scholarly journals Cocoon vaccination for influenza in patients with a solid tumor: a retrospective study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. J. Rensink ◽  
H. W. M. van Laarhoven ◽  
F. Holleman
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Solid Tumor ◽  
Viral Infections ◽  
Influenza Infection ◽  
Vaccination Status ◽  
Vaccination Rates ◽  
Household Contacts ◽  
Oncological Patients ◽  
General Dutch Population

Abstract Purpose Oncological patients are susceptible to various severe viral infections, including influenza. Vaccinating oncological patients and their household contacts (“cocoon vaccination”) may protect these patients from contracting influenza. To understand the potential of cocoon vaccination in oncological patients, this study assesses the influenza vaccination status of oncological patients and their household contacts and their considerations regarding the vaccination. Methods In this retrospective study, oncological patients with a solid tumor were asked to fill in a questionnaire about their own and their household contacts’ influenza vaccination status in the influenza season of 2018–2019. Results Ninety-eight patients were included (response rate 88%). The influenza vaccination rates of oncological patients and their first household contacts were 43.9% and 44.9%, respectively. The majority of vaccinated patients and vaccinated first household contacts had been advised by their general practitioner to get the vaccination. A minority of the first household contacts reported getting vaccinated specifically because of the patient’s vulnerability. Unvaccinated patients and unvaccinated household contacts mainly believed the vaccination was unnecessary or were afraid of side effects. None of the included patients had been hospitalized with influenza. Conclusion The oncological patients’ and first household contacts’ vaccination rates in this study were lower than the vaccination rates of the general Dutch population of over 60 years old, possibly due to a lack of knowledge and misconceptions about the vaccination. Further research is required to establish whether cocoon vaccination can contribute to protecting oncological patients from contracting an influenza infection.

scholarly journals Influenza Vaccination Rates during the First Year after Diagnosis of Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4820-4820
Author(s):  
Andres Chang ◽  
Jackelyn B. Payne ◽  
Pamela Allen ◽  
Jean L. Koff ◽  
Rafi Ahmed ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Influenza Infection ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Healthcare Systems ◽  
Vaccination Status ◽  
First Year ◽  
Vaccination Rates

Abstract Objective: Influenza infection is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer, and thus the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommends annual influenza vaccination for all individuals with cancer. We sought to examine the documentation rate of influenza vaccination administration, refusal, or discussion of vaccination in the first year after diagnosis of diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) for patients across three hospitals in two healthcare systems. Methods: Medical records were reviewed for 114 patients with a new diagnosis of DLBCL between February 2015 and October 2017 who presented to either Emory St. Joseph Hospital (a community hospital setting), Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University (an academic medical center), or Grady Memorial Hospital (a county hospital). Documentation of administration, refusal, or discussion regarding influenza vaccination by physicians, advanced practice providers, or nursing staff during the period of influenza vaccine availability for the first influenza season after diagnosis was assessed. Results: Among 114 patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL, 54% were male, and 46% were over 60 years of age with a median age of 59 years (range 21-88 years). One patient was excluded from analysis as she was enrolled in hospice prior to influenza season. Documentation of influenza vaccination status within 1 year of diagnosis of DLBCL was performed for 56% (63/113) of patients. Nearly 75% (47/63) of documentation regarding vaccination was performed by inpatient nursing staff at time of admission. Documentation of influenza vaccination status was performed by the primary oncologist in 4% (5/113) of all cases and 8% of the documented cases respectively (5/63). The county hospital and the academic medical center had higher documentation of vaccination rates (62% [5/8] and 60% [27/45], respectively) compared with the community hospital (50% [5/10]). Of the patients with documentation of influenza vaccination status, vaccine refusal was documented for 41% (26/63) of patients, and counseling regarding the importance of vaccination was not documented for any patient. Conclusions: Our study shows that documentation of education and administration of influenza vaccination is suboptimal in these 2 healthcare systems. Although vaccinations that occurred outside of these healthcare systems by primary care providers, pharmacies, and other providers would not be recorded in this dataset unless the patient had a hospital admission, these data suggest a gap in patient care and education that could lead to increased risk of worse outcomes from influenza infection. Routine outpatient vaccination screening and counseling in oncology clinics will be explored to improve documentation of influenza vaccination and influenza vaccination rate. Additionally, strategies for sharing patient information about vaccination between providers in different healthcare systems could improve vaccination compliance in patients with lymphoma. Further work is needed to determine the effectiveness of routine influenza vaccination in patients receiving anti-cancer therapy. Disclosures Allen: Merck: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy. Flowers:BeiGene: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/ Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; OptumRx: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome and the Perceived Avian Influenza Epidemic on the Increased Rate of Influenza Vaccination Among Nurses in Hong Kong

