Effectiveness of the MF59‐adjuvanted trivalent or quadrivalent seasonal influenza vaccine among adults 65 years of age or older, a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Standard‐dose seasonal influenza vaccines often produce modest immunogenic responses in adults ≥65 years old. MF59 is intended to elicit a greater magnitude and increased breadth of immune response. Objective To determine the effectiveness of seasonal MF59‐adjuvanted trivalent/quadrivalent influenza vaccine (aTIV/aQIV) relative to no vaccination or vaccination with standard or high‐dose egg‐based influenza vaccines among people ≥65 years old. Methods Cochrane methodological standards and PRISMA‐P guidelines were followed. Real‐world evidence from non‐interventional studies published in peer‐reviewed journals and gray literature from 1997 through to July 15, 2020, including cluster‐randomized trials, were eligible. Two reviewers independently extracted data; risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS‐I tool. Results Twenty‐one studies conducted during the 2006/07–2019/20 influenza seasons were included in the qualitative review; 16 in the meta‐analyses. Meta‐analysis of test‐negative studies found that aTIV reduced medical encounters due to lab‐confirmed influenza with pooled estimates of 40.7% (95% CI: 21.9, 54.9; I 2 = 0%) for non‐emergency outpatient visits and 58.5% (40.7, 70.9; I 2 = 52.9%) for hospitalized patients. The pooled estimate of VE from case‐control studies was 51.3% (39.1, 61.1; I 2 = 0%) against influenza‐ or pneumonia‐related hospitalization. The pooled estimates for the relative VE of aTIV for the prevention of influenza‐related medical encounters were 13.9% (4.2, 23.5; I 2 = 95.9%) compared with TIV, 13.7% (3.1, 24.2; I 2 = 98.8%) compared with QIV, and 2.8% (−2.9, 8.5; I 2 = 94.5%) compared with HD‐TIV. Conclusions Among adults ≥65 years, aTIV demonstrated significant absolute VE, improved relative VE compared to non‐adjuvanted standard‐dose TIV/QIV, and comparable relative VE to high‐dose TIV.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".