Article

Vaccination Site and Risk of Local Reactions in Children 1 Through 6 Years of Age

Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington
PEDIATRICS (Impact Factor: 5.3). 01/2013; 131(2). DOI: 10.1542/peds.2012-2617
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE:Our objective was to assess whether the occurrence of medically attended local reactions to intramuscularly administered vaccines varies by injection site (arm versus thigh) in children 1 to 6 years of age.METHODS:This is a retrospective cohort study of children in the Vaccine Safety Datalink population from 2002 to 2009. Site of injection and the outcome of medically attended local reactions were identified from administrative data.RESULTS:The study cohort of 1.4 million children received 6.0 million intramuscular (IM) vaccines during the study period. The primary analyses evaluated the IM vaccines most commonly administered alone, which included inactivated influenza, hepatitis A, and diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccines. For inactivated influenza and hepatitis A vaccines, local reactions were relatively uncommon, and there was no difference in risk of these events with arm versus thigh injections. The rate of local reactions after DTaP vaccines was higher, and vaccination in the arm was associated with a significantly greater risk of this outcome compared with vaccination in the thigh, both for children 12 to 35 months (relative risk: 1.88 [95% confidence interval: 1.34-2.65]) and 3 to 6 years of age (relative risk: 1.41 [95% confidence interval: 0.84-2.34]), although this difference was not statistically significant in the older age group.CONCLUSIONS:Injection in the thigh is associated with a significantly lower risk of a medically attended local reaction to a DTaP vaccination among children 12 to 35 months of age, supporting current recommendations to administer IM vaccinations in the thigh for children younger than 3 years of age.

0 Followers
 · 
80 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Advisory Committee on Vaccines of the Spanish Association of Paediatrics (CAV-AEP) updates the immunisation schedule every year, taking into account epidemiological data as well as evidence on the safety, effectiveness and efficiency of vaccines. The present schedule includes levels of recommendation. We have graded as routine vaccinations those that the CAV-AEP consider all children should receive; as recommended those that fit the profile for universal childhood immunisation and would ideally be given to all children, but that can be prioritised according to the resources available for their public funding; and as risk group vaccinations those that specifically target individuals in situations of risk. Immunisation schedules tend to be dynamic and adaptable to ongoing epidemiological changes. Nevertheless, the achievement of a unified immunisation schedule in all regions of Spain is a top priority for the CAV-AEP. Based on the latest epidemiological trends, CAV-AEP follows the innovations proposed in the last year's schedule, such as the administration of the first dose of the MMR and the varicella vaccines at age 12 months and the second dose at age 2-3 years, as well as the administration of the Tdap vaccine at age 4-6 years, always followed by another dose at 11-14 years of age, preferably at 11-12 years. The CAV-AEP believes that the coverage of vaccination against human papillomavirus in girls aged 11-14 years, preferably at 11-12 years, must increase. It reasserts its recommendation to include vaccination against pneumococcal disease in the routine immunisation schedule. Universal vaccination against varicella in the second year of life is an effective strategy and therefore a desirable objective. Vaccination against rotavirus is recommended in all infants due to the morbidity and elevated healthcare burden of the virus. The Committee stresses the need to vaccinate population groups considered at risk against influenza and hepatitis A. Finally, it emphasizes the need to bring incomplete vaccinations up to date following the catch-up immunisation schedule.
    Anales de Pediatría 11/2012; 82(1). DOI:10.1016/j.anpedi.2012.10.002 · 0.72 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Die Empfehlungen der Ständigen Impfkommission (STIKO) am Robert Koch-Institut haben das Ziel, Infektionskrankheiten und damit assoziierte Komplikationen, die für das öffentliche Gesundheitswesen von Bedeutung (,,von öffentlichem Interesse“) sind, durch populationsbezogene Impfprogramme zu verhindern. Darüber hinaus enthalten die STIKO-Empfehlungen Hinweise für Indikationsimpfungen bei besonderer Gefährdungslage und umfassende Informationen zur Durchführung von Nachholimpfungen. Im vorliegenden Beitrag werden die Grundlagen der Impfpraxis sowie die aktuellen Empfehlungen der STIKO mit den wichtigsten Neuerungen beschrieben.
    Monatsschrift Kinderheilkunde 06/2013; 161(12). DOI:10.1007/s00112-013-2919-2 · 0.28 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The administration of injections is a fundamental nursing skill; however, it is not without risk. Children receive numerous vaccines, and pediatric nurses administer the majority of these vaccines via the intramuscular route, and thus must be knowledgeable about safe and evidence-based immunization programs. Nurses may not be aware of the potential consequences associated with poor injection practices, and historically have relied on their basic nursing training or the advice of colleagues as a substitute for newer evidence about how to administer injections today. Evidence-based nursing practice requires pediatric nurses to review current literature to establish best practices and thus improved patient outcomes.
    MCN. The American journal of maternal child nursing 11/2013; DOI:10.1097/NMC.0000000000000009 · 0.84 Impact Factor