2008 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 256-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dennise K. P. Tam ◽  
Shui-Shan Lee ◽  
Sing Lee
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Avian Influenza ◽  
Influenza Vaccine ◽  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Influenza Infection ◽  
Vaccination Rate ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Major Barrier ◽  
Vaccination Rates

Objective.To determine the rate of influenza vaccination and the factors associated with the vaccination's acceptance among nurses in Hong Kong.Design.Cross-sectional survey.Participants.Nurses practicing between 2003 and 2007.Methods.A questionnaire was sent to all nurses registered with any of the 3 nursing associations that participated in this study.Results.A total of 941 completed questionnaires were available for analysis, though not all nurses responded to every question (response rate, 33.5%-36.3%). Vaccination rates in 2006 and 2007 were 57.2% and 46.2%, respectively. Nurses who were vaccinated in 2006 were more likely to get vaccinated in 2007 (P<.01); 56% of the nurses perceived influenza vaccine as being effective against influenza. The perceived effectiveness of influenza vaccine was a consistent predictor of rates of vaccination in 2006 (odds ratio [OR], 8.47 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 6.13-11.70];P<.01) and 2007 (OR, 6.05 [95% CI, 3.79-9.67];P<.01). Concern about contracting avian influenza was a predictor of the vaccination rate in 2006 but not in 2007 (OR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.03-2.09];P<.05), as was the perceived lack of control over avian influenza infection (OR, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.06-2.18];P<.05).Conclusions.The overall influenza vaccination rate for nurses in Hong Kong was about 50%. It was affected by the perceived threat of an impending outbreak. The attitudes of nurses toward the effectiveness of and rationale for vaccination were a major barrier to increasing the rate of vaccination.

scholarly journals Influence of Prior Influenza Vaccination on Current Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in Children Aged 1 to 5 Years

Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. 1447
Author(s):  
Kazuhiro Matsumoto ◽  
Wakaba Fukushima ◽  
Saeko Morikawa ◽  
Masashi Fujioka ◽  
Tohru Matsushita ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Reference Group ◽  
Vaccination Strategy ◽  
Negative Influence ◽  
Vaccine Effectiveness ◽  
Vaccination Status ◽  
Current Season ◽  
Vaccination Rates ◽  
Vaccination History ◽  
Group 2

Background: Although annual influenza vaccination is an important strategy used to prevent influenza-related morbidity and mortality, some studies have reported the negative influence of prior vaccination on vaccine effectiveness (VE) for current seasons. Currently, the influence of prior vaccination is not conclusive, especially in children. Methods: We evaluated the association between current-season VE and prior season vaccination using a test-negative design in children aged 1–5 years presenting at nine outpatient clinics in Japan during the 2016/17 and 2017/18 influenza seasons. Children with influenza-like illness were enrolled prospectively and tested for influenza using real-time RT-PCR. Their recent vaccination history was categorized into six groups according to current vaccination doses (0/1/2) and prior vaccination status (unvaccinated = 0 doses/vaccinated = 1 dose or 2 doses): (1) 0 doses in the current season and unvaccinated in prior seasons (reference group); (2) 0 doses in the current season and vaccinated in a prior season; (3) 1 dose in the current season and unvaccinated in a prior season; (4) 1 dose in the current season and vaccinated in a prior season; (5) 2 doses in the current season and unvaccinated in a prior season, and (6) 2 doses in the current season and vaccinated in a prior season. Results: A total of 799 cases and 1196 controls were analyzed. The median age of the subjects was 3 years, and the proportion of males was 54%. Overall, the vaccination rates (any vaccination in the current season) in the cases and controls were 36% and 53%, respectively. The VEs of the groups were: (2) 29% (95% confidence interval: −25% to 59%); (3) 53% (6% to 76%); (4) 70% (45% to 83%); (5) 56% (32% to 72%), and (6) 61% (42% to 73%). The one- and two-dose VEs of the current season were significant regardless of prior vaccination status. The results did not differ when stratified by influenza subtype/lineage. Conclusion: Prior vaccination did not attenuate the current-season VE in children aged 1 to 5 years, supporting the annual vaccination strategy.

scholarly journals Do Turkish Gynecologists and Obstetricians recommend pregnant women the influenza vaccine?

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-23
Author(s):  
Irem Akdemir Kalkan ◽  
Ayşe Nur Usturalı Mut ◽  
Gule Cinar ◽  
Fatih Keskin ◽  
Kemal Osman Memikoglu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Vaccine ◽  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Social Insurance ◽  
Viral Infections ◽  
Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Vaccination Rates ◽  
Immunization Rates

Objective: Influenza is a systemic infectious disease. It is recommended that all pregnant women receive the influenza vaccine because the mortality of the disease is high during pregnancy. However, the rates of influenza vaccination in pregnant women are low. This study aims to estimate the rate at which Turkish gynecologists and obstetricians (GOs) recommend the influenza vaccine to their pregnant patients.. Materials and Methods: This study was designed as a cross-sectional survey. The sample size was calculated to be 364 based on 95% confidence interval and 5% margin of error. The data were collected through a questionnaire consisting of 17 questions, which was distributed through social media. The final study group included in the research consisted of 384 GOs. Results:The mean age of the GOs that participated in the study was 39.7 years (SD = 10.2). 43.5% of the GOs reported that they recommended the influenza vaccine to pregnant women who had consulted with them, while 62.8% reported that at least 50% of the pregnant women they had recommended the vaccine rejected it. According to multivariate logistic regression analysis, three factors increased the rate of GOs’ not to recommend influenza vaccination: the GOs’ age, not receiving influenza vaccination themselves, and not knowing the social insurance reimbursement for the vaccine. Conclusion: Vaccination of pregnant women is necessary because of the increased mortality risk of influenza during pregnancy. Even though GOs are not in charge of vaccinating their patients during their routine pregnancy follow-up, they can contribute to vaccination rates by recommending the vaccine. Physicians’ application of scientific knowledge and transferring it to their patients can contribute to increased adult immunization rates. Conclusion: Influenza, Influenza Vaccine, Pregnancy, Vaccination, Viral Infections

Impact of Pharmacy-Initiated Interventions on Influenza Vaccination Rates in Pediatric Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 525-530 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Gattis ◽  
Inci Yildirim ◽  
Andi L Shane ◽  
Staci Serluco ◽  
Courtney McCracken ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Vaccination Coverage ◽  
Influenza Infection ◽  
Organ Transplant ◽  
Solid Organ Transplant ◽  
Solid Organ ◽  
Transplant Recipients ◽  
Vaccination Rates ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Over Time

Abstract Background In solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients, influenza infection can lead to subsequent graft dysfunction and death. Vaccination is the most effective approach to preventing influenza infection; however, vaccination rates are low, and interventions to optimize vaccine coverage are needed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if pharmacy-initiated screening and recommendations for influenza immunization improve the rate of vaccination in pediatric SOT recipients. Methods We performed a retrospective pre-post chart review of all kidney, liver, and heart transplant recipients followed by Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta/Emory University transplant services between September 1, 2011, and February 16, 2017. Influenza vaccination coverage and influenza rates before (2011–2013) and after (2014–2016) the implementation of pharmacy-driven vaccination in SOT recipients were assessed. Results A total of 822 patients were included; 101 (13%) of these patients were diagnosed with influenza, and 40 (5%) were hospitalized secondarily during the study period. Vaccination coverage increased over time (144 [36%] patients vaccinated in 2011 vs 430 [74%] in 2016; P &lt; .001). Influenza diagnosis rates decreased between the 2 eras (P = .006). The median time in which 50% of the population was vaccinated decreased over time from 163 days in 2012 to 94 days in 2016 (P &lt; .001). Conclusion Within the constraints of the pre-post study design, we observed a significant increase in influenza vaccination rates after implementation of a transplant pharmacy-initiated screening and vaccination program. The number of patients diagnosed with influenza and the time to vaccination decreased after our pharmacy intervention. All efforts should be made to increase compliance with influenza vaccination; pharmacy-initiated interventions can improve protection against influenza infection in pediatric SOT recipients.

