Abstract
Background In some settings, research methods to determine influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) may not be appropriate because of cost, time constraints, or other factors. Administrative database analysis of viral testing results and vaccination history may be a viable alternative. This study compared VE estimates from outpatient research and administrative databases.
Methods Using the test-negative, case-control design, data for 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 influenza seasons, were collected using: 1) research methods including consent, specimen collection, RT-PCR testing and vaccine verification using multiple methods; and 2) an administrative database of outpatients with a clinical respiratory viral panel combined with electronic immunization records. Odds ratios for likelihood of influenza infection by vaccination status were calculated using multivariable logistic regression. VE = (1 - OR) × 100.
Results Research participants were significantly younger (P<0.001), more often white (69% vs. 59%; P<0.001) than non-white and less frequently enrolled through the emergency department (ED) (35% vs. 72%; P<0.001) than administrative database participants. VE was significant against all influenza and influenza A in each season and both seasons combined (37%-49%). Point estimate differences between methods were evident, with higher VE in the research database, but insignificant due to low sample sizes. When enrollment sites were separately analyzed, there were significant differences in VE estimates for all influenza (66% research vs. 46% administrative P<0.001) and influenza A (67% research vs. 49% administrative; P<0.001) in the ED.
The selection of the appropriate method for determining influenza vaccine effectiveness depends on many factors, including sample size, subgroups of interest, etc., suggesting that research estimates may be more generalizable. Other advantages of research databases for VE estimates include lack of clinician-related selection bias for testing and less misclassification of vaccination status. The advantages of the administrative databases are potentially shorter time to VE results and lower cost.
Competing Interest Statement
Drs. Nowalk and Balasubramani, Ms Eng and Mr. Lyons have grant funding from Merck & Co., Inc. for an unrelated project. Dr. Zimmerman has grant funding from Sanofi Pasteur and Merck & Co., Inc. Mr. Clarke has no conflicts to report.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) [5U01IP001035-02] and by National Institutes of Health (NIH) [UL1TR001857]. This work represents the views of the authors and not the CDC or NIH.
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 University of Pittsburgh IRB approved the study.
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 peer-reviewed publication.
