Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who work with the elderly

Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly

BACKGROUND

The consequences of influenza in the elderly (those age 65 years or older) are complications, hospitalisations, and death. The primary goal of influenza vaccination in the elderly is to reduce the risk of death among people who are most vulnerable. This is an update of a review published in 2010. Future updates of this review will be made only when new trials or vaccines become available. Observational data included in previous versions of the review have been retained for historical reasons but have not been updated because of their lack of influence on the review conclusions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (efficacy, effectiveness, and harm) of vaccines against influenza in the elderly.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 11), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register; MEDLINE (1966 to 31 December 2016); Embase (1974 to 31 December 2016); Web of Science (1974 to 31 December 2016); CINAHL (1981 to 31 December 2016); LILACS (1982 to 31 December 2016); WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 1 July 2017); and ClinicalTrials.gov (1 July 2017).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing efficacy against influenza (laboratory-confirmed cases) or effectiveness against influenza-like illness (ILI) or safety. We considered any influenza vaccine given independently, in any dose, preparation, or time schedule, compared with placebo or with no intervention. Previous versions of this review included 67 cohort and case-control studies. The searches for these trial designs are no longer updated.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We rated the certainty of evidence with GRADE for the key outcomes of influenza, ILI, complications (hospitalisation, pneumonia), and adverse events. We have presented aggregate control group risks to illustrate the effect in absolute terms. We used them as the basis for calculating the number needed to vaccinate to prevent one case of each event for influenza and ILI outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified eight RCTs (over 5000 participants), of which four assessed harms. The studies were conducted in community and residential care settings in Europe and the USA between 1965 and 2000. Risk of bias reduced our certainty in the findings for influenza and ILI, but not for other outcomes.Older adults receiving the influenza vaccine may experience less influenza over a single season compared with placebo, from 6% to 2.4% (risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.66; low-certainty evidence). We rated the evidence as low certainty due to uncertainty over how influenza was diagnosed. Older adults probably experience less ILI compared with those who do not receive a vaccination over the course of a single influenza season (3.5% versus 6%; RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.73; moderate-certainty evidence). These results indicate that 30 people would need to be vaccinated to prevent one person experiencing influenza, and 42 would need to be vaccinated to prevent one person having an ILI.The study providing data for mortality and pneumonia was underpowered to detect differences in these outcomes. There were 3 deaths from 522 participants in the vaccination arm and 1 death from 177 participants in the placebo arm, providing very low-certainty evidence for the effect on mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.11 to 9.72). No cases of pneumonia occurred in one study that reported this outcome (very low-certainty evidence). No data on hospitalisations were reported. Confidence intervaIs around the effect of vaccines on fever and nausea were wide, and we do not have enough information about these harms in older people (fever: 1.6% with placebo compared with 2.5% after vaccination (RR 1.57, 0.92 to 2.71; moderate-certainty evidence)); nausea (2.4% with placebo compared with 4.2% after vaccination (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.74 to 4.12; low-certainty evidence)).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Older adults receiving the influenza vaccine may have a lower risk of influenza (from 6% to 2.4%), and probably have a lower risk of ILI compared with those who do not receive a vaccination over the course of a single influenza season (from 6% to 3.5%). We are uncertain how big a difference these vaccines will make across different seasons. Very few deaths occurred, and no data on hospitalisation were reported. No cases of pneumonia occurred in one study that reported this outcome. We do not have enough information to assess harms relating to fever and nausea in this population.The evidence for a lower risk of influenza and ILI with vaccination is limited by biases in the design or conduct of the studies. Lack of detail regarding the methods used to confirm the diagnosis of influenza limits the applicability of this result. The available evidence relating to complications is of poor quality, insufficient, or old and provides no clear guidance for public health regarding the safety, efficacy, or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older. Society should invest in research on a new generation of influenza vaccines for the elderly.

