Rate of influenza vaccination and its adverse reaction seen in health care personnel in a single tertiary hospital in Korea

Department of Internal Medicine, Chonbuk National University Medical School, Jeonju, Republic of Korea.
Japanese journal of infectious diseases (Impact Factor: 1.16). 12/2008; 61(6):457-60.
Source: PubMed


To determine the vaccination rate and its adverse reactions after influenza vaccination, we administered an anonymous questionnaire survey during the last three influenza seasons from 2005-2006 to 2007-2008. In total, the rate of Influenza vaccination was 82.3% in health-care personnel. Dividing the subjects into four groups by work category, the vaccine coverage rates were as follows: physicians 67.9%; nurses and nursing assistants 91.2%; technicians, pharmacists, therapists, and administrative personnel 80.2%; and other personnel not directly involved in patient care but having the potential of being exposed to infectious agents 89%. The most frequent adverse reaction after vaccination was soreness at the injection site in 33.4%, followed by skin redness in 18.1%, myalgia in 17.7%, fatigue in 17%, and febrile sensation in 15.2%. After vaccination, such adverse reactions began within 24 h in 70.6% of subjects. Eighty-nine percent of those adverse reactions persisted for 1-3 days, but 11% persisted more than 4 days. Serious adverse reactions were not noted; the reported adverse reactions were relatively minor and transient. Surprisingly, among those who were vaccinated, the physicians' participation was the lowest. We believe that influenza vaccination is safe and that physicians should be more concerned with influenza vaccination and its impact on the health-care community.

Download full-text


Available from: Heung Bum Lee,
14 Reads
  • Source
    • "Nine studies assessed influenza vaccine safety, of which only 22% (n = 2) were from low- and middle-income countries (Table 2). Four studies evaluated adverse events associated with seasonal influenza vaccines; one was conducted in children [76], one in health care workers [104], one in the general population [68] and two in the elderly [68], [77]. Pandemic A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccines were assessed for their safety in the general population [83], [105], in health care workers [106] and in children [90]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Immunization against influenza is considered an essential public health intervention to control both seasonal epidemics and pandemic influenza. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), there are five key policy and three key programmatic issues that decision-makers should consider before introducing a vaccine. These are (a) public health priority, (b) disease burden, (c) efficacy, quality and safety of the vaccine, (d) other inventions, (e) economic and financial issues, (f) vaccine presentation, (g) supply availability and (h) programmatic strength. We analyzed the body of evidence currently available on these eight issues in the WHO Western Pacific Region. Studies indexed in PubMed and published in English between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2010 from the 37 countries and areas of the Western Pacific Region were screened for keywords pertaining to the five policy and three programmatic issues. Studies were grouped according to country income level and vaccine target group. There were 133 articles that met the selection criteria, with most (90%) coming from high-income countries. Disease burden (n = 34), vaccine efficacy, quality and safety (n = 27) and public health priority (n = 27) were most frequently addressed by studies conducted in the Region. Many studies assessed influenza vaccine policy and programmatic issues in the general population (42%), in the elderly (24%) and in children (17%). Few studies (2%) addressed the eight issues relating to pregnant women. The evidence for vaccine introduction in countries and areas in this Region remains limited, particularly in low- and middle-income countries that do not currently have influenza vaccination programmes. Surveillance activities and specialized studies can be used to assess the eight issues including disease burden among vaccine target groups and the cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccine. Multi-country studies should be considered to maximize resource utilization for cross-cutting issues such as vaccine presentation and other inventions.
    PLoS ONE 07/2013; 8(7):e70003. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0070003 · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • Value in Health 11/2006; 9(6). DOI:10.1016/S1098-3015(10)63266-4 · 3.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Healthcare workers' (HCWs) influenza rates are unknown, but may be similar to the general public and they may transmit influenza to patients. 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). 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. 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. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. 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. 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.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 02/2010; 2, article CD005187(2):CD005187. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD005187.pub3 · 6.03 Impact Factor
Show more