An evaluation of influenza vaccine uptake in UK medical students

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
G Gray ◽  
J Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Medical Students ◽  
Influenza Vaccine ◽  
Medical School ◽  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Service Evaluation ◽  
Vaccination Status ◽  
Vaccine Uptake ◽  
Vaccination Rates ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
The Uk

Abstract Background The annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all front-line healthcare workers in the UK and is a crucial way of reducing mortality for vulnerable patient groups. However, to date the UK government has never explicitly monitored influenza vaccine uptake in medical students. This is important to ascertain, as students regularly move between clinical areas and are both a perfect vector for the spread of influenza and at an increased risk of contracting influenza themselves. Aims This service evaluation was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of an influenza vaccination programme in one UK medical school and make recommendations to increase vaccination rates in the future. Methods This service evaluation collected data about medical student uptake of influenza vaccination in one UK medical school. Two hundred and fifty-one students at different course stages completed questionnaires, answering questions on vaccination status and Likert-scale ‘belief’ questions to assess the subjective reasons behind vaccine refusal. Results There was a substantial difference between year group cohorts (~20%), with significantly higher vaccination rates in the preclinical year group. Two significant negative predictors of vaccination were found (P &lt; 0.001), related to scepticism over the effectiveness of the vaccine and lack of convenient access to the vaccination. Results indicated that integrating information about the influenza vaccine into the curriculum would reduce lack of knowledge over the efficacy of the vaccine. The centralization of vaccination programmes at mandatory university-based learning events would mitigate against the problem of diversity of vaccination locations and lack of central accountability. Conclusions The results of this service evaluation provide significant predictors of vaccination status for medical students and potential occupational health interventions to improve vaccine uptake in this group.

Impact of mandatory vaccination of healthcare personnel on rates of influenza and other viral respiratory pathogens

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Michael S. Simberkoff ◽  
Susan M. Rattigan ◽  
Charlotte A. Gaydos ◽  
Cynthia L. Gibert ◽  
Geoffrey J. Gorse ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Viral Infections ◽  
Respiratory Infections ◽  
Healthcare Personnel ◽  
Respiratory Pathogens ◽  
Respiratory Illnesses ◽  
Vaccination Rates ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Viral Respiratory

Abstract Objective: The implementation of mandatory influenza vaccination policies among healthcare personnel (HCP) is controversial. Thus, we examined the affect of mandatory influenza vaccination policies among HCP working in outpatient settings. Setting: Four Veterans’ Affairs (VA) health systems and three non-VA medical centers. Methods: We analyzed rates of influenza and other viral causes of respiratory infections among HCP working in outpatient sites at 4 VA health systems without mandatory influenza vaccination policies and 3 non-VA health systems with mandatory influenza vaccination policies. Results: Influenza vaccination was associated with a decreased risk of influenza (odds ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13–0.22) but an increased risk of other respiratory viral infections (incidence rate ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.02–1.57). Conclusions: Our fitted regression models suggest that if influenza vaccination rates in clinics where vaccination was not mandated had equalled those where vaccine was mandated, HCP influenza infections would have been reduced by 52.1% (95% CI, 51.3%–53.0%). These observations, their possible causes, and additional strategies to reduce influenza and other viral respiratory illnesses among HCP working in ambulatory clinics warrant further investigation.

Understanding influenza vaccination rates and reasons for refusal in caregivers and household contacts of cancer patients

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 468-470 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie A. Price ◽  
Sara Podczervinski ◽  
Kim MacLeod ◽  
Lois Helbert ◽  
Steven A. Pergam
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Vaccination Rates ◽  
Household Contacts

scholarly journals Understanding Influenza Vaccination Rates and Reasons for Refusal in Caregivers and Household Contacts of Cancer Patients

2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (6) ◽  
pp. S14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Price ◽  
Sara Podczervinski ◽  
Kim MacLeod ◽  
Lois Helbert ◽  
Steven Pergam
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Vaccination Rates ◽  
Household Contacts

scholarly journals Influenza Vaccination of Household Contacts of Newborns A Hospital-Based Strategy to Increase Vaccination Rates

2010 ◽  
Vol 31 (10) ◽  
pp. 1070-1073 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emmanuel B. Walter ◽  
Norma J. Allred ◽  
Geeta K. Swamy ◽  
Anne S. Hellkamp ◽  
Rowena J. Dolor
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Vaccination Program ◽  
Vaccination Rates ◽  
Household Contacts

We implemented a hospital-based influenza vaccination program for household contacts of newborns. Among mothers not vaccinated prenatally, 44.7% were vaccinated through the program, as were 25.7% of fathers. A hospital-based program provided opportunities for vaccination of household contacts of newborns, thereby facilitating better adherence to national vaccination guidelines.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document