Influenza Vaccination Rates Among Patients With a History of Cancer: Analysis of the National Health Interview Survey

Quality Improvement Interventions to Enhance Vaccine Uptake in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Cancer patients, because of their compromised immune responses, face a higher risk of preventable infections, leading to increased morbidity and mortality. Despite this, vaccination rates among these patients are suboptimal, and research on effective interventions to improve vaccination rates is limited.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed and Cochrane Library for studies investigating quality improvement (QI) interventions targeting vaccine uptake in cancer patients. Two authors independently screened, extracted data, and analyzed studies, resolving any discrepancies through consensus.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria, published between 2014 and 2022. Seven studies focused on the influenza vaccine, five on the pneumococcal vaccine, and one on both. Twelve studies used multiple interventions, whereas one used a single intervention. Most interventions aimed to enhance patient and family knowledge and identify eligible patients before their appointments. All studies demonstrated improved vaccine uptake after implementing the interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

A variety of QI interventions have effectively increased pneumococcal and influenza vaccine uptake among cancer patients. Future research should address roadblocks to implementation and explore the effect of these interventions on other vaccines.

Disparities with influenza vaccine use in long-term survivors of metastatic breast cancer

PURPOSE

Elderly women diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) are living longer, however their primary care management may be sub-optimal. Influenza results in preventable hospitalizations and deaths. Guidelines recommend the influenza vaccine for those > 65 years and those with cancer but use is unknown.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data. Patients were included if they were diagnosed with MBC from 1/1/2008-12/31/2017 and were ≥ 65 years of age. The primary outcome was influenza vaccine use among patients surviving ≥ 3-years. We conducted multivariable analyses using demographic and clinical factors to identify associations with vaccine use. We compared utilization to cancer-free controls.

RESULTS

We identified 1,970 patients with MBC that survived for ≥ 3 years. The median age at diagnosis was 73 years. Furthermore, 1,742 (88%) patients were White, and 153 (8%) patients were Black. Only 1,264 (64%) received an influenza vaccine at least one time and 51% received the vaccine at least two times. A multivariable model found lower odds of vaccine receipt for Black patients (OR = 0.48; 95% CI 0.34-0.68, p < 0.001) and higher odds for patients that saw primary care in the year prior to diagnosis (OR = 1.91, 95% CI 1.57-2.33, p < 0.001). Patients with MBC had lower odds of vaccine use compared to cancer free controls (OR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.97, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Over 1/3 of long-term MBC survivors in our cohort did not receive the influenza vaccine. Black patients are about half as likely to be vaccinated. Given the known benefit of the vaccine, improving uptake could be an important strategy to improve outcomes.

Impact of a pharmaceutical intervention on influenza vaccination in patients receiving treatment with biological medicines

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were twofold - to determine the impact of a health education intervention led by a hospital pharmacy department on influenza vaccination take-up in patients diagnosed with immune-mediated diseases. Patients were receiving treatment with biological medicines. Secondly, to compare those rates with the vaccination percentages of another hospital pharmacy with similar characteristics in which no educational intervention was conducted.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with immune-mediated diseases receiving treatment with biological medicines. The medicines were dispensed by the hospital pharmacy departments of two hospitals between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2020. In Cohort A (intervention group), a health education strategy was implemented with regards to influenza vaccination. Cohort B acted as a control group. The influenza vaccination rates obtained in both cohorts during 2019 and 2020 were compared.

RESULT

A total of 355 patients took part in the study - 148 (41.7%) in Cohort A and 207 (58.3%) in Cohort B. The hospital pharmacy department in Cohort A implemented a health education strategy after which the vaccination percentage during the 2020 campaign increased by 38 patients (45.7%), compared with a 10 patient (5.8%) increase in Cohort B (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The health intervention by the pharmacy department had a positive impact. This included an opportunity to improve vaccination take-up and is a strategy to consider when implementing a vaccination programme. Health education is a fundamental objective of healthcare. In our case it led to an increase in vaccination and had a positive impact on public health. It also provides opportunities for pharmacists to work in a multidisciplinary way with other healthcare professionals.

Preventive health care in blood cancer survivors: results from the ABC study

BACKGROUND

Blood cancer survivors are at increased risk for second primary malignancies, cardiovascular diseases, and infections. Little is known about preventive care in blood cancer survivors.

METHODS

Our questionnaire-based study included blood cancer patients diagnosed at the University Hospital of Essen before 2010, with a ≥ 3-year interval from the last intense treatment. One section of the retrospective study covered preventive care (cancer screening, cardiovascular screening, vaccination).

RESULTS

Preventive care was delivered by a general practitioner for 1100 of 1504 responding survivors (73.1%), by an oncologist for 125 (8.3%), by a general practitioner together with an oncologist for 156 (10.4%), and by other disciplines for 123 (8.2%). Cancer screening was more consistently performed by general practitioners than by oncologists. The converse was true for vaccination, with particularly high vaccination rates in allogeneic transplant recipients. Cardiovascular screening did not differ between care providers. Cancer and cardiovascular screening rates in survivors eligible for statutory prevention programs were higher than in the general population (skin cancer screening 71.1%; fecal occult blood testing 70.4%; colonoscopy 64.6%; clinical breast examination 92.1%; mammography 86.8%; cervical smear 86.0%; digital rectal examination 61.9%; blood pressure test 69.4%; urine glucose test 54.4%; blood lipid test 76.7%; information about overweight 71.0%). The Streptococcus pneumoniae vaccination rate was higher (37.0%) and the influenza vaccination rate was lower (57.0%) than in the general population.

CONCLUSIONS

Utilization of preventive care is high among German blood cancer survivors. To ensure widespread delivery and avoid redundancy, communication between oncologists and preventive care providers is essential.

Individual-level factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among U.S. patients with cancer

INTRODUCTION

Vaccine hesitancy in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic is a major public health concern in the US. Cancer patients are especially vulnerable to adverse COVID-19 outcomes and require targeted prevention efforts against COVID-19.

METHODS

We used longitudinal survey data from patients seen at Moffitt Cancer Center to identify attitudes, beliefs, and sociodemographic factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination acceptance among cancer patients. Patients with confirmed invasive cancer diagnosis through Cancer Registry data were asked about vaccine acceptance through the question "Now that a COVID-19 vaccine is available, are you likely to get it?" and dichotomized into high accepters (already received it, would get it when available) and low accepters (waiting for a doctor to recommend it, waiting until more people received it, not likely to get it).

RESULTS

Most patients (86.8% of 5,814) were high accepters of the COVID-19 vaccine. High accepters had more confidence in the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine than low accepters. Multivariable logistic regression showed older individuals (70-89 vs.18-49: OR:2.57, 95% CI:1.33-4.86), those with greater perceived severity of COVID-19 infection (very serious vs. not at all serious: OR:2.55, 95% CI:1.76-3.70), practicing more risk mitigation behaviors (per one standard deviation OR:1.75, 95% CI:1.57-1.95), and history of receiving the flu shot versus not (OR:6.56, 95% CI:5.25-8.20) had higher odds of vaccine acceptance. Individuals living with more than one other person (vs. alone: OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.35, 0.79) and those who were more socioeconomically disadvantaged (per 10 percentile points: OR: 0.89, 95 %CI: 0.85, 0.93) had lower odds of reporting vaccine acceptance.

CONCLUSION

Most patients with cancer have or would receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Those who are less likely to accept the vaccine have more concerns regarding effectiveness and side effects, are younger, more socioeconomically disadvantaged, and have lower perceptions of COVID-19 severity.

Low Levels of Influenza Vaccine Uptake among the Diabetic Population in Spain: A Time Trend Study from 2011 to 2020

(1) Background: In this work, we aim to describe influenza vaccine uptake among the diabetic population in Spain to assess the time trend from 2011 to 2020 and identify predictors of vaccine uptake among diabetes patients. (2) Methods: We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional study using the European Health Interview Survey for Spain (2014 and 2020) and the Spanish National Health Surveys (2011 and 2017). The independent variables analysed included socio-demographic characteristics, health-related variables and lifestyle variables. We matched each participant with diabetes with a non-diabetic participant based on age, sex, place of residence and year of survey. (3) Results: The overall coverage among diabetic adults was 52.1% compared to 40.6% for matched participants without diabetes (p < 0.01). The vaccine uptake among adults with diabetes was 52.6% in 2011, 54.38% in 2014 and 53.4% in 2017. The adjusted OR of having been vaccinated in 2020, with respect to 2011, was not significant at 0.87 (95% CI: 0.72–1.06). Factors such as being male, higher age, being affected by respiratory disease or cancer and being physically active were identified as positive predictors for influenza vaccination uptake, while smoking was a negative predictor. (4) Conclusions: The influenza vaccine uptake is below desirable levels among the adult diabetic population in Spain and has not improved from 2011 to 2020. More efforts should be made to increase influenza vaccine uptake in this high-risk group, especially for women, those aged 18–64 years, without other high-risk conditions and smokers.