Influenza Vaccination Strategies Should Target Children

Strategies to increase influenza vaccination rates have typically targeted healthcare professionals (HCPs) and individuals in various high-risk groups such as the elderly. We argue that they should (instead or as well) focus on increasing vaccination rates in children. Because children suffer higher influenza incidence rates than any other demographic group, and are major drivers of seasonal influenza epidemics, we argue that influenza vaccination strategies that serve to increase uptake rates in children are likely to be more effective in reducing influenza-related morbidity and mortality than those targeting HCPs or the elderly. This is true even though influenza-related morbidity and mortality amongst children are low, except in the very young. Further, we argue that there are no decisive reasons to suppose that children-focused strategies are less ethically acceptable than elderly or HCP-focused strategies.

Influenza vaccination in healthcare workers: A comprehensive critical appraisal of the literature

Influenza imposes a significant burden worldwide from the healthcare and socio-economic standpoints. This is also due to suboptimal vaccination coverage among the target population, even though immunization is recommended since many years and still remains the fundamental tool for its prevention. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of exposure to respiratory pathogens compared with the general population, including flu, with potential threat for their health and for patients' safety. Nevertheless, despite recommendation for immunization of this work-category in most of Western Countries, inadequate flu vaccine uptake is reported during the last decade in the European area. According to recent systematic reviews on this topic, the main determinants of vaccine acceptance among HCWs have been largely investigated and include desire for self-protection and to protect family rather than absolute disease risk or desire to protect patients, among the main drivers. On the other hand, concerns regarding safety of the vaccines resulted in decreased vaccine uptake. Moreover, influenza vaccine hesitancy among HCWs was also associated with several issues such as low risk perception, denial of the social benefit of influenza vaccination, low social pressure, lack of perceived behavioral control, negative attitude toward vaccines, not having been previously vaccinated against influenza, not having previously had influenza, lack of adequate influenza-specific knowledge, lack of access to vaccination facilities, and socio-demographic variables. The topic of influenza vaccination among HCWs is challenging, full of ethical issues. Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of interventions for improving vaccine uptake among HCWs found that combined strategies were more effective than isolate approaches. Mandatory policies are currently under debate in several countries. High quality studies would help policy-makers and stake-holders to shape evidence-based initiatives and programs to improve the control of influenza.

Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who care for people aged 60 or older living in long-term care institutions

BACKGROUND

A systematic review found that 3% of working adults who had received influenza vaccine and 5% of those who were unvaccinated had laboratory-proven influenza per season; in healthcare workers (HCWs) these percentages were 5% and 8% respectively. Healthcare workers may transmit influenza to patients.

OBJECTIVES

To identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs assessing the effects of vaccinating healthcare workers on the incidence of laboratory-proven influenza, pneumonia, death from pneumonia and admission to hospital for respiratory illness in those aged 60 years or older resident in long-term care institutions (LTCIs).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2015, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1966 to October week 3, 2015), EMBASE (1974 to October 2015) and Web of Science (2006 to October 2015), but Biological Abstracts only from 1969 to March 2013 and Science Citation Index-Expanded from 1974 to March 2013 due to lack of institutional access in 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs of influenza vaccination of healthcare workers caring for individuals aged 60 years or older in LTCIs and the incidence of laboratory-proven influenza and its complications (lower respiratory tract infection, or hospitalisation or death due to lower respiratory tract infection) in individuals aged 60 years or older in LTCIs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Effects on dichotomous outcomes were measured as risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four cluster-RCTs and one cohort study (n = 12,742) of influenza vaccination for HCWs caring for individuals ≥ 60 years in LTCIs. Four cluster RCTs (5896 residents) provided outcome data that addressed the objectives of our review. The studies were comparable in their study populations, intervention and outcome measures. The studies did not report adverse events. The principal sources of bias in the studies related to attrition, lack of blinding, contamination in the control groups and low rates of vaccination coverage in the intervention arms, leading us to downgrade the quality of evidence for all outcomes due to serious risk of bias.Offering influenza vaccination to HCWs based in long term care homes may have little or no effect on the number of residents who develop laboratory-proven influenza compared with those living in care homes where no vaccination is offered (RD 0 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.03), two studies with samples taken from 752 participants; low quality evidence). HCW vaccination probably leads to a reduction in lower respiratory tract infection in residents from 6% to 4% (RD -0.02 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.01), one study of 3400 people; moderate quality evidence). HCW vaccination programmes may have little or no effect on the number of residents admitted to hospital for respiratory illness (RD 0 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.02, one study of 1059 people; low quality evidence). We decided not to combine data on deaths from lower respiratory tract infection (two studies of 4459 people) or all cause deaths (four studies of 8468 people). The direction and size of difference in risk varied between the studies. We are uncertain as to the effect of vaccination on these outcomes due to the very low quality of evidence. Adjusted analyses, which took into account the cluster design, did not differ substantively from the pooled analysis with unadjusted data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review findings have not identified conclusive evidence of benefit of HCW vaccination programmes on specific outcomes of laboratory-proven influenza, its complications (lower respiratory tract infection, hospitalisation or death due to lower respiratory tract illness), or all cause mortality in people over the age of 60 who live in care institutions. This review did not find information on co-interventions with healthcare worker vaccination: hand-washing, face masks, early detection of laboratory-proven influenza, quarantine, avoiding admissions, antivirals and asking healthcare workers with influenza or influenza-like illness (ILI) not to work. This review does not provide reasonable evidence to support the vaccination of healthcare workers to prevent influenza in those aged 60 years or older resident in LTCIs. High quality RCTs are required to avoid the risks of bias in methodology and conduct identified by this review and to test further these interventions in combination.

Phylogenetic Exploration of Nosocomial Transmission Chains of 2009 Influenza A/H1N1 among Children Admitted at Red Cross War Memorial Children's Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa in 2011

Traditional modes of investigating influenza nosocomial transmission have entailed a combination of confirmatory molecular diagnostic testing and epidemiological investigation. Common hospital-acquired infections like influenza require a discerning ability to distinguish between viral isolates to accurately identify patient transmission chains. We assessed whether influenza hemagglutinin sequence phylogenies can be used to enrich epidemiological data when investigating the extent of nosocomial transmission over a four-month period within a paediatric Hospital in Cape Town South Africa. Possible transmission chains/channels were initially determined through basic patient admission data combined with Maximum likelihood and time-scaled Bayesian phylogenetic analyses. These analyses suggested that most instances of potential hospital-acquired infections resulted from multiple introductions of Influenza A into the hospital, which included instances where virus hemagglutinin sequences were identical between different patients. Furthermore, a general inability to establish epidemiological transmission linkage of patients/viral isolates implied that identified isolates could have originated from asymptomatic hospital patients, visitors or hospital staff. In contrast, a traditional epidemiological investigation that used no viral phylogenetic analyses, based on patient co-admission into specific wards during a particular time-frame, suggested that multiple hospital acquired infection instances may have stemmed from a limited number of identifiable index viral isolates/patients. This traditional epidemiological analysis by itself could incorrectly suggest linkage between unrelated cases, underestimate the number of unique infections and may overlook the possible diffuse nature of hospital transmission, which was suggested by sequencing data to be caused by multiple unique introductions of influenza A isolates into individual hospital wards. We have demonstrated a functional role for viral sequence data in nosocomial transmission investigation through its ability to enrich traditional, non-molecular observational epidemiological investigation by teasing out possible transmission pathways and working toward more accurately enumerating the number of possible transmission events.

Healthcare workers as vectors of infectious diseases

Nosocomial infections cause considerable morbidity and mortality. Healthcare workers (HCWs) may serve as vectors of many infectious diseases, many of which are not often primarily considered as healthcare-associated. The probability of pathogen transmission to patients depends on several factors, such as the characteristics of a pathogen, HCW and patient. Pathogens with high transmission potential from HCWs to patients include norovirus, respiratory infections, measles and influenza. In contrast, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and viral hepatitis are unlikely to be transferred. The prevention of HCW-associated transmission of pathogens include systematic vaccinations towards preventable diseases, continuous education, hand hygiene surveillance, active feedback and adequate staff resources.

Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who care for people aged 60 or older living in long-term care institutions

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers' influenza rates are unknown but may be similar to those of the general public. Healthcare workers may transmit influenza to patients.

OBJECTIVES

To identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs assessing the effects of vaccinating healthcare workers on the incidence of laboratory-proven influenza, pneumonia, death from pneumonia and admission to hospital for respiratory illness in those aged 60 years or older resident in long-term care institutions (LTCIs).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL 2013, Issue 2, MEDLINE (1966 to March week 3, 2013), EMBASE (1974 to March 2013), Biological Abstracts (1969 to March 2013), Science Citation Index-Expanded (1974 to March 2013) and Web of Science (2006 to March 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs of influenza vaccination of healthcare workers caring for individuals aged 60 years or older in LTCIs and the incidence of laboratory-proven influenza and its complications (lower respiratory tract infection, or hospitalisation or death due to lower respiratory tract infection) in individuals aged 60 years or older in LTCIs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four cluster-RCTs (C-RCTs) (n = 7558) and one cohort study (n = 12,742) of influenza vaccination for HCWs caring for individuals ≥ 60 years in LTCFs. Three RCTs (5896 participants) provided outcome data that met our criteria. These three studies were comparable in study populations, intervention and outcome measures. The studies did not report adverse events. The principal sources of bias in the studies related to attrition and blinding. The pooled risk difference (RD) from the three cluster-RCTs for laboratory-proven influenza was 0 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 0.03) and for hospitalisation was RD 0 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.02). The estimated risk of death due to lower respiratory tract infection was also imprecise (RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.02) in individuals aged 60 years or older in LTCIs. Adjusted analyses which took into account the cluster design did not differ substantively from the pooled analysis with unadjusted data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results for specific outcomes: laboratory-proven influenza or its complications (lower respiratory tract infection, or hospitalisation or death due to lower respiratory tract illness) did not identify a benefit of healthcare worker vaccination on these key outcomes. This review did not find information on co-interventions with healthcare worker vaccination: hand-washing, face masks, early detection of laboratory-proven influenza, quarantine, avoiding admissions, antivirals and asking healthcare workers with influenza or influenza-like-illness (ILI) not to work. This review does not provide reasonable evidence to support the vaccination of healthcare workers to prevent influenza in those aged 60 years or older resident in LTCIs. High-quality RCTs are required to avoid the risks of bias in methodology and conduct identified by this review and to test further these interventions in combination.

A social network of hospital acquired infection built from electronic medical record data

OBJECTIVE

Social networks have been used in the study of outbreaks of infectious diseases, including in small group settings such as individual hospitals. Collecting the data needed to create such networks, however, can be time consuming, costly, and error prone. We sought to create a social network of hospital inpatients using electronic medical record (EMR) data already collected for other purposes, for use in simulating outbreaks of nosocomial infections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used the EMR data warehouse of a tertiary academic hospital to model contact among inpatients. Patient-to-patient contact due to shared rooms was inferred from admission-discharge-transfer data, and contact with healthcare workers was inferred from clinical documents. Contacts were used to generate a social network, which was then used to conduct probabilistic simulations of nosocomial outbreaks of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and influenza.

RESULTS

Simulations of infection transmission across the network reflected the staffing and patient flow practices of the hospital. Simulations modeling patient isolation, increased hand hygiene, and staff vaccination showed a decrease in the spread of infection.

DISCUSSION

We developed a method of generating a social network of hospital inpatients from EMR data. This method allows the derivation of networks that reflect the local hospital environment, obviate the need for simulated or manually collected data, and can be updated in near real time.

CONCLUSIONS

Inpatient social networks represent a novel secondary use of EMR data, and can be used to simulate nosocomial infections. Future work should focus on prospective validation of the simulations, and adapting such networks to other tasks.

Guidelines for the management of adult lower respiratory tract infections--summary

This document is an update of Guidelines published in 2005 and now includes scientific publications through to May 2010. It provides evidence-based recommendations for the most common management questions occurring in routine clinical practice in the management of adult patients with LRTI. Topics include management outside hospital, management inside hospital (including community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD), acute exacerbations of bronchiectasis) and prevention. The target audience for the Guideline is thus all those whose routine practice includes the management of adult LRTI.

Guidelines for the management of adult lower respiratory tract infections--full version

This document is an update of Guidelines published in 2005 and now includes scientific publications through to May 2010. It provides evidence-based recommendations for the most common management questions occurring in routine clinical practice in the management of adult patients with LRTI. Topics include management outside hospital, management inside hospital (including community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD), acute exacerbations of bronchiectasis) and prevention. Background sections and graded evidence tables are also included. The target audience for the Guideline is thus all those whose routine practice includes the management of adult LRTI.

Hospitalised patients with suspected 2009 H1N1 influenza A in a hospital in Norway, July - December 2009

Background

The main objective of this study was to describe the patients who were hospitalised at Oslo University Hospital Aker during the first wave of pandemic Influenza A (H1N1) in Norway.

Methods

Clinical data on all patients hospitalised with influenza-like illness from July to the end of November 2009 were collected prospectively. Patients with confirmed H1N1 Influenza A were compared to patients with negative H1N1 tests.

Results

182 patients were hospitalised with suspected H1N1 Influenza A and 64 (35%) tested positive. Seventeen patients with positive tests (27%) were admitted to an intensive care unit and four patients died (6%). The H1N1 positive patients were younger, consisted of a higher proportion of non-ethnic Norwegians, had a higher heart rate on admission, and fewer had pre-existing hypertension, compared to the H1N1 negative patients. However, hypertension was the only medical condition that was significantly associated with a more serious outcome defined as ICU admission or death, with a univariate odds ratio of the composite endpoint in H1N1 positive and negative patients of 6.1 (95% CI 1.3-29.3) and 3.2 (95% CI 1.2-8.7), respectively. Chest radiography revealed pneumonia in 24/59 H1N1 positive patients. 63 of 64 H1N1 positive patients received oseltamivir.

Conclusions

The extra burden of hospitalisations was relatively small and we managed to admit all the patients with suspected H1N1 influenza without opening new pandemic isolation wards. The morbidity and mortality were similar to reports from comparable countries. Established hypertension was associated with more severe morbidity and patients with hypertension should be considered candidates for vaccination programs in future pandemics.

Seasonal influenza vaccination campaigns for health care personnel: systematic review

BACKGROUND

In Canada, vaccination coverage for seasonal influenza among health care personnel remains below 50%. The objective of this review was to determine which seasonal influenza vaccination campaign or campaign components in health care settings were significantly associated with increases in influenza vaccination among staff.

METHODS

We identified articles in eight electronic databases and included randomized controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies and studies with interrupted time series designs in our review. Two reviewers independently abstracted the data and assessed the risk of biases. We calculated risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals for randomized controlled trials and controlled before-and-after studies and described interrupted time series studies.

RESULTS

We identified 99 studies evaluating influenza vaccination campaigns for health care workers, but only 12 of the studies were eligible for review. In nonhospital health care settings, including long-term care facilities, campaigns with a greater variety of components (including education or promotion, better access to vaccines, legislation or regulation and/or role models) were associated with higher risk ratios (i.e, favouring the intervention group). Within hospital settings, the results reported for various types of campaigns were mixed. Many of the criteria for assessing risk of bias were not reported.

INTERPRETATION

Campaigns involving only education or promotion resulted in minimal changes in vaccination rates. Further studies are needed to determine the appropriate components and combinations of components in influenza vaccination campaigns for health care personnel.

Self-reported anticipated compliance with physician advice to stay home during pandemic (H1N1) 2009: results from the 2009 Queensland Social Survey

Background

One strategy available to public health officials during a pandemic is physician recommendations for isolation of infected individuals. This study was undertaken during the height of the Australian pandemic (H1N1) 2009 outbreak to measure self-reported willingness to comply with physician recommendations to stay home for seven days, and to compare responses for the current strain of pandemic influenza, avian influenza, seasonal influenza, and the common cold.

Methods

Data were collected as part of the Queensland Social Survey (QSS) 2009, which consisted of a standardized introduction, 37 demographic questions, and research questions incorporated through a cost-sharing arrangement. Four questions related to respondents' anticipated compliance with a physician's advice to stay home if they had a common cold, seasonal influenza, pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza or avian influenza were incorporated into QSS 2009, with responses recorded using a balanced Likert scale ranging from "very unlikely" to "very likely." Discordance between responses for different diseases was analysed using McNemar's test. Associations between demographic variables and anticipated compliance were analysed using Pearson's chi-square or chi-square for linear-by-linear association, and confirmed using multivariate logistic regression; p < 0.05 was used to establish statistical significance.

Results

Self-reported anticipated compliance increased from 59.9% for the common cold to 71.3% for seasonal influenza (p < .001), and to 95.0% for pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza and 94.7% for avian influenza (p < 0.001 for both versus seasonal influenza). Anticipated compliance did not differ for pandemic (H1N1) 2009 and avian influenza (p = 0.815). Age and sex were both associated with anticipated compliance in the setting of seasonal influenza and the common cold. Notably, 27.1% of health and community service workers would not comply with physician advice to stay home for seasonal influenza.

Conclusions

Ninety-five percent of people report they would comply with a physicians' advice to stay home for seven days if they are diagnosed with pandemic (H1N1) 2009 or avian influenza, but only 71% can be expected to comply in the setting of seasonal influenza and fewer still can be expected to comply if they are diagnosed with a common cold. Sub-populations that might be worthwhile targets for public health messages aimed at increasing the rate of self-imposed isolation for seasonal influenza include males, younger people, and healthcare workers.

Pneumonia and influenza – specific considerations in care homes

This review provides an update on current evidence surrounding epidemiology, treatment and prevention of lower respiratory tract infection, with special reference to pneumonia and influenza, in care home residents. The care home sector is growing and provides a unique ecological niche for infections, housing frail older people with multiple co-morbidities and frequent contact with healthcare services. There are therefore considerations in the epidemiology and management of these conditions that are specific to care homes. Opportunities for prevention, in the form of vaccination strategies and improving oral hygiene, may reduce the burden of these diseases in the future. Work is needed to research these infections specifically in the care home setting, and this article highlights current gaps in our knowledge.

How I treat influenza in patients with hematologic malignancies

The 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic has heightened the interest of clinicians for options in the prevention and management of influenza virus infection in immunocompromised patients. Even before the emergence of the novel 2009 H1N1 strain, influenza disease was a serious complication in patients with hematologic malignancies receiving chemotherapy or undergoing hematopoietic cell transplantation. Here we review the clinical manifestations of seasonal and 2009 H1N1 influenza and discuss current diagnosis, antiviral treatment, and prophylaxis options. We also summarize infection control and vaccination strategies for patients, family members, and caregivers.

Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who work with the elderly

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers' (HCWs) influenza rates are unknown, but may be similar to the general public and they may transmit influenza to patients.

