Skip to main content
Log in

Zur Schätzung der Schutzwirkung der Influenzaimpfung aus Surveillancedaten

Estimation of influenza vaccine effectiveness using routine surveillance data

  • Originalien und Übersichtsarbeiten
  • Published:
Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz Aims and scope

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.

Abstract

The continuous antigenic drift of influenza viruses requires annual adaptation of the vaccine. Protection depends largely on the match of the variants represented in the vaccine with the viruses actually known to be in circulation and may differ considerably from season to season. Therefore studies to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of the vaccine are conducted rather sporadically on an annual basis and it would be desirable to make use of routinely available data from surveillance programs. We compared two different approaches: (1) the “screening method” where cases are identified from laboratory data and controls are taken from data on vaccination rates and (2) a second method that uses the same cases, but controls were influenza-negative individuals with influenza-like illness (also identified from laboratory data). The sensitivity of the methods to confounders that were considered as relevant was tested with a simulation. Both methods were applied to the data of the German influenza surveillance data of the season 2004/2005. The estimated effectiveness over all age groups was rather low with both methods, but comparable with other estimations from the literature. We observed differences in certain age groups between the methods as well as large differences between particular age groups within one method. Possible explanations are random variations due to low numbers in age strata and other influences not yet considered. Therefore the estimations should be interpreted with care; however, relative comparisons among seasons may still be meaningful.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3

Literatur

  1. WER (2004) Recommended composition of influenza virus vaccine for use in the 2004–2005 season. Weekly Epidemiol Rec 9:88–92

    Google Scholar 

  2. WER (1999) Weekly Epidemiol Rec 39:321–325

    Google Scholar 

  3. Belshe RB, Gruber WC, Mendelman PM et al. (2000) Correlates of immune protection induced by live, attenuated, cold adapted, trivalent, intranasal influenza virus vaccine. J Infect Dis 181:1133–1137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Süss J (1987) Influenza. VEB Gustav Fischer, Jena

  5. Orenstein WA, Bernier RH, Hinman AR (1988) Assessing vaccine efficacy in the field. Further observations. Epidemiol Rev 10:212–241

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. CDC (1999) Manual for the surveillance of vaccine-preventable diseases. http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/surv-manual/default.htm

  7. Chen TR, Ohrenstein WA (1996) Epidemiologic methods in immunization programs. Epidemiol Rev 18:99–117

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Halloran ME, Longini IM, Struchiner CJ (1999) Design and interpretation of vaccine field studies. Epidemiol Rev 21:73–88

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Anonymous (2004) Assessment of the effectiveness of the 2003–04 Influenza Vaccine Among Children and Adults — Colorado, 2003. MMWR 53:707–710

    Google Scholar 

  10. WER (2000) Weekly Epidemiol Rec 35:281–288

    Google Scholar 

  11. Earhart KC, Beadle C, Miller LK et al. (2001) Outbreak of influenza in highly vaccinated crew of U.S. Navy Ship. Emerg Infect Dis 7:26–30

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bridges CB, Thompson WW, Meltzer MI et al. (2000) Effectiveness and cost-benefit of influenza vaccination of healthy working adults: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 284:1655–1663

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Govaert TM, Thijs CT, Masurel N et al. (1994) The efficacy of influenza vaccination in elderly individuals. A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. JAMA 272:1661–1665

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Anonymous (2005) Effectiveness of vaccine against medical consultation due to laboratory-confirmed influenza: results from a sentinel physician pilot project in British Columbia, 2004–2005. Can Commun Dis Rep 18(31):181–191

    Google Scholar 

  15. Personal communication Dr. John Watson. EISS-task group vaccine effectiveness

  16. Personal communication Dr. Judith Legrand. INSERM, Paris, France

  17. Personal communication Dr. Salvador de Mateo. Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain

  18. Torvaldsen S, McIntyre PB (2002) Observational methods in epidemiologic assessment of vaccine effectiveness. Commun Dis Intell 26:451–457

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nichol NL (2003) The efficacy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of inactivated influenza virus vaccines. Vaccine 21:1769–1775

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Farrington CP (1993) Estimation of vaccine effectiveness using the screening method. Int J Epidemiol 22:742–746

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Smith PG, Rodrigues LC, Fine PEM (1984) Assessment of the protective efficacy of vaccines among common diseases using case-control and cohort studies. Int J Epidemiol 13:87–93

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kim-Farley R, Bart S, Stetler H et al. (1985) Clinical mumps vaccine efficacy. Am J Epidemiol 121:593–597

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Influenza (2004) Abschlussbericht der Influenzasaison 2004/05. Berlin

  24. RKI (2004) Epidemiol Bull 14:113–117

    Google Scholar 

  25. Statistisches Bundesamt (2001) Fragen zur Gesundheit Ergebnisse des Mikrozensus 1999

  26. Uphoff H, Cohen JM (2002) Some aspects regarding the Interpretation of influenza surveillance data. Intervirol 191:145–149

    Google Scholar 

  27. Zambon M, Hays J, Webster A et al. (2001) Diagnosis of influenza in the community: relationship of clinical diagnosis to confirmed virological, serologic, or molecular detection of influenza. Arch Intern Med 161:2116–2122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Farrington CP (2004) Control without separate controls: evaluation of vaccine safety using case-only methods. Vaccine 22:2064–2070

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Jefferson T, Smith S, Demicheli V et al. (2005) Assessment of the efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines in healthy children: systematic review. Lancet 365:773–780

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gross PA, Hermogenes AW, Sacks HS et al. (1995) The efficacy of influenza vaccine in elderly persons: a meta-analysis and review of the literature. Ann Intern Med 123:518–527

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Jefferson T, Rivetti D, Rivetti A et al. (2005) Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines in elderly people: a systematic review. Lancet 366:1165–1174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Struchiner CJ, Halloran EM, Robins JM, Spielmann A (1990) The behaviour of common measures of association used to assess a vaccination programme under vomplex disease transmission patterns – a computer simulation study of malaria vaccines. Int J Epidemiol 19:187–196

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Halloran ME, Haber M, Longini IM, Struchiner CJ (1991) Direct and indirect effects in vaccine efficacy and effectiveness. Am J Epidemiol 133:323–3231

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Keitel WA, Cate TR, Couch RB et al. (1997) Efficacy of repeated annual immunization with inactivated influenza virus vaccines over a five year period. Vaccine 15:1114–1122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Smith DJ, Forrest S, Ackley DH, Perelson AS (1999) Variable efficacy of repeated annual Influenza vaccination. Proc Nat Acad Sci 96:14001–14006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt:

Keine Angaben

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. Uphoff.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Uphoff, H., Hauri, A.M., Schweiger, B. et al. Zur Schätzung der Schutzwirkung der Influenzaimpfung aus Surveillancedaten. Bundesgesundheitsbl - Gesundheitsforsch - Gesundheitsschutz 49, 287–295 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-006-1233-8

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-006-1233-8

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation