Dataset Information

Publication delay of randomized trials on 2009 influenza A (H1N1) vaccination.

ABSTRACT: Randomized evidence for vaccine immunogenicity and safety is urgently needed in the setting of pandemics with new emerging infectious agents. We carried out an observational survey to evaluate how many randomized controlled trials testing 2009 H1N1 vaccines were published among those registered, and what was the time lag from their start to publication and from their completion to publication.PubMed, EMBASE and 9 clinical trial registries were searched for eligible randomized controlled trials. The units of the analysis were single randomized trials on any individual receiving influenza vaccines in any setting.73 eligible trials were identified that had been registered in 2009-2010. By June 30, 2011 only 21 (29%) of these trials had been published, representing 38% of the randomized sample size (19905 of 52765). Trials starting later were published less rapidly (hazard ratio 0.42 per month; 95% Confidence Interval: 0.27 to 0.64; p<0.001). Similarly, trials completed later were published less rapidly (hazard ratio 0.43 per month; 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.67; p<0.001). Randomized controlled trials were completed promptly (median, 5 months from start to completion), but only a minority were subsequently published.Most registered randomized trials on vaccines for the H1N1 pandemic are not published in the peer-reviewed literature.

SUBMITTER: Ioannidis JP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3229554 | biostudies-literature | 2011

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Publication delay of randomized trials on 2009 influenza A (H1N1) vaccination.

Ioannidis John P A JP Manzoli Lamberto L De Vito Corrado C D'Addario Maddalena M Villari Paolo P

PloS one 20111202 12

<h4>Background</h4>Randomized evidence for vaccine immunogenicity and safety is urgently needed in the setting of pandemics with new emerging infectious agents. We carried out an observational survey to evaluate how many randomized controlled trials testing 2009 H1N1 vaccines were published among those registered, and what was the time lag from their start to publication and from their completion to publication.<h4>Methods</h4>PubMed, EMBASE and 9 clinical trial registries were searched for elig ...[more]

PMID: 22164274

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere has been considerable uptake of seasonal influenza vaccines in the Americas compared to other regions. We describe the current influenza vaccination target groups, recent progress in vaccine uptake and in generating evidence on influenza seasonality and vaccine effectiveness for immunization programs. We also discuss persistent challenges, 5 years after the A(H1N1) 2009 influenza pandemic.MethodsWe compiled and summarized data annually reported by countries to the Pan American Health Organization/World Health Organization (PAHO/WHO) through the WHO/UNICEF joint report form on immunization, information obtained through PAHO's Revolving Fund for Vaccine Procurement and communications with managers of national Expanded Programs on Immunization (EPI).ResultsSince 2008, 25 countries/territories in the Americas have introduced new target groups for vaccination or expanded the age ranges of existing target groups. As of 2014, 40 (89%) out of 45 countries/territories have policies established for seasonal influenza vaccination. Currently, 29 (64%) countries/territories target pregnant women for vaccination, the highest priority group according to WHO´s Stategic Advisory Group of Experts and PAHO/WHO's Technical Advisory Group on Vaccine-preventable Diseases, compared to only 7 (16%) in 2008. Among 23 countries reporting coverage data, on average, 75% of adults ?60 years, 45% of children aged 6-23 months, 32% of children aged 5-2 years, 59% of pregnant women, 78% of healthcare workers, and 90% of individuals with chronic conditions were vaccinated during the 2013-14 Northern Hemisphere or 2014 Southern Hemisphere influenza vaccination activities. Difficulties however persist in the estimation of vaccination coverage, especially for pregnant women and persons with chronic conditions. Since 2007, 6 tropical countries have changed their vaccine formulation from the Northern to the Southern Hemisphere formulation and the timing of their campaigns to April-May following the review of national evidence. LAC countries have also established an official network dedicated to evaluating influenza vaccines effectiveness and impact.ConclusionFollowing the A(H1N1)2009 influenza pandemic, countries of the Americas have continued their efforts to sustain or increase seasonal influenza vaccine uptake among high risk groups, especially among pregnant women. Countries also continued strengthening influenza surveillance, immunization platforms and information systems, indirectly improving preparedness for future pandemics. Influenza vaccination is particularly challenging compared to other vaccines included in EPI schedules, due to the need for annual, optimally timed vaccination, the wide spectrum of target groups, and the limitations of the available vaccines. Countries should continue to monitor influenza vaccination coverage, generate evidence for vaccination programs and implement social communication strategies addressing existing gaps.