OBJECTIVES

To identify studies of vaccinating HCWs and the incidence of influenza, its complications and influenza-like illness (ILI) in individuals >/= 60 in long-term care facilities (LTCFs).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 3), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to 2009), EMBASE (1974 to 2009) and Biological Abstracts and Science Citation Index-Expanded.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs of influenza vaccination of HCWs caring for individuals >/= 60 in LTCFs and the incidence of laboratory-proven influenza, its complications or ILI.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four cluster-RCTs (C-RCTs) (n = 7558) and one cohort (n = 12742) of influenza vaccination for HCWs caring for individuals >/= 60 in LTCFs. Pooled data from three C-RCTs showed no effect on specific outcomes: laboratory-proven influenza, pneumonia or deaths from pneumonia. For non-specific outcomes pooled data from three C-RCTs showed HCW vaccination reduced ILI; data from one C-RCT that HCW vaccination reduced GP consultations for ILI; and pooled data from three C-RCTs showed reduced all-cause mortality in individuals >/= 60.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No effect was shown for specific outcomes: laboratory-proven influenza, pneumonia and death from pneumonia. An effect was shown for the non-specific outcomes of ILI, GP consultations for ILI and all-cause mortality in individuals >/= 60. These non-specific outcomes are difficult to interpret because ILI includes many pathogens, and winter influenza contributes < 10% to all-cause mortality in individuals >/= 60. The key interest is preventing laboratory-proven influenza in individuals >/= 60, pneumonia and deaths from pneumonia, and we cannot draw such conclusions.The identified studies are at high risk of bias.Some HCWs remain unvaccinated because they do not perceive risk, doubt vaccine efficacy and are concerned about side effects. This review did not find information on co-interventions with HCW vaccination: hand washing, face masks, early detection of laboratory-proven influenza, quarantine, avoiding admissions, anti-virals, and asking HCWs with ILI not to work. We conclude there is no evidence that vaccinating HCWs prevents influenza in elderly residents in LTCFs. High quality RCTs are required to avoid risks of bias in methodology and conduct, and to test these interventions in combination.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly

BACKGROUND

Vaccines have been the main global weapon to minimise the impact of influenza in the elderly for the last four decades and are recommended worldwide for individuals aged 65 years or older. The primary goal of influenza vaccination in the elderly is to reduce the risk of complications among persons who are most vulnerable.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing influenza, influenza-like illness (ILI), hospital admissions, complications and mortality in the elderly. To identify and appraise comparative studies evaluating the effects of influenza vaccines in the elderly. To document types and frequency of adverse effects associated with influenza vaccines in the elderly.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 4); MEDLINE (January 1966 to October Week 1 2009); EMBASE (1974 to October 2009) and Web of Science (1974 to October 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cohort and case-control studies assessing efficacy against influenza (laboratory-confirmed cases) or effectiveness against influenza-like illness (ILI) or safety. Any influenza vaccine given independently, in any dose, preparation or time schedule, compared with placebo or with no intervention was considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We grouped reports first according to the setting of the study (community or long-term care facilities) and then by level of viral circulation and vaccine matching. We further stratified by co-administration of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV) and by different types of influenza vaccines. We analysed the following outcomes: influenza, influenza-like illness, hospital admissions, complications and deaths.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 studies. Overall we identified 100 data sets. We identified one RCT assessing efficacy and effectiveness. Although this seemed to show an effect against influenza symptoms it was underpowered to detect any effect on complications (1348 participants). The remainder of our evidence base included non-RCTs. Due to the general low quality of non-RCTs and the likely presence of biases, which make interpretation of these data difficult and any firm conclusions potentially misleading, we were unable to reach clear conclusions about the effects of the vaccines in the elderly.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence is of poor quality and provides no guidance regarding the safety, efficacy or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older. To resolve the uncertainty, an adequately powered publicly-funded randomised, placebo-controlled trial run over several seasons should be undertaken.

Relation of study quality, concordance, take home message, funding, and impact in studies of influenza vaccines: systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To explore the relation between study concordance, take home message, funding, and dissemination of comparative studies assessing the effects of influenza vaccines.

DESIGN

Systematic review without meta-analysis.

DATA EXTRACTION

Search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and the web, without language restriction, for any studies comparing the effects of influenza vaccines against placebo or no intervention. Abstraction and assessment of quality of methods were carried out.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We identified 259 primary studies (274 datasets). Higher quality studies were significantly more likely to show concordance between data presented and conclusions (odds ratio 16.35, 95% confidence interval 4.24 to 63.04) and less likely to favour effectiveness of vaccines (0.04, 0.02 to 0.09). Government funded studies were less likely to have conclusions favouring the vaccines (0.45, 0.26 to 0.90). A higher mean journal impact factor was associated with complete or partial industry funding compared with government or private funding and no funding (differences between means 5.04). Study size was not associated with concordance, content of take home message, funding, and study quality. Higher citation index factor was associated with partial or complete industry funding. This was sensitive to the exclusion from the analysis of studies with undeclared funding.

