Risk factors and protective measures for healthcare worker infection during highly infectious viral respiratory epidemics: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate risk factors for HCW infection in viral respiratory pandemics (SARS-CoV-2, MERS, SARS CoV-1, influenza A H1N1, influenza H5N1) and improve understanding of HCW risk management amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched from conception until July 2020 for studies comparing infected HCWs (cases) and non-infected HCWs (controls) and risk factors for infection. Outcomes included HCW types, infection prevention practices, and medical procedures. Pooled effect estimates with pathogen-specific stratified meta-analysis and inverse variance meta-regression analysis were completed. GRADE framework was used to rate certainty of evidence. PROSPERO (CRD42020176232) 6 April 2020.

RESULTS

Fifty-four comparative studies were included (n=191,004 HCWs). Compared to non-frontline HCWs, frontline HCWs were at increased infection risk (OR 1.66 95%CI 1.24 to 2.22) and greater for HCWs involved in endotracheal intubations (risk difference [95%CI]: 35.2% [21.4 to 47.9]). Use of gloves, gown, surgical mask, N95 respirator, face protection, and infection training were each strongly protective against infection. Meta-regression showed reduced infection risk in frontline HCWs working in facilities with infection designated wards (OR -1.04, 95%CI -1.53 to -0.33, p=0.004) and performing aerosol-generating medical procedures in designated centres (OR -1.30 95%CI -2.52 to -0.08; p=0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

During highly infectious respiratory pandemics, widely available protective measures such as use of gloves, gowns, and face masks are strongly protective against infection and should be instituted, preferably in dedicated settings, to protect frontline HCW during waves of respiratory virus pandemics.

The Use of Test-negative Controls to Monitor Vaccine Effectiveness: A Systematic Review of Methodology

BACKGROUND

The test-negative design is an increasingly popular approach for estimating vaccine effectiveness (VE) due to its efficiency. This review aims to examine published test-negative design studies of VE and to explore similarities and differences in methodological choices for different diseases and vaccines.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search on PubMed, Web of Science, and Medline, for studies reporting the effectiveness of any vaccines using a test-negative design. We screened titles and abstracts and reviewed full texts to identify relevant articles. We created a standardized form for each included article to extract information on the pathogen of interest, vaccine(s) being evaluated, study setting, clinical case definition, choices of cases and controls, and statistical approaches used to estimate VE.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 348 articles, including studies on VE against influenza virus (n = 253), rotavirus (n = 48), pneumococcus (n = 24), and nine other pathogens. Clinical case definitions used to enroll patients were similar by pathogens of interest but the sets of symptoms that defined them varied substantially. Controls could be those testing negative for the pathogen of interest, those testing positive for nonvaccine type of the pathogen of interest, or a subset of those testing positive for alternative pathogens. Most studies controlled for age, calendar time, and comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review highlights similarities and differences in the application of the test-negative design that deserve further examination. If vaccination reduces disease severity in breakthrough infections, particular care must be taken in interpreting vaccine effectiveness estimates from test-negative design studies.

Immune History and Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness

The imperfect effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccines is often blamed on antigenic mismatch, but even when the match appears good, effectiveness can be surprisingly low. Seasonal influenza vaccines also stand out for their variable effectiveness by age group from year to year and by recent vaccination status. These patterns suggest a role for immune history in influenza vaccine effectiveness, but inference is complicated by uncertainty about the contributions of bias to the estimates themselves. In this review, we describe unexpected patterns in the effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccination and explain how these patterns might arise as consequences of study design, the dynamics of immune memory, or both. Resolving this uncertainty could lead to improvements in vaccination strategy, including the use of universal vaccines in experienced populations, and the evaluation of vaccine efficacy against influenza and other antigenically variable pathogens.

Cross-Protective Immune Responses Induced by Sequential Influenza Virus Infection and by Sequential Vaccination With Inactivated Influenza Vaccines

Sequential infection with antigenically distinct influenza viruses induces cross-protective immune responses against heterologous virus strains in animal models. Here we investigated whether sequential immunization with antigenically distinct influenza vaccines can also provide cross-protection. To this end, we compared immune responses and protective potential against challenge with A(H1N1)pdm09 in mice infected sequentially with seasonal A(H1N1) virus followed by A(H3N2) virus or immunized sequentially with whole inactivated virus (WIV) or subunit (SU) vaccine derived from these viruses. Sequential infection provided solid cross-protection against A(H1N1)pdm09 infection while sequential vaccination with WIV, though not capable of preventing weight loss upon infection completely, protected the mice from reaching the humane endpoint. In contrast, sequential SU vaccination did not prevent rapid and extensive weight loss. Protection correlated with levels of cross-reactive but non-neutralizing antibodies of the IgG2a subclass, general increase of memory T cells and induction of influenza-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells. Adoptive serum transfer experiments revealed that despite lacking neutralizing activity, serum antibodies induced by sequential infection protected mice from weight loss and vigorous virus growth in the lungs upon A(H1N1)pdm09 virus challenge. Antibodies induced by WIV vaccination alleviated symptoms but could not control virus growth in the lung. Depletion of T cells prior to challenge revealed that CD8+ T cells, but not CD4+ T cells, contributed to cross-protection. These results imply that sequential immunization with WIV but not SU derived from antigenically distinct viruses could alleviate the severity of infection caused by a pandemic and may improve protection to unpredictable seasonal infection.

Increasing the coverage of influenza vaccination in healthcare workers: review of challenges and solutions

Seasonal influenza vaccine uptake rate of healthcare workers (HCWs) varies widely from <5% to >90% worldwide. Perception of vaccine efficacy and side-effects are conventional factors affecting the uptake rates. These factors may operate on a personal and social level, impacting the attitudes and behaviours of HCWs. Vaccination rates were also under the influence of the occurrence of other non-seasonal influenza pandemics such as avian influenza. Different strategies have been implemented to improve vaccine uptake, with important ones including the enforcement of the local authority's recommendations, promulgation of practice guidelines, and mandatory vaccination polices. Practised in some regions in North America, mandatory policies have led to higher vaccination rate, but are not problem-free. The effects of conventional educational programmes and campaigns are in general of modest impact only. Availability of convenient vaccination facilities, such as mobile vaccination cart, and role models of senior HCWs receiving vaccination are among some strategies which have been observed to improve vaccination uptake rate. A multi-faceted approach is thus necessary to persuade HCWs to participate in a vaccination programme, especially in areas with low uptake rate.

Potential of the test-negative design for measuring influenza vaccine effectiveness: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The test-negative design is a variant of the case-control study being increasingly used to study influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE). In these studies, patients with influenza-like illness are tested for influenza. Vaccine coverage is compared between those testing positive versus those testing negative to estimate VE.

OBJECTIVES

We reviewed features in the design, analysis and reporting of 85 published test-negative studies.

DATA SOURCES

Studies were identified from PubMed, reference lists and email updates. Study eligibility: All studies using the test-negative design reporting end-of-season estimates were included.

STUDY APPRAISAL

Design features that may affect the validity and comparability of reported estimates were reviewed, including setting, study period, source population, case definition, exposure and outcome ascertainment and statistical model.

RESULTS

There was considerable variation in the analytic approach, with 68 unique statistical models identified among the studies.

CONCLUSION

Harmonization of analytic approaches may improve the potential for pooling VE estimates.

Pandemic influenza A(H1N1)pdm09: risk of infection in primary healthcare workers

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers in primary care are at risk of infection during an influenza pandemic. The 2009 influenza pandemic provided an opportunity to assess this risk.

AIM

To measure the prevalence of seropositivity to influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 among primary healthcare workers in Canterbury, New Zealand, following the 2009 influenza pandemic, and to examine associations between seropositivity and participants' sociodemographic characteristics, professional roles, work patterns, and seasonal influenza vaccination status.

DESIGN AND SETTING

An observational study involving a questionnaire and testing for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 seropositivity in all primary healthcare workers in Canterbury, New Zealand between December 2009 and February 2010. Method Participants completed a questionnaire that recorded sociodemographic and professional data, symptoms of influenza-like illness, history of seasonal influenza vaccination, and work patterns. Serum samples were collected and haemagglutination inhibition antibody titres to influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 measured.

RESULTS

Questionnaires and serum samples were received from 1027 participants, from a workforce of 1476 (response rate 70%). Seropositivity was detected in 224 participants (22%). Receipt of seasonal influenza vaccine (odds ratio [OR] = 2.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2 to 3.3), recall of influenza (OR = 1.9, 95% CI = 1.3 to 2.8), and age ≤45 years (OR = 1.4, 95% CI = 1.0 to 1.9) were associated with seropositivity.

CONCLUSION

A total of 22% of primary care healthcare workers were seropositive. Younger participants, those who recalled having influenza, and those who had been vaccinated against seasonal influenza were more likely to be seropositive. Working in a dedicated influenza centre was not associated with an increased risk of seropositivity.

Profiling of humoral response to influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 infection and vaccination measured by a protein microarray in persons with and without history of seasonal vaccination

BACKGROUND

The influence of prior seasonal influenza vaccination on the antibody response produced by natural infection or vaccination is not well understood.

METHODS

We compared the profiles of antibody responses of 32 naturally infected subjects and 98 subjects vaccinated with a 2009 influenza A(H1N1) monovalent MF59-adjuvanted vaccine (Focetria, Novartis), with and without a history of seasonal influenza vaccination. Antibodies were measured by hemagglutination inhibition (HI) assay for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and by protein microarray (PA) using the HA1 subunit for seven recent and historic H1, H2 and H3 influenza viruses, and three avian influenza viruses. Serum samples for the infection group were taken at the moment of collection of the diagnostic sample, 10 days and 30 days after onset of influenza symptoms. For the vaccination group, samples were drawn at baseline, 3 weeks after the first vaccination and 5 weeks after the second vaccination.

RESULTS

We showed that subjects with a history of seasonal vaccination generally exhibited higher baseline titers for the various HA1 antigens than subjects without a seasonal vaccination history. Infection and pandemic influenza vaccination responses in persons with a history of seasonal vaccination were skewed towards historic antigens.

CONCLUSIONS

Seasonal vaccination is of significant influence on the antibody response to subsequent infection and vaccination, and further research is needed to understand the effect of annual vaccination on protective immunity.

Impacts on influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 infection from cross-protection of seasonal trivalent influenza vaccines and A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccines: systematic review and meta-analyses

Cross-protection by seasonal trivalent influenza vaccines (TIVs) against pandemic influenza A H1N1 2009 (now known as A[H1N1]pdm09) infection is controversial; and the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccines has important health-policy implications. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are needed to assess the impacts of both seasonal TIVs and A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccines against A(H1N1)pdm09.We did a systematic literature search to identify observational and/or interventional studies reporting cross-protection of TIV and A(H1N1)pdm09 VE from when the pandemic started (2009) until July 2011. The studies fulfilling inclusion criteria were meta-analysed. For cross-protection and VE, respectively, we stratified by vaccine type, study design and endpoint. Seventeen studies (104,781 subjects) and 10 studies (2,906,860 subjects), respectively, reported cross-protection of seasonal TIV and VE of A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccines; six studies (17,229 subjects) reported on both. Thirteen studies (95,903 subjects) of cross-protection, eight studies (859,461 subjects) of VE, and five studies (9,643 subjects) of both were meta-analysed and revealed: (1) cross-protection for confirmed illness was 19% (95% confident interval=13-42%) based on 13 case-control studies with notable heterogeneity. A higher cross-protection of 34% (9-52%) was found in sensitivity analysis (excluding five studies with moderate/high risk of bias). Further exclusion of studies that recruited early in the pandemic (when non-recipients of TIV were more likely to have had non-pandemic influenza infection that may have been cross-protective) dramatically reduced heterogeneity. One RCT reported cross-protection of 38% (19-53%) for confirmed illness. One case-control study reported cross-protection of 50% (40-59%) against hospitalisation. (2) VE of A(H1N1)pdm09 for confirmed illness was 86% (73-93%) based on 11 case-control studies and 79% (22-94%) based on two cohort studies; VE against medically-attended ILI was 32% (8-50%) in one cohort study. TIVs provided moderate cross-protection against both laboratory-confirmed A(H1N1)pdm09 illness (based on eight case-control studies with low risk of bias and one RCT) and also hospitalisation. A finding of increased risk from seasonal vaccine was limited to cases recruited early in the pandemic. A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccines were highly effective against confirmed A(H1N1)pdm09 illness. Although cross-protection was less than the direct effect of strain-specific vaccination against A(H1N1)pdm09, TIV was generally beneficial before A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine was available.

High effectiveness of pandemic influenza A (H1N1) vaccination in healthcare workers from a Portuguese hospital

OBJECTIVES

Vaccination of healthcare workers (HCWs) was made a high priority during the phase six pandemic of the novel influenza A H1N1 (pH1N1) virus. We surveyed adherence to pH1N1 vaccination and the incidence of pH1N1 infection between vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs.

METHODS

Employees at the S. João Hospital in Porto, Portugal, were offered pH1N1 vaccinations free of charge. Pandemrix(®) was the vaccine administered. As part of the pandemic plan, employees with influenza-like symptoms (ILS) were called upon to take an RT-PCR H1N1 test. If the test results were positive, they had to stay off work for at least 7 days. Sociodemographic data, vaccination status, contact with infectious patients, ILS and pH1N1 test results were documented in a standardised manner.

RESULTS

The survey population comprised 5,592 employees. The vaccination rate was 30.8% (n = 1,720) for pH1N1 and 50.4% (n = 2,819) for the 2009/2010 seasonal trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV). One mild anaphylactic reaction occurred after pH1N1 vaccination. Minor local side effects occurred more often after pH1N1 vaccination than after 2009/2010 seasonal TIV (38.0% vs. 12.3%). Pandemic H1N1 infection was diagnosed in 97 HCWs (1.7%). Compared to employees with no regular patient contact, nurses (2.8%) had the highest risk of pH1N1 infection (adjusted OR 3.8; 95% CI 1.2-6.8). Vaccination reduced the pH1N1 infection risk (OR 0.12; 95% CI 0.05-0.29). Vaccine effectiveness was 90.4% (95% CI 73.5-97.3%).

CONCLUSION

Vaccination reduced the pH1N1 infection risk considerably. The pandemic plan to contain the pH1N1 infection was successful. Nurses had the highest risk of pH1N1 infection and are therefore a target group for vaccination measures.

Field effectiveness of pandemic and 2009-2010 seasonal vaccines against 2009-2010 A(H1N1) influenza: estimations from surveillance data in France

BACKGROUND

In this study, we assess how effective pandemic and trivalent 2009-2010 seasonal vaccines were in preventing influenza-like illness (ILI) during the 2009 A(H1N1) pandemic in France. We also compare vaccine effectiveness against ILI versus laboratory-confirmed pandemic A(H1N1) influenza, and assess the possible bias caused by using non-specific endpoints and observational data.

METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We estimated vaccine effectiveness by using the following formula: VE  =  (PPV-PCV)/(PPV(1-PCV)) × 100%, where PPV is the proportion vaccinated in the population and PCV the proportion of vaccinated influenza cases. People were considered vaccinated three weeks after receiving a dose of vaccine. ILI and pandemic A(H1N1) laboratory-confirmed cases were obtained from two surveillance networks of general practitioners. During the epidemic, 99.7% of influenza isolates were pandemic A(H1N1). Pandemic and seasonal vaccine uptakes in the population were obtained from the National Health Insurance database and by telephonic surveys, respectively. Effectiveness estimates were adjusted by age and week. The presence of residual biases was explored by calculating vaccine effectiveness after the influenza period. The effectiveness of pandemic vaccines in preventing ILI was 52% (95% confidence interval: 30-69) during the pandemic and 33% (4-55) after. It was 86% (56-98) against confirmed influenza. The effectiveness of seasonal vaccines against ILI was 61% (56-66) during the pandemic and 19% (-10-41) after. It was 60% (41-74) against confirmed influenza.

CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of pandemic vaccines in preventing confirmed pandemic A(H1N1) influenza on the field was high, consistently with published findings. It was significantly lower against ILI. This is unsurprising since not all ILI cases are caused by influenza. Trivalent 2009-2010 seasonal vaccines had a statistically significant effectiveness in preventing ILI and confirmed pandemic influenza, but were not better in preventing confirmed pandemic influenza than in preventing ILI. This lack of difference might be indicative of selection bias.