Evidence Hub

Safety Assessment of Influenza Vaccination for Neurological Outcomes Among Older Adults in Japan: A Self-Controlled Case Series Study

Ogawa M, Takeuchi Y, Iida Y, Iwagami M, Uemura K, Ono S, Michihata N, Koide D et al.

Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2025

3,283 participants

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess adverse neurological risks following influenza vaccination in older adults.

METHODS: Using a linked database of healthcare administrative claims data and vaccination records from an urban city in Japan (April 1, 2014, to March 31, 2020), we conducted an observational study utilizing a self-controlled case series design. We identified individuals aged ≥ 65 years who experienced adverse neurological outcomes, defined as hospitalizations related to epilepsy, paralysis, facial paralysis, neuralgia, neuritis, optic neuritis, migraine, extrapyramidal disorders, Guillain-Barre syndrome, or narcolepsy. We used conditional Poisson regression to analyze within-subject incidence rate ratios, comparing the risk of these outcomes during risk periods following influenza vaccination (0-6 days and 7-29 days after each vaccination) with nonvaccination periods. Our analysis was adjusted for age and season groups as time-varying covariates.

RESULTS: We enrolled 3283 eligible individuals (men: 1643; mean [standard deviation] age: 76 [7.3] years). The incidence rate ratio for the outcome during the risk periods was 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.30) in risk period 1 (0-6 days after vaccination) and 1.14 (0.96-1.35) in risk period 2 (7-29 days after vaccination), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that the risk of adverse neurological events was increased after influenza vaccination in older adults. These results may help reassure older adults who are…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 3,283 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free