InfluenzaNCT01622491
Effectiveness of H1N1 Influenza Vaccines in Manitoba, Canada
An observational study of Influenza and Pneumonia, run by International Centre for Infectious Diseases, Canada at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
Excellent immune responses following 1 or 2 doses of the GSK monovalent AS03-adjuvanted pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1) vaccines (e.g., Arepanrix®) have been documented in several trials. Observational studies have found that these vaccines were effective in preventing laboratory confirmed influenza infections. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 6 months and older
- Type of treatment
- Vaccines
- How many people
- 1,860 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- Jun 2012to Dec 2013
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 6 months and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Study population: Any adult or child > 6 months of age who normally resides in Manitoba and who has been continuously covered during the study period.
Who may be able to join
- Any adult or child > 6 months of age who normally resides in Manitoba and who has been continuously covered during the study period and with a diagnosis of influenza (ICD-10: J09-J11) or pneumonia (ICD-10: J12-J18) will be eligible for inclusion as cases in the study.
Who cannot join
None listed.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Canada1 site
International Centre for Infectious Diseases
Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3B 3P5
About this study
Official title: Effectiveness of the GSK Pandemic H1N1 Influenza Vaccines in Preventing Hospitalization for Influenza and Pneumonia in Manitoba, Canada
Excellent immune responses following 1 or 2 doses of the GSK monovalent AS03-adjuvanted pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1) vaccines (e.g., Arepanrix®) have been documented in several trials. Observational studies have found that these vaccines were effective in preventing laboratory confirmed influenza infections. However, it remains unclear whether vaccination during the pandemic was associated with reductions in more clinically meaningful outcomes, such as hospitalizations, severe illness, complications, and death.
The investigators propose to evaluate the effectiveness of the GSK adjuvanted and non-adjuvanted pH1N1 vaccines used in Manitoba in preventing hospitalization and severe illness (defined as illness necessitating admission to intensive care or associated with major complications) due to influenza or pneumonia by means of a case-control study using data from Manitoba Health (MH) administrative databases and the database of the Cadham Provincial Laboratory. The primary outcome will be hospitalization with laboratory-confirmed influenza or pneumonia. A secondary outcome will be hospitalization with influenza or pneumonia. The investigators will also assess the effectiveness of the above vaccines for different age groups and among high-risk populations, e.g., immunocompromised individuals.
Read the detailed description
Testing for influenza is largely discretionary because most patients presenting with influenza-like illness (ILI) could be effectively and safely managed even when the diagnosis is not confirmed. So, it is unclear whether reduction in the risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza or mild ILI among vaccinated individuals is of much clinical significance. In contrast, hospitalization due to influenza or pneumonia is usually not as discretionary, and from both clinical and public health perspectives avoiding hospitalization is more important and relevant objective for influenza control than the mere reduction of laboratory-confirmed cases.
Thus far there have been few observational studies that examined the effectiveness of the H1N1 vaccine against hospitalization, and most of them had significant limitations including small sample sizes, information limited to certain age groups (e.g., children) and the potential for selection and recall bias. Using data from a Scottish general practice sentinel surveillance network, Simpson et al reported that the adjuvanted GSK vaccine was 95% (76-100%) effective against laboratory-confirmed H1N1 infections, and 100% (∞-100%) effective against hospitalization for influenza and pneumonia. Unexpectedly, the vaccine was equally effective among 'high-risk' groups. Small number of cases limited the precision of these estimates; the above-mentioned estimate for vaccine effectiveness (VE) against hospitalization is based on a one case only, which is the reason for the wide confidence interval that is compatible with any VE estimate (∞-100%). A hospital-based case-control study from Spain showed that use of several pandemic vaccines was associated with 90% effectiveness in preventing laboratory-confirmed H1N1 infections among hospitalized patients. That study was not population-based and was limited by small number of fully-vaccinated subjects (only 7 subjects received a pandemic vaccine ≥ 7 days before symptom onset).
Two Canadian studies examined the effectiveness of the GSK adjuvanted H1N1 vaccine: one was very small (28 cases) and was limited to children under 10 years. The study by Skowronski et al. that used data from the Canadian VE sentinel network did not examine VE against hospitalization and it, too, was very small.
In the Canadian province of Manitoba, mass immunization against pandemic H1N1 commenced October 26th 2010 using primarily large scale vaccination clinics led by public health teams and lasted approximately 8 weeks. Initially, the Canadian-manufactured Arepanrix®, an AS03-adjuvanted split virion pandemic H1N1 vaccine (GlaxoSmithKline [GSK]), was used to vaccinate adults and children over 6 months of age. Later on, two nonadjuvanted vaccines, from CSL Limited and GSK, were offered to pregnant women and children over 10 years of age. The seasonal trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines (TIV)-Fluviral® (GSK) and Vaxigrip® (Sanofi Pasteur) - were less frequently administered.
