Efficacy of LAIV-T on absentee rates in a school-based health center sample

Effect of a Comprehensive School-Based Health Center on Academic Growth in K-8th Grade Students

OBJECTIVE

School-based health centers (SBHCs) improve health care access, but associations with educational outcomes are mixed and limited for elementary and middle school students. We investigated whether students enrolled in a comprehensive SBHC demonstrated more growth in standardized math and reading assessments over 4 school years versus nonenrolled students. We also explored changes in absenteeism.

METHODS

Participants were students enrolled in 2 co-located Title I schools from 2015-19 (1 elementary, 1 middle, n = 2480). Analysis of math and reading was limited to students with baseline and postbaseline scores (math n = 1622; reading n = 1607). Longitudinal regression models accounting for within-subject clustering were used to estimate the association of SBHC enrollment with academic scores and daily absenteeism, adjusting for grade, sex, body mass index category, health conditions, baseline outcomes (scores or absenteeism), and outcome pretrends.

RESULTS

More than 70% of SBHC-enrolled students had math (1194 [73.6%]) and reading 1186 [73.8%]) scores. Enrollees were more likely than nonenrollees to have asthma (39.7% vs 19.6%) and overweight/obesity (42.4% vs 33.6%). Adjusted baseline scores were significantly lower in math and reading for enrollees. Mean change from baseline for enrollees exceeded nonenrollees by 3.5 points (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.2, 4.8) in math and 2.1 points (95% CI: 0.9, 3.3) in reading. The adjusted rate of decrease in daily absenteeism was 10.8% greater for enrollees (incident rate ratio 0.772 [95% CI: 0.623, 0.956]) than nonenrollees (incident rate ratio 0.865 [95% CI: 0.696, 1.076]).

CONCLUSIONS

SBHC enrollees had greater health and educational risk but demonstrated more growth in math and reading and less absenteeism than nonenrollees.

Parental vaccine hesitancy and influenza vaccine type preferences during and after the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

Seasonal influenza vaccine (SIV) greatly reduces disease burden among school-aged children, yet parental vaccine hesitancy remains a persistent challenge. Two types of SIV are available for children in Hong Kong and other locations: inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV), administered through intramuscular injection, and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV), administered via nasal spray. We aimed to understand how vaccine hesitancy shaped parental preference for LAIV versus IIV, particularly amidst important public health events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the massive rollout of COVID-19 vaccination campaigns.

METHODS

We employed a concurrent mixed-methods design. The quantitative part involves longitudinal surveys spanning three years, from pre-pandemic to post-pandemic periods, tracking parental vaccine hesitancy and preference for SIV types. The qualitative part involves 48 in-depth interviews, providing insights into parental preference for SIV types, underlying reasons, and related values.

RESULTS

Our quantitative analyses show an overall increase in parental vaccine hesitancy and preference for LAIV over IIV after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and especially after the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign. Further logistic regression modelling based on the cohort data shows that higher vaccine hesitancy, coupled with the COVID-19 vaccination campaign rollout, predicts a greater preference for LAIV over IIV. The qualitative analysis complements these results, highlighting that LAIV's non-invasive nature aligns with parental values of prioritizing natural immunity and concerns about overmedication, leading to a more acceptable attitude towards LAIV.

CONCLUSIONS

Leveraging the higher acceptability of LAIV compared to IIV among parents with high vaccine hesitancy could promote childhood vaccination uptake.

Evaluation of a city-wide school-located influenza vaccination program in Oakland, California, with respect to vaccination coverage, school absences, and laboratory-confirmed influenza: A matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

It is estimated that vaccinating 50%-70% of school-aged children for influenza can produce population-wide indirect effects. We evaluated a city-wide school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) intervention that aimed to increase influenza vaccination coverage. The intervention was implemented in ≥95 preschools and elementary schools in northern California from 2014 to 2018. Using a matched cohort design, we estimated intervention impacts on student influenza vaccination coverage, school absenteeism, and community-wide indirect effects on laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalizations.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We used a multivariate matching algorithm to identify a nearby comparison school district with pre-intervention characteristics similar to those of the intervention school district and matched schools in each district. To measure student influenza vaccination, we conducted cross-sectional surveys of student caregivers in 22 school pairs (2017 survey, N = 6,070; 2018 survey, N = 6,507). We estimated the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalization from 2011 to 2018 using surveillance data from school district zip codes. We analyzed student absenteeism data from 2011 to 2018 from each district (N = 42,487,816 student-days). To account for pre-intervention differences between districts, we estimated difference-in-differences (DID) in influenza hospitalization incidence and absenteeism rates using generalized linear and log-linear models with a population offset for incidence outcomes. Prior to the SLIV intervention, the median household income was $51,849 in the intervention site and $61,596 in the comparison site. The population in each site was predominately white (41% in the intervention site, 48% in the comparison site) and/or of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (26% in the intervention site, 33% in the comparison site). The number of students vaccinated by the SLIV intervention ranged from 7,502 to 10,106 (22%-28% of eligible students) each year. During the intervention, influenza vaccination coverage among elementary students was 53%-66% in the comparison district. Coverage was similar between the intervention and comparison districts in influenza seasons 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 and was significantly higher in the intervention site in seasons 2016-2017 (7%; 95% CI 4, 11; p < 0.001) and 2017-2018 (11%; 95% CI 7, 15; p < 0.001). During seasons when vaccination coverage was higher among intervention schools and the vaccine was moderately effective, there was evidence of statistically significant indirect effects: The DID in the incidence of influenza hospitalization per 100,000 in the intervention versus comparison site was -17 (95% CI -30, -4; p = 0.008) in 2016-2017 and -37 (95% CI -54, -19; p < 0.001) in 2017-2018 among non-elementary-school-aged individuals and -73 (95% CI -147, 1; p = 0.054) in 2016-2017 and -160 (95% CI -267, -53; p = 0.004) in 2017-2018 among adults 65 years or older. The DID in illness-related school absences per 100 school days during the influenza season was -0.63 (95% CI -1.14, -0.13; p = 0.014) in 2016-2017 and -0.80 (95% CI -1.28, -0.31; p = 0.001) in 2017-2018. Limitations of this study include the use of an observational design, which may be subject to unmeasured confounding, and caregiver-reported vaccination status, which is subject to poor recall and low response rates.

CONCLUSIONS

A city-wide SLIV intervention in a large, diverse urban population was associated with a decrease in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalization in all age groups and a decrease in illness-specific school absence rate among students in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, seasons when the vaccine was moderately effective, suggesting that the intervention produced indirect effects. Our findings suggest that in populations with moderately high background levels of influenza vaccination coverage, SLIV programs are associated with further increases in coverage and reduced influenza across the community.

School-based interventions for reducing disciplinary school exclusion: a systematic review

This Campbell systematic review examines the impact of interventions to reduce exclusion from school. School exclusion, also known as suspension in some countries, is a disciplinary sanction imposed by a responsible school authority, in reaction to students' misbehaviour. Exclusion entails the removal of pupils from regular teaching for a period during which they are not allowed to be present in the classroom (in-school) or on school premises (out-of-school). In some extreme cases the student is not allowed to come back to the same school (expulsion). The review summarises findings from 37 reports covering nine different types of intervention. Most studies were from the USA, and the remainder from the UK. Included studies evaluated school-based interventions or school-supported interventions to reduce the rates of exclusion. Interventions were implemented in mainstream schools and targeted school-aged children from four to 18, irrespective of nationality or social background. Only randomised controlled trials are included. The evidence base covers 37 studies. Thirty-three studies were from the USA, three from the UK, and for one study the country was not clear. School-based interventions cause a small and significant drop in exclusion rates during the first six months after intervention (on average), but this effect is not sustained. Interventions seemed to be more effective at reducing some types of exclusion such as expulsion and in-school exclusion. Four intervention types - enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/monitoring, and skills training for teachers - had significant desirable effects on exclusion. However, the number of studies in each case is low, so this result needs to be treated with caution. There is no impact of the interventions on antisocial behaviour. Variations in effect sizes are not explained by participants' characteristics, the theoretical basis of the interventions, or the quality of the intervention. Independent evaluator teams reported lower effect sizes than research teams who were also involved in the design and/or delivery of the intervention.