Project description:BackgroundPandemic influenza A(H1N1) (pH1N1) was first identified in North America in April 2009. Vaccination against pH1N1 commenced in the U.S. in October 2009 and continued through January 2010. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pH1N1 vaccination.MethodologyA computer simulation model was developed to predict costs and health outcomes for a pH1N1 vaccination program using inactivated vaccine compared to no vaccination. Probabilities, costs and quality-of-life weights were derived from emerging primary data on pH1N1 infections in the US, published and unpublished data for seasonal and pH1N1 illnesses, supplemented by expert opinion. The modeled target population included hypothetical cohorts of persons aged 6 months and older stratified by age and risk. The analysis used a one-year time horizon for most endpoints but also includes longer-term costs and consequences of long-term sequelae deaths. A societal perspective was used. Indirect effects (i.e., herd effects) were not included in the primary analysis. The main endpoint was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in dollars per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.ResultsFor vaccination initiated prior to the outbreak, pH1N1 vaccination was cost-saving for persons 6 months to 64 years under many assumptions. For those without high risk conditions, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from $8,000-$52,000/QALY depending on age and risk status. Results were sensitive to the number of vaccine doses needed, costs of vaccination, illness rates, and timing of vaccine delivery.ConclusionsVaccination for pH1N1 for children and working-age adults is cost-effective compared to other preventive health interventions under a wide range of scenarios. The economic evidence was consistent with target recommendations that were in place for pH1N1 vaccination. We also found that the delays in vaccine availability had a substantial impact on the cost-effectiveness of vaccination.

Project description:BackgroundVaccination campaigns against A/H1N1 2009 pandemic influenza virus (A/H1N1p) began in autumn 2009 in Europe, after the declaration of the pandemic at a global level. This study aimed to estimate the proportion of individuals vaccinated against A/H1N1p in Norway who were already infected (asymptomatically or symptomatically) by A/H1N1p before vaccination, using a mathematical model.MethodsA dynamic, mechanistic, mathematical model of A/H1N1p transmission was developed for the Norwegian population. The model parameters were estimated by calibrating the model-projected number of symptomatic A/H1N1p cases to the number of laboratory-confirmed A/H1N1p cases reported to the surveillance system, accounting for potential under-reporting. It was assumed in the base case that the likelihood of vaccination was independent of infection/disease state. A sensitivity analysis explored the effects of four scenarios in which current or previous symptomatic A/H1N1p infection would influence the likelihood of being vaccinated.ResultsThe number of model-projected symptomatic A/H1N1p cases by week during the epidemic, accounting for under-reporting and timing, closely matched that of the laboratory-confirmed A/H1N1p cases reported to the surveillance system. The model-projected incidence of symptomatic A/H1N1p infection was 27% overall, 55% in people <10 years old and 41% in people 10-20 years old. The model-projected percentage of individuals vaccinated against A/H1N1p who were already infected with A/H1N1p before being vaccinated was 56% overall, 62% in people <10 years old and 66% in people 10-20 years old. The results were sensitive to assumptions about the independence of vaccination and infection; however, even when current or previous symptomatic A/H1N1p infection was assumed to reduce the likelihood of vaccination, the estimated percentage of individuals who were infected before vaccination remained at least 32% in all age groups.ConclusionThis analysis suggests that over half the people vaccinated against A/H1N1p in Norway during the 2009 pandemic may already have been infected by A/H1N1p before being vaccinated.

Dataset Information

Publication delay of randomized trials on 2009 influenza A (H1N1) vaccination.

Publications

Publication delay of randomized trials on 2009 influenza A (H1N1) vaccination.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets