• Allen C Bateman, Burney A Kieke, Stephanie A Irving, Jennifer K Meece, David K Shay, and Edward A Belongia.
• Epidemiology Research Center(ML2), Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, 1000 N Oak Ave, Marshfield, WI 54449, USA.
• J. Infect. Dis. 2013 Apr 15; 207 (8): 1262-9.

BackgroundThe 2009 influenza A virus subtype H1N1 (A[H1N1]pdm09) did not exhibit antigenic drift during the 2010-2011 influenza season, providing an opportunity to investigate the duration of protection after vaccination. We estimated the independent effects of 2010-2011 seasonal trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) and A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine for preventing medically attended influenza A virus infection during the 2010-2011 season.MethodsIndividuals were tested for influenza A virus by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) after a clinical encounter for acute respiratory illness. Case-control analyses compared participants with rRT-PCR-confirmed influenza A virus infection and test-negative controls. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated separately for monovalent pandemic vaccine and TIV and was calculated as 100 × [1 - adjusted odds ratio], where the odds ratio was adjusted for potential confounders.ResultsThe effectiveness of TIV against influenza A virus infection was 63% (95% confidence interval [CI], 37%-78%). The effectiveness of TIV against A(H1N1)pdm09 infection was 77% (95% CI, 44%-90%). Monovalent vaccine administered between October 2009 and April 2010 was not protective during the 2010-2011 season, with an effectiveness of -1% (95% CI, -146% to 59%) against A(H1N1)pdm09 infection.Conclusions Monovalent vaccine provided no sustained protection against A(H1N1)pdm09 infection during the 2010-2011 season. This waning effectiveness supports the need for annual revaccination, even in the absence of antigenic drift in A(H1N1)pdm09.

27 keywords...

hide…