All vaccines were offered free of charge, but limited vaccine supply at campaign start necessitated the development of priority groups for early vaccination. The initial priority group in Manitoba included health care workers, Aboriginal persons, pregnant women, 6-60 months-old children, individuals under 65 years with chronic medical conditions, immunocompromised individuals and residents of remote communities. On November 18,2010, the pandemic H1N1 vaccines were made available to the whole population.
This study evaluates the effectiveness of the GSK adjuvanted and non-adjuvanted pH1N1 vaccines used in Manitoba in preventing hospitalization and severe illness. The advantages of the proposed study over the existing literature are related to the availability of high-quality population-based health administrative databases that cover a well-defined population. The whole population of Manitoba is eligible and available for inclusion in the study, so selection bias is not a concern. Ascertainment of cases is virtually complete because all admitted influenza or pneumonia cases in the province are captured by the Hospital Abstract database. The availability of detailed histories of vaccination, through the unique Manitoba Immunization Registry eliminates recall bias, reduces vaccine use measurement errors (e.g., due to patient confusion about what vaccines were received) and permits detailed assessments of the effect of the timing of vaccination on the risk of hospitalization. These detailed analyses will be facilitated by the large sample size (40% of Manitoba's 1.2 million population were vaccinated).
- Keywords
- H1N1, pandemic, influenza, pneumonia, vaccine, effectiveness, Manitoba, Canada
- Medical subject headings
- Influenza, Human, Pneumonia
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Case control | A case-control study with cases (individuals hospitalized with influenza or pneumonia during the second wave of the pandemic) and controls (non-hospitalized individuals) identified using the MH Hospital Separation Abstract Database and the MH Population Registry, respectively. Information on receipt of vaccines will be obtained by record linkage to the MIMS. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Hospitalization with laboratory-confirmed influenza or pneumonia
Data records of hospitalization with laboratory-confirmed influenza or pneumonia
Measured: Three months
Secondary outcomes (1)
Hospitalization with influenza or pneumonia
Data records of hospitalization with influenza or pneumonia
Measured: 14 weeks
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted19 Jun 2012 (estimated)
- Study startJun 2012
- Primary completionDec 2012 (estimated)
- Study completionDec 2013 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for InfluenzaStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Case-control
- Time perspective
- Retrospective
- Enrolment
- 1,860 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- International Centre for Infectious Diseases, Canada
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- GlaxoSmithKline
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Salah Mahmud, MD, PhD, Principal investigator, Assistant Professor, University of Manitoba
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01622491
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- ICID-2012-H1N1-01
- Status last verified
- Jun 2012
- First submitted
- 15 Jun 2012
- Last updated
- 19 Jun 2012
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 19 Jun 2012. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effectiveness of the GSK Pandemic H1N1 Influenza Vaccines in Preventing Hospitalization for Influenza and Pneumonia in Manitoba, Canada
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01622491
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- ICID-2012-H1N1-01
- Keywords
- H1N1, pandemic, influenza, pneumonia, vaccine, effectiveness, Manitoba, Canada
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 1,860 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- International Centre for Infectious Diseases, CanadaUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- GlaxoSmithKline
- Study start
- Jun 2012
- Primary completion
- Dec 2012 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Dec 2013 (estimated)
- First posted
- 19 Jun 2012 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Excellent immune responses following 1 or 2 doses of the GSK monovalent AS03-adjuvanted pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1) vaccines (e.g., Arepanrix®) have been documented in several trials. Observational studies have found that these vaccines were effective in preventing laboratory confirmed influenza infections. However, it remains unclear whether vaccination during the pandemic was associated with reductions in more clinically meaningful outcomes, such as hospitalizations, severe illness, complications, and death.
The investigators propose to evaluate the effectiveness of the GSK adjuvanted and non-adjuvanted pH1N1 vaccines used in Manitoba in preventing hospitalization and severe illness (defined as illness necessitating admission to intensive care or associated with major complications) due to influenza or pneumonia by means of a case-control study using data from Manitoba Health (MH) administrative databases and the database of the Cadham Provincial Laboratory. The primary outcome will be hospitalization with laboratory-confirmed influenza or pneumonia. A secondary outcome will be hospitalization with influenza or pneumonia. The investigators will also assess the effectiveness of the above vaccines for different age groups and among high-risk populations, e.g., immunocompromised individuals.
Detailed description
Testing for influenza is largely discretionary because most patients presenting with influenza-like illness (ILI) could be effectively and safely managed even when the diagnosis is not confirmed. So, it is unclear whether reduction in the risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza or mild ILI among vaccinated individuals is of much clinical significance. In contrast, hospitalization due to influenza or pneumonia is usually not as discretionary, and from both clinical and public health perspectives avoiding hospitalization is more important and relevant objective for influenza control than the mere reduction of laboratory-confirmed cases.
