Efficacy and effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccination for older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Influenza is responsible for a significant disease burden annually, especially in older adults. This study reviews the relative vaccine efficacy or effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine (HD-IIV3) compared to standard-dose influenza vaccines (SD-IIV3) in adults ≥65 against influenza-associated outcomes to inform evidence-based decision-making to shift clinical practice and standard of care in this population. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted for studies assessing the rVE of HD-IIV3 against probable/laboratory-confirmed influenza-like illness (ILI), hospital admissions, and death in adults ≥65. Results from individual seasons were meta-analyzed and a random-effects model was used to estimate pooled rVEs. RESULTS: After screening 992 studies, seven studies were meta-analyzed. HD-IIV3 demonstrated better protection against ILI compared to SD-IIV3 (rVE = 19.5%; 95% CI: 8.6-29.0%). HD-IIV3 was also more effective at preventing hospital admissions from all-causes (rVE = 9.1%; 95% CI: 2.4-15.3%), as well as from influenza (rVE = 17.8%; 95% CI: 8.1-26.5%), pneumonia (rVE = 24.3%, 95% CI: 13.9-33.4%), and cardiorespiratory events (rVE = 18.2%; 95% CI: 6.8-28.1%). rVE against post-influenza mortality was 22.2% (95% CI: -18.2-48.8%) and 2.5% (95% CI: -5.2-9.5%) against all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence suggests HD-IIV3 is more effective than SD-IIV3 at reducing the clinical outcomes associated with influenza infection in older adults and should be considered for routine use in the 65+ population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.046 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".