Early estimates of the effectiveness of the 2011/12 influenza vaccine in the population targeted for vaccination in Spain, 25 December 2011 to 19 February 2012.

We present early estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) in the population targeted for vaccination, during 25 December 2011 to 19 February 2012. The adjusted VE was 55% (95% CI: 3 to 79) against any type of influenza virus and 54% (95% CI: 1 to 79) against influenza A(H3N2) virus. This suggests a moderate protective effect of the vaccine in the targeted population in a late influenza epidemic with limited match between vaccine and circulating strains.

Comparison of adverse events following immunization with pandemic influenza A (H1N1)pdm09 vaccine with or without adjuvant among health professionals in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

A vaccination campaign against pandemic influenza A (H1N1)pdm09 was held in Brazil in March 2010, using two types of monovalent split virus vaccines: an AS03-adjuvanted vaccine and a non-adjuvanted vaccine. We compared the reactogenicity of the vaccines in health professionals from a Clinical Research Institute in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and there were no serious adverse events following immunization (AEFI) among the 494 subjects evaluated. The prevalence of any AEFI was higher in the AS03-adjuvanted vaccine at 2 h and 24 h post-vaccination [preva-lence ratio (PR): 2.05, confidence interval (CI) 95%: 1.55-2.71, PR: 3.42, CI 95%: 2.62-4.48, respectively]; however, there was no difference between the vaccines in the assessments conducted at seven and 21 days post-vaccination. The group receiving the AS03 post-adjuvanted vaccine had a higher frequency of local reactions at 2 h (PR: 3.01, CI 95%: 2.12-4.29), 24 h (PR: 4.57, CI 95%: 3.29-6.37) and seven days (PR: 6.05, CI 95%: 2.98-12.28) post-vaccination. We concluded that the two types of vaccines caused no serious AEFI in the studied population and the adjuvanted vaccine was more reactogenic, particularly in the 24 h following vaccination. This behaviour must be confirmed and better characterised by longitudinal studies in the general population.

Technology transfer of an oil-in-water vaccine-adjuvant for strengthening pandemic influenza preparedness in Indonesia.

With the current enzootic circulation of highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses, the ability to increase global pandemic influenza vaccine production capacity is of paramount importance. This has been highlighted by, and is one of the main pillars of, the WHO Global Action Plan for Influenza Vaccines (GAP). Such capacity expansion is especially relevant in developing countries. The Vaccine Formulation Laboratory at University of Lausanne is engaged in the technology transfer of an antigen-sparing oil-in-water adjuvant in order to empower developing countries vaccine manufacturers to increase pandemic influenza vaccine capacity. In a one-year project funded by United States Department of Health and Human Services, the Vaccine Formulation Laboratory transferred the process know-how and associated equipment for the pilot-scale manufacturing of an oil-in-water adjuvant to Bio Farma, Indonesia's state-owned vaccine manufacturer, for subsequent formulation with H5N1 pandemic influenza vaccines. This paper describes the experience acquired and lessons learnt from this technology transfer project.

Factors associated with vaccination against Influenza A (H1N1) in the elderly

This study aimed to investigate the sociodemographic, clinical and behavioral factors and receiving information about the vaccine against pandemic influenza A (H1N1) associated with vaccination of elderly people. Study of quantitative and transversal nature, in which 286 elderly residents in Fortaleza, CE, Brazil participated. The association between variables was analyzed by the Pearson chi-square test, considering a 95% confidence interval and significance level (p≤0.05). The results revealed that, unlike the sociodemographic characteristics, many clinical, behavioral and informational aspects correlated significantly with adherence to Influenza A (H1N1) vaccination. It is believed that the findings can be used in strategies to control and prevent infection by viral subtypes within the elderly population, extensible even to other vaccine-preventable diseases, especially in light of possible future pandemics.

Issuance of patient reminders for influenza vaccination by US-based primary care physicians during the first year of universal influenza vaccination recommendations.

To estimate the number of physician-reported influenza vaccination reminders during the 2010-2011 influenza season, the first influenza season after universal vaccination recommendations for influenza were introduced, we interviewed 493 members of the Physicians Consulting Network. Patient vaccination reminders are a highly effective means of increasing influenza vaccination; nonetheless, only one quarter of the primary care physicians interviewed issued influenza vaccination reminders during the first year of universal vaccination recommendations, highlighting the need to improve office-based promotion of influenza vaccination.

Prevalence rate and reasons for refusals of influenza vaccine in elderly.

More knowledge on the reasons for refusal of the influenza vaccine in elderly patients is essential to target groups for additional information, and hence improve coverage rate. The objective of the present study was to describe precisely the true motives for refusal. All patients aged over 64 who attended the Medical Outpatient Clinic, University of Lausanne, or their private practitioner's office during the 1999 and 2000 vaccination periods were included. Each patient was informed on influenza and its complications, as well as on the need for vaccination, its efficacy and adverse events. The vaccination was then proposed. In case of refusal, the reasons were investigated with an open question. Out of 1398 patients, 148 (12%) refused the vaccination. The main reasons for refusal were the perception of being in good health (16%), of not being susceptible to influenza (15%), of not having had the influenza vaccine in the past (15%), of having had a bad experience either personally or a relative (15%), and the uselessness of the vaccine (10%). Seventeen percent gave miscellaneous reasons and 12% no reason at all for refusal. Little epidemiological knowledge and resistance to change appear to be the major obstacles for wide acceptance of the vaccine by the elderly.

Immunogenicity and safety of an intradermal boosting strategy for vaccination against influenza in lung transplant recipients.

The immunogenicity of influenza vaccine is suboptimal in lung transplant recipients. Use of a booster dose and vaccine delivery by the intradermal rather than intramuscular route may improve response. We prospectively evaluated the immunogenicity and safety of a 2-dose boosting strategy of influenza vaccine. Sixty lung transplant recipients received a standard intramuscular injection of the 2006-2007 inactivated influenza vaccine, followed 4 weeks later by an intradermal booster of the same vaccine. Immunogenicity was assessed by measurement of geometric mean titer of antibodies after both the intramuscular injection and the intradermal booster. Vaccine response was defined as 4-fold or higher increase of antibody titers to at least one vaccine antigen. Thirty-eight out of 60 patients (63%) had a response after intramuscular vaccination. Geometric mean titers increased for all three vaccine antigens following the first dose (p < 0.001). However, no significant increases in titer were observed after the booster dose for all three antigens. Among nonresponders, 3/22 (13.6%) additional patients responded after the intradermal booster (p = 0.14). The use of basiliximab was associated with a positive response (p = 0.024). After a single standard dose of influenza vaccine, a booster dose given by intradermal injection did not significantly improve vaccine immunogenicity in lung transplant recipients.

Bilateral anterior ischemic optic neuropathy following influenza vaccination.

Optic neuritis is an occasional complication of vaccination. Visual loss can be unilateral or bilateral, and most patients recover substantially without treatment. The presumptive mechanism is an immune-mediated demyelinating injury of the optic nerve. We report two patients who had permanent visual loss following influenza vaccination. Their pattern of visual loss, segmental optic disc changes, and failure of visual recovery were atypical for demyelinating optic neuritis and reminiscent of a primary ischemic injury to the optic nerve. We speculate that an immune complex-mediated vasculopathy following vaccination can cause anterior ischemic optic neuropathy. Clinicians should be aware of this entity because of the less favorable prognosis for visual recovery in these cases.

A prospective observational safety study on MF59(®) adjuvanted cell culture-derived vaccine, Celtura(®) during the A/H1N1 (2009) influenza pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The present study was a prospective observational study to evaluate the safety profile of Celtura(®), a monovalent, cell culture-derived, inactivated subunit influenza vaccine prepared from A/California/07/2009(H1N1) with the adjuvant MF59(®). Subjects were enrolled prospectively during the H1N1 2009 influenza pandemic at medical centres in Colombia, Chile, Switzerland, and Germany during the period December 2009 to June 2010. METHODS: Subjects ages 18 and older were followed for the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) for six months after vaccination. Adverse events of special interest (AESIs) were neuritis, convulsion (seizure), anaphylaxis, encephalitis, vasculitis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, demyelinating conditions, Bell's palsy, and laboratory-confirmed vaccination failure. RESULTS: Overall, 7348 AEs were reported in 2296 of 3989 enrolled subjects (57.6%). Only two AEs were considered related to injection site reactions. No laboratory-confirmed cases of influenza were reported. There were 108 medically confirmed serious adverse events (SAEs) reported among 73 subjects with 6 such SAEs described as possibly or probably related to vaccination. Three fatal cases were reported and assessed as not related to vaccination. Two AESIs classified as convulsion were reported and assessed as not related to vaccination. Both AESIs occurred well outside the pre-specified 7 day risk window representing the likely timeframe of the occurrence of seizure following vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study support the overall good safety profile of MF59 adjuvanted cell culture-derived influenza vaccine as administered in adults during the 2009-2010 H1N1 influenza pandemic. No concern is raised regarding the occurrence of AESIs.

Safety of intramuscular influenza vaccine in patients receiving oral anticoagulation therapy: a single blinded multi-centre randomized controlled clinical trial

Influenza vaccines are recommended for administration by the intramuscular route. However, many physicians use the subcutaneous route for patients receiving an oral anticoagulant because this route is thought to induce fewer hemorrhagic side effects. Our aim is to assess the safety of intramuscular administration of influenza vaccine in patients on oral anticoagulation therapy. Methods: Design: Randomised, controlled, single blinded, multi-centre clinical trial. Setting: 4 primary care practices in Barcelona, Spain. Participants: 229 patients on oral anticoagulation therapy eligible for influenza vaccine during the 20032004 season. Interventions: intramuscular administration of influença vaccine in the experimental group (129 patients) compared to subcutaneous administration in the control group (100 patients). Primary outcome: change in the circumference of the arm at the site of injection at 24 hours. Secondary outcomes: appearance of local reactions and pain at 24 hours and at 10 days; change in INR (International Normalized Ratio) at 24 hours and at 10 days. Analysis was by intention to treat using the 95% confidence intervals of the proportions or mean differences. Results: Baseline variables in the two groups were similar. No major side effects or major haemorrhage during the follow-up period were reported. No significant differences were observed in the primary outcome between the two groups. The appearance of local adverse reactions was more frequent in the subcutaneous administration group (37,4% vs. 17,4%, 95% confidence interval of the difference 8,2% to 31,8%). Conclusion: This study shows that the intramuscular administration route of influenza vaccine in patients on anticoagulant therapy does not have more side effects than the subcutaneous administration route

Health care workers' influenza vaccination: motivations and mandatory mask policy

BACKGROUND: Vaccination of health care workers (HCW) against seasonal influenza (SI) is recommended but vaccination rate rarely reach >30%. Vaccination coverage against 2009 pandemic influenza (PI) was 52% in our hospital, whilst a new policy requiring unvaccinated HCW to wear a mask during patient care duties was enforced. AIMS: To investigate the determinants of this higher vaccination acceptance for PI and to look for an association with the new mask-wearing policy. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study, involving HCW of three critical departments of a 1023-bed, tertiary-care university hospital in Switzerland. Self-reported 2009-10 SI and 2009 PI vaccination statuses, reasons and demographic data were collected through a literature-based questionnaire. Descriptive statistics, uni- and multivariate analyses were then performed. RESULTS: There were 472 respondents with a response rate of 54%. Self-reported vaccination acceptance was 64% for PI and 53% for SI. PI vaccination acceptance was associated with being vaccinated against SI (OR 9.5; 95% CI 5.5-16.4), being a physician (OR 7.7; 95% CI 3.1-19.1) and feeling uncomfortable wearing a mask (OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.0-2.8). Main motives for refusing vaccination were: preference for wearing a surgical mask (80% for PI, not applicable for SI) and concerns about vaccine safety (64%, 50%) and efficacy (44%, 35%). CONCLUSIONS: The new mask-wearing policy was a motivation for vaccination but also offered an alternative to non-compliant HCW. Concerns about vaccine safety and efficiency and self-interest of health care workers are still main determinants for influenza vaccination acceptance. Better incentives are needed to encourage vaccination amongst non-physician HCW.

Infecciones respiratorias agudas en menores de 5 años vacunados o no contra la Influenza en el periodo del 2004 y 2005

De las enfermedades posibles que afectan el ser humano, las infecciones respiratorias agudas (IRA) son las más prevalentes de todas, con una prevalencia para Colombia según informes de la OPS del año 2005 de 12.6% en niños de 0 a 4 años. A pesar de la naturaleza en su mayoría son de corta duración y su desarrollo es benigno, con lleva repercusiones importantes en la salud y en lo económico: Es una de las principales causas de demanda de servicios médicos, de prescripción injustificada de antibióticos , de ausentismo escolar y laboral secundario. El objetivo de este estudio es comparar el número de eventos de infecciones respiratorias agudas, en niños entre 2 y 5 años de edad afiliados a la EPS Sanitas que consultaron al Clinisanitas de Ciudad Salitre entre el periodo de septiembre del 2004 y febrero del 2006, para determinar si existe o no asociación al hecho de estar vacunado contra la influenza.

Influenza among the elderly in the Americas: A consensus statement

Influenza exacts a heavy burden on the elderly, a segment of the population that is estimated to experience rapid growth in the near future. In the past decade most developed and several developing countries have recommended influenza vaccination for those > 65 years of age. The World Health Organization (WHO) set a goal of 75% influenza vaccination coverage among the elderly by 2010, but it was not achieved. In 2011, the Technical Advisory Group at the Pan American Health Organization, Regional Office of WHO for the Americas, reiterated the influenza vaccine recommendation for older adults. Relatively little information has been compiled on the immunological aspect of aging or on reducing its impact, information particularly relevant for clinicians and gerontologist with firsthand experience confronting its effects. To fill this data gap, in 2012 the Americas Health Foundation (Washington, D.C., United States) and the nonprofit, Fighting Infectious Diseases in Emerging Countries (Miami, Florida, United States), convened a panel of Latin American clinicians and gerontologists with expertise in influenza to discuss key issues and develop a consensus statement. The major recommendations were to improve influenza surveillance throughout Latin America so that its impact can be quantified; and to conduct laboratory confirmation of influenza for all patients who have flu-like symptoms and are frail, immunosuppressed, have comorbidities, are respiratory compromised, or have been admitted to a hospital. The panel also noted that: since evidence for antivirals in the elderly is unclear, their use should be handled on a case-by-case basis; despite decreased immunological response, influenza vaccination in older adults is still crucial; indirect immunization strategies should be encouraged; and traditional infection control measures are essential in long-term care facilities.

Future pandemic influenza control (FPIC) related strategic management plan based on the 2009 H1N1 pandemic influenza review of health policy decisions, their practice and implications

This cross-sectional study is based on the qualitative and quantitative research design to review health policy decisions, their practice and implications during 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic in the United States and globally. The “Future Pandemic Influenza Control (FPIC) related Strategic Management Plan” was developed based on the incorporation of the “National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza (2005)” for the United States from the U.S. Homeland Security Council and “The Canadian Pandemic Influenza Plan for the Health Sector (2006)” from the Canadian Pandemic Influenza Committee for use by the public health agencies in the United States as well as globally. The “global influenza experts’ survey” was primarily designed and administered via email through the “Survey Monkey” system to the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic experts as the study respondents. The effectiveness of this plan was confirmed and the approach of the study questionnaire was validated to be convenient and the excellent quality of the questions provided an efficient opportunity to the study respondents to evaluate the effectiveness of predefined strategies/interventions for future pandemic influenza control.^ The quantitative analysis of the responses to the Likert-scale based questions in the survey about predefined strategies/interventions, addressing five strategic issues to control future pandemic influenza. The effectiveness of strategies defined as pertinent interventions in this plan was evaluated by targeting five strategic issues regarding pandemic influenza control. For the first strategic issue pertaining influenza prevention and pre pandemic planning; the confirmed effectiveness (agreement) for strategy (1a) 87.5%, strategy (1b) 91.7% and strategy (1c) 83.3%. The assessment of the priority level for strategies to address the strategic issue no. (1); (1b (High Priority) > 1a (Medium Priority) > 1c (Low Priority) based on the available resources of the developing and developed countries. For the second Strategic Issue encompassing the preparedness and communication regarding pandemic influenza control; the confirmed effectiveness (agreement) for the strategy (2a) 95.6%, strategy (2b) 82.6%, strategy (2c) 91.3% and Strategy (2d) 87.0%. The assessment of the priority level for these strategies to address the strategic issue no. (2); (2a (highest priority) > 2c (high priority) >2d (medium priority) > 2b (low priority). For the third strategic issue encompassing the surveillance and detection of pandemic influenza; the confirmed effectiveness (agreement) for the strategy (3a) 90.9% and strategy (3b) 77.3%. The assessment of the priority level for theses strategies to address the strategic Issue No. (3) (3a (high priority) > 3b (medium/low priority). For the fourth strategic issue pertaining the response and containment of pandemic influenza; the confirmed effectiveness (agreement) for the strategy (4a) 63.6%, strategy (4b) 81.8%, strategy (4c) 86.3%, and strategy (4d) 86.4%. The assessment of the priority level for these strategies to address the strategic issue no. (4); (4d (highest priority) > 4c (high priority) > 4b (medium priority) > 4a (low priority). The fifth strategic issue about recovery from influenza and post pandemic planning; the confirmed effectiveness (agreement) for the strategy (5a) 68.2%, strategy (5b) 36.3% and strategy (5c) 40.9%. The assessment of the priority level for strategies to address the strategic issue no. (5); (5a (high priority) > 5c (medium priority) > 5b (low priority).^ The qualitative analysis of responses to the open-ended questions in the study questionnaire was performed by means of thematic content analysis. The following recurrent or common “themes” were determined for the future implementation of various predefined strategies to address five strategic issues from the “FPIC related Strategic Management Plan” to control future influenza pandemics. (1) Pre Pandemic Influenza Prevention, (2) Seasonal Influenza Control, (3) Cost Effectiveness of Non Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPI), (4) Raising Global Public Awareness, (5) Global Influenza Vaccination Campaigns, (6)Priority for High Risk Population, (7) Prompt Accessibility and Distribution of Influenza Vaccines and Antiviral Drugs, (8) The Vital Role of Private Sector, (9) School Based Influenza Containment, (10) Efficient Global Risk Communication, (11) Global Research Collaboration, (12) The Critical Role of Global Public Health Organizations, (13) Global Syndromic Surveillance and Surge Capacity and (14) Post Pandemic Recovery and Lessons Learned. The future implementation of these strategies with confirmed effectiveness to primarily “reduce the overall response time’ in the process of ‘early detection’, ‘strategies (interventions) formulation’ and their ‘implementation’ to eventually ensure the following health outcomes: (a) reduced influenza transmission, (b) prompt and effective influenza treatment and control, (c) reduced influenza related morbidity and mortality.^

A public-professional web-bridge for vaccines and vaccination: User concerns about vaccine safety

Vacunas.org (http://www.vacunas.org), a website founded by the Spanish Association of Vaccinology offers a personalized service called Ask the Expert, which answers any questions posed by the public or health professionals about vaccines and vaccination. The aim of this study was to analyze the factors associated with questions on vaccination safety and determine the characteristics of questioners and the type of question asked during the period 2008–2010. A total of 1341 questions were finally included in the analysis. Of those, 30% were related to vaccine safety. Questions about pregnant women had 5.01 higher odds of asking about safety (95% CI 2.82–8.93) than people not belonging to any risk group. Older questioners (>50 years) were less likely to ask about vaccine safety compared to younger questioners (OR: 0.44, 95% CI 0.25–0.76). Questions made after vaccination or related to influenza (including H1N1) or travel vaccines were also associated with a higher likelihood of asking about vaccine safety. These results identify risk groups (pregnant women), population groups (older people) and some vaccines (travel and influenza vaccines, including H1N1) where greater efforts to provide improved, more-tailored vaccine information in general and on the Internet are required.