Flu Vaccine Mortality Benefits For Elderly Vastly Overstated
Editor's ChoiceMain Category: Seniors / Aging
Also Included In: Flu / Cold / SARS; Respiratory / Asthma; Immune System / Vaccines
Article Date: 25 Sep 2007 - 0:00 PDT
| Patient / Public: | ![]() |
3.78 (40 votes) |
| Healthcare Prof: | ![]() |
4.73 (22 votes) |
| Article Opinions: | 1 posts |
The mortality benefits of giving elderly people the flu vaccine have been vastly overstated, according to a Review published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, October edition. Vaccinating people over 65 against influenza in developed countries is aimed at reducing the flu mortality burden.
Dr Lone Simonsen, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA and team say that vaccinating not-so-frail elderly people more frequently than their frail peers, plus the use of non-specific endpoints, such as all-cause mortality, are the reasons for this exaggeration.
"The remaining evidence base is currently insufficient to indicate the magnitude of the mortality benefit, if any, that elderly people derive from the vaccination program," say the authors.
Although placebo-controlled randomized trials have demonstrated that the flu vaccine is effective in younger adults, a small number of trials never included the elderly, especially those aged over 70. About 75% of influenza related deaths occur among people aged 70 and over, point out the authors.
These trials suggest that clinical gains and antibody responses in the elderly fall with age after the age of 70.
Even though vaccination coverage rose from 15% in 1980 to 65% today, there has been no confirmation of any influenza-related mortality improvement since 1980, say the authors. "Paradoxically, whereas those studies attribute about 5% of all winter deaths to influenza, many cohort studies report a 50% reduction in the total risk of death in winter - a benefit ten times greater than the estimated influenza mortality burden."
The authors say that any future trial should use more precise endpoints, for example, vaccine effectiveness against the highly specific outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza virus. Even though such a trial would be more expensive and labor intensive, the vaccine efficacy estimates are more likely to be reliable. Rather than use the current arbitrary 4-month period, any future trial should also identify the epidemic period for each season through utilization of actual virus surveillance data.
The writers caution "While awaiting an improved evidence base for influenza vaccine mortality benefits in elderly people, we suggest that this group should continue to be vaccinated against influenza. Influenza causes many deaths each year, and even a partly effective vaccine would be better than no vaccine at all. But the evidence base concerning influenza vaccine benefits in elderly people does need to be strengthened."
"If current evidence points to substantial uncertainty, then what next? Simonsen and colleagues suggest that 'refocusing on the likely complications of immune senescence would require vigorous pursuit of other options'. They also confront the ultimate taboo that drew so much scorn in the evidence overview: doing randomized trials in elderly people to settle the issue conclusively. That suggestion, which seems to fly in the face of current policies, is in our opinion the only ethical and scientific way to have definitive answer to the question of whether or not current influenza vaccines protect elderly people," Dr Tom Jefferson and Dr Carlo Di Pietrantonj, Cochrane Vaccines Field, Alessandria, Italy, write in an accompanying Comment.
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
Dr Lone Simonsen, Dr Lisa Jackson
Accompanying Comment
Dr Tom Jefferson, Dr Carlo Di Pietrantonj
Written by: Christian Nordqvist
Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today
MLA
12 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/83454.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/83454.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Visitor Opinions In Chronological Order (1)
So, What Purpose Does This Article Serve?
posted by Beartrax on 25 Sep 2007 at 3:44 pmDoes this mean we seniors should just forget about flu shots? This is one of the most pointless articles I have read. Other than providing the originator some intellectual stroking.
Obviously it'sbetter to have the vaccine than not to have it. Who cares about whether the benefits are 50% or 10%. Any rational person is going to opt for a flu shot every year if it improves his odds of living another year. Who cares about the percentages, except for insurance companys and others who put an exact dollar value on human life?
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
![]()
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.




