Evaluating reduced effectiveness after repeat influenza vaccination while accounting for confounding by recent infection and within-season waning

2 Introduction

Many national health authorities and the World Health Organization recommend annual influenza vaccination of persons at high risk, with some countries recommending universal vaccination [1,2]. Despite these recommendations, vaccination coverage usually remains significantly lower than desired [3,4]. Variation in influenza immunization policy and vaccine hesitancy can be partially attributed to difficulties in estimating the direct effectiveness and indirect benefits of influenza vaccination accurately [2].

A controlled study over four decades ago first raised questions about repeated annual influenza vaccination, reporting that vaccination in an earlier season indirectly affected the risk of infection in the current season [5,6]. It was not until a test-negative study in Canada [7], a vaccine trial in Hong Kong [8] and a household-based study in the United States [9] independently investigated vaccine effectiveness (VE) and immunogenicity among repeat vaccinees and non-repeat vaccinees in the 2009/10 and 2010/11 seasons that the phenomenon was investigated routinely [10–16]. Since then, reduced VE against A(H3N2) among repeat vaccinees compared with non-repeat vaccinees was observed during the 2010/11 and 2012/13 seasons in the United States [9,13,17], the 2014-2015 season in Canada and Europe [14,15], and the 2018/19 season against certain subclades of A/H3N2 in Europe [18]. Such effects have been less often reported for A(H1N1) and type B [10,11], which are comparatively less prevalent, though pooled analyses have shown this effect for type B [11].

Test-negative studies conducted in healthcare settings have become the standard way to evaluate vaccine protection, including in repeat vaccinees. A test-negative design estimates VE by comparing vaccination coverage in persons with a medically-attended acute respiratory illness who test positive for influenza with those who test negative [19]. Several factors that may bias estimates of repeat vaccination effects in observational studies, including those using test-negative design, have not been accounted for. Vaccine-induced protection against influenza virus infection wanes within a season [20–28][29–34]. As a result, the vaccine protection estimated among otherwise similar groups of vaccinees may differ if the timing of vaccination is not taken into account. If repeat vaccinees tend to vaccinate substantially earlier in a season, waning protection could make the risk of infection among repeat vaccinees appear higher than that among non-repeat vaccinees.

Infection in past seasons may provide immune protection against infection in the current season. The infection block hypothesis [6,35–37] suggests that prior vaccinations block opportunities to experience highly immunogenic clinical influenza virus infections, which can lead to more cross-reactive and durable immune responses than vaccine-induced immunity, especially when circulating viruses differ from vaccine strains [38,39]. If true, the infection-block hypothesis could explain increased risk of infection among repeat vaccinees compared to non-repeat vaccinees, because repeat vaccinees are less likely to have experienced clinical or subclinical infections in the previous season than non-repeat vaccinees due to protection from prior vaccinations, and therefore, repeat vaccinees may have less immune protection at the start of an influenza season than non-repeat vaccinees. This might lead to a higher incidence of clinical influenza virus infection in the current season among repeat than among non-repeat vaccinees. The difference in risk between the two groups can be further amplified if recent infection, which is expected to be more likely in non-repeat vaccinees, improves vaccine immunogenicity and thus vaccine-induced protection [38], as has also been recently observed for SARS-CoV-2 [40].

In epidemiologic terms [41], under the infection-block hypothesis, infection in the previous season is a mediator between vaccination in the previous season and a clinical infection outcome in the current season. When we estimate the effect of repeated vaccination, as a mediator, infection in the previous season does not on its own introduce a source of bias. However, if infection in the previous season influences the decision to vaccinate in the current season as well as the probability of clinical infection in the current season, then it is also a confounder that can bias the estimated effect of repeated vaccination on clinical infection. Because infection in the previous season may be both a mediator and a confounder, appropriately adjusting for it requires an approach that can handle this treatment-confounder feedback, such as inverse-probability weighting [42].

We defined the repeat vaccination effect as the causal effect of the prior-season vaccination on odds of clinical PCR-confirmed influenza infection among individuals vaccinated in the current season. We designed analyses of the repeat vaccination effect that account for waning and the confounder-mediator status of prior-season clinical infection, and then conducted a theoretical analysis to consider the possibility that prior-season subclinical infection could explain the repeat vaccination effect. We chose to study the repeat vaccination effect defined as the relative odds of clinical infection because it is conceptually simpler than the observation of reduced VE from repeat vaccination. Our definition compares risks in two groups: those with vaccination in the previous and current seasons (repeat) vs. current season only (non-repeat). In contrast, the VE comparisons require risk estimates for those vaccinated only in the previous season and those vaccinated in neither season: they assess a ratio of risk (or odds) ratios, which is more complex and thus harder to interpret.

