Article

Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who work with the elderly

Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, UCMC, #1707-1632 14th Avenue, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2M 1N7.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 01/2010; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005187.pub3
Source: PubMed

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.

0 Followers
 · 
90 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of exposure to respiratory pathogens and may transmit infection to vulnerable patients. This study summarises a recent systematic review, which aimed to assess evidence that influenza or pneumococcal vaccination of HCWs provides indirect protection for those patients most at risk of severe or complicated acute respiratory infection. A number of healthcare databases and sources of grey literature were searched using a predefined strategy, and citations screened for eligibility in accordance with specified inclusion criteria. Risk of bias was assessed using validated tools and results summarised qualitatively. Twenty papers were included in the final review, all of which considered influenza vaccination of HCW. As such, planned subanalysis of pneumococcal vaccination was discarded. The majority of primary research studies included (11/14) were conducted in long-term care facilities, but there was marked heterogeneity in terms of the population, intervention/exposure and outcomes considered. Consistency in the direction of effect was observed across several different outcome measures, suggesting that influenza vaccination of HCWs is likely to offer some protection. Further evidence is, however, required from acute care settings.
    Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 09/2013; 7(s2). DOI:10.1111/irv.12087 · 1.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is a growing body of evidence on the risks and benefits of influenza vaccination in various target groups. Systematic reviews are of particular importance for policy decisions. However, their methodological quality can vary considerably. To investigate the methodological quality of systematic reviews on influenza vaccination (efficacy, effectiveness, safety) and to identify influencing factors. A systematic literature search on influenza vaccination was performed, using MEDLINE, EMBASE and three additional databases (1990-2013). Review characteristics were extracted and the methodological quality of the reviews was evaluated using the assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) tool. U-test, Kruskal-Wallis test, chi-square test, and multivariable linear regression analysis were used to assess the influence of review characteristics on AMSTAR-score. Fourty-six systematic reviews fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Average methodological quality was high (median AMSTAR-score: 8), but variability was large (AMSTAR range: 0-11). Quality did not differ significantly according to vaccination target group. Cochrane reviews had higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews (p=0.001). Detailed analysis showed that this was due to better study selection and data extraction, inclusion of unpublished studies, and better reporting of study characteristics (all p<0.05). In the adjusted analysis, no other factor, including industry sponsorship or journal impact factor had an influence on AMSTAR score. Systematic reviews on influenza vaccination showed large differences regarding their methodological quality. Reviews conducted by the Cochrane collaboration were of higher quality than others. When using systematic reviews to guide the development of vaccination recommendations, the methodological quality of a review in addition to its content should be considered.
    Vaccine 02/2014; 32(15). DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.01.060 · 3.49 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
10 Downloads
Available from
Sep 15, 2014