases, which make interpretation of these data difficult and any firm conclusions potentially misleading, we were unable to reach clear conclusions about the effects of the vaccines in the elderly.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence is of poor quality and provides no guidance regarding the safety, efficacy or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older. To resolve the uncertainty, an adequately powered publicly-funded randomised, placebo-controlled trial run over several seasons should be undertaken.

Pooling of confounders did not induce residual confounding in influenza vaccination studies

PURPOSE

In observational studies on influenza vaccine effectiveness, confounding variables such as individual chronic diseases often are pooled before inclusion into a multivariable regression model. It has been suggested, however, that the pooling of confounders induces residual confounding, although empirical evidence is scarce. We set out to study the effects of combining several confounders into classes of co-morbidity.

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort study on the association between influenza vaccination and mortality, the effect of pooling of 20 individual diagnoses into three dichotomous co-morbidity variables indicating the presence of at least one of a range of diagnoses was studied. The sample size allowed for adjustments for 22 confounders (age, sex, and 20 individual cardiovascular, pulmonary, or oncologic diagnoses).

RESULTS

After adjustment for age and sex, further adjustment for 20 separate confounders or the three pooled co-morbidity variables resulted in comparable estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness: odds ratio 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.98) and odds ratio 0.74 (95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.93), respectively.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that pooling of several (related) confounders in influenza vaccine effectiveness studies in health care databases is unlikely to induce important residual confounding.