To assess the potential influence of within-season waning of vaccine-induced protection on the repeat vaccination effect, we determined whether the timing of vaccination differed between repeat and non-repeat vaccinees using data collected from the five US Flu VE Network sites and eight influenza seasons, from the 2011-2012 season through the 2018-2019 season. We then assessed the effect of repeated vaccination after accounting for intra-season waning of vaccine protection (results in Section 4.1).

To assess whether clinical infection in the prior-season may have biased our estimate of the effect of repeated vaccination by acting as a confounder, we performed a second set of analyses. Using surveillance and enrollment data from the Marshfield Clinic Health System (MCHS), one of the US Flu VE Network sites, we assessed whether non-repeat vaccinees were enriched with individuals who had experienced recent clinical influenza virus infection compared with repeat vaccinees, i.e., we examined whether the decision to vaccinate depended on recently confirmed influenza virus infection. We then adjusted for confirmed clinical infection history using inverse-probability weighting (results in Section 4.2).

Finally, we theoretically assessed the plausibility of the infection block hypothesis and enhanced VE from recent subclinical infections as explanations for the repeat vaccination effect. Specifically, we evaluated what rates of prior subclinical infections and what level of infection-induced protection or VE enhancement in repeat and non-repeat vaccinees were consistent with the observed effect of repeated vaccination. We provide important justification for considering timing of vaccination, waning of VE, and infection history when estimating infection risk (results in Section 4.3).

3 Methods

4 Results

Between the 2011-2012 and 2018-2019 seasons, individuals enrolled in the US Flu VE Network contributed 61,943 visits, of which 55,728 (90.0%) met the inclusion criteria of our analyses. Of those included in our analyses, 50.2% (27,986/55,728) of visits were by individuals who had received one dose of the current seasonal influenza vaccine ≥14 days prior to illness onset date (Supplementary Figure 1.1). Among those vaccinated ≥14 days prior to illness onset, 73.7% (20,630/27,986) of visits were by individuals who were vaccinated at least once in the previous season, and who we refer to as repeat vaccinees (Supplementary Table 1.1).

Surveillance data from the MCHS were available between the 2007-2008 season and the 2018-2019 season. In total, 16,378 individuals were enrolled during these 12 seasons and contributed 24,399 visits (Supplementary Figure 1.1). Among them, 12,057 individuals over 9 seasons (the 2008-2009 season, the 2010-2011 through 2018-2019 seasons) were included in the main analyses that study the impact of clinical infection (Supplementary Table 1.2). These individuals contributed 15,362 visits. Among the 7,262 individuals who had received one dose of the current seasonal influenza vaccine ≥14 days prior to illness onset, 83.0% (n=6,024) had also been vaccinated in the previous season, and 92.2% (n=6,693) had been vaccinated in at least one of the three seasons immediately before the enrolment season. Among those who presented with acute respiratory symptoms and were eligible for enrolment in the prior season, 68.4% (754/1,102) were enrolled.

4.1 Impact of waning vaccine protection

On average, repeat vaccinees of similar age, sex, and comorbidities were vaccinated 1.1 (95%CI: 1.0-1.2) weeks earlier than non-repeat vaccinees (Figure 1A). Also, consistent with previous work [20] we estimated waning of vaccine protection with time since vaccination in the current season (Figure 1C). Thus, when estimating the impact of repeat vs. non-repeat vaccination on odds of clinical infection in the current season, we adjusted for the timing of vaccination in the current season to account for waning vaccine protection within a season (see subsection 6.1 for detailed methods). After adjusting for the timing of vaccination in the current season, we found that repeat vaccinees had 1.03 (95%CI: 0.89, 1.18) times the odds of testing positive for type B than non-repeat vaccinees, similar to the OR of 1.06 (95%CI: 0.92-1.22) before adjustment (Figure 1C). Likewise, the adjustment did not strongly alter the odds of clinical infection with A/H1N1pdm09 among repeat vaccinees compared with non-repeat vaccinees (pre-adjustment OR=1.08 (95%CI: 0.94-1.24) to post-adjustment OR=1.03 (95%CI: 0.90-1.19)). The adjustment did not change the observation that repeat vaccinees had higher odds of clinical infection with A/H3N2 than non-repeat vaccinees (post-adjustment OR=1.11 (95%CI: 1.02, 1.21) vs. pre-adjustment OR=1.13 (95%CI: 1.04,1.23)). The effect of repeated vaccination against A/H3N2 was particularly strong among the 10-19-year-olds (post-adjustment OR=1.48, 95%CI: 1.18, 1.87; Supplementary Figure 2.2). In summary, adjusting for the timing of vaccination in the current season did not notably change the findings of a marked repeat vaccination effect for A/H3N2 and had little to no effect for A/H1N1pdm09 and type B (see Supplementary Figure 2.3 for variation in estimates by season and site).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