Thus far there have been few observational studies that examined the effectiveness of the H1N1 vaccine against hospitalization, and most of them had significant limitations including small sample sizes, information limited to certain age groups (e.g., children) and the potential for selection and recall bias. Using data from a Scottish general practice sentinel surveillance network, Simpson et al reported that the adjuvanted GSK vaccine was 95% (76-100%) effective against laboratory-confirmed H1N1 infections, and 100% (∞-100%) effective against hospitalization for influenza and pneumonia. Unexpectedly, the vaccine was equally effective among 'high-risk' groups. Small number of cases limited the precision of these estimates; the above-mentioned estimate for vaccine effectiveness (VE) against hospitalization is based on a one case only, which is the reason for the wide confidence interval that is compatible with any VE estimate (∞-100%). A hospital-based case-control study from Spain showed that use of several pandemic vaccines was associated with 90% effectiveness in preventing laboratory-confirmed H1N1 infections among hospitalized patients. That study was not population-based and was limited by small number of fully-vaccinated subjects (only 7 subjects received a pandemic vaccine ≥ 7 days before symptom onset).
Two Canadian studies examined the effectiveness of the GSK adjuvanted H1N1 vaccine: one was very small (28 cases) and was limited to children under 10 years. The study by Skowronski et al. that used data from the Canadian VE sentinel network did not examine VE against hospitalization and it, too, was very small.
In the Canadian province of Manitoba, mass immunization against pandemic H1N1 commenced October 26th 2010 using primarily large scale vaccination clinics led by public health teams and lasted approximately 8 weeks. Initially, the Canadian-manufactured Arepanrix®, an AS03-adjuvanted split virion pandemic H1N1 vaccine (GlaxoSmithKline [GSK]), was used to vaccinate adults and children over 6 months of age. Later on, two nonadjuvanted vaccines, from CSL Limited and GSK, were offered to pregnant women and children over 10 years of age. The seasonal trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines (TIV)-Fluviral® (GSK) and Vaxigrip® (Sanofi Pasteur) - were less frequently administered.
All vaccines were offered free of charge, but limited vaccine supply at campaign start necessitated the development of priority groups for early vaccination. The initial priority group in Manitoba included health care workers, Aboriginal persons, pregnant women, 6-60 months-old children, individuals under 65 years with chronic medical conditions, immunocompromised individuals and residents of remote communities. On November 18,2010, the pandemic H1N1 vaccines were made available to the whole population.
This study evaluates the effectiveness of the GSK adjuvanted and non-adjuvanted pH1N1 vaccines used in Manitoba in preventing hospitalization and severe illness. The advantages of the proposed study over the existing literature are related to the availability of high-quality population-based health administrative databases that cover a well-defined population. The whole population of Manitoba is eligible and available for inclusion in the study, so selection bias is not a concern. Ascertainment of cases is virtually complete because all admitted influenza or pneumonia cases in the province are captured by the Hospital Abstract database. The availability of detailed histories of vaccination, through the unique Manitoba Immunization Registry eliminates recall bias, reduces vaccine use measurement errors (e.g., due to patient confusion about what vaccines were received) and permits detailed assessments of the effect of the timing of vaccination on the risk of hospitalization. These detailed analyses will be facilitated by the large sample size (40% of Manitoba's 1.2 million population were vaccinated).
Study design
- Observational model
- Case-control
- Time perspective
- Retrospective
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Case control | – | –A case-control study with cases (individuals hospitalized with influenza or pneumonia during the second wave of the pandemic) and controls (non-hospitalized individuals) identified using the MH Hospital Separation Abstract Database and the MH Population Registry, respectively. Information on receipt of vaccines will be obtained by record linkage to the MIMS. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 6 months and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Any adult or child > 6 months of age who normally resides in Manitoba and who has been continuously covered during the study period.
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Any adult or child > 6 months of age who normally resides in Manitoba and who has been continuously covered during the study period and with a diagnosis of influenza (ICD-10: J09-J11) or pneumonia (ICD-10: J12-J18) will be eligible for inclusion as cases in the study.
Key exclusion criteria (0 listed)
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Hospitalization with laboratory-confirmed influenza or pneumonia
Time frame: Three months
Data records of hospitalization with laboratory-confirmed influenza or pneumonia
1 secondary outcome
Hospitalization with influenza or pneumonia
Time frame: 14 weeks
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 19 Jun 2012.
Related trials for Influenza
Enrolling by invitation
Personalized Ventilator Settings for Patients on ECMO
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation
RecruitingPhase 2
BPL-1357 Against H1N1 Influenza Virus Challenge
Influenza, Human
Not yet recruitingPhase 1
Safety and Immunogenicity of Chimeric Hemagglutinin mRNA Vaccine Candidates
Influenza
RecruitingPhase 1
pH1N1 Blinded Challenge Study
Influenza
RecruitingPhase 3
A Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of MK-1406/CD388 for Prevention of Influenza (MK-1406-005/CD388.SQ.3.06)
Influenza
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Salah Mahmud, MD, PhD principal investigator
Assistant Professor, University of Manitoba
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Influenza and Pneumonia, run by International Centre for Infectious Diseases, Canada at 1 site in Canada.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 0 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 19 Jun 2012. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Salah Mahmud, MD, PhD ((204)-940-3611, salah.mahmud@gmail.com), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Hospitalization with laboratory-confirmed influenza or pneumonia (time frame: Three months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 19 Jun 2012.