Vaccine
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study
High-dose trivalent influenza vaccine compared to standard dose vaccine in elderly adults: safety, immunogenicity and relative efficacy during the 2009-2010 season.
High-dose trivalent influenza vaccine was developed to improve antibody responses to influenza vaccine in the elderly and hence potentially impact favorably on influenza-associated morbidity and mortality in this population. ⋯ High-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine is safe and well tolerated and provides superior immune responses compared to standard dose vaccine. Demonstration of a superior vaccine efficacy requires a separate large randomized, controlled trial.
-
In 2009 the pandemic influenza virus A(H1N1)pdm09 emerged with guidance that people at risk should be vaccinated. It is unclear how this event affected the underlying seasonal vaccination rate in subsequent years. ⋯ Being vaccinated against A(H1N1)pdm09 and seasonal influenza in the pandemic year 2009 enhanced the probability of vaccination in the next year and this was still effective in 2011. This suggests that peoples' vaccination routines were not changed by the rumor around the outbreak of A(H1N1)pdm09, but rather confirmed underlying behavior.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study
Safety and immunogenicity of a quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine compared to licensed trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines in adults.
To evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of a prototype quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (QIV) containing two influenza B strains, one of each lineage, compared with licensed trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines (TIVs) containing either a Victoria B-lineage strain (2009-2010 TIV) or a Yamagata B-lineage strain (2008-2009 TIV). ⋯ QIV, containing two B strains (one from each B lineage), was as safe and immunogenic as licensed TIV. QIV has the potential to be a useful alternative to TIV and offer protection against both B lineages.
-
Nosocomial influenza outbreaks, attributed to the unvaccinated health care workforce, have contributed to patient complications or death, worker illness and absenteeism, and increased economic costs to the health care system. Since 1981, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recommended that all HCP receive an annual influenza vaccination. Health care employers (HCE) have adopted various strategies to encourage health care personnel (HCP) to voluntarily receive influenza vaccination, including: sponsoring educational and promotional campaigns, increasing access to seasonal influenza vaccine, permitting the use of declination statements, and combining multiple approaches. ⋯ Fifteen of the twenty laws allow HCP to decline the vaccination due to medical contraindication, religious or philosophical beliefs, or by signing a declination statement. Finally, three states address how to sanction noncompliant HCPs. The analysis also discusses the development of a model legal policy that legislators could use as they draft and revise influenza prevention guidelines in health care settings.
-
In 2007, Ontario implemented a school-based human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program targeting grade 8 girls. Girls may complete the series in grade 9 (extended eligibility). Limitations in the existing provincial data sources for assessing HPV vaccine coverage in Ontario prompted the use of two surveys of Health Units (HUs) to calculate provincial vaccine coverage for the first three years of the vaccination program. ⋯ As not all HUs were able to report on HPV vaccine coverage including extended eligibility doses these findings likely underestimate the true coverage attained by Ontario's program. Although coverage is below the Canadian Immunization Committee benchmark of 80% within two years of program implementation, the upward trend in coverage is encouraging.