Seroprotection to vaccine-preventable diseases among workers at a Victorian tertiary hospital

Hepatitis B immune status of staff in smaller acute healthcare facilities

ObjectiveTo determine the proportion of staff employed in smaller Victorian public acute healthcare facilities with evidence of immunity to hepatitis B.MethodsFor optimal long-term immunity, a completed hepatitis B vaccination course and post vaccination hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) level ≥10 mIU/mL is desirable for all high-risk staff employed in healthcare facilities. For the financial years 2016/17-2019/20, a standardised surveillance module developed by the Victorian Healthcare Associated Infection Surveillance System (VICNISS) Coordinating Centre was completed by the smaller Victorian public acute healthcare facilities (individual hospitals with <100 acute care beds or their multi-site health service). Staff were assessed as having evidence or no evidence of optimal immunity to hepatitis B. Those without optimal evidence were sub-classified as 'incomplete vaccination course', 'no serology', 'contraindicated', 'non-responder', 'declined' or 'unknown'. Data were analysed to determine trends over time for healthcare facilities that participated more than once.ResultsA total of 88 healthcare facilities reported hepatitis B immunity status of high-risk (Category A) staff (n = 29 920) at least once over 5 years; 55 healthcare facilities reported more than once. The aggregate proportion with evidence of optimal immunity was 66.3%. Healthcare facilities with 100-199 Category A staff employed reported the lowest evidence of optimal immunity (59.6%). Of all Category A staff with no evidence of optimal immunity, the majority had 'unknown' status (19.8%), with only 0.6% overall who declined vaccination.ConclusionsOur study found evidence of optimal staff hepatitis B immunity in only two-thirds of Category A staff working in surveyed healthcare facilities.

Evaluation of testing and vaccination status of healthcare workers in Turkey for hepatitis A: A multicenter study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of the disease and testing and vaccination status of healthcare workers in terms of hepatitis A infection as well as their awareness. This study is a multicenter descriptive study performed with healthcare workers.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Testing status for hepatitis A, awareness of the results and vaccination status of healthcare workers were compared.

RESULTS

Of the 12,476 healthcare workers participating in the study, only 65% (8,115 healthcare workers) had awareness of hepatitis A test results. Of the participants, 6,481 (66.3 %) stated that they were not vaccinated against hepatitis A. Vaccination rates against hepatitis A decreased with increasing age (P < .01). The rates of vaccination in all departments where participants worked were above 60% (P < .05). While the rate of protection among those working in departments creating a risk for hepatitis A virus infection was higher, no difference among vaccination rates was observed compared with the other departments.

CONCLUSION

Vaccination of seronegative individuals is the safest way for hepatitis A, which can progress to fulminant hepatitis at advanced ages. It must be aimed primarily to increase the awareness of healthcare professionals and to increase the vaccination rates for hepatitis B and hepatitis A for the prevention of viral hepatitis. In our study, the awareness level was found to be above 50%, and the vaccination level was 35%, which is a rate that must be increased.

Barriers for vaccination of healthcare workers

Outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases (VPDs) in hospital settings remain a challenge even in countries with established (childhood-) vaccination programs. Healthcare workers (HCWs) with an updated vaccination card play an important role in reducing the risk of nosocomial spread of VPDs. Yet, in many places, HCWs report their immunization status to be unknown or not updated. In times of a global pandemic, the debate on vaccination of HCWs is as hot as ever; do HCWs have an increased responsibility to get vaccinated against VPDs? If so, how do we increase vaccination uptake rates among HCWs? Mandatory vaccination against VPDs for HCWs has been introduced in some countries, but it may cause ethical dilemmas and not be culturally acceptable everywhere. We looked at vaccination policies and HCWs' attitudes toward immunization against VPDs. We found that missing vaccine policies and lack of knowledge of VPDs, vaccination benefits, as well as inadequate organization around HCWs' immunizations were important barriers to have a complete vaccination record. A systematic approach to employees providing information of VPDs and vaccinations, going through their vaccination cards and offering antibody testing where appropriate or a shot of a missing vaccine could support staff to adhere to vaccination schemes.

Immunity to vaccine-preventable diseases among paediatric healthcare workers in Denmark, 2019

Background

Healthcare workers (HCW) have been identified as index cases in disease outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases (VPD) in hospitals.

Aim

We investigated whether Danish paediatric HCW were protected against selected serious VPD.

Methods

We included 90% of staff members from two paediatric departments. All 555 HCW (496 women) supplied a blood sample for serology and filled in a questionnaire. Antibodies were measured with enzyme immunoassay against measles, mumps, rubella (MMR), varicella zoster, pertussis toxin and diphtheria toxin.

Results

Protective levels of IgG were found for measles (90.3%), mumps (86.5%), rubella (92.3%), varicella (98.6%) and diphtheria (80.5%). We found seropositivity for all three MMR components in 421 (75.9%) HCW, lowest in those younger than 36 years (63.3%). Only 28 (5%) HCW had measurable IgG to pertussis. HCW with self-reported immunity defined as previous infection or vaccination, had protective levels of IgG against measles, mumps, rubella and varicella in 87.4–98.8% of cases, not significantly higher than in those not reporting immunity. Previous history of disease had a high positive predictive value (PPV) of 96.8–98.8%. The PPV for previous vaccination ranged from 82.5% to 90.3%. In contrast, negative predictive values of self-reported history of disease and vaccination were remarkably low for all diseases.

Conclusion

The immunity gaps found primarily in young HCW indicate a need for a screening and vaccination strategy for this group. Considering the poor correlation between self-reported immunity and seropositivity, efforts should be made to check HCW’s immune status in order to identify those who would benefit from vaccination.

Use of pre-travel vaccine-preventable disease serology as a screening tool to identify patients in need of pre-travel vaccination: a retrospective audit

BACKGROUND

Vaccination is a safe and effective public health intervention that not only protects individual travellers from vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs), but prevents them from becoming a source of disease in their destination and on their return. Obtaining an accurate vaccination history from travellers during a pre-travel review can be difficult; serology may be used to identify patients who are non-immune to specific diseases in order to guide vaccination requirements. Clinically relevant data about the usefulness of serology in this setting are lacking. We performed a retrospective audit of pre-travel VPD serology requested by practitioners of a busy community-based travel clinic.

METHODS

All serological results for measles, mumps, rubella, varicella zoster virus, hepatitis A and B requested over a 5-year period were extracted and analysed. Results were stratified by gender and year of birth and compared using Stata.

RESULTS

Four thousand four hundred and fifty-one serological assays from 1445 individual were assessed. Overall, 47% of patients tested had at least one negative serological result. High rates of seropositivity for measles, mumps and rubella were seen in those born prior to 1966 but >10% of travellers born after 1966 lacked serological evidence of protection against these diseases. Hepatitis A and B serological results revealed broadly lower rates of immunity in our community likely reflecting the absence of these vaccines from historical vaccine protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

Serology can be a useful tool in the identification of non-immune travellers to enable targeted vaccination prior to travel. We recommend that travel health clinicians assess patients' vaccination and infection histories, and strongly consider serology or vaccination where there is doubt about immunity. This will help protect the traveller and prevent importation of disease into destination or home communities.

Immunity against vaccine-preventable diseases in Finnish pediatric healthcare workers in 2015

Healthcare workers (HCWs) pose a risk to themselves and their patients if not protected against vaccine-preventable diseases. Alarmingly, lacking immunity has been reported in several studies. We assessed the immunity against vaccine-preventable diseases in 157 pediatric HCWs in Helsinki Children's Hospital. The HCWs enrolled answered a questionnaire and gave a serum sample. Antibodies were measured with EIA against MMR-diseases, tetanus and diphtheria toxins, Hepatitis B (HBV), Hepatitis A (HAV), varicella zoster and pertussis toxin. Neutralizing antibodies against poliovirus 1, 2 and 3 were measured. All of the HCWs had antibodies against tetanus and 89.8% against diphtheria. All had measurable levels of polio antibodies to all three polioviruses. 41% had suboptimal levels of antibodies against at least one of the antigens tested: MMR-viruses, diphtheria, HBV or polio. Measles, mumps and rubella antibodies were detectable in 81.5%, 89.2% and 93%, respectively. Only one HCW had no varicella-antibodies. Hepatitis B surface antibodies (HBsAb) were detected in 89.8% of the nurses. 67.5% had HAV-antibodies. A poor correlation between detected antibody levels and reported vaccination history was noticed, indicating a need for a universal record system for registering the vaccines given to each individual.