102. Efficacy and Effectiveness of High-Dose Influenza Vaccine in Older Adults by Age and Seasonal Characteristics: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background High-dose influenza vaccine (HD-IIV) has been used extensively in older adults since its approval in 2009. Studies comparing HD-IIV to standard-dose influenza vaccines (SD-IIV) have demonstrated protection beyond influenza, including reduction of outcomes like cardiorespiratory and all-cause hospitalizations. This study is an update of previously-conducted reviews of the relative vaccine efficacy/effectiveness (rVE) of HD-IIV vs. SD-IIV in adults ≥65 years against influenza-associated outcomes from 2009-2020, with sub-analyses by seasonal and recipient characteristics. Methods An updated systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted for studies assessing the rVE of HD-IIV against probable/laboratory-confirmed influenza-like illness (ILI), emergency department (ED) and/or hospital admissions in adults ≥65 years. Results from individual seasons – stratified by outcome, subject characteristics, and influenza season, were meta-analyzed to estimate pooled rVEs of HD-IIV. Results 19 studies from 11 consecutive seasons with over 45 million HD-IIV or SD-IIV recipients were meta-analyzed. Overall, HD-IIV demonstrated improved protection vs. SD-IIV against ILI (rVE=14.3%, 95%CI:4.2-23.3%), HD-IIV was more effective at preventing hospital/ED visits due to influenza (rVE=10.4%, 95%CI:6.8-13.9%), and hospitalizations due to influenza (rVE=11.2%, 95%CI:7.4-14.8%), pneumonia (rVE=27.3%, 95%CI:15.3-37.6%); pneumonia and influenza (rVE=13.4%, 95%CI:7.3-19.2%); respiratory (rVE=14.3%, 95%CI:8.5-20.0%), cardiovascular (rVE=13.1%, 95%CI:10.5-15.7%), and cardiorespiratory events (rVE=17.9%, 95%CI:15.0-20.8%); and all-causes (rVE=8.4%, 95%CI:5.7-11.0%). Pooled rVEs were similar in sub-analyses by dominant strain, antigenic match, and study type/setting. While all adults 65+ benefited from the use of HD-IIV, age-stratified analyses of the rVE of HD-IIV suggested additional relative benefit with increasing age. Conclusion Evidence over 11 consecutive influenza seasons from both randomized and observational studies suggests HD-IIV was consistently more effective than SD-IIV at reducing influenza and associated serious outcomes irrespective of recipient age and characteristics of the influenza season. Disclosures Jason K. Lee, MS, MBiotech, Sanofi: Employee|Sanofi: Stocks/Bonds Gary K. Lam, PharmD, RPh, Sanofi: Employee Rolan Vaisman, PharmD, RPh, Sanofi: Employee Kevin J. Yin, MD, MPH, PhD, Sanofi: Employee|Sanofi: Stocks/Bonds Bruce T. Seet, PhD, MBA, Sanofi: Employee|Sanofi: Stocks/Bonds Matthew M. Loiacono, PhD, MSc, Sanofi: Employee|Sanofi: Stocks/Bonds Sandrine I. Samson, PhD, Sanofi: Employee|Sanofi: Stocks/Bonds.
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 | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.046 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".