ABSTRACT
Background Yearly influenza immunization is recommended for immunocompromised (IC) individuals, although immune responses are lower than that for the non-immunocompromised and the data on vaccine effectiveness (VE) in the IC is scarce. We evaluated VE against influenza-associated hospitalization among IC adults.
Methods We analyzed data from adults ≥ 18 years hospitalized with acute respiratory illness (ARI) during the 2017-2018 influenza season at 10 hospitals in the United States. IC adults were identified using pre-specified case-definitions, utilizing electronic medical record data. VE was evaluated with a test-negative case-control design using multivariate logistic regression with PCR-confirmed influenza as the outcome and vaccination status as the exposure, adjusting for age, enrolling site, illness onset date, race, days from onset to specimen collection, self-reported health, and self-reported hospitalizations.
Results Of 3,524 adults hospitalized with ARI, 1,210 (34.3%) had an immunocompromising condition. IC adults were more likely to be vaccinated than non-IC (69.5% vs 65.2%), and less likely to have influenza (22% vs 27.8%). The mean age did not differ among IC and non-IC (61.4 vs 60.8 years old). The overall VE against influenza hospitalization, including immunocompetent adults, was 33% (95% CI, 21% to 44%). VE among IC vs non-IC adults was lower at 5% (−29% to 31%) vs. 41% (27% to 52%) (p<0.05 for interaction term).
Conclusions VE in one influenza season was very low among IC individuals. Future efforts should include evaluation of VE among the different immunocompromising conditions and whether enhanced vaccines improve the suboptimal effectiveness among the immunocompromised.
Competing Interest Statement
DBM has received personal fees from Sequris, Pfizer, and Sanofi Pasteur, and grants from Pfizer. JF reports non-financial support from the Institute for Influenza Epidemiology. RKZ has received grants from Sanofi Pasteur and Merck & Co. All other authors report no potential conflicts.
Clinical Trial
This study was not registered in ClinicalTrials.gov because it doesn't meet NIH's definition of a clinical trial.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the CDC (cooperative agreement IP15-002). Vanderbilt also received support from CTSA award number UL1 TR002243 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study protocol was reviewed by the Institutional Review Board at each participating institution and CDC, as detailed below: CDC's IRB: ethical approval given University of Pittsburgh IRB: ethical approval given University of Michigan IRB: ethical approval given Baylor Scott & White Health IRB: ethical approval given Vanderbilt University IRB: ethical approval given
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data may be made available after completion of the study.
