High‐Dose vs. Standard‐Dose Influenza Vaccine and Cardiopulmonary Hospitalization or Mortality: Emulating the INVESTED Trial Using Insurance Claims Data

Author:

NajafZadeh Mehdi1,Shin HoJin1ORCID,Schneeweiss Sebastian1ORCID,Wang Shirley V.1ORCID,Solomon Scott D.2,Vardeny Orly34,Patorno Elisabetta1

Affiliation:

1. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School Boston Massachusetts USA

2. Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital Harvard Medical School Boston Massachusetts USA

3. Department of Medicine University of Minnesota Minneapolis Minnesota USA

4. VA Health Care System Minneapolis Minnesota USA

Abstract

The INVESTED trial did not show benefits of high‐dose (HD) vaccine vs. standard‐dose (SD) for a primary composite outcome of cardiopulmonary hospitalization or all‐cause mortality (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.96–1.15) and its components (all‐cause mortality HR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.84–1.21, cardiopulmonary hospitalization HR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.96–1.16) during three influenza seasons (2016–2019) among participants with recent myocardial infarction or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF). We emulated INVESTED using Medicare claims data to assess whether the real‐world evidence (RWE) study reached similar conclusions. We identified 1:1 propensity score (PS)‐matched trial‐eligible Medicare beneficiaries aged > 65 years and with prior HHF who received an HD or SD vaccine for the 2016–2019 seasons. We also re‐analyzed the INVESTED trial data restricting to participants > 65 years with prior HHF to align eligibility criteria more closely with the RWE study. We compared HRs from the trial and RWE study for the main outcomes. Among 53,393 pairs of PS‐matched Medicare beneficiaries, the HD vaccine group showed lower risk of the primary composite outcome (HR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.95–0.98) and all‐cause mortality (HR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.91–0.95), and similar risk of cardiopulmonary hospitalization (HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.96–1.00), compared with SD. The RWE and trial results were closely concordant after the trial population was limited to participants > 65 years with prior HHF: trial‐based results for the primary composite outcome (HR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.89–1.17), all‐cause mortality (HR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.72–1.16), and cardiopulmonary hospitalization (HR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.88–1.18). Although similar to the main trial results, the RWE was closer to the results from trial participants with aligned eligibility criteria. This study affirms the importance of considering different distributions of baseline patient characteristics when comparing trial findings to RWE.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Pharmacology (medical),Pharmacology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3