CONCLUSION

Publication in prestigious journals is associated with partial or total industry funding, and this association is not explained by study quality or size.

Influenza vaccination compliance among health care workers in a German university hospital

BACKGROUND

Since 1988, the Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO) at the Robert Koch-Institute, Berlin, has explicitly recommended that health-care workers (HCWs) should be vaccinated against seasonal influenza. However, acceptance of the influenza vaccination by medical personnel is low.

METHODS

This study analyzes factors associated with the compliance of HCWs with the seasonal influenza vaccination on the basis of three different anonymized questionnaires during two consecutive influenza seasons: 2006/2007 and 2007/2008. The questionnaires covered details of demographics, frequency of previous vaccinations, reasons for accepting or declining the vaccination, and the HCW's knowledge of the influenza vaccine and influenza itself.

RESULTS

Our study showed that physicians were significantly more likely to have been vaccinated than nurses (38.8% vs 17.4%; p < 0.0001). The main reasons for noncompliance included: supposition of a low risk of infection, fear of side effects, the belief that the influenza vaccine might trigger the influenza virus infection, and scepticism about the effectiveness of the influenza vaccination.

CONCLUSION

Our findings confirm the importance of a comprehensive approach to the vaccination, ensuring that HCWs are correctly informed about the vaccine and that it is convenient to receive it.

Requiring influenza vaccination for health care workers

Annual influenza vaccination for health care workers has the potential to benefit health care professionals, their patients, and their families by reducing the transmission of influenza in the health care setting. Furthermore, staff vaccination programs are cost-effective for health care institutions because of reduced staff illness and absenteeism. Despite international recommendations and strong ethical arguments for annual influenza immunization for health care professionals, staff utilization of vaccination remains low. We have analyzed the ethical implications of a variety of efforts to increase vaccination rates, including mandatory influenza vaccination. A program of incentives and sanctions may increase health care worker compliance with fewer ethical impediments than mandatory vaccination.

Co-morbidities associated with influenza-attributed mortality, 1994-2000, Canada

The elderly and persons with specific chronic conditions are known to face elevated morbidity and mortality risks resulting from an influenza infection, and hence are routinely recommended for annual influenza vaccination. However, risk-specific mortality rates have not been established. We estimated age-specific influenza-attributable mortality rates stratified by the presence of chronic conditions and type of residence based on deaths of persons who were admitted to hospital with a respiratory complication captured in our national database. The majority of patients had chronic heart or respiratory conditions (80%) and were admitted from the community (80%). Influenza-attributable mortality rates clearly increase with age for all risk groups. Our influenza-specific estimates identified higher risk ratios for chronic lung or heart disease than have been suggested by other methods. These estimates identify groups most in need of improved vaccines and for whom the use of additional strategies, such as immunization of household contacts or caregivers should be considered.

Will carrots or sticks raise influenza immunization rates of health care personnel?

New Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations standards require health care organizations to implement staff influenza immunization programs and track employee immunization rates. Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended influenza immunizations for health care workers since 1981, employee vaccination rates have stagnated at 30% to 40% for several years. With the recent attention on these low rates, some institutions have increased employee rates significantly with robust, multifaceted immunization programs. Others have attempted to require immunizations as a condition of employment. Declinations signed by those who refuse immunizations also have been proposed. This article examines recommendations for employee influenza immunizations and the evidence for effective strategies that increase coverage rates. With so much misunderstanding about the influenza immunization, robust interactive education, and onsite, easily accessible vaccination at no cost to employees--the carrots--may be more successful in increasing rates than are declinations and work exclusion--the sticks. Strong immunization programs may create the tipping point for making influenza immunizations as routine in health care as gloves. More robust staff immunization programs, evaluations of their effectiveness, surveillance of health care employee immunization rates, as well as further evidence of effectiveness of declinations and work exclusions should guide further policy formation and implementation.

Influenza vaccination: policy versus evidence

Each year enormous effort goes into producing influenza vaccines for that specific year and delivering them to appropriate sections of the population. Is this effort justified?