scholarly journals Perceived risks of adverse effects and influenza vaccination: a survey of hospital employees

2010 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 495-499 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. P. Ehrenstein ◽  
F. Hanses ◽  
S. Blaas ◽  
F. Mandraka ◽  
F. Audebert ◽  
...  
2012 ◽  
Vol 10 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Mark McMillan ◽  
Debbie Kralik ◽  
Kylie Porritt ◽  
Helen Marshall

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. CMO.S13774 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahmoud A. Shehata ◽  
Nagla Abdel Karim

Background Cancer patients often experience preventable infections, including influenza A and B. These infections can be a cause of significant morbidity and mortality. The increased risk of infection may be because of either cancer itself or treatment-induced immunosuppression. 1 Influenza immunization has been shown to decrease the risk of influenza infection in patients with intact immunity. 2 In cancer patients, active immunization has been shown to confer protective immunity against several infections at similar rates to healthy individuals, which has translated into decreased duration and severity of infection and potentially improved morbidity and mortality. 3 Objectives 1. To assess the efficacy of influenza vaccination in stimulating immunological response in patients with cancer during chemotherapy compared to control groups. 2. To assess the efficacy of influenza vaccination in preventing confirmed influenza and influenza-like illness and/or stimulating immunological response in children with cancer treated with chemotherapy, compared to placebo, no intervention, or different dosage schedules. 3. To determine the adverse effects associated with influenza vaccination in patients with cancer. Search Methods We searched MEDLINE/PubMed database for articles published from 1964 to 2013 using the search terms “cancer,” “adult,” “influenza vaccination,” and “chemotherapy.” Selection Criteria We included studies based on systematic sampling with defined clinical criteria irrespective of the vaccination status of cancer patients. Studies measure the serological response or clinical response to compare between the study group and the control group. Studies assessed the inactivated influenza vaccines and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) protective serological reaction and the clinical outcomes after vaccination. Data Collection and Analysis Two independent authors assessed the methodological quality of included studies and extracted data. Main Results We included 16 studies (total number of participants = 1,076). None of the included studies reported clinical outcomes. All included studies reported on influenza immunity and adverse reaction on vaccination. We included 6 solid tumor studies and 10 hematological studies. In 12 studies, the serological response to influenza vaccine was compared in patients receiving chemotherapy (n = 425) versus those not receiving chemotherapy (n = 376). In three studies, the serological responses to influenza vaccination in patients receiving chemotherapy are compared to that in healthy adult. Measures used to assess the serological responses included a four-fold rise increase in antibody titer development of hemagglutination inhibition (HI) titer >40, and pre- and post-vaccination geometric mean titers (GMTs). Immune responses in patients receiving chemotherapy were consistently weaker (four-fold rise of 17–52%) than in those who had completed chemotherapy (50–83%) and healthy patients (67–100%). Concerning adverse effects, oncology patients received influenza vaccine, and the side effects described were mild local reactions and low-grade fever. No life-threatening or persistent adverse effects were reported. Authors’ Conclusion Patients with solid and some of hematological tumors are able to mount a serological response to influenza vaccine, but it remains unclear how much this response protects them from influenza infection or its complications. Meanwhile, influenza vaccine appears to be safe in these patients. While waiting results of randomized controlled trials to give us more details about the clinical benefits of the influenza vaccination, the clinicians should consider the currently proved benefits of influenza vaccination on management of the cancer patients undergoing systematic chemotherapy such as decrease in the duration and severity of the of the disease, and significant decrease in influenza-associated morbidity and mortality in these high-risk patients. 3


2012 ◽  
Vol 33 (12) ◽  
pp. 1288-1289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohit M. Modak ◽  
Sarah M. Parris ◽  
Jeffrey P. Dilisi ◽  
Ajay Premkumar

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. e0249785
Author(s):  
Michael Eder ◽  
Haris Omic ◽  
Jana Gorges ◽  
Florian Badt ◽  
Zeljko Kikic ◽  
...  

Introduction Seasonal influenza is a major global health problem causing substantial morbidity and health care costs. Yet, in many countries, the rates of influenza vaccination remain low. Chronic kidney or liver diseases (CKLD) predispose patients to severe influenza infections, but data on vaccination acceptance and status is limited in this risk population. We investigated the influenza vaccination awareness considering sociodemographic factors in CKLD patients. Patients and methods This cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study recruited CKLD patients managed at three Viennese tertiary care centers between July and October 2020. CKLD was defined as chronic kidney- (all stages) or compensated/decompensated liver disease, including kidney/liver transplant recipients. Questionnaires assessed sociodemographic and transplant- associated parameters, patients vaccination status and the individuals self-perceived risks of infection and associated complications. Results In total 516 patients (38.1% female, mean age 56.4 years) were included. 43.9% of patients declared their willingness to be vaccinated in the winter season 2020/2021, compared to 25.4% in 2019/2020 and 27.3% in 2016–2018. Vaccination uptake was associated with the self-perceived risks of infection (OR: 2.8 (95%CI: 1.8–4.5), p<0.001) and associated complications (OR: 3.8 (95%CI: 2.3–6.3), p<0.001) as well as with previously received influenza vaccination (2019/2020: OR 17.1 (95%CI: 9.5–30.7), p<0.001; season 2016–2018: OR 8.9 (95%CI: 5.5–14.5), p<0.001). Most frequent reasons for not planning vaccination were fear of a) graft injury (33.3%), b) complications after vaccination (32.4%) and c) vaccine inefficiency (15.0%). Conclusion While influenza vaccination willingness in patients with CKLD is increasing in the 2020/2021 season, vaccination rates may still remain <50%. Novel co-operations with primary health care, active vaccination surveillance and financial reimbursement may substantially improve vaccination rates in high-risk CKLD patients.


