MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981960217 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofz360.2424

2747. Relative Vaccine Efficacy of High-Dose vs. Standard Dose Influenza Vaccines in Preventing Probable Influenza in a US Medicare Fee-for-Service Population

2019· article· en· W2981960217 on OpenAlexaff
Misti L. Paudel, Salaheddin M. Mahmud, Ami Buikema, Stephanie Korrer, Van Voorhis Damon, Lee Brekke, Ayman Chit

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePharmacyInfluenza vaccineVaccinationCohortPopulationInternal medicineHazard ratioCohort studyOutpatient clinicFamily medicineEmergency medicineImmunologyEnvironmental healthConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background High dose (HD) influenza vaccine has been shown to be more efficacious than standard dose (SD) vaccine in multiple randomized trials. HD is currently the most commonly used vaccine in US seniors (≥65 years of age). In this study, we evaluated the real-world relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of HD vs SD over 3 influenza seasons. Methods This study includes a cohort of Medicare fee-for-service enrollees during influenza seasons 2011–2012 to 2013–2014 who received either HD or SD at a pharmacy or an outpatient clinic. HD recipients were matched 1:1 to SD recipients based on location, date of vaccination, age, and gender. Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard models with competing risk of death were used to adjust for residual confounding. The study outcome of probable influenza was defined as any inpatient stay with an influenza diagnosis on the claim, or an outpatient medical encounter with a rapid influenza test/culture followed by an antiviral prescription. Analyses were stratified based on vaccination location (clinic vs pharmacy) as it is expected that physicians carrying both vaccines may prioritize HD to frailer patients, while pharmacists may not exercise clinical judgment. Results Over the influenza seasons 2011–2012, 2012/–2013, and 2013–2014, 1.6–2.2 million seniors were immunized at a pharmacy; and 3.3–3.5 million at a clinic. After matching, there were 535,598; 1,017,552; and 1,548,164 in the pharmacy cohort, and 821,662; 1,151,080; and 1,559,488 in the clinic cohort, across study years. The rVE over 2011/12, 2012/13, and 2013/14 during peak influenza circulation was 21.8% (95% CI: −5.9%, 42.3%), 14.8% (9.3%,19.9%), and 16.9% (9.2%, 23.9%), respectively, in the pharmacy cohort; and 16.5% (−5.9%, 34.2%), 15.1% (10.9%, 19.1%), 10.0% (2.9%, 16.6%), respectively, in the clinic cohort. Conclusion HD was consistently associated with better protection against probable influenza events requiring outpatient or inpatient care. The slightly lower treatment effects observed in the outpatient clinic cohort could be a result of confounding by indication due to physicians triaging HD to frailer patients. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207