Flu Vaccination Coverage and Predictors of Non-Vaccination in Military Health Corps Personnel 2016–2017 and 2019–2021

(1) Background: Vaccination is the most effective intervention to control seasonal influenza morbidity and mortality. The present study aimed to determine the influenza vaccination coverage in the Military Health Corps personnel in the 2020–2021 season, as well as the time trend and the possible influence of the pandemic on coverage, in order to study the reasons that led to the non-vaccination of health professionals and to analyze adverse drug reactions (ADRs). (2) Methods: A descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted from February to May 2021. All FAS CMS personnel were included. A self-administered questionnaire was sent by e-mail to the selected personnel. (3) Results: Vaccination coverage in the 2016–2017 season was 15.8% (n = 276), in the 2019–2020 season it was 17.41% (n = 424), and in the 2020–2021 season it was 24.22% (n = 590). The percentage of vaccinated men was higher than the percentage of women. In 2019 and 2020 the most vaccinated group was 31–40 years old. Lieutenants had the highest vaccination uptake in 2019 and 2020. The personnel with the highest uptake of vaccines were those in the specialty of nursing in each of 2016, 2019 and 2020, with >30 years of time worked in 2016. In terms of factors leading to refusal of vaccination, the most reported was “not considered a risk group” (23.0%), and the least reported was “avoidance of vaccine administration” (2.2%). Eighty individuals presented adverse reactions after vaccine administration (9.6%). (4) Conclusions: The rate of influenza vaccination among healthcare professionals was lower during the 2020 season compared to the previous season, but was expected to increase in the upcoming 2021 season

Impact of neuraminidase inhibitors on influenza A(H1N1)pdm09‐related pneumonia: an individual participant data meta‐analysis

BACKGROUND: The impact of neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) on influenza‐related pneumonia (IRP) is not established. Our objective was to investigate the association between NAI treatment and IRP incidence and outcomes in patients hospitalised with A(H1N1)pdm09 virus infection. METHODS: A worldwide meta‐analysis of individual participant data from 20 634 hospitalised patients with laboratory‐confirmed A(H1N1)pdm09 (n = 20 021) or clinically diagnosed (n = 613) ‘pandemic influenza’. The primary outcome was radiologically confirmed IRP. Odds ratios (OR) were estimated using generalised linear mixed modelling, adjusting for NAI treatment propensity, antibiotics and corticosteroids. RESULTS: Of 20 634 included participants, 5978 (29·0%) had IRP; conversely, 3349 (16·2%) had confirmed the absence of radiographic pneumonia (the comparator). Early NAI treatment (within 2 days of symptom onset) versus no NAI was not significantly associated with IRP [adj. OR 0·83 (95% CI 0·64–1·06; P = 0·136)]. Among the 5978 patients with IRP, early NAI treatment versus none did not impact on mortality [adj. OR = 0·72 (0·44–1·17; P = 0·180)] or likelihood of requiring ventilatory support [adj. OR = 1·17 (0·71–1·92; P = 0·537)], but early treatment versus later significantly reduced mortality [adj. OR = 0·70 (0·55–0·88; P = 0·003)] and likelihood of requiring ventilatory support [adj. OR = 0·68 (0·54–0·85; P = 0·001)]. CONCLUSIONS: Early NAI treatment of patients hospitalised with A(H1N1)pdm09 virus infection versus no treatment did not reduce the likelihood of IRP. However, in patients who developed IRP, early NAI treatment versus later reduced the likelihood of mortality and needing ventilatory support

Brote de gripe pandémica (H1N1) 2009 en una academia militar: inicio de la circulación comunitaria en España

Fundamento: El 19 de mayo de 2009 se declararon 21 casos de soldados con síntomas de infección respiratoria aguda en la Academia Militar de Ingenieros (ACING) en Hoyo de Manzanares, España. En el contexto de una alerta mundial por gripe A(H1N1) 2009, se decide investigar la posible aparición de un brote por este virus. El objetivo es describir un posible brote de gripe (H1N1) 2009 en un Centro de Formación Militar y describir las medidas adoptadas, en la fase de contención, para evitar su transmisión. Métodos: Se administró un cuestionario específico y se recogieron muestras biológicas a todos los casos en investigación. Se recomendaron aislamiento y cuarentena, respectivamente de los casos y contactos. Resultados: Se confirmaron 81 casos de infección por virus de la gripe A (H1N1)2009. De las 52 muestras procesadas 31 fueron positivas para virus influenza A/California/7/2009. La edad media de los casos fue 22,0 años (rango, 18-31). El 84% eran varones. Los síntomas más comunes fueron tos y fiebre. Todos los casos permanecieron aislados y fueron tratados con oseltamivir, con buena evolución. La tasa de ataque global fue 12,42%. Ningún caso tenía antecedentes de viaje a zonas de riesgo o vinculo epidemiológico con un caso diagnosticado previamente fuera de la ACING. Se identificaron 31 casos relacionados con este brote fuera de la ACING, 24 casos eran contactos familiares y amigos. Conclusiones: Este brote alertó del inicio de la circulación comunitaria del virus pandémico en España. La detección precoz del mismo favoreció la puesta en marcha de medidas para la contención de su trasmisión

Effectiveness of neuraminidase inhibitors in reducing mortality in patients admitted to hospital with influenza A H1N1pdm09 virus infection: a meta-analysis of individual participant data.

BACKGROUND: Neuraminidase inhibitors were widely used during the 2009-10 influenza A H1N1 pandemic, but evidence for their effectiveness in reducing mortality is uncertain. We did a meta-analysis of individual participant data to investigate the association between use of neuraminidase inhibitors and mortality in patients admitted to hospital with pandemic influenza A H1N1pdm09 virus infection. METHODS: We assembled data for patients (all ages) admitted to hospital worldwide with laboratory confirmed or clinically diagnosed pandemic influenza A H1N1pdm09 virus infection. We identified potential data contributors from an earlier systematic review of reported studies addressing the same research question. In our systematic review, eligible studies were done between March 1, 2009 (Mexico), or April 1, 2009 (rest of the world), until the WHO declaration of the end of the pandemic (Aug 10, 2010); however, we continued to receive data up to March 14, 2011, from ongoing studies. We did a meta-analysis of individual participant data to assess the association between neuraminidase inhibitor treatment and mortality (primary outcome), adjusting for both treatment propensity and potential confounders, using generalised linear mixed modelling. We assessed the association with time to treatment using time-dependent Cox regression shared frailty modelling. FINDINGS: We included data for 29,234 patients from 78 studies of patients admitted to hospital between Jan 2, 2009, and March 14, 2011. Compared with no treatment, neuraminidase inhibitor treatment (irrespective of timing) was associated with a reduction in mortality risk (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·81; 95% CI 0·70-0·93; p=0·0024). Compared with later treatment, early treatment (within 2 days of symptom onset) was associated with a reduction in mortality risk (adjusted OR 0·48; 95% CI 0·41-0·56; p<0·0001). Early treatment versus no treatment was also associated with a reduction in mortality (adjusted OR 0·50; 95% CI 0·37-0·67; p<0·0001). These associations with reduced mortality risk were less pronounced and not significant in children. There was an increase in the mortality hazard rate with each day's delay in initiation of treatment up to day 5 as compared with treatment initiated within 2 days of symptom onset (adjusted hazard ratio [HR 1·23] [95% CI 1·18-1·28]; p<0·0001 for the increasing HR with each day's delay). INTERPRETATION: We advocate early instigation of neuraminidase inhibitor treatment in adults admitted to hospital with suspected or proven influenza infection. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche