Systematic review found that there was moderate evidence that vaccinating healthcare workers prevented pertussis in infants

Pertussis antibodies and vaccination coverage among healthcare professionals in Brazil is inadequate: A cross-sectional serological study

INTRODUCTION

Worldwide, tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccination coverage of healthcare professionals (HCPs) is below 40%, but this data is not available for Brazil. We hypothesize that a high number of HCPs are not immune to pertussis in Brazil. Main objective was to determine the seroprevalence of anti-pertussis toxin (anti-PT IgG) among HCPs. Secondary objectives were to evaluate Tdap vaccination coverage, to assess predictive factors associated with anti-PT IgG, and to estimate the decay of anti-PT IgG and time to Tdap vaccination.

METHODS

Observational cross-sectional serological study in 352 HCPs who worked at São Paulo Hospital - Federal University of São Paulo (UNIFESP) in 2020, approved by UNIFESP Ethics Committee. Data collected included sociodemographics, knowledge about Tdap, and vaccination status. Anti-PT IgG were quantified by ELISA: <10 IU/mL seronegative and ≥ 10-1000 IU/mL seropositive. Titers ≥ 10-50 IU/mL were classified low positivity, indicating no recent B. pertussis infection or Tdap vaccination; >50 IU/mL high positivity, indicating recent B. pertussis infection or Tdap vaccination, and > 100 IU/mL as acute B. pertussis infection or Tdap vaccination in the previous year. Comparisons were done by Chi-square test, multivariable logistic regression, and Pearsońs correlation, at 5% p-level.

RESULTS

331/352 HCPs were not aware the Brazilian National Immunization Program recommends Tdap for all HCPs and pregnant women. 68/339 HCPs received Tdap (mean 3.1 ± 2.0 years). 55/352 were seronegative for pertussis, all unvaccinated. 56/271 with no history of Tdap vaccination had high positivity. The probability of anti-PT IgG > 50 IU/mL was 11.5 times higher in Tdap vaccinated HCPs than in non-vaccinated (p < 0.001). There was a weak but significant correlation between anti-PT IgG and interval of Tdap vaccination (r = 0.404; p = 0.001). Anti-PT IgG dropped 5 IU/mL/year (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Better education of HCPs on needs and benefits of Tdap vaccination is critical. Goals must be to improve HCPs vaccination coverage.

Vaccinating Front-Line Healthcare Workers: Results of a Pre-Pandemic Cross-Sectional Study from North-Eastern Italy on First Responders

First responders are front-line healthcare workers who are potentially exposed to different infectious agents. Characterizing their knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) towards immunization, therefore, has the potential to significantly improve occupational health and safety. A cross-sectional study was performed in October 2018 using a sample of 161 first responders from the Parma Province (mean age 45.1 ± 14.1 years; seniority 10.8 ± 8.6 years). The participants were questioned on three recommended vaccinations (i.e., the seasonal influenza, measles, and pertussis vaccines) and on meningococcal vaccines (not officially recommended for first responders). The participant’s knowledge status and risk perception were assessed as percentage values through a specifically designed questionnaire. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for factors associated with vaccination status were calculated by means of a binary logistic regression analysis. The internal consistency result, calculated using a general knowledge test, was good (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.894), but the corresponding score was unsatisfying (46.5% ± 32.4), evidencing uncertainties surrounding the recommendations for measles and meningococcal vaccines (39.1% and 34.2% incorrect answers, respectively). While the large majority of respondents were favorable towards the meningococcal (89.4%), measles (87.5%), and pertussis vaccines (83.0%), 55.3% exhibited a favorable attitude toward the seasonal influenza vaccine, the uptake of which in 2018, was reported by 28.0% of respondents, compared to the self-reported lifetime status for meningitis (26.1%), measles (42.2%), and pertussis (34.8%). Not coincidentally, all assessed infections were associated with a low-risk perception score, particularly influenza (33.9% ± 18.4). Interestingly enough, neither knowledge status nor risk perception were associated with vaccination rates. More precisely, the main predictor for being vaccinated against seasonal influenza in 2018 was a seniority of ≥10 years (aOR 3.26, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.35–7.91), while both pertussis and measles were positively associated with higher educational achievement (aOR 3.27, 95%CI 1.29–8.30; and aOR 2.69, 95%CI 1.09–6.65, respectively). The reasons for vaccination gaps among the sampled first responders, apparently, did not find their roots in inappropriate knowledge status and risk perception alone. However, the very low rates of sampled immunization lead us to recommend stronger and more appropriate information campaigns.

Risk of transmission of vaccine-preventable diseases in healthcare settings

The transmission of infectious agents within healthcare settings is a priority public health problem. Although the main burden of healthcare-associated infections is commonly caused by Gram-negative bacteria and fungi, vaccine-preventable diseases represent an additional infectious risk for patients attending healthcare facilities. Hepatitis B, rotavirus gastroenteritis, influenza, measles, pertussis and pneumococcal and meningococcal invasive bacterial infections still represent a threat, notwithstanding the presence of universal vaccination programs. For this reason, healthcare worker immunization is an important strategy to limit the risk of vaccine-preventable diseases in such a fragile population.

Protocol of a scoping review assessing injury rates and their determinants among healthcare workers in western countries

INTRODUCTION

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are exposed to various risk factors and risky behaviours that may seriously affect their health and ability to work. The aim of this protocol is to detail the steps to follow in order to carry out a scoping review to assess the prevalence/incidence of injuries among HCWs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study will be carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Protocols guidelines. Studies will be selected according to the following criteria: P (HCWs), E (exposure to injuries), C (different types of exposure and different categories of HCWs) and O (prevalence/incidence and determinants of injuries). A time filter has been set (literature between 2000 and 2018) to enable updated, direct comparison between the findings and the epidemiological data available at national and local 'Istituto Nazionale per l'Assicurazione contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro' (National Institute for Insurance Against Accidents at Work) centres in Italy. No language restriction will be applied.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Formal ethical approval is not required; primary data will not be collected, as they have already been published. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication(s), conference presentation(s) and the press.