Impact of waning influenza vaccine effectiveness within a season. A) Average calendar week of vaccination among repeat and non-repeat vaccinees over the study enrollment seasons. Repeat vaccinees consistently get vaccinated earlier than non-repeat vaccinees. B) Adjusted odds ratio for clinical infection among individuals vaccinated this season stratified based on whether the individuals were also vaccinated in the prior season (repeat vaccinees) or not (non-repeat vaccinees) before (yellow) and after (red) adjusting for the timing of vaccination within a season. Site- and season-specific data were shown in Supplementary Figure 2.3). C) Adjusted odds ratio of clinical infection comparing individuals vaccinated 2-9, 10-13, 14-17, 18-21, and 22+ weeks before testing positive with respect to those not vaccinated in the current season. Site- and season-specific data were shown in Supplementary Figure 2.1. See Supplementary Section 2 for detailed definitions of the quantities reported here.

In models accounting for the timing of vaccination as well as for whether an individual was vaccinated in the previous season, we observed that odds of infection against all three (sub)types increased within a season (Figure 1C). Compared with individuals not vaccinated in the current season (with the highest risk of testing positive), individuals vaccinated 2-9 weeks before testing had lower OR (0.29 [95%CI 0.23, 0.35]) than those vaccinated 18-21 weeks before testing (OR 0.66; 95%CI 0.56, 0.78) for A/H1N1pdm09-associated illness. Similarly, compared with individuals not vaccinated in the current season, the odds of testing positive for infection with type B increased from 0.37 (95%CI 0.30, 0.45) among individuals vaccinated 2-9 weeks before testing to 0.54 (95%CI: 0.46, 0.64) 18-21 weeks before testing. Compared with individuals not vaccinated in the current season, the odds of testing positive for infection with A/H3N2 increased from 0.68 (95%CI: 0.61, 0.76) among individuals vaccinated 2-9 weeks before testing to 0.84 (95%CI: 0.75, 0.94) 18-21 weeks before testing. In the 2014-2015 season, when there was a mismatch between the A/H3N2 component and the circulating strains, the odds of infection decreased with time from vaccination in Wisconsin (Supplementary Figure 2.1). Excluding the 2,850 individuals (5.1%) who vaccinated after the start of an influenza season (i.e., after the first case was detected at each site) did not qualitatively change the estimates (Supplementary Figure 2.4).

4.2 Impact of clinical infection history

We used data from only the MCHS to assess the impact of clinical infection history since it was the only site in the US Flu VE Network that had linked previous enrollment and testing history on enrolled individuals. We found that prior clinical infections of the homologous (sub)type protected against clinical infections of type B or A/H3N2, with more recent infections conferring stronger protection (Figure 2A); those infected with type B more than 6 seasons ago had 3.44 (95%CI: 1.04-11.4) times the odds of testing positive for type B in the current season than those who were clinically infected in the previous 1-2 seasons (Figure 2A). A similar trend was observed for clinical infections against A/H3N2 (OR=33.6, 95%CI: 4.52-250, Figure 2A). We did not find clinical infections of a heterologous (sub)type to be protective (Supplementary Figure 3.2). Due to the limited number of A/H1N1pdm09 infections during our enrollment period, we were not able to assess the impact of homologous infection with A/H1N1pdm09.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