AAOHN Journal ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 53 (11) ◽  
pp. 477-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Gabel Speroni ◽  
Elaine Dawson ◽  
Martin Atherton ◽  
Joy Corriher

A convenience sample of hospital workers, those receiving influenza vaccine and those not receiving vaccine, were asked to complete questionnaires delineating the occurrence of symptoms (e.g., fever, headache, extreme tiredness, dry cough, sore throat, runny nose, stuffy nose, muscle aches) and absenteeism in the 7-day period post-vaccination if vaccinated. Those unvaccinated completed the questionnaire in a self-selected 7 consecutive day period during the study conducted from November 2004 to February 2005. Those receiving either Fluzone® or FluMist™ reported significantly fewer symptoms and related absenteeism than the unvaccinated group (p < .05). Administration of influenza vaccine did not result in higher rates of post-vaccination symptoms as compared to an unvaccinated group. Further, vaccinated employees did not experience higher absenteeism rates as a result of receiving either influenza vaccine. However, for those reporting absenteeism as a result of symptoms, mean absenteeism days were highest in the FluMist group (4.5 days) compared to the unvaccinated group (2.1 days) and the Fluzone group (1.9 days).


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 98 (2) ◽  
pp. 196-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Lucy Park ◽  
Arthur L. Frank ◽  
Myrtis Sullivan ◽  
Parveen Jindal ◽  
Barbara D. Baxter

Objectives. The influenza vaccination rate is very low among children with moderate to severe asthma. This may be partly because of poor patient motivation and failure to visit clinics for vaccination. Another important factor may be health care providers' deferral of vaccination because of concern about the efficacy and safety of influenza vaccination during asthma exacerbations and concurrent prednisone therapy. We therefore examined the safety and immunogenicity of influenza vaccination during acute asthma exacerbation with concomitant prednisone therapy. Setting. A pediatric allergy and pulmonology clinic and a pediatric emergency department. Design. Children (n = 109) with a known diagnosis of asthma 6 months to 18 years of age were recruited. All participating patients, 59 without asthma symptoms (no prednisone, control group) and 50 with acute asthma exacerbation requiring prednisone burst therapy (prednisone group) received trivalent subvirion influenza vaccine. Fifteen children in the control group and 12 in the prednisone group received a booster dose according to American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines. Serum antibody titers to influenza A/Beijing/32/92 (H3N2), influenza A/Texas/36/91 (H1N1), and influenza B/Panama/45/90 were measured before and 2 weeks after vaccination. Adverse effects noted within 48 hours after vaccine dose were ascertained during the follow-up visit. Results. The antibody response was analyzed by comparing mean postvaccine titers, the percentage of patients achieving protective antibody levels (≥5log2), and the percentage of patients achieving rises in titers of 2log2 or greater. Antibody responses to influenza A/Beijing/32/92 (H3N2) and influenza A/Texas/36/91 (H1N1) in the prednisone-treated and control groups were not different. A significantly better response to the influenza B/Panama/45/90 antigen was seen in the prednisone group for all three parameters. Children who received a booster dose and the subgroup of children with low prevaccination titers (≤3log2) showed similar patterns. Adverse effects, including asthma exacerbation, local swelling at the injection site, fever, rash, and headache were not different in the two groups.


2009 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 474-478 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip M. Polgreen ◽  
Linnea A. Polgreen ◽  
Thomas Evans ◽  
Charles Helms

Objective.To describe and report the progress of a provider-initiated approach to increase influenza immunization rates for healthcare workers.Design.Observational study.Setting.The State of Iowa.Subjects.Acute care hospitals in Iowa.Methods.Hospitals reported rates of employee influenza vaccination to a provider-based collaborative during 2 influenza seasons (2006-2007 and 2007-2008). Hospital characteristics related to higher vaccination rates were examined.Results.One hundred (87.0%) of 115 Iowa hospitals and/or health systems participated in season 1; individual hospital vaccination rates ranged from 43.5% to 99.2% (mean, 72.4%; median, 73.1%). In season 2, 115 (100%) of 115 Iowa hospitals and/or health systems participated. Individual hospital vaccination rates ranged from 53.6% to 100% (mean, 79.5%; median, 82.0%). In both seasons, urban and large hospitals had vaccination rates that were 6.3% to 7.6% lower than those of hospitals in other locations. Hospitals that used declination statements had influenza vaccination rates 12.6% higher than hospitals that did not use declination statements in season 2.Conclusion.The initial vaccination rates were high for healthcare workers in Iowa, especially in smaller rural hospitals, and rates increased during season 2. The successful voluntary approach for reporting influenza vaccination rates that we describe provides an efficient platform for collecting and disseminating other statewide measures of healthcare quality.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document