Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29971427›Full record

ArticleJAMA pediatrics2018

Effectiveness of Live Attenuated vs Inactivated Influenza Vaccines in Children During the 2012-2013 Through 2015-2016 Influenza Seasons in Alberta, Canada: A Canadian Immunization Research Network (CIRN) Study.

Sarah A Buchan, Stephanie Booth, Allison N Scott, Kimberley A Simmonds, Lawrence W Svenson, Steven J Drews, Margaret L Russell, Natasha S Crowcroft, Mark Loeb, Bryna F Warshawsky and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA pediatrics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Live Attenuated Cold-Adapted Influenza Vaccines.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2021
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Viral Shedding in Recipients of Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine in the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 Influenza Seasons in the United Kingdom.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Sarah A BuchanDivision of Epidemiology, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Stephanie BoothAnalytics and Performance Reporting Branch, Alberta Ministry of Health, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Allison N ScottAnalytics and Performance Reporting Branch, Alberta Ministry of Health, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Kimberley A SimmondsDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Lawrence W SvensonAnalytics and Performance Reporting Branch, Alberta Ministry of Health, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Steven J DrewsDiagnostic Virology, Provincial Laboratory (ProvLab) for Public Health, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Margaret L RussellDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Natasha S CrowcroftDivision of Epidemiology, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Mark LoebDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Bryna F WarshawskyCommunicable Diseases, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Public Health Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Jeffrey C KwongDivision of Epidemiology, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Recent observational studies report conflicting results regarding the effectiveness of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV), particularly against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of LAIV and inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) against laboratory-confirmed influenza. Design, Setting, and Participants: A test-negative study to estimate influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) using population-based, linked, individual-level laboratory, health administrative, and immunization data. Data were obtained from 10 169 children and adolescents aged 2 to 17 years (children) who were tested for influenza in inpatient or outpatient settings during periods when influenza was circulating based on a threshold level of 5% weekly test positivity for the province during the 4 influenza seasons spanning from November 11, 2012, to April 30, 2016, in Alberta, Canada. Logistic regression was used to estimate VE by vaccine type, influenza season, and influenza type and subtype. The relative effectiveness of each vaccine type was assessed by comparing the odds of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection for LAIV recipients with that for IIV recipients. Exposures: The primary exposure was receipt of LAIV or IIV before testing for influenza. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was influenza case status as determined by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction testing. Results: A total of 10 779 respiratory specimens (from 10 169 children) collected and tested for influenza during the 4 influenza seasons were included, with 53.4% from males; the mean (SD) age was 7.0 (4.6) years. Across the 4 influenza seasons, 3161 children tested positive for influenza. Combining the 4 influenza seasons, the adjusted VE against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 was 69% (95% CI, 56%-78%) for LAIV compared with 79% (95% CI, 70%-86%) for IIV. Vaccine effectiveness against influenza A(H3N2) was 36% (95% CI, 14%-53%) for LAIV and 43% (95% CI, 22%-59%) for IIV. Against influenza B, VE was 74% (95% CI, 62%-82%) for LAIV and 56% (95% CI, 41%-66%) for IIV. There were no significant differences in the odds of influenza infection for LAIV recipients compared with IIV recipients except for influenza B during the 2015-2016 season, when LAIV recipients had lower odds of infection than IIV recipients (odds ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.17-0.76). Conclusions and Relevance: There was no evidence to support the lack of effectiveness of LAIV against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09. These results support administration of either vaccine type in this age group.

Indexed as

AdolescentAlbertaChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfluenza A Virus, H1N1 SubtypeInfluenza A Virus, H3N2 SubtypeInfluenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesMaleSeasonsVaccinationVaccines, AttenuatedVaccines, InactivatedInfluenza VaccinesVaccines, AttenuatedVaccines, Inactivated

Identifiers

PMID29971427
PMCPMC6143060

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.