Impact of clinical infections on the estimated effect of repeated vaccination among participants from the Marshfield Clinic Health System. A) Association between recent clinical infections and odds of current-season clinical infection. More distant clinical infections of the homologous subtype are associated with a higher odds of current-season clinical infection. B) Tendency to switch vaccination status in the current season after clinical infection in the previous season. Compared with individuals without confirmed infections, unvaccinated individuals who were clinically infected in the previous season were more likely to vaccinate in the current season. C) Estimated effect of repeat vaccination after adjusting for recent clinical infections. Adjusted odds ratio for clinical infection comparing repeat vaccinees with non-repeat vaccinees before (light blue) and after adjusting for clinical infection status in the previous season (dark blue) using inverse-probability weighting. Adjustment did not significantly impact the estimates. In all panels, error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals.

We also found that having confirmed influenza virus infections in previous seasons can influence people’s decision to vaccinate in the current season. Unvaccinated individuals were more likely to vaccinate in the current season (OR=1.23, 95%CI: 1.11-1.35) if they were clinically infected in the previous season than if they were not infected. However, individuals who became infected after being vaccinated in a previous season were as likely to be unvaccinated in the current season as those not infected (OR=0.97, 95%CI: 0.85-1.10), with the exception of the oldest age group: adults over the age of 65 years who experienced a confirmed infection in the previous season were less likely to be unvaccinated in the current season (OR=0.62, 95%CI: 0.42-0.91) compared with those in the same age group who did not experience a confirmed infection (Figure 2B).

Estimating the effect of repeated vaccination requires estimating the joint effect of vaccination in the previous and current season on infection status in the current season. Because clinical infection in the previous season is both affected by vaccination in the previous season and a confounder for the effect of vaccination in the current season on infection in the current season, we adjusted for it using inverse-probability weighting. We found that the adjustment had little influence on the estimated effect of repeated vaccination against A/H1N1pdm09 (Figure 2C). After we adjusted for clinical infection in the previous season, repeat vaccinees enrolled during the 2008-2009 season and between the 2010-2011 and the 2018-2019 seasons had 1.30 (95%CI: 0.94-1.68) times the odds of testing positive for A/H1N1dpm09 than those who were only vaccinated in the current season. Accounting for clinical infection history did not significantly change the estimates for the effect of repeated vaccination against A/H3N2 (from 1.01, 95% CI: 0.83-1.22 to 1.16, 95%CI: 0.96-1.40 post adjustment) or against type B (from 1.25, 95%CI: 0.94-1.68 to 1.12, 95%CI: 0.87-1.45 post adjustment; Figure 2C). Excluding the 108 individuals who presented with acute respiratory illness but refused enrollment in the previous season did not significantly change the results (Supplementary Figure 3.3). The distributions of the estimated stabilized weights were mean=1.00, range=0.70–1.32, IQR=1.00–1.00 for infection against A/H3N2, A/H1N1, and type B. Not adjusting for waning vaccine protection in the weighted outcome model yielded similar results (Supplementary Figure 3.4, see methods in Supplementary Section 3).

4.3 Impact of clinical and subclinical infection history

4.3.1 Infection block hypothesis

In the previous section we estimated that repeat vaccinees had a 10% increase (OR∼1.1) in the odds of current seasonal infection, an effect that could be partially mediated by clinical infection in the prior season, a version of the infection block hypothesis. In this section, we further explore using a theoretical model, the degree to which subclinical infection – which would not be observed in any of the data sets we consider – could fully explain the observed repeat vaccination effect. To do so, we evaluated the proportion of repeat and non-repeat vaccinees who would have had to have been subclinically infected in previous seasons in order to reproduce the elevated odds of clinical infection among repeat vaccinees observed in the US Flu VE Network, assuming that the subclinical infection-block hypothesis was the only explanation for the observed elevated risk.

Under the infection block hypothesis [6,35–37], if we assumed a 2% clinical attack rate among those not vaccinated in a season based on estimates from the US [47], a 50% VE against clinical infection would lead to a clinical attack rate of 1% among vaccinees. We also assumed that the current-season clinical attack rate among the subset of current-season vaccinees who were not infected in the previous season is 1.5%. (This rate is higher than the expected 1% clinical attack rate for vaccinees overall because it includes only vaccinees without additional protection from recent infection.) In Figure 3, we show that for example, if the protection against future clinical infections after a subclinical infection is 30% (the first panel) and 20% of repeat vaccinees were subclinically infected in the prior season (the x-axis), then 45% of non-repeat vaccinees would have to have been subclinically infected in the prior season (the y-axis) to observe the estimated effect of repeated vaccination in the US Flu VE Network (i.e., odds ratio for clinical infection comparing repeat vaccinees with non-repeat vaccinees against A/H3N2 or type B of 1.1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3:

