ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2024
Relative Effectiveness of the MF59-Adjuvanted Influenza Vaccine Versus High-Dose Influenza Vaccine in Older Adults With Influenza Risk Factors During the 2019-2020 US Influenza Season.
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adjuvanted vs High-Dose Influenza Vaccines in Older US Adults: A Cluster Randomized Crossover Study.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- Comparative analysis of cellular immune responses to four seasonal inactivated influenza vaccines in younger and older adults.Journal of immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950) · 2026Article
- [Recommendations for vaccination of adults for respiratory physicians].Pneumologie (Stuttgart, Germany) · 2026Review
- Review
- Comparison of immunogenicity of adjuvanted and high dose influenza vaccination in long-term care facility residents.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study estimated the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of the MF59-adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine (aTIV) versus high-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-TIV) for prevention of influenza-related medical encounters (IRMEs) during the 2019-2020 United States (US) influenza season stratified by the cumulative number of influenza risk factors. A secondary objective evaluated outpatient IRMEs and influenza- and pneumonia-related hospitalizations. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included US adults ≥65 years old vaccinated with aTIV or HD-TIV between 1 August 2019 and 31 January 2020. Electronic health records linked to claims were used to ascertain exposure, covariates, risk factors, and outcomes. Multivariable adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were derived using inverse probability of treatment-weighted samples to calculate rVEs independently for individuals with 0, ≥1, 1-2, or ≥3 risk factors. Results: The study included 1 115 725 aTIV and 2 561 718 HD-TIV recipients. For the primary outcome of any IRME, the analysis found comparable effectiveness between aTIV and HD-TIV (rVE, 5.2% [95% confidence interval {CI}, -5.9% to 15.1%]) among those with 0 risk factors, whereas aTIV was more effective than HD-TIV among patients with ≥1, 1-2, or ≥3 risk factors (12.5% [95% CI, 10.0%-15.0%], 18.4% [95% CI, 13.7%-22.9%], and 10.4% [7.4%-13.3%], respectively). The same trends were observed for the secondary outcomes. Conclusions: This study demonstrated comparable effectiveness of aTIV and HD-TIV among individuals with no identified risk factors and higher effectiveness of aTIV compared with HD-TIV in preventing any IRMEs, outpatient IRMEs, and influenza- or pneumonia-related hospitalizations among those with at least 1 or multiple high-risk factors in adults ≥65 years old.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.