ca Salleras 2006.
Methods | Prospective cohort study carried out between 1 November 2004 and 31 March 2005 in 11 paediatric clinics in Barcelona, Spain. The study assessed the effectiveness of virosomal vaccine against ILI and its economic consequences. | |
Participants | 966 vaccinated children and 985 non‐vaccinated controls attending respectively 5 and 6 clinics. The unit of selection was clinic enrolment. Children were aged 3 to 14, and age breakdown by exposure, sex, and by 2‐year groupings is reported. Systematic differences are reported (significantly smaller families and younger children in the non‐vaccinated cohort). No attrition is mentioned. | |
Interventions | 1 dose of virosomal influenza vaccine (Inflexal, Berna). Content is not described. | |
Outcomes |
Serological
Pharyngeal and nasal swabs sent to laboratory for culture. Follow‐up was by parents' questionnaire. Follow‐up unclear, no mention of how many children were followed up and whether there was attrition in reporting with symptoms. Effectiveness
Safety N/A |
|
Funding Source | Industry | |
Notes | The authors conclude that "Adjusted vaccination effectiveness was 58.6% (95% CI 49.2 to 66.3) in preventing acute febrile respiratory illnesses, 75.1% (95% CI 61.0 to 84.1) in preventing cases of influenza‐like illnesses and 88.4% (95% CI 49.2 to 97.3) in preventing laboratory‐confirmed cases of influenza A. The adjusted vaccination effectiveness in reducing antibiotic use (18.6%, 95% CI ‐4.2 to 3.64), absence from school (57.8%, 95% CI 47.9 to 65.9) and work‐loss of parents (33.3%, 95% CI 8.9 to 51.2) in children affected by an acute febrile respiratory illness was somewhat lower. Vaccination of children aged 3 to 14 years in paediatric practices with 1 dose of virosomal subunit inactivated influenza vaccine has the potential to considerably reduce the health and social burdens caused by influenza‐related illnesses". Systematic differences ("adjusted with logistic regression") between hemicohorts, lack of description of vaccine content, matching and influenza circulation make the conclusions unreliable. Why use PCR? Was the quantity of viral genome so tiny to need amplification? | |
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
PCS/RCS‐Selection Exposed cohort | Unclear risk | Selected group |
PCS/RCS‐Selection Non Exposed cohort | Unclear risk | Same methods but different population |
PCS/RCS‐Comparability | High risk | Clearly different populations, no adjustments |
PCS/RCS‐Assessment of Oucome | Unclear risk | ILI self reported |
Summary assessments | High risk | Some doubt arises from real comparability of the cohort |