Plain language summary

Interventions can reduce school exclusion but the effect is temporary: Some interventions - enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/monitoring, and skills training for teachers - appear to have significant effects on exclusion.The review in brief: Interventions to reduce school exclusion are intended to mitigate the adverse effects of this school sanction. Some approaches, namely those involving enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/monitoring and those targeting skills training for teachers, have a temporary effect in reducing exclusion. More evaluations are needed to identify the most effective types of intervention; and whether similar effects are also found in different countries.What is this review about?: School exclusion is associated with undesirable effects on developmental outcomes. It increases the likelihood of poor academic performance, antisocial behavior, and poor employment prospects. This school sanction disproportionally affects males, ethnic minorities, those who come from disadvantaged economic backgrounds, and those with special educational needs.This review assesses the effectiveness of programmes to reduce the prevalence of exclusion.What are the main findings of this review?: What studies are included? Included studies evaluated school-based interventions or school-supported interventions to reduce the rates of exclusion. Interventions were implemented in mainstream schools and targeted school-aged children from four to 18, irrespective of nationality or social background. Only randomised controlled trials are included.The evidence base covers 37 studies. Thirty-three studies were from the USA, three from the UK, and for one study the country was not clear.School-based interventions cause a small and significant drop in exclusion rates during the first six months after intervention (on average), but this effect is not sustained. Interventions seemed to be more effective at reducing some types of exclusion such as expulsion and in-school exclusion.Four intervention types - enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/ monitoring, and skills training for teachers - had significant desirable effects on exclusion. However, the number of studies in each case is low, so this result needs to be treated with caution.There is no impact of the interventions on antisocial behaviour.Variations in effect sizes are not explained by participants' characteristics, the theoretical basis of the interventions, or the quality of the intervention. Independent evaluator teams reported lower effect sizes than research teams who were also involved in the design and/or delivery of the intervention.What do the findings of this review mean?: School-based interventions are effective at reducing school exclusion immediately after, and for a few months after, the intervention (6 months on average). Four interventions presented promising and significant results in reducing exclusion, that is, enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/monitoring, skills training for teachers. However, since the number of studies for each sub-type of intervention was low, we suggest these results should be treated with caution.Most of the studies come from the USA. Evaluations are needed from other countries in which exclusion is common. Further research should take advantage of the possibility of conducting cluster-randomised controlled trials, whilst ensuring that the sample size is sufficiently large.How up-to-date is this review?: The review authors searched for studies published up to December 2015. This Campbell systematic review was published in January 2018.

Executive Summary/Abstract

BACKGROUND: Schools are important institutions of formal social control (Maimon, Antonaccio, & French, 2012). They are, apart from families, the primary social system in which individuals are socialised to follow specific codes of conduct. Violating these codes of conduct may result in some form of punishment. School punishment is normally accepted by families and students as a consequence of transgression, and in that sense school isoften the place where children are first introduced to discipline, justice, or injustice (Whitford & Levine-Donnerstein, 2014).A wide range of punishments may be used in schools, from verbal reprimands to more serious actions such as detention, fixed term exclusion or even permanent exclusion from the mainstream education system. It must be said that in some way, these school sanctions resemble the penal system and its array of alternatives to punish those that break the law.School exclusion, also known as suspension in some countries, is defined as a disciplinary sanction imposed by a responsible school authority, in reaction to students' misbehaviour. Exclusion entails the removal of pupils from regular teaching for a period during which they are not allowed to be present in the classroom or, in more serious cases, on school premises.Based on the previous definition, this review uses school exclusion and school suspension as synonyms, unless the contrary is explicitly stated. Most of the available research has found that exclusion correlates with subsequent negative sequels on developmental outcomes. Exclusion or suspension of students is associated with failure within the academic curriculum, aggravated antisocial behaviour, and an increased likelihood of involvement with punitive social control institutions (i.e., the Juvenile Justice System). In the long-term, opportunities for training and employment seem to be considerably reduced for those who have repeatedly been excluded. In addition to these negative correlated outcomes, previous evidence suggest that the exclusion of students involves a high economic cost for taxpayers and society.Research from the last 20 years has concluded quite consistently that this disciplinary measure disproportionally targets males, ethnic minorities, those who come from disadvantaged economic backgrounds, and those presenting special educational needs. In other words, suspension affects the most vulnerable children in schools.Different programmes have attempted to reduce the prevalence of exclusion. Although some of them have shown promising results, so far, no comprehensive systematic review has examined these programmes' overall effectiveness.OBJECTIVES: The main goal of the present research is to systematically examine the available evidence for the effectiveness of different types of school-based interventions aimed at reducing disciplinary school exclusion. Secondary goals include comparing different approaches and identifying those that could potentially demonstrate larger and more significant effects.The research questions underlying this project are as follows: Do school-based programmes reduce the use of exclusionary sanctions in schools?Are some school-based approaches more effective than others in reducing exclusionary sanctions?Do participants' characteristics (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity) affect the impact of school-based programmes on exclusionary sanctions in schools?Do characteristics of the interventions, implementation, and methodology affect the impact of school-based programmes on exclusionary sanctions in schools? SEARCH METHODS: The authors conducted a comprehensive search to locate relevant studies reporting on the impact of school-based interventions on exclusion from 1980 onwards. Twenty-seven different databases were consulted, including databases that contained both published and unpublished literature. In addition, we contacted researchers in the field of school-exclusion for further recommendations of relevant studies; we also assessed citation lists from previous systematic and narrative reviews and research reports. Searches were conducted from September 1 to December 1, 2015.SELECTION CRITERIA: The inclusion and exclusion criteria for manuscripts were defined before we started our searches. To be eligible, studies needed to have: evaluated school-based interventions or school-supported interventions intended to reduce the rates of suspension; seen the interventions as an alternative to exclusion; targeted school-aged children from four to 18 in mainstream schools irrespective of nationality or social background; and reported results of interventions delivered from 1980 onwards. In terms of methodological design, we included randomised controlled trialsonly, with at least one experimental group and onecontrol or placebo group.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Initial searches produced a total of 42,749 references from 27 different electronic databases. After screening the title, abstract and key words, we kept 1,474 relevant hits. 22 additional manuscripts were identified through other sources (e.g., assessment of citation lists, contribution of authors). After removing duplicates, we ended up with a total of 517 manuscripts. Two independent coders evaluated each report, to determine inclusion or exclusion.The second round of evaluation excluded 472 papers, with eight papers awaiting classification, and 37 studies kept for inclusion in meta-analysis. Two independent evaluators assessed all the included manuscripts for risk of quality bias by using EPOC tool.Due to the broad scope of our targeted programmes, meta-analysis was conducted under a random-effect model. We report the impact of the intervention using standardised differences of means, 95% confidence intervals along with the respective forest plots. Sub-group analysis and meta-regression were used for examining the impact of the programme. Funnel plots and Duval and Tweedie's trim-and-fill analysis were used to explore the effect of publication bias.RESULTS: Based on our findings, interventions settled in school can produce a small and significant drop in exclusion rates (SMD=.30; 95% CI .20 to .41; p<.001). This means that those participating in interventions are less likely to be suspended than those allocated to control/placebo groups. These results are based on measures of impact collected immediately during the first six months after treatment (on average). When the impact was tested in the long-term (i.e., 12 or more months after treatment), the effects of the interventions were not sustained. In fact, there was a substantive reduction in the impact of school-based programmes (SMD=.15; 95%CI -.06 to .35), and it was no longer statistically significant.We ran analysis testing the impact of school-based interventions on different types of exclusion. Evidence suggests that interventions are more effective at reducing expulsion and in-school exclusion than out-of-school exclusion. In fact, the impact of intervention in out-of-school exclusion was close to zero and not statistically significant.Nine different types of school-based interventions were identified across the 37 studies included in the review. Four of them presented favourable and significant results in reducing exclusion (i.e., enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/monitoring, skills training for teachers). Since the number of studies for each sub-type of intervention was low, we suggest that results should be treated with caution.A priori defined moderators (i.e., participants' characteristics, the theoretical basis of the interventions, and quality of the intervention)showed not to be effective at explaining the heterogeneity present in our results. Among three post-hoc moderators, the role of the evaluator was found to be significant: independent evaluator teams reported lower effect sizes than research teams who were also involved in the design and/or delivery of the intervention.Two researchers independently evaluated the quality of the evidence involved in this review by using the EPOC tool. Most of the studies did not present enough information for the judgement of quality bias.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that school-based interventions are effective at reducing school exclusion immediately after, and for a few months after, the intervention. Some specific types of interventions show more promising and stable results than others, namely those involving mentoring/monitoring and those targeting skills training for teachers. However, based on the number of studies involved in our calculations, we suggest that results must be cautiously interpreted. Implications for policy and practice arising from our results are discussed.

Illness absenteeism rates in primary and secondary schools in 2013–2014 in England: was there any impact of vaccinating children of primary-school age against influenza?

A phased introduction of routine influenza vaccination of healthy children was recommended in the UK in 2012, with the aim of protecting both vaccinated children and the wider population through reducing transmission. In the first year of the programme in 2013–2014, 4- to 11-year-olds were targeted in pilot areas across England. This study assesses if this was associated with school absenteeism, an important societal burden of influenza. During the spring 2014 term when influenza predominantly circulated, the proportion of absence sessions due to illness was compared between vaccination pilot and non-pilot areas for primary schools (to measure overall impact) and secondary schools (to measure indirect impact). A linear multilevel regression model was applied, adjusting for clustering within schools and potential school-level confounders, including deprivation, past absenteeism, and ethnicity. Low levels of influenza activity were reported in the community in 2013–2014. Primary schools in pilot areas had a significantly adjusted decrease in illness absenteeism of 0·05% relative to non-pilot schools; equivalent to an average of 4 days per school. In secondary schools, there was no significant indirect impact of being located in a pilot area on illness absenteeism. These insights can be used in conjunction with routine healthcare surveillance data to evaluate the full benefits of such a programme.

Efficacy and effectiveness of live attenuated influenza vaccine in school-age children

Evidence of high efficacy of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) from randomized controlled trials is strong for children 2-6 years of age, but fewer data exist for older school-age children. We reviewed the published data on efficacy and effectiveness of LAIV in children ≥5 years. QUOSA (Elsevier database) was searched for articles published from January 1990 to June 2014 that included 'FluMist', 'LAIV', 'CAIV', 'cold adapted influenza vaccine', 'live attenuated influenza vaccine', 'live attenuated cold adapted' or 'flu mist'. Studies evaluated included randomized controlled trials, effectiveness and indirect protection studies. This review demonstrates that LAIV has considerable efficacy and effectiveness in school-age children.

Vaccination of children with a live-attenuated, intranasal influenza vaccine - analysis and evaluation through a Health Technology Assessment

BACKGROUND

Influenza is a worldwide prevalent infectious disease of the respiratory tract annually causing high morbidity and mortality in Germany. Influenza is preventable by vaccination and this vaccination is so far recommended by the The German Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO) as a standard vaccination for people from the age of 60 onwards. Up to date a parenterally administered trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV) has been in use almost exclusively. Since 2011 however a live-attenuated vaccine (LAIV) has been approved additionally. Consecutively, since 2013 the STIKO recommends LAIV (besides TIV) for children from 2 to 17 years of age, within the scope of vaccination by specified indications. LAIV should be preferred administered in children from 2 to 6 of age. The objective of this Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is to address various research issues regarding the vaccination of children with LAIV. The analysis was performed from a medical, epidemiological and health economic perspective, as well as from an ethical, social and legal point of view.

METHOD

An extensive systematic database research was performed to obtain relevant information. In addition a supplementary research by hand was done. Identified literature was screened in two passes by two independent reviewers using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Included literature was evaluated in full-text using acknowledged standards. Studies were graded with the highest level of evidence (1++), if they met the criteria of European Medicines Agency (EMA)-Guidance: Points to consider on applications with 1. meta-analyses; 2. one pivotal study.

RESULTS

For the medical section, the age of the study participants ranges from 6 months to 17 years. Regarding study efficacy, in children aged 6 months to ≤7 years, LAIV is superior to placebo as well as to a vac-cination with TIV (Relative Risk Reduction - RRR - of laboratory confirmed influenza infection approx. 80% and 50%, respectively). In children aged >7 to 17 years (= 18th year of their lives), LAIV is superior to a vaccination with TIV (RRR 32%). For this age group, no studies that compared LAIV with placebo were identified. It can be concluded that there is high evidence for superior efficacy of LAIV (compared to placebo or TIV) among children aged 6 months to ≤7 years. For children from >7 to 17 years, there is moderate evidence for superiority of LAIV for children with asthma, while direct evidence for children from the general population is lacking for this age group. Due to the efficacy of LAIV in children aged 6 months to ≤7 years (high evidence) and the efficacy of LAIV in children with asthma aged >7 to 17 years (moderate evidence), LAIV is also very likely to be efficacious among children in the general population aged >7 to 17 years (indirect evidence). In the included studies with children aged 2 to 17 years, LAIV was safe and well-tolerated; while in younger children LAIV may increase the risk of obstruction of the airways (e.g. wheezing). In the majority of the evaluated epidemiological studies, LAIV proved to be effective in the prevention of influenza among children aged 2-17 years under everyday conditions (effectiveness). The trend appears to indicate that LAIV is more effective than TIV, although this can only be based on limited evidence for methodological reasons (observational studies). In addition to a direct protective effect for vaccinated children themselves, indirect protective ("herd protection") effects were reported among non-vaccinated elderly population groups, even at relatively low vaccination coverage of children. With regard to safety, LAIV generally can be considered equivalent to TIV. This also applies to the use among children with mild chronically obstructive conditions, from whom LAIV therefore does not have to be withheld. In all included epidemiological studies, there was some risk of bias identified, e.g. due to residual confounding or other methodology-related sources of error. In the evaluated studies, both the vaccination of children with previous illnesses and the routine vaccination of (healthy) children frequently involve cost savings. This is especially the case if one includes indirect costs from a societal perspective. From a payer perspective, a routine vaccination of children is often regarded as a highly cost-effective intervention. However, not all of the studies arrive at consistent results. In isolated cases, relatively high levels of cost-effectiveness are reported that make it difficult to perform a conclusive assessment from an economic perspective. Based on the included studies, it is not possible to make a clear statement about the budget impact of using LAIV. None of the evaluated studies provides results for the context of the German healthcare setting. The efficacy of the vaccine, physicians' recommendations, and a potential reduction in influenza symptoms appear to play a role in the vaccination decision taken by parents/custodians on behalf of their children. Major barriers to the utilization of influenza vaccination services are a low level of perception and an underestimation of the disease risk, reservations concerning the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, and potential side effects of the vaccine. For some of the parents surveyed, the question as to whether the vaccine is administered as an injection or nasal spray might also be important.

CONCLUSION

In children aged 2 to 17 years, the use of LAIV can lead to a reduction of the number of influenza cases and the associated burden of disease. In addition, indirect preventive effects may be expected, especially among elderly age groups. Currently there are no data available for the German healthcare setting. Long-term direct and indirect effectiveness and safety should be supported by surveillance programs with a broader use of LAIV. Since there is no general model available for the German healthcare setting, statements concerning the cost-effectiveness can be made only with precaution. Beside this there is a need to conduct health eco-nomic studies to show the impact of influenza vaccination for children in Germany. Such studies should be based on a dynamic transmission model. Only these models are able to include the indirect protective effects of vaccination correctly. With regard to ethical, social and legal aspects, physicians should discuss with parents the motivations for vaccinating their children and upcoming barriers in order to achieve broader vaccination coverage. The present HTA provides an extensive basis for further scientific approaches and pending decisions relating to health policy.

Implementing and sustaining school-located influenza vaccination programs: perspectives from five diverse school districts

Local health departments have typically led school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) programs, assuming resource-intensive roles in design, coordination, and vaccination. This level of involvement is often not financially sustainable over time. Five diverse school districts in Los Angeles County designed, implemented, refined, and institutionalized their own SLIV programs over 3 years by identifying and maximizing their existing resources. School district nurses and other staff served as project leaders, designing their own vaccination administration process, parental consent, and clinic promotional models. Two districts expanded their existing school immunization clinics and three developed their vaccination capacity with community partnerships. Each district tailored its program in creative resource-minimum ways, sometimes abandoning or adopting new methods/technologies based on the effectiveness in previous seasons. The shared experiences and strategies between district nurses and the local health department described in this article illustrate a district's ability to develop a tailor-made SLIV program, often in less than ideal conditions.

Sickness absenteeism rate in Iranian schools during the 2009 epidemic of type a influenza

Influenza pandemic was a global event in 2009 and intraschool transmission was its main spread method. The present study was designed to evaluate the absenteeism rate during the type A influenza epidemic. Four hundred and eight students from both a guidance school and high school in the Iranian capital were recruited in this retrospective study. The number of days of absenteeism, since the beginning of the school year until the end of the epidemic was recorded. Two hundred and thirteen students missed school during the disease epidemic because of related causes. In other words, 581 person day absences were reported during this period. The influenza pandemic has led to an increase in the absenteeism rate and may negatively affect the academic performance of the students. Teaching precautionary measures is an effective tool in reducing the number of days of sickness.

Factors associated with increased vaccination in 2009 H1N1 school-located influenza vaccination programs

In the United States, school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) programs have increased significantly in recent years. In June 2010, the Office of Inspector General issued a report regarding 38 elementary school H1N1 SLIV programs conducted in 6 localities in November/December 2009. By locality, there was a mean of 14 to 46 first doses of vaccine administered per 100 students. The locality that conducted programs in early November had a higher uptake rate than localities with later programs (46 vs 21 per 100 students; p < 0.01). Among localities with programs in mid- to late-November, the locality with programs after school hours had a lower uptake rate than the two localities with programs during school hours (16 vs. 28, p = 0.05 and 16 vs. 30, p < 0.01, respectively). These data suggest that future SLIV programs may achieve higher uptake rates if conducted during school hours with advance parental consent and when parental demand is highest.

Safety of live attenuated influenza vaccine in mild to moderately immunocompromised children with cancer

BACKGROUND

The safety of intranasal live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) in immunocompromised children with cancer is unknown. The objective of this study was to describe the safety and immunogenicity of LAIV in mild to moderately immunocompromised children with cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study of LAIV versus placebo in children aged 5-17 years with cancer. LAIV (frozen formulation) or allantoic fluid/buffer was administered intranasally. Reactogenicity, adverse events, blood for immune assays, and nasal swabs for viral shedding were obtained during 5 visits over the first 42 days postvaccination; information concerning serious adverse events (SAEs) was collected for 180 days.

RESULTS

20 subjects were enrolled (LAIV, n=10; placebo, n=10) with a mean age of 12.2 years. Ten subjects had hematologic malignancy (LAIV, n=4; placebo, n=6); 10 subjects had solid tumors (LAIV, n=6; placebo, n=4). One subject was excluded from immunogenicity analysis for not receiving a full dose of LAIV. LAIV resulted in an increased incidence of runny nose/nasal congestion occurring in all LAIV recipients; no related SAEs were observed. Four of 10 LAIV recipients shed vaccine virus, with none exceeding 7-10 days duration. LAIV demonstrated modest immunogenicity by hemagglutination inhibition (≥ 4 fold rise for any strain, 33%) and microneutralization assays (≥ 4 fold rise for any strain, 44%).

CONCLUSION

In this small pilot study conducted in mild to moderately immunocompromised children with cancer, runny nose/nasal congestion was increased in LAIV recipients, no related SAEs occurred, and prolonged viral shedding was not detected. Moderate immunogenicity was demonstrated in this small group of individuals.

An integrated, multistudy analysis of the safety of Ann Arbor strain live attenuated influenza vaccine in children aged 2-17 years

Please cite this paper as: Ambrose et al. (2011) An integrated, multistudy analysis of the safety of Ann Arbor strain live attenuated influenza vaccine in children aged 2–17 years. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 5(6), 389–397.

Background  Trivalent, Ann Arbor strain, live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) is approved in several countries for use in eligible children aged ≥2 years.

Objective  To describe the safety of Ann Arbor strain LAIV in children aged 2–17 years.

Methods  An integrated analysis of randomized, controlled trials of LAIV.

Results  A total of 4245 and 10 693 children received ≥1 dose of LAIV in year 1 of 6 trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV)‐controlled and 14 placebo‐controlled studies, respectively; 3212 children were revaccinated in year 2 of 4 placebo‐controlled studies. Compared with placebo for days 0–10 post‐vaccination, LAIV recipients exhibited increased runny/stuffy nose (+7%), headache (+7%), and tiredness/decreased activity (+2%) after dose 1; and a higher rate of decreased appetite (+4%) after year 2 revaccination. Compared with TIV, only runny/stuffy nose was increased (dose 1, +12%; dose 2, +4%). Compared with initial vaccination, LAIV reactogenicity was lower after dose 2 in year 1 and revaccination in year 2. Unsolicited adverse events (AEs) increased with LAIV in some comparisons were headache, nasal congestion/rhinorrhea, rhinitis, and pyrexia; ear pain and lower respiratory illness were decreased. There was no evidence of an increase in any potential vaccine‐related serious AE in LAIV recipients. Among children aged 2–17 years and specifically aged 24–35 months, there was no evidence that lower respiratory illness or wheezing illness occurred at a higher rate in LAIV recipients.

Conclusion  This analysis supports the safety of Ann Arbor strain LAIV in children aged 2–17 years and provides a consensus assessment of events expected after vaccination.

Current experience with school-located influenza vaccination programs in the United States: a review of the medical literature

In the United States, all children 6 months through 18 years of age are recommended to be vaccinated against influenza annually. However, the existing pediatric immunization infrastructure does not have the capacity to vaccinate a high proportion of children each year. School-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) programs provide an opportunity to immunize large numbers of school-age children. We reviewed the medical literature in order to document the current U.S. experience to benefit future SLIV programs. Published reports or abstracts for 36 SLIV programs were identified, some of which spanned multiple years. The programs immunized between 70-128,228 students. While most programs vaccinated 40-50% of students, coverage ranged from 7-73%. Higher percentages of elementary students were vaccinated compared with middle and high school students. While many programs offered only intranasal vaccine, several programs have successfully used both the intranasal and injectable vaccines. Faculty and staff were immunized in some programs and uptake in this group varied considerably. Students were vaccinated quickly during school hours. Costs, where reported, ranged from approximately $20-$27 per dose delivered, including both vaccine and administration costs. The greatest need for future U.S. SLIV program implementation is the development of a financially sustainable model that can be replicated annually on a national scale.

The Impact of School-Located Influenza Vaccination Programs on Student Absenteeism

A literature review was conducted to summarize the impact of school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) programs on school absenteeism. Seven studies were identified: six peer-reviewed articles and one conference presentation. The number of students vaccinated ranged from 185 to 5,315, representing 35–86% of enrolled students. Six studies compared absenteeism for students in SLIV schools and control schools; all found absenteeism decreased in SLIV schools. Three studies compared absenteeism for vaccinated and unvaccinated students in SLIV schools; all found that absenteeism was reduced for vaccinated students. Benefits were also reported to extend beyond the vaccinated children; one study found that absenteeism was significantly reduced among high school students when elementary school students were vaccinated. The available evidence indicates that SLIV programs reduce student absenteeism during the influenza season. Additional research into sustainable funding sources and the comprehensive effects of SLIV programs on students, families, staff, and the community is warranted.