The fraction of repeat and non-repeat vaccinees who would need to have been subclinically infected in the previous season to reproduce the estimated effect of repeated vaccination in the US Flu VE Network. See Supplementary Section 4 for detailed methods. The estimated effect of repeated vaccination (OR=1.1) in the US Flu VE network is colored in purple. The results shown here are generated assuming vaccine effectiveness against clinical infection is 50%; clinical attack rate among vaccinees in a season is 1%; current-season clinical attack rate among the subset of current-season vaccinees not infected in the previous season is 1.5%; and clinical infection in the previous season perfectly protects against clinical infection in the following season. Each facet represents a predetermined protection against clinical infection after subclinical infection (i.e., 30%, 50%, 70%). The legend represents the estimated effect of repeated vaccination given the difference in subclinical attack rate among repeat vaccinees (x-axis) and non-repeat vaccinees (y-axis) and assumptions stated above. Only the plausible range of subclinical attack rate among repeat vaccinees (x-axis) and non-repeat vaccinees (y-axis; 0-50%) are shown in the figure.

We found that for a range of hypothetical protections after subclinical infection (30, 50, and 70% protection against future clinical infection) and given our assumptions about clinical attack rates, to produce the observed OR in the US Flu VE Network, non-repeat vaccinees would have to be subclinically infected in the prior season at a substantially higher rate than repeat vaccinees (Figure 3). Larger differences in subclinical attack rates between the two groups or stronger protection against clinical infection after subclinical infection would each lead to a greater excess of clinical infections in the current season among repeat vaccinees compared with non-repeat vaccinees (Figure 3), leading to increased odds of clinical infection among repeat vaccinees, consistent with the infection block hypothesis.

When repeat and non-repeat vaccinees experienced subclinical infections in the previous season at the same rate, a scenario represented by the diagonal lines in Figure 3, the higher rate of clinical infection among non-repeat vaccinees compared with repeat vaccinees (1% vs. 2% based on our assumption) could elevate OR to only about 1.01 (vs. the observed ORs of about 1.1 in the CDC Flu VE Network). For thoroughness, we explored the possibility that prior-season clinical infection fully mediates the relationship between prior-season vaccination and the odds of current-season clinical infection using a theoretical model. Under a range of parameters and assumptions, the protection conferred by clinical infection in the prior season led to little variation in the estimated effect of repeated vaccination in the theoretical model, suggesting that prior-season clinical infection is unlikely to be an important mediator in this relationship (See Supplementary Section 5).

The annual incidence of clinical influenza virus infection has been estimated to be as high as 6% in some settings and higher among the younger age group [47]. We therefore considered an alternative assumption of 6% incidence of clinical infection among unvaccinated individuals and 3% among vaccinated individuals. Compared with estimates from a low incidence setting, we would then expect a greater excess of clinical infections in the current season among repeat vaccinees compared with non-repeat vaccinees when non-repeat vaccinees experience a higher rate of subclinical infections in the prior season than repeat vaccinees (Supplementary Figure 4.1).

4.3.2 Enhanced vaccine immunogenicity hypothesis

Studies have shown that recent infection can lead to better vaccine immunogenicity and thus potentially better vaccine protection among recently infected vaccinees [38,40]. We show that this hypothesis can be incorporated into the same framework given a different interpretation of the same parameters (see Supplementary Section 4). If recent infection improves vaccine immunogenicity and thus vaccine-induced protection, a smaller difference in rates of subclinical infection between repeat and non-repeat vaccinees would generate the same estimated effect of repeated vaccination against infection in the current season (Supplementary Figure 4.2).

For example, in the scenario we described in the second paragraph of section 4.3.1, we would observe the expected effect of repeated vaccination (OR=1.1) when the difference in the rate of subclinical infection between repeat and non-repeat vaccinees is 25% (rates among the two groups are 20% and 45% respectively). If recent infection boosts VE from 50% to 76% while other assumptions stay the same, only a difference of 10% in the rate of subclinical infection between the two groups (20% and 30% respectively) is needed to produce the same expected effect of repeated vaccination (Supplementary Figure 4.2).

