Introduction Two severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) case definitions (CDs) are often used in test-negative design (TND) hospital-based vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies. SARI-CD1 requires ≥1 symptom (cough, fever, shortness of breath, anosmia, ageusia, or dysgeusia); SARI-CD2 requires both fever and cough. Using VEBIS hospital network end-of-season 2023/24 data, we compared the effect of these CDs on influenza and COVID-19 VE estimates in Europe. Methods Using the TND, we restricted analysis to seven countries recruiting patients using SARI-CD1; we created a subset of SARI patients also meeting SARI-CD2. Cases were RT-PCR-positive for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2), or SARS-CoV-2; controls were influenza or SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-negative. We estimated VE among patients ≥65 years using logistic regression adjusted for country, onset date, age, sex, and chronic conditions. We estimated VE overall, by age group (65–79, ≥80 years) and time since vaccination (14–59, 60–119, ≥120 days). Absolute VE differences ≥10% were considered relevant. Results Patient characteristics and outcomes were similar across CDs. SARI-CD1 had slightly more vaccinated cases, with little difference in controls between the two CDs. For influenza, the absolute VE difference between SARI-CD1 and SARI-CD2 was 10% for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 (34% vs 44%), 19% among those aged ≥80 years (21% vs 40%) and 18% at 60–119 days post-vaccination (4% vs 22%). For SARS-CoV-2, absolute VE differences were 11% overall (29% vs 40%), 11% among ≥80 years (33% vs 44%), and 12% at 60–119 days (34% vs 46%). All other absolute VE differences were < 10%. Conclusions VE was similar for influenza A(H3N2), adults 65–79 years and 14–60 days post-vaccination. We observed signals of higher VE with SARI-CD2 for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and SARS-CoV-2, particularly among adults ≥80 years and ≥ 60 days post-vaccination, although 95% CIs overlapped. These signals suggest CDs may contribute to VE variability and VE studies should clearly indicate CDs used.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marques et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: