Side effects of influenza vaccination in healthy older people: a randomised single-blind placebo-controlled trial

Early solicited adverse events following the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination, a population survey from Saudi Arabia

Post rollout safety for the coronavirus disease vaccines is crucial and recommended. To explore the early solicited adverse events (AE) following BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination in Saudi Arabia, we distributed an online survey to adults vaccinated with BNT162b2 over the first week of June 2021, to collect data on first (V1), second doses (V2), symptoms, severity, and outcome after an informed consent was obtained. We recruited 3639 BNT162b2 vaccinated individuals, of which one-third had received two doses, 63.3% were female, 77% were healthy, and 89% had 18-55 years of age, while only 9.8% had a history of allergy. Overall, 50.3% had any AEs after any dose, especially those younger than 55 years of age, female, history of comorbidity, and when adjusted for age and gender, lung or cardiovascular diseases. Overall, the most common AE were pain at the injection site (44%), tiredness (39%), or body ache (31%). Compared to V1, a higher rate of post-V2 systemic AE (36% vs. 51%). Most AEs started very early (within 3 days), and rarely delayed in recovery (>2 weeks). Anti-pyretic was the most commonly used (51.7%), a third of which was unnecessary. Only 1.7% required hospital admission. By multivariate analysis, predictors for admission were the presence of lung or immunocompromising diseases. In conclusion, common AEs after BNT162b2 in the real world were generally mild, self-limiting, higher after the second dose, and largely mimicking that reported in clinical trials. The causality of these AE and the persistence of post-vaccination symptoms needs to be investigated further.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly

BACKGROUND

The consequences of influenza in the elderly (those age 65 years or older) are complications, hospitalisations, and death. The primary goal of influenza vaccination in the elderly is to reduce the risk of death among people who are most vulnerable. This is an update of a review published in 2010. Future updates of this review will be made only when new trials or vaccines become available. Observational data included in previous versions of the review have been retained for historical reasons but have not been updated because of their lack of influence on the review conclusions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (efficacy, effectiveness, and harm) of vaccines against influenza in the elderly.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 11), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register; MEDLINE (1966 to 31 December 2016); Embase (1974 to 31 December 2016); Web of Science (1974 to 31 December 2016); CINAHL (1981 to 31 December 2016); LILACS (1982 to 31 December 2016); WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 1 July 2017); and ClinicalTrials.gov (1 July 2017).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing efficacy against influenza (laboratory-confirmed cases) or effectiveness against influenza-like illness (ILI) or safety. We considered any influenza vaccine given independently, in any dose, preparation, or time schedule, compared with placebo or with no intervention. Previous versions of this review included 67 cohort and case-control studies. The searches for these trial designs are no longer updated.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We rated the certainty of evidence with GRADE for the key outcomes of influenza, ILI, complications (hospitalisation, pneumonia), and adverse events. We have presented aggregate control group risks to illustrate the effect in absolute terms. We used them as the basis for calculating the number needed to vaccinate to prevent one case of each event for influenza and ILI outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified eight RCTs (over 5000 participants), of which four assessed harms. The studies were conducted in community and residential care settings in Europe and the USA between 1965 and 2000. Risk of bias reduced our certainty in the findings for influenza and ILI, but not for other outcomes.Older adults receiving the influenza vaccine may experience less influenza over a single season compared with placebo, from 6% to 2.4% (risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.66; low-certainty evidence). We rated the evidence as low certainty due to uncertainty over how influenza was diagnosed. Older adults probably experience less ILI compared with those who do not receive a vaccination over the course of a single influenza season (3.5% versus 6%; RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.73; moderate-certainty evidence). These results indicate that 30 people would need to be vaccinated to prevent one person experiencing influenza, and 42 would need to be vaccinated to prevent one person having an ILI.The study providing data for mortality and pneumonia was underpowered to detect differences in these outcomes. There were 3 deaths from 522 participants in the vaccination arm and 1 death from 177 participants in the placebo arm, providing very low-certainty evidence for the effect on mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.11 to 9.72). No cases of pneumonia occurred in one study that reported this outcome (very low-certainty evidence). No data on hospitalisations were reported. Confidence intervaIs around the effect of vaccines on fever and nausea were wide, and we do not have enough information about these harms in older people (fever: 1.6% with placebo compared with 2.5% after vaccination (RR 1.57, 0.92 to 2.71; moderate-certainty evidence)); nausea (2.4% with placebo compared with 4.2% after vaccination (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.74 to 4.12; low-certainty evidence)).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Older adults receiving the influenza vaccine may have a lower risk of influenza (from 6% to 2.4%), and probably have a lower risk of ILI compared with those who do not receive a vaccination over the course of a single influenza season (from 6% to 3.5%). We are uncertain how big a difference these vaccines will make across different seasons. Very few deaths occurred, and no data on hospitalisation were reported. No cases of pneumonia occurred in one study that reported this outcome. We do not have enough information to assess harms relating to fever and nausea in this population.The evidence for a lower risk of influenza and ILI with vaccination is limited by biases in the design or conduct of the studies. Lack of detail regarding the methods used to confirm the diagnosis of influenza limits the applicability of this result. The available evidence relating to complications is of poor quality, insufficient, or old and provides no clear guidance for public health regarding the safety, efficacy, or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older. Society should invest in research on a new generation of influenza vaccines for the elderly.

Viral RNA in the influenza vaccine may have contributed to the development of ANCA-associated vasculitis in a patient following immunisation

A number of large studies have demonstrated influenza vaccinations to be safe and effective. However, there have been some sporadic case reports, describing a temporal association of influenza vaccination with onset or relapse of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis. The nature of this association, beyond time of occurrence, remains unknown. The presentation of a previously healthy patient who developed ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) shortly after influenza vaccination provided us with the rare opportunity to study the possible mechanisms behind this observation. We tested the ability of different types and batches of influenza vaccines to stimulate proteinase-3 ANCA (PR3-ANCA) production in vitro. We found that only some influenza vaccines stimulated PR3-ANCA production in this patient. We demonstrated that this unusual response was associated with those vaccines that contained viral ribonucleic acid (RNA), the natural ligand for Toll-like receptor-7. Exome sequencing of the patient's DNA did not show any mutation in any of the molecules associated with Toll-like receptor signalling. We propose that hyper-reaction to viral RNA in the influenza vaccine may have contributed to the development of AAV following influenza vaccination in this patient.

Proinflammatory cytokine responses correspond with subjective side effects after influenza virus vaccination

BACKGROUND

Though typically mild, side effects to the influenza virus vaccine are common and may contribute to negative perceptions including the belief that the vaccine can cause the flu. However, the extent to which subjective symptoms correspond with biological response indicators is poorly understood.

METHODS

This study examined associations among subjective side effects (soreness at the site of injection and illness-like symptoms), serum proinflammatory cytokines and body temperature a baseline, 1, 2, and 3 days following receipt of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3) in a sample of 56 women 18-40 years in age.

RESULTS

In relation to local reactions, women reporting being very sore at the injection site at 1 day post-vaccination exhibited greater increases in serum TNF-α and MIF in the days following vaccination compared to those with no or mild soreness. In addition, higher basal body temperature was observed in this group compared to other groups (98.7°F versus 98.0-98.1°). In relation to systemic reactions, women endorsing illness-like symptoms (headache, fatigue, nausea, sore throat, dizziness, achiness, or mild fever) exhibited marginally higher IL-6 at baseline (p=0.055) and greater increases in serum MIF at 2 days post-vaccination than those reporting no systemic symptoms. Associations of systemic symptoms with inflammatory responses were not accounted for by concomitant local reactions. As expected, antibody responses to the vaccine were highly similar in women regardless of local or systemic symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

These results are consistent with the notion that subjective reports of local and systemic reactions following vaccination may be predicted by and correspond with biological indicators of inflammatory status, but are not meaningful predictors of antibody responses. To improve adherence to vaccine recommendations, clinicians should provide assurance that such symptoms may be related to normal mild inflammatory responses to the vaccine and do not reflect immunogenicity.

Measuring experiences and outcomes of patient safety in primary care: a systematic review of available instruments

BACKGROUND

Despite the enormous potential for adverse events in primary care, the knowledge base about patient safety in this context is still sparse. The lack of appropriate measurement methods is a key factor limiting the development of research in this field.

OBJECTIVE

To identify and characterize available patient reported instruments to measure patient safety in primary care.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review. We searched in bibliographic sources for empirical studies describing the development, evaluation or use of patient reported instruments assessing patient safety in primary care. Study selection and data extraction were independently conducted by two researchers.

RESULTS

We identified 28 studies reporting on 23 different instruments. Fifteen instruments were designed for paper-based self-administration, six for phone interview and two consisted in electronic reporting systems. Most instruments focused on specific aspects of patient safety, most commonly on experiences of adverse drug reactions. Face validity was assessed for 10 instruments (43%), three reported construct validity (13%) and three described reliability (13%). Responsiveness was not ascertained.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there is evidence of good psychometric properties for a reduced number of patient reported instruments, currently available instruments do not offer a comprehensive set of resources to measure the effects of interventions to improve patient safety in primary care from a patient perspective. Future research in the field should prioritize (i) the evaluation of the performance of already available instruments and (ii) the development of new instruments that enable an comprehensive assessment of patient safety at general practices.

[Flu vaccination in the elderly]

Seasonal flu is a very serious public health problem in the elderly due to its morbidity and mortality and financial and social costs arising from this. The aim of this review is to describe the magnitude and importance of seasonal flu in this population group, and its prevention by means of vaccination. For this reason, an updated account of the composition of the vaccine, its dosage and administration route, vaccine safety and the evaluation of the immunogenicity and effectiveness of vaccination. There is variation between different countries and official organisations on the age at which flu vaccination must be established in the elderly. New flu vaccination strategies need to be introduced, to further improve flu vaccination cover in Spain.

Cost-effective approaches to influenza prevention and treatment

Influenza, the seventh leading cause of death in the USA, accounts for 35,000 deaths and over 200,000 hospitalizations annually in that country alone. Recent advances in influenza vaccines, diagnosis and treatment have created numerous options for practicing clinicians, as well as economic opportunities for the makers of vaccines, rapid diagnostic tests and antiviral drugs. Since influenza-like illness affects up to half of the population each year, selective use of expensive tests and treatments is essential to the practice of cost-effective medicine. Over the past 5 years, dozens of economic evaluations of influenza vaccination, rapid testing and antiviral therapy have been published, many of which are free of commercial bias. The existing literature, drawing practical lessons for clinical practice is reviewed, and new developments on the horizon are explored including vaccines, surveillance methods, antiviral agents and pandemic preparedness.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly

BACKGROUND

Vaccines have been the main global weapon to minimise the impact of influenza in the elderly for the last four decades and are recommended worldwide for individuals aged 65 years or older. The primary goal of influenza vaccination in the elderly is to reduce the risk of complications among persons who are most vulnerable.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing influenza, influenza-like illness (ILI), hospital admissions, complications and mortality in the elderly. To identify and appraise comparative studies evaluating the effects of influenza vaccines in the elderly. To document types and frequency of adverse effects associated with influenza vaccines in the elderly.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 4); MEDLINE (January 1966 to October Week 1 2009); EMBASE (1974 to October 2009) and Web of Science (1974 to October 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cohort and case-control studies assessing efficacy against influenza (laboratory-confirmed cases) or effectiveness against influenza-like illness (ILI) or safety. Any influenza vaccine given independently, in any dose, preparation or time schedule, compared with placebo or with no intervention was considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We grouped reports first according to the setting of the study (community or long-term care facilities) and then by level of viral circulation and vaccine matching. We further stratified by co-administration of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV) and by different types of influenza vaccines. We analysed the following outcomes: influenza, influenza-like illness, hospital admissions, complications and deaths.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 studies. Overall we identified 100 data sets. We identified one RCT assessing efficacy and effectiveness. Although this seemed to show an effect against influenza symptoms it was underpowered to detect any effect on complications (1348 participants). The remainder of our evidence base included non-RCTs. Due to the general low quality of non-RCTs and the likely presence of biases, which make interpretation of these data difficult and any firm conclusions potentially misleading, we were unable to reach clear conclusions about the effects of the vaccines in the elderly.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence is of poor quality and provides no guidance regarding the safety, efficacy or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older. To resolve the uncertainty, an adequately powered publicly-funded randomised, placebo-controlled trial run over several seasons should be undertaken.

Development and psychometric validation of a self-administered questionnaire assessing the acceptance of influenza vaccination: the Vaccinees' Perception of Injection (VAPI) questionnaire

BACKGROUND

Influenza is among the most common infectious diseases. The main protection against influenza is vaccination. A self-administered questionnaire was developed and validated for use in clinical trials to assess subjects' perception and acceptance of influenza vaccination and its subsequent injection site reactions (ISR).

METHODS

The VAPI questionnaire was developed based on interviews with vaccinees. The initial version was administered to subjects in international clinical trials comparing intradermal with intramuscular influenza vaccination. Item reduction and scale construction were carried out using principal component and multitrait analyses (n = 549). Psychometric validation of the final version was conducted per country (n = 5,543) and included construct and clinical validity and internal consistency reliability. All subjects gave their written informed consent before being interviewed or included in the clinical studies.

RESULTS

The final questionnaire comprised 4 dimensions ("bother from ISR"; "arm movement"; "sleep"; "acceptability") grouping 16 items, and 5 individual items (anxiety before vaccination; bother from pain during vaccination; satisfaction with injection system; willingness to be vaccinated next year; anxiety about vaccination next year). Construct validity was confirmed for all scales in most of the countries. Internal consistency reliability was good for all versions (Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.68 to 0.94), as was clinical validity: scores were positively correlated with the severity of ISR and pain.

CONCLUSION

The VAPI questionnaire is a valid and reliable tool, assessing the acceptance of vaccine injection and reactions following vaccination.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly

BACKGROUND

Influenza vaccination of elderly individuals is recommended worldwide and has been targeted toward the elderly and those at serious risk of complications.

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to review the evidence of efficacy, effectiveness and safety of influenza vaccines in individuals aged 65 years or older.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following databases on The Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (Issue 1, 2006); MEDLINE (January 1966 to March Week 3 2006); EMBASE (Dialog 1974 to 1979; SilverPlatter 1980 to December 2005); Biological Abstracts (SilverPlatter 1969 to December 2004); and Science Citation Index (Web of Science 1974 to December 2004).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised, quasi-randomised, cohort and case-control studies assessing efficacy against influenza (laboratory-confirmed cases) or effectiveness against influenza-like illness (ILI) or safety. Any influenza vaccine given independently, in any dose, preparation or time schedule, compared with placebo or with no intervention was considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We grouped reports first according to the setting of the study (community or long-term care facilities) and then by level of viral circulation and vaccine matching. We further stratified by co-administration of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV) and by different types of influenza vaccines. We analysed the following outcomes: influenza, influenza-like illness, hospital admissions, complications and deaths.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-four studies were included in the efficacy / effectiveness assessment, resulting in 96 data sets. In homes for elderly individuals (with good vaccine match and high viral circulation) the effectiveness of vaccines against ILI was 23% (6% to 36%) and non-significant against influenza (RR 1.04: 95% CI 0.43 to 2.51). We found no correlation between vaccine coverage and ILI attack rate. Well matched vaccines prevented pneumonia (VE 46%; 30% to 58%), hospital admission (VE 45%; 16% to 64%) and deaths from influenza or pneumonia (VE 42%, 17% to 59%). In elderly individuals living in the community, vaccines were not significantly effective against influenza (RR 0.19; 95% CI 0.02 to 2.01), ILI (RR 1.05: 95% CI 0.58 to 1.89), or pneumonia (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.20). Well matched vaccines prevented hospital admission for influenza and pneumonia (VE 26%; 12% to 38%) and all-cause mortality (VE 42%; 24% to 55%). After adjustment for confounders, vaccine performance was improved for admissions to hospital for influenza or pneumonia (VE* 27%; 21% to 33%), respiratory diseases (VE* 22%; 15% to 28%) and cardiac disease (VE* 24%; 18% to 30%); and for all-cause mortality (VE* 47%; 39% to 54%). The public health safety profiles of the vaccines appear to be acceptable.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In long-term care facilities, where vaccination is most effective against complications, the aims of the vaccination campaign are fulfilled, at least in part. However, according to reliable evidence the usefulness of vaccines in the community is modest. The apparent high effectiveness of the vaccines in preventing death from all causes may reflect a baseline imbalance in health status and other systematic differences in the two groups of participants.

Late influenza vaccination is associated with reduced effectiveness

BACKGROUND

Extensive research has been carried out to quantify the efficacy and immunologic responses to influenza immunization, however, only little was reported on whether the timing of vaccine administration affects its effectiveness. The study aims were to compare post-immunization hospitalization and mortality rates among high-risk patients who were vaccinated against influenza in different periods of autumn.

METHODS

Data for the current population-based historical prospective study were obtained from a large health organization in Israel insuring 1,600,000 members. Study population (n = 68,166) included high-risk patients aged 55 and above, who were immunized against influenza between October and November 2003.

RESULTS

Although at baseline, individuals vaccinated in late November (12-25/11/2003) were significantly younger and had lower burden of illness compared to those vaccinated in early October (1-13/10/2003), they had higher hospitalization rates and longer hospital stay during the following winter (December to March). They also had an increased risk for all-cause mortality (RR = 1.78; 95%CI: 1.13-2.80). No such differences were observed during the following summer (April-August).

CONCLUSIONS

In countries where influenza generally peaks between December and early March, vaccines administered after mid-November might be less beneficial.

Influenza vaccine in patients with asthma

Influenza virus continues to be a major cause of respiratory infection and is an important contributor to morbidity and mortality in at-risk populations, including those with underlying pulmonary conditions such as asthma. Vaccination with inactivated influenza vaccine remains the most popular method in controlling influenza through prevention. Current guidelines recommend the administration of the influenza vaccine to all patients with asthma. However, a third or fewer of those patients with asthma are currently receiving this vaccine. In this review, the risk-versus-benefit of influenza vaccination in children and adults with asthma is evaluated, based on the current evidence.

Is influenza vaccination cost effective for healthy people between ages 65 and 74 years? A randomised controlled trial

The aim of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness of influenza vaccination for healthy people aged 65-74 years living in the UK. People without risk factors for influenza (chronic heart, lung or renal disease, diabetic, immunosuppressed or those living in an institution) were identified from 20 general practitioner (GP) practices in Liverpool in September 1999. 729/5875 (12.4%) eligible individuals were recruited and randomised to receive either influenza vaccine or placebo (ratio 3:1), with all participants receiving 23-valent-pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine unless already administered. The primary analysis was the frequency of influenza as recorded by a GP diagnosis of pneumonia or influenza like illness. In 2000, the UK vaccination policy was changed with influenza vaccine becoming available for all people aged 65 years and over irrespective of risk. As a consequence of this policy change, the study had to be fundamentally restructured and only results obtained over a one rather than the originally planned two-year randomised controlled trial framework were used. Results from 1999/2000 demonstrated no significant difference between groups for the primary outcome (relative risk 0.8, 95% CI 0.16-4.1). In addition, there were no deaths or hospitalisations for influenza associated respiratory illness in either group. The subsequent analysis, using both national and local sources of evidence, estimated the following cost effectiveness indicators: (1) incremental NHS cost per GP consultation avoided = 2000 pound sterling; (2) incremental NHS cost per hospital admission avoided = 61,000 pound sterling; (3) incremental NHS cost per death avoided = 1,900,000 pound sterling and (4) incremental NHS cost per QALY gained = 304,000 pound sterling. The analysis suggested that influenza vaccination in this population would not be cost effective.

Influenza Vaccination in the Elderly

Influenza causes substantial morbidity across the age spectrum. However, the elderly are especially vulnerable to the serious complications of influenza that might result in hospitalisation or death, and high rates of influenza-associated excess hospitalisation or death that exceed by several-fold the rates seen among most other age groups have consistently been observed in many countries and across many seasons. Thus, the elderly are included among the high priority groups for routine influenza vaccination by many national health authorities. Inactivated influenza virus vaccines are widely available across the globe and are safe and effective. Vaccination of elderly persons has been associated with significant reductions in hospitalisations for pneumonia and influenza as well as hospitalisations for other cardiopulmonary disorders and even cerebrovascular disease. Vaccination has also been associated with reductions in influenza-associated and all-cause mortality during influenza seasons. The benefits of vaccination extend not only to community-dwelling elderly but also to elderly who reside in nursing homes. Likewise, vaccination provides benefits to the very old and to elderly persons with underlying co-morbidities as well as to the healthy elderly. Despite the substantially increased risk for serious complications and impressive benefits from vaccination among the elderly, influenza vaccine utilisation remains below target rates for this group in nearly all countries. The need for improved prevention and control of influenza is recognised as a priority for the global community--both to reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with epidemic influenza and to prepare for the next pandemic. Enhancing vaccine delivery to elderly persons would represent important progress toward that goal.

Pneumonia in the very old

Pneumonia is a major medical problem in the very old. The increased frequency and severity of pneumonia in the elderly is largely explained by the ageing of organ systems (in particular the respiratory tract, immune system, and digestive tract) and the presence of comorbidities due to age-associated diseases. The most striking characteristic of pneumonia in the very old is its clinical presentation: falls and confusion are frequently encountered, while classic symptoms of pneumonia are often absent. Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and nursing-home acquired pneumonia (NHAP) have to be distinguished. Although there are no fundamental differences in pathophysiology and microbiology of the two entities, NHAP tends to be much more severe, because milder cases are not referred to the hospital, and residents of nursing homes often suffer from dementia, multiple comorbidities, and decreased functional status. The immune response decays with age, yet pneumococcal and influenza vaccines have their place for the prevention of pneumonia in the very old. Pneumonia in older individuals without terminal disease has to be distinguished from end-of-life pneumonia. In the latter setting, the attributable mortality of pneumonia is low and antibiotics have little effect on life expectancy and should be used only if they provide the best means to alleviate suffering. In this review, we focus on recent publications relative to CAP and NHAP in the very old, and discuss predisposing factors, microorganisms, diagnostic procedures, specific aspects of treatment, prevention, and ethical issues concerning end-of-life pneumonia.

The Association of Sociodemographic Factors and Patient Attitudes on Influenza Vaccination Rates in Older Persons

BACKGROUND

To determine how patient attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, and sociodemographic characteristics relate to influenza vaccine acceptance in an older patient population.

METHODS

We conducted a mail survey of patients enrolled in a geriatrics clinic at a university-affiliated county hospital in Seattle, WA. We surveyed senior citizens' demographic background, health status, previous experiences, and beliefs about influenza and influenza vaccine. We determined the vaccination rates for influenza season 2001-2002 stratified by race, other sociodemographic factors, and attitudes toward influenza vaccination.

RESULTS

Surveys were mailed to 572 enrollees in SeniorCare Clinic. Three hundred twenty-four (57%) responded to the survey, 256 (79%) of whom reported receipt of influenza vaccination. Influenza vaccination rates did not vary significantly by race in this patient population: 80% for white persons, 70% for black persons, and 84% for Asians. Receipt of vaccination was associated with survey responses that indicated a discussion about the influenza shot with a health care provider and a positive attitude toward the influenza shot. History of side effects and negative attitude toward the influenza shot were associated with failure to receive the vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients served by a university-affiliated geriatrics clinic, we found no statistically significant difference in influenza vaccination rate between white persons and other racial groups. Attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, and prior experiences toward the influenza shot were predictors of influenza vaccination. Physician recommendation and patient participation strongly correlated with vaccination acceptance.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial to Assess the Rate of Recurrence of Oculorespiratory Syndrome Following Influenza Vaccination among Persons Previously Affected

During the 2000-2001 influenza immunization campaign in Canada, an oculorespiratory syndrome (ORS) was recognized as adverse event associated with one of the vaccines administered. The initial surveillance case definition for ORS in 2000-2001 specified onset within 24 h after vaccination and resolution within 48 h after onset; the restriction on the duration of ORS was removed from the case definition for the vaccine distributed during the 2001-2002 influenza season. The implicated vaccine contained large aggregates of unsplit virions; alterations to the manufacturing process for the vaccine distributed during 2001-2002 addressed this. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessed the safety of the reformulated version in previously affected adults. The trial was halted early, after 61 participants had received an injection (34 had received vaccine, and 27 had received placebo). The vaccine-attributable recurrence rate for onset of ORS within 24 h after injection was 33% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10%-53%); for cases that resolved within 48 h, this rate was 27% (95% CI, 5%-47%). Previously affected persons should be informed of the risk of ORS recurrence but also that episodes of such recurrence are mild and well tolerated.

Ocular and respiratory symptoms attributable to inactivated split influenza vaccine: evidence from a controlled trial involving adults

In 2000, an influenza vaccine was associated with unusual ocular and respiratory symptoms (known as "oculorespiratory syndrome" [ORS]) that possibly were due to numerous microaggregates of unsplit viruses present in the product. We assessed the potential for an improved vaccine formulation (for use in 2001-2002) to cause ORS and other symptoms in adults, using a double-blind, randomized, crossover study design. Symptoms were ascertained 24 h after 622 doses of vaccine and 626 doses of saline placebo were injected. The risk of ORS was 6.3% after vaccine injection and 3.4% after placebo injection, which yielded a significant vaccine-attributable risk of 2.9% (95% confidence interval, 0.6-5.2). ORS symptoms were mild. Significant differences in risk after injection of vaccine versus placebo existed for ocular soreness and/or itching (2.4%), coughing (1.6%), and hoarseness (1.2%). Vaccine-attributable general symptoms were infrequent. We conclude that certain mild oculorespiratory symptoms were triggered by an influenza vaccine that was otherwise minimally reactogenic and, hence, that such symptoms might be associated with influenza vaccines in general.

Influenza-Schutzimpfung und Dermatosen - Koinzidenz oder kausale Assoziation? Influenza vaccination and skin disease - coincidence or causal association?

Influenza remains an important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide; therefore, vaccination of risk groups is recommended by health authorities in many countries of the world. Vaccination against influenza has been implicated occasionally induce or trigger skin diseases. We review the literature and present data from the German registry for vaccination-associated adverse effects at the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut. In addition to local reactions at the injection site, exanthema, urticaria and anaphylactic reactions to vaccine components, vasculitis has been documented to be likely induced or triggered by influenza vaccination. Other skin diseases do not appear to be associated with vaccination to influenza. Overall, the risk of vaccination-associated skin disease is very low and is not a reason to avoid of influenza vaccination.

Anxiety and depression in an older research population and their impact on clinical outcomes in a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Anxiety and depression are common in older people living in the community. The aim of the study was to investigate their impact on clinical outcomes during a randomised controlled trial investigating the cost benefits of influenza vaccination in fit and healthy, independent living 65-74 year olds.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A total of 729 people were recruited. Participants completed the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) and EuroQol EQ-5D quality of life questionnaire immediately before receiving vaccination and every two months for the next six months after this. Side effects three days after vaccination and Barthel score at baseline were also recorded.

RESULTS

At baseline the prevalence of "definite" anxiety in this sample (HADS score > or =11) was 4% and 1.2% of individuals had definite depression (HADS score > or =11). Individuals with anxiety or depression (HADS score > or =8) were more likely to complain of systemic side effects after vaccination and have a lower Barthel index score (p<0.001). Quality of life as measured by the EQ-5D visual analogue scale was reduced (p<0.001) at all time periods in those individuals with both anxiety and depression (HADS score > or =8 on both scales).

CONCLUSION

Although the prevalence of anxiety and depression in this sample was low, people with anxiety or depression were more likely to suffer from perceived side effects after influenza vaccine and have a lower Barthel and EQ-5D visual analogue score. In future studies the effect of anxiety and depression on older participants should be remembered and care taken to ensure that they do not affect results more than the intervention under study.