Influenza vaccine clinical trials: reliable evidence is thin, but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions/ C
Posted Dec 05 2010 8:31pm
A 2010 update to Cochrane's 2007 metaanalysis of the published clinical trial literature on influenza vaccinations found not a lot to recommend the vaccines. Cochrane pointed out, "Healthy adults are presently targeted mainly in North America." The implication is that Europe, where most reviewers reside, is too smart to push mass flu shots on its healthy population.
In the relatively uncommon circumstance of vaccine matching the viral circulating strain and high circulation, 4% of unvaccinated people versus 1% of vaccinated people developed influenza symptoms (risk difference (RD) 3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2% to 5%)... Vaccination had a modest effect on time off work and had no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates. Inactivated vaccines caused local harms and an estimated 1.6 additional cases of Guillain-Barré Syndrome per million vaccinations. The harms evidence base is limited.
CONCLUSIONS:Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.WARNING: This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding.