Influenza vaccination and cardiovascular risk in patients with recent TIA and stroke

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether current influenza vaccination is associated with reduced risk of major vascular events in patients with recent ischemic stroke or TIA of mainly atherothrombotic origin. METHODS: Data were pooled from 2 prospective cohort studies, the OPTIC Registry (n = 3,635) and the AMISTAD Study (n = 618), and from the randomized PERFORM Trial (n = 19,120), all of which included patients with recent ischemic stroke or TIA. Influenza vaccination status was determined in 23,110 patients. The primary outcome was a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or vascular death up to 2 years. Secondary outcomes were myocardial infarction and stroke separately. RESULTS: Influenza vaccination had no association with the primary outcome in the propensity score-matched cohort (hazard ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-1.11; p = 0.67) or in the propensity score-adjusted cohort (hazard ratio 1.00, 95% CI 0.89-1.12; p = 0.99). Similarly, the risk of stroke and myocardial infarction did not differ between the vaccinated group and the unvaccinated group; in the matched cohort, the hazard ratio was 1.01 (95% CI 0.88-1.17; p = 0.89) for stroke and 0.84 (95% CI 0.59-1.18; p = 0.30) for myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: Influenza vaccination was not associated with reduced outcome events in patients with recent atherothrombotic ischemic stroke after considering all baseline characteristics (including concomitant medications) associated with influenza vaccination.

Influenza vaccination and peoples' knowledge and attitudes towards it: Factors that influenced influenza vaccination during the 2004--2005 influenza vaccine shortage

Influenza and pneumonia together comprise the seventh leading cause of death among adults in the U.S and were responsible for 65,163 deaths in 2003 and an average of 36,000 deaths per year in the United States from 1990 to 1999. Vaccination is efficacious and cost-effective in terms of preventing the infection and reducing both health care costs and productivity losses associated with influenza illness. The vaccine shortage of 2004–2005 resulted in a 39% decrease in the influenza vaccine supplies. During the fall of 2004, we conducted a nationwide, random-digit dialing, telephonic-interview survey of 1,202 adults aged 18 years and older to ascertain influenza vaccine knowledge, attitude and behavior. Of the 1,202 total interviewed subjects, 44.7% had received or intended to receive vaccine at the time of the survey (2004–05) and 39.6% had received the influenza vaccine the previous year (2003–04). Receipt of vaccine increased with previous receipt of the influenza vaccine (OR 13.17, 95% CI 8.65–20.08), increased motivation status (OR 7.58, 95% CI 4.03–14.25), subjective risk status (OR 3.33, 95% CI 2.23–4.97), age (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.22–2.75) and previous receipt of the pneumococcal vaccine (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.02–3.0). The influenza vaccine shortage of 2004–05 did not have a negative impact on the vaccination rates of study population. In addition to the increased rates, a large majority of respondents were also aware of the shortage of influenza vaccine during the 2004–05 season, about the indications for receiving the influenza vaccine, about alternative methods to prevent contracting the influenza and increased motivation to receive the vaccine. ^

Use of intranet and other interventions to increase influenza vaccination among health care workers

Influenza (the flu) is a serious respiratory illness that can cause severe complications, often leading to hospitalization and even death. Influenza epidemics occur in most countries every year, usually during the winter months. Despite recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and efforts by health care institutions across the United States, influenza vaccination rates among health care workers in the United States remain low. How to increase the number of vaccinated health care workers is an important public health question and is examined in two journal articles included here. ^ The first journal article evaluates the effectiveness of an Intranet intervention in increasing the proportion of health care workers (HCWs) who received influenza vaccination. Hospital employees were required go to the hospital's Intranet and select "vaccine received," "contraindicated," or "declined" from the online questionnaire. Declining employees automatically received an online pop-up window with education about vaccination; managers were provided feedback on employees' participation rates via e-mail messages. Employees were reminded of the Intranet requirement in articles in the employee newsletter and on the hospital's Intranet. Reminders about the Intranet questionnaire were provided through managers and newsletters to the HCWs. Fewer than half the employees (43.7%) completed the online questionnaire. Yet the hospital witnessed a statistically significant increase in the percentage of employees who received the flu vaccine at the hospital – 48.5% in the 2008-09 season as compared to 36.5%, 38.5% and 29.8% in the previous three years (P < 0.05). ^ The second article assesses current interventions employed by hospitals, health systems and nursing homes to determine which policies have been the most effective in boosting vaccination rates among American health care workers. A systematic review of research published between January 1994 and March 2010 suggests that education is necessary but not usually sufficient to increase vaccine uptake. Education about the flu and flu vaccines is most effective when complemented with easy access and making the vaccine free, although this combination may not be sufficient to achieve the desired vaccination levels among HCWs. The findings point toward adding incentives for HCWs to get vaccinated and requiring them to record their vaccination status on a declination/consent form – either written or electronic. ^ Based on these findings, American health care organizations, such as hospitals, nursing homes, and long-term care facilities, should consider using online declination forms as a method for increasing influenza vaccination rates among their employees. These online forms should be used in conjunction with other policies, including free vaccine, mobile distribution and incentives. ^ To further spur health care organizations to adopt policies and practices that will raise influenza vaccination rates among employees, The Joint Commission – an independent, not-for- profit organization that accredits and certifies more than 17,000 health care organizations and programs in the United States – should consider altering its standards. Currently, The Joint Commission does not require signed declination forms from employees who eschew vaccination; it only echoes the CDC's recommendations: "Health care facilities should require personnel who refuse vaccination to complete a declination form." Because participation in Joint Commission accreditation is required for Medicare reimbursement, action taken by the Joint Commission to require interventions such as mandatory declination/consent forms might result in immediate action by health care organizations to follow these new standards and lead to higher vaccination rates among HCWs.^ 1“Frequently Asked Questions for H1N1 and Seasonal Influenza.” The Joint Commission - Infection Control: http://www.jointcommission.org/PatientSafety/InfectionControl/h1n1_faq.htm. ^

Influenza vaccination as a primary or secondary prevention for cardiovascular diseases: A systematic review of the literature

Background: Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. CVD mainly comprise of coronary heart disease and stroke and were ranked first and fourth respectively amongst leading causes of death in the United States. Influenza (flu) causes annual outbreaks and pandemics and is increasingly recognized as an important trigger for acute coronary syndromes and stroke. Influenza vaccination is an inexpensive and effective strategy for prevention of influenza related complications in high risk individuals. Though it is recommended for all CVD patients, Influenza vaccine is still used at suboptimal levels in these patients owing to prevailing controversy related to its effectiveness in preventing CVD. This review was undertaken to critically assess the effectiveness of influenza vaccination as a primary or secondary prevention method for CVD. ^ Methods: A systematic review was conducted using electronic databases OVID MEDLINE, PUBMED (National Library of Medicine), EMBASE, GOOGLE SCHOLAR and TRIP (Turning Research into Practice). The study search was limited to peer-reviewed articles published in English language from January 1970 through May 2012. The case control studies, cohort studies and randomized controlled trials related to influenza vaccination and CVD, with data on at least one of the outcomes were identified. In the review, only population-based epidemiologic studies in all ethnic groups and of either sex and with age limitation of 30 yrs or above, with clinical CVD outcomes of interest were included. ^ Results: Of the 16 studies (8 case control studies, 6 cohort studies and 2 randomized controlled trials) that met the inclusion criteria, 14 studies reported that there was a significant benefit in u influenza vaccination as primary or secondary prevention method for preventing new cardiovascular events. In contrary to the above findings, two studies mentioned that there was no significant benefit of vaccination in CVD prevention. ^ Conclusion: The available body of evidence in the review elucidates that vaccination against influenza is associated with reduction in the risk of new CVD events, hospitalization for coronary heart disease and stroke and as well as the risk of death. The study findings disclose that the influenza vaccination is very effective in CVD prevention and should be encouraged for the high risk population. However, larger and more future studies like randomized control trials are needed to further evaluate and confirm these findings. ^

Variable efficacy of repeated annual influenza vaccination

Conclusions have differed in studies that have compared vaccine efficacy in groups receiving influenza vaccine for the first time to efficacy in groups vaccinated more than once. For example, the Hoskins study [Hoskins, T. W., Davis, J. R., Smith, A. J., Miller, C. L. & Allchin, A. (1979) Lancet i, 33–35] concluded that repeat vaccination was not protective in the long term, whereas the Keitel study [Keitel, W. A., Cate, T. R., Couch, R. B., Huggins, L. L. & Hess, K. R. (1997) Vaccine 15, 1114–1122] concluded that repeat vaccination provided continual protection. We propose an explanation, the antigenic distance hypothesis, and test it by analyzing seven influenza outbreaks that occurred during the Hoskins and Keitel studies. The hypothesis is that variation in repeat vaccine efficacy is due to differences in antigenic distances among vaccine strains and between the vaccine strains and the epidemic strain in each outbreak. To test the hypothesis, antigenic distances were calculated from historical hemagglutination inhibition assay tables, and a computer model of the immune response was used to predict the vaccine efficacy of individuals given different vaccinations. The model accurately predicted the observed vaccine efficacies in repeat vaccinees relative to the efficacy in first-time vaccinees (correlation 0.87). Thus, the antigenic distance hypothesis offers a parsimonious explanation of the differences between and within the Hoskins and Keitel studies. These results have implications for the selection of influenza vaccine strains, and also for vaccination strategies for other antigenically variable pathogens that might require repeated vaccination.

Acceptability of pandemic A(H1N1) influenza vaccination by Essential Community Workers in 2010 Alicante (Spain), perceived seriousness and sources of information

Objective. Describe acceptability of pandemic A(H1N1) influenza vaccination by Essential Community Workers (ECWs) from Alicante province (Spain) in January 2010. Evaluate the correlation with attitudes, beliefs, professional advice and information broadcasted by media. Method. In this cross-sectional study, face-to-face interviews were conducted with 742 ECWs to assess their attitudes towards vaccination against the pandemic influenza strain. A multivariable regression model was made to adjust the Odds Ratios (ORs). Results. Some ECWs reported having been vaccinated with seasonal vaccine, 21.5% (95%IC 18.6–24.9); only 15.4% (95%IC 12.8–18.4) with the pandemic one. ECWs vaccinated regularly against seasonal flu (OR 5.1; 95%IC 2.9–9.1), those who considered pandemic influenza as a severe or more serious disease than seasonal flu (OR 3.8; 95%IC 2.1–6.7) and those who never had doubts about vaccine safety (OR 3.7; 95%IC2.1–6.7) had a better acceptance of pandemic vaccine. Finally, 78.7% (95%IC 75.1–81.4) had doubts about pandemic vaccine's effectiveness. Conclusion. The vast amount of information provided by the media did not seem to be decisive to prevent doubts or to improve the acceptability of the vaccine in ECWs. Professional advice should be the focus of interest in future influenza vaccination campaigns. These results should be taken into account by health authorities.

Effectiveness of influenza vaccination programme in preventing hospital admissions, Valencia, 2014/15 early results

Preliminary results for the 2014/15 season indicate low to null effect of vaccination against influenza A(H3N2)-related disease. As of week 5 2015, there have been 1,136 hospital admissions, 210 were due to influenza and 98% of subtype A strains were H3. Adjusted influenza vaccine effectiveness was 33% (range: 6–53%) overall and 40% (range: 13% to 59%) in those 65 years and older. Vaccination reduced by 44% (28–68%) the probability of admission with influenza.

Evaluation of influenza vaccination services and users’ perception about its utility: a study in a community pharmacy in Lisbon, Portugal

Poster presented at the 25th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ECCMID). Copenhagen, Denmark, 25–28 April 2015

Beyond vaccination: The benefits of having a pharmacist behind the syringe

Background: The Queensland Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot which ran in 2014 was Australia’s first to allow pharmacists to administer vaccinations. Aim: An aim of the pilot was to investigate the benefits of trained pharmacists administering vaccinations in a community pharmacy setting. Methods: Participant demographics and previous influenza vaccination experiences were recorded using GuildCare software. Participants also completed a ‘post-vaccination satisfaction survey’ following their influenza vaccination. Results: A total of 10889 participant records and 8737 satisfaction surveys were analysed. Overall, 1.9% of participants lived with a chronic illness, and 22.5% took concomitant medications. As part of the consultation before receiving the influenza vaccination, participants acknowledged the opportunity to discuss other aspects of their health with the pharmacist, including concerns about their general health, allergies, and other medications they were taking. It was worth noting that 17.5% of people would not have received an influenza vaccination if the pharmacist vaccination service was unavailable. Additionally, approximately 10% of all participants were eligible to receive a free vaccination from the National Immunisation Program, but still opted to receive their vaccine from a pharmacist. Conclusion: The findings from this pilot demonstrate the benefit of a pharmacist vaccination program in increasing vaccination rates, and have helped pave the way for expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists.

Pharmacist vaccination – an Australian first, but what was the impact?

Introduction/background/issues The Queensland Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot is Australia’s first to allow pharmacists vaccination. The pilot ran between April 1st 2014 and August 31st 2014, with pharmacists administering influenza vaccination during the flu season. The aim of this work was to investigate the benefits of trained registered pharmacists administering vaccinations in a community pharmacy setting. Methods Participant demographics and previous influenza vaccination experiences were recorded using GuildCare software. Participants also completed a ‘post-vaccination satisfaction survey’ following their influenza vaccination. Results/discussions A total of 10,889 participant records were analysed. Females accounted for 63% of participants, with the majority of participants aged between 45-64 years (53%). Overall, 49% of participants had been vaccinated before, the majority at a GP clinic (60%). Most participants reported receiving their previous influenza vaccination from a nurse (61%). Interestingly, 1% thought a pharmacist had administered their previous vaccination, while 7% were unsure which health professional had administered it. It was also of note that approximately 10% of all participants were eligible to receive a free vaccination from the National Immunisation Program, but still opted to receive their vaccine in a pharmacy. Over 8,000 participants took part in the post-vaccination survey, 93% were happy to receive their vaccination from a pharmacy in the future while 94% would recommend this service to other people. The remaining 7% and 6% respectively had omitted to fill in those questions. Conclusions/implications These findings have helped pave the way for expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists with the aim to increase vaccination rates across Australia. Key message • Scope of practice and ability for health providers like pharmacists to provide services such as vaccination in primary care. • New service delivery to improve access to service, and increase immunisation rates.

The health professional behind the syringe: Benefits of a pharmacist vaccination program

Background: The Queensland Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot (QPIP) which ran in 2014 was Australia’s first to allow pharmacists to administer vaccinations. An aim of QPIP was to investigate the benefits of trained pharmacists administering vaccinations in a community pharmacy setting. Methods: Participant demographics and previous influenza vaccination experiences were recorded using GuildCare software. Participants also completed a ‘post-vaccination satisfaction survey’ following their influenza vaccination. Results: A total of 10,889 participant records and 8,737 satisfaction surveys were analysed. Overall, 1.9% of the participants reported living with a chronic illness, and 22.5% were taking concomitant medications. As part of the consultation before receiving the vaccine, participants acknowledged the opportunity to discuss other aspects of their health with the pharmacist, including concerns about their general health, allergies, and other medications they were taking. It was worth noting that 17.5% of people would not have received an influenza vaccination if the QPIP service was unavailable. Additionally, approximately 10% of all participants were eligible to receive a free vaccination from the National Immunisation Program, but still opted to receive their vaccine from a pharmacist. Conclusion: The findings from this pilot demonstrate the benefit of a pharmacist vaccination program in increasing vaccination rates, and have helped pave the way for expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists.

Impacto da campanha de vacinação para influenza em uma empresa

A influenza é uma das doenças respiratórias agudas mais prevalentes e importante causa de absenteísmo e presenteísmo. Entretanto, a eficácia vacinal para influenza pode alcançar 80% quando há elevada correspondência entre cepas vacinais e circulantes. Por este motivo, a empresa há anos promove campanha de vacinação, contudo, sem estimar sua efetividade (eficácia na redução da carga da doença) e o impacto econômico (produtividade) para o aprimoramento de sua política de saúde ocupacional. Considerou-se que a efetividade da campanha seria determinada pela eficácia vacinal previamente demonstrada em estudos randomizados, pelo grau de acurácia diagnóstica ou de triagem dos casos, pelo nível de adesão do profissional de saúde ao registro no prontuário e do paciente ao informar a ocorrência dos sintomas e pela cobertura vacinal alcançada. Com os objetivos de avaliar a efetividade e impacto econômico da campanha de vacinação para influenza, optou-se por um desenho estudo observacional de coorte histórico com características de estudo de intervenção baseado em dados históricos da campanha de 2008 e informações individuais sobre a frequência de sintomas respiratórios e absenteísmo, idade, gênero, função (administrativa e operacional) e renda, comorbidades relevantes e tabagismo, obtidas mediante revisão de prontuário dos 12 meses subsequentes, comparadas entre os grupos de vacinados e não-vacinados (qui-quadrado e test t) e analisadas por regressão logística, e estimada a fração prevenível (proporção de episódios potenciais de influenza evitados pela vacinação). Foram analisados os prontuários de 2.425 trabalhadores (1.651 não-vacinados e 754 vacinados) correspondendo à cobertura de 31,1%. A prevalência de influenza observada foi de 10,4% e a vacinação foi efetiva entre os trabalhadores (RR=0,51; IC95% 39-67), quando considerados os sintomas de alta probabilidade de influenza. A fração prevenível foi 0,09 (9 casos evitados a cada 100 trabalhadores vacinados). A campanha de vacinação foi mais efetiva e provocou maior impacto econômico entre os trabalhadores em regime operacional.

False-positive PCR results linked to administration of seasonal influenza vaccine

False-positive PCR results usually occur as a consequence of specimen-to-specimen or amplicon-to-specimen contamination within the laboratory. Evidence of contamination at time of specimen collection linked to influenza vaccine administration in the same location as influenza sampling is described. Clinical, circumstantial and laboratory evidence was gathered for each of five cases of influenza-like illness (ILI) with unusual patterns of PCR reactivity for seasonal H1N1, H3N2, H1N1 (2009) and influenza B viruses. Two 2010 trivalent influenza vaccines and environmental swabs of a hospital influenza vaccination room were also tested for influenza RNA. Sequencing of influenza A matrix (M) gene amplicons from the five cases and vaccines was undertaken. Four 2009 general practitioner (GP) specimens were seasonal H1N1, H3N2 and influenza B PCR positive. One 2010 GP specimen was H1N1 (2009), H3N2 and influenza B positive. PCR of 2010 trivalent vaccines showed high loads of detectable influenza A and B RNA. Sequencing of the five specimens and vaccines showed greatest homology with the M gene sequence of Influenza A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 H1N1 virus (used in generation of influenza vaccine strains). Environmental swabs had detectable influenza A and B RNA. RNA detection studies demonstrated vaccine RNA still detectable for at least 66 days. Administration of influenza vaccines and clinical sampling in the same room resulted in the contamination with vaccine strains of surveillance swabs collected from patients with ILI. Vaccine contamination should therefore be considered, particularly where multiple influenza virus RNA PCR positive signals (e.g. H1N1, H3N2 and influenza B) are detected in the same specimen.

Cost-benefit evaluation of routine influenza immunisation in people 65-74 years of age

OBJECTIVES: To determine the cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination in people aged 65-74 years in the absence of co-morbidity. DESIGN: Primary research: randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: People without risk factors for influenza or contraindications to vaccination were identified from 20 general practitioner (GP) practices in Liverpool in September 1999 and invited to participate in the study. There were 5875/9727 (60.4%) people aged 65-74 years identified as potentially eligible and, of these, 729 (12%) were randomised. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised to receive either influenza vaccine or placebo (ratio 3:1), with all individuals receiving pneumococcal vaccine unless administered in the previous 10 years. Of the 729 people randomised, 552 received vaccine and 177 received placebo; 726 individuals were administered pneumococcal vaccine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND METHODOLOGY OF ECONOMIC EVALUATION: GP attendance with influenza-like illness (ILI) or pneumonia (primary outcome measure); or any respiratory symptoms; hospitalisation with a respiratory illness; death; participant self-reported ILI; quality of life (QoL) measures at 2, 4 and 6 months post-study vaccination; adverse reactions 3 days after vaccination. A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken to identify the incremental cost associated with the avoidance of episodes of influenza in the vaccination population and an impact model was used to extrapolate the cost-effectiveness results obtained from the trial to assess their generalisability throughout the NHS. RESULTS: In England and Wales, weekly consultations for influenza and ILI remained at baseline levels (less than 50 per 100,000 population) until week 50/1999 and then increased rapidly, peaking during week 2/2000 with a rate of 231/100,000. This rate fell within the range of 'higher than expected seasonal activity' of 200-400/100,000. Rates then quickly declined, returning to baseline levels by week 5/2000. The predominant circulating strain during this period was influenza A (H3N2). Five (0.9%) people in the vaccine group were diagnosed by their GP with an ILI compared to two (1.1%) in the placebo group [relative risk (RR), 0.8; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.16 to 4.1]. No participants were diagnosed with pneumonia by their GP and there were no hospitalisations for respiratory illness in either group. Significantly fewer vaccinated individuals self-reported a single ILI (4.6% vs 8.9%, RR, 0.51; 95% CI for RR, 0.28 to 0.96). There was no significant difference in any of the QoL measurements over time between the two groups. Reported systemic side-effects showed no significant differences between groups. Local side-effects occurred with a significantly increased incidence in the vaccine group (11.3% vs 5.1%, p = 0.02). Each GP consultation avoided by vaccination was estimated from trial data to generate a net NHS cost of 174 pounds. CONCLUSIONS: No difference was seen between groups for the primary outcome measure, although the trial was underpowered to demonstrate a true difference. Vaccination had no significant effect on any of the QoL measures used, although vaccinated individuals were less likely to self-report ILI. The analysis did not suggest that influenza vaccination in healthy people aged 65-74 years would lead to lower NHS costs. Future research should look at ways to maximise vaccine uptake in people at greatest risk from influenza and also the level of vaccine protection afforded to people from different age and socio-economic populations.