5 Discussion

Observational studies [9–15,17,18,43], mostly using the test-negative design [10–15,17,18,43], have provided critical information on influenza VE. These studies can have biases and uncontrolled confounding that affect inference, including inference of the effectiveness of the vaccine in different subpopulations [49–53]. Reduced VE in repeat vaccinees has been a troubling, intermittent, and largely unexplained phenomenon [10,11]. We studied a component phenomenon, which is that the absolute risk (or odds) of infection among vaccinees in the current season is less if they were unvaccinated last season than if they were vaccinated last season. We observed waning of vaccine protection and repeat vaccinees’ tendency to vaccinate earlier within a season compared with non-repeat vaccinees. We showed that clinical infection impacts individuals’ decisions to vaccinate in the next season, and these infections in the past 1-2 seasons could confer strong protection against reinfection. However, these potentially biasing factors – prior-season infection and timing of vaccination – were insufficient to fully explain the higher risk of infection in the repeat vaccinees vs. non-repeat vaccinees in our study population. We showed that the residual repeat vaccination effect might be explained by different rates of subclinical infection between repeat and non-repeat vaccinees. These subclinical infections could result in a higher estimated odds of clinical infection among repeat vaccinees via two proposed mechanisms, the infection block hypothesis [6,35–37] and the hypothesis of enhanced vaccine immunogenicity and protection post-infection [38,54].

Our refined estimates of the effect of repeated vaccination are overall consistent with published studies. Similar to results from published meta-analyses [10,11] and a study that spans an eight-year period in Wisconsin and includes a subset of our data [12], repeat vaccination reduced VE for clinical infection with A/H3N2. During our 8 recruitment seasons that include 6 seasons with strong A/H3N2 circulation, we observed mildly elevated odds of clinical infection in repeat vaccinees in all but the 2018-2019 season, some of which have previously been reported using the US Flu VE Network data [9,17]. In the 2014-2015 season, although a higher odds of infection among repeat vaccinees was observed for A/H3N2 in Canada and Europe [14,15], we observed similar and statistically significant results in only one of five US Flu VE Network sites. For A/H1N1pdm09, we found slightly increased odds of clinical infection among repeat vaccinees in the 2013-2014 season, which has also previously been reported using the same data [53]. However, we did not observe increased odds of clinical infection with A/H1N1pdm09 among repeat vaccinees when data were pooled across all 8 seasons, including 3 seasons with strong A/H1N1pdm09 circulation, consistent with results from published meta-analyses that cover broader geographic areas and different but overlapping seasons [10,11]. For type B, we found increased odds of clinical infection after repeated vaccination in the 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017 seasons, as well as when data were pooled across the enrollment seasons, although there is no statistical significance [11]. These results for the three (sub)types were upheld after accounting for waning of vaccine protection.

Mostly due to lack of data, clinical infection history has typically not been accounted for when estimating influenza VE. We found differences in clinical infection history between repeat and non-repeat vaccinees. Recent clinical infections seem on average to motivate unvaccinated individuals to vaccinate in the next season, making non-repeat vaccinees more likely to have experienced recent, potentially immunizing infections at the start of a season than the repeat vaccinees. The strength of this association varied by age. However, accounting for clinical infection history did not substantially change the estimated effect of repeat vaccination, indicating that confounding by prior-season clinical infection through its effect on current-season vaccination behavior may not fully explain the elevated odds of infection among repeat vaccinees. Aside from its potential role as a confounder, we also explored the possibility that prior-season clinical infection acts as a mediator of the relationship between prior-season vaccination and the odds of current-season clinical infection using a theoretical model (see Supplementary Section 5), and we found it unlikely to act as an important mediator. Verifying the finding in surveillance data requires methods that can tease apart the direct and indirect effect of vaccination after taking into account the interaction of vaccination and infection over a multi-year period.

Although we did not measure the rate of subclinical infections through serological studies, we found in theoretical analyses that protection would be reduced in repeat vaccinees to the extent estimated in the US Flu VE Network if they experience a lower rate of partially protective subclinical infections in the prior season compared to non-repeat vaccinees. We observed that, when the protection against future clinical infection after subclinical infections is 70%, the rate of subclinical infections would have to be lower in repeat vaccines than in non-repeat vaccines by about 10 percentage points to create the observed increase in clinical infection risk among repeat vaccinees. This absolute difference would increase to about 25 percentage points if the protection against future clinical infection is about 30%. This finding provides an explanation for increased risk after repeated vaccination after adjusting for clinical infection history alone. We demonstrated mathematically that smaller differences in subclinical infection rates could generate observed differences in VE if subclinical infection also substantially enhances the immunogenicity of vaccination in the next season. Understanding the difference in rate of subclinical infection between the two groups and how it varies by season might be crucial to explaining the variation in the effect of repeated vaccination.

The sensitivity of the estimated effect of repeated vaccination to differences in attack rates and infection-associated protection suggests a possible explanation for the observed variability in the estimated effect of repeat vaccination and other VE measures across locations and time. Using data from the CDC FluView database, we observed substantial variability in the relative sizes of influenza epidemics across the regions encompassing the five sites of the US Flu VE Network, which might be interpreted as a rough proxy for incidence. There is also well known variability in the sizes of influenza epidemics over time, and spatiotemporal variability in circulating clades that could affect the strength of protection conferred by infection. These possible explanations for VE variability suggest a need to try to account for past infections, so that VE estimates can be compared across populations stratified by similar infection history. Longitudinal cohort studies that involve blood collection, active surveillance, and sequencing can be useful for identifying subclinical infections, and coupling these observations with healthcare-seeking behavior and PCR testing can help test support for the infection block and enhanced immunogenicity hypotheses [55]. Eventually, stratification on infection history may be possible through surrogate immune markers and feasible under other study designs, e.g., by measuring antibodies to nucleoprotein, which should be boosted only on infection, and hemagglutinin, which should be boosted after either exposure type.

The study has several limitations. Throughout our analysis, we assumed that influenza vaccination with any type of influenza vaccine confers complete protection in a subset of vaccinees. We did not consider the “leaky” vaccine effects, where vaccines are partially protective in all recipients, and which can lead to observed decline in VE without the need for waning vaccine protection [56]. Although the test-negative study, by selecting only patients who seek medical care, is designed to reduce the difference in health-seeking behavior between cases and non-cases, it does not eliminate it [50]. We were not able to test the representativeness of the enrolled patients across US Flu VE Network sites, although estimates excluding participants who refused enrollment in the previous season in MCHS were consistent with our main results, providing some confidence the enrolled population is generalizable to the population from which they were sampled. We did not explore birth cohort effects or the effects of antigenic distance on protection [57–60]. The timing of vaccination each season and vaccination status in the previous season were determined based on electronic medical records. We found that 7.5% (2,267/30,338) of individuals from the 5 sites who self-reported to have been vaccinated in the current season lacked an electronic record of vaccination. However, excluding these individuals did not qualitatively change the results. We attempted to adjust for clinical infection in the previous season using data from MCHS as a proxy for longitudinal follow-up data. Two-thirds of enrolled individuals in a season consented to enrollment in the previous season if eligible and invited to participate. However, the proportion of patients with ARI who were screened for enrollment varied by season and may have been somewhat affected by the volume of patients each day and the staffing capacity. As a result, we were not able to capture all patients who presented with ARI in the catchment area. Since we assumed individuals without an enrollment record in the previous season were not clinically infected, some of them may be misclassified.

The practical benefits of annual vaccination programs should not be extrapolated from this analysis of the relative risk of infection in repeat vaccinees compared to non-repeat vaccinees. The choice between an annual and a non-annual vaccination program should be based on assessments of the infection risk among all repeat and non-repeat vaccinees as well as the unvaccinated. Our analysis does not compare the risk of infection between repeat vaccinees and those vaccinated in the prior season only, who would be part of a hypothetical non-annual vaccination program.

Our study provides evidence that two potential factors, timing of vaccination and clinical infection history, are insufficient to fully explain increased risk in repeat vaccinees compared with non-repeat vaccinees. Clinical infection history is further unlikely to act as a strong mediator to explain the repeated vaccination effect. We find that under reasonable assumptions, the infection block hypothesis involving subclinical infection in the previous season may explain the observation of higher incidence of clinical influenza among those vaccinated in both the previous and current seasons than among those vaccinated only in the current season, thus acting as a potential mediator. Estimation of VE requires careful consideration of both time since vaccination and infection history of different subpopulations in a geographic setting.