Effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccination in healthcare workers: a systematic review

Infectious Disease Control Training Centre, Hospital Authority/Infection Control Branch, Centre for Health Protection, Department of Health, Hong Kong SAR, China.
The Journal of hospital infection (Impact Factor: 2.78). 12/2011; 79(4):279-86. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2011.08.004
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Vaccination is considered a key measure to protect vulnerable groups against influenza infection. The objectives of this review are to determine the effect of influenza vaccinations in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza infections, influenza-like illnesses (ILIs), working days lost among vaccinated HCWs, and associated adverse effects after vaccination. Twenty-two healthcare-related databases and internet resources, as well as reference lists, and the bibliographies of all of the retrieved articles were examined. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of any kind of influenza vaccine among all groups of HCWs with a placebo/vaccine other than the influenza vaccine/no intervention were included in the review. Only three RCTs matched the inclusion criteria. There is a limited amount of evidence suggesting that receiving influenza vaccination reduces laboratory-confirmed influenza infections in HCWs. No evidence can be found of influenza vaccinations significantly reducing the incidence of influenza, number of ILI episodes, days with ILI symptoms, or amount of sick leave taken among vaccinated HCWs. There is insufficient data to assess the adverse effects after vaccination. There is no definitive conclusion on the effectiveness of influenza vaccinations in HCWs because of the limited number of related trials. Further research is necessary to evaluate whether annual vaccination is a key measure to protect HCWs against influenza infection and thus increase their confidence in the vaccine. In the mean time, the direction of promoting influenza vaccination to HCWs can be shifted from staff protection to patient protection, with accurate information to address concerns and misconceptions.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Most of the maternal and newborn deaths occur at birth or within 24 hours of birth. Therefore, essential lifesaving interventions need to be delivered at basic or comprehensive emergency obstetric care facilities. Facilities provide complex interventions including advice on referrals, post discharge care, long-term management of chronic conditions along with staff training, managerial and administrative support to other facilities. This paper reviews the effectiveness of facility level inputs for improving maternal and newborn health outcomes. We considered all available systematic reviews published before May 2013 on the pre-defined facility level interventions and included 32 systematic reviews.
    Reproductive Health 09/2014; 11 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S4. DOI:10.1186/1742-4755-11-S2-S4 · 1.62 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background. Few data are available on the immunogenicity of repeated annual doses of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09-containing vaccines.Methods. We enrolled healthcare personnel (HCP) in direct patient-care during Fall 2010 at 2 centers with voluntary immunization. We verified the receipt of A(H1N1)pdm09-containing monovalent inactivated influenza vaccine (MIIV) and 2010-2011 trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV). We performed hemagglutination-inhibition antibody (HI) assays on pre-season, post-TIV, and end-of-season sera. We compared the proportion of HCPs with HI titer ≥40 (HI≥40) against A(H1N1)pdm09 per receipt of prior-season-MIIV, current-season-TIV, both, or neither.Results. At pre-season (N=1,417), HI≥40 was significantly higher among those who received MIIV (34%) vs. those who did not (14%), adjusted-Relative Risk (ARR) (95% Confidence Interval (CI)): 3.26 (2.72-3.81). At post-TIV (N=865), HI≥40 was lower among HCP who received MIIV and TIV (66%) than among those receiving only TIV (85%), ARR (95% CI): 0.93 (0.84-0.997). At end-of-season (N=1,254), HI≥40 was 40% among those who received both MIIV and TIV and 67% among those receiving only TIV, ARR (95% CI): 0.76 (0.65-0.88); 52% among those who received MIIV only, and 12% among those receiving neither.Conclusions. HCP immunization programs should consider effects of host immune-response and vaccine antigenic-distance on immunogenicity of repeated annual doses of influenza vaccines.
    The Journal of Infectious Diseases 12/2013; DOI:10.1093/infdis/jit825 · 5.78 Impact Factor
  • [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


Available from