Determinants of Refusal of A/H1N1 Pandemic Vaccination in a High Risk Population: A Qualitative Approach

International audienceBackground: Our study analyses the main determinants of refusal or acceptance of the 2009 A/H1N1 vaccine in patients with cystic fibrosis, a high-risk population for severe flu infection, usually very compliant for seasonal flu vaccine.Methodology/Principal Findings: We conducted a qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews in 3 cystic fibrosis referral centres in Paris, France. The study included 42 patients with cystic fibrosis: 24 who refused the vaccine and 18 who were vaccinated. The two groups differed quite substantially in their perceptions of vaccine- and disease-related risks. Those who refused the vaccine were motivated mainly by the fears it aroused and did not explicitly consider the 2009 A/H1N1 flu a potentially severe disease. People who were vaccinated explained their choice, first and foremost, as intended to prevent the flu’s potential consequences on respiratory cystic fibrosis disease. Moreover, they considered vaccination to be an indirect collective prevention tool. Patients who refused the vaccine mentioned multiple, contradictory information sources and did not appear to consider the recommendation of their local health care provider as predominant. On the contrary, those who were vaccinated stated that they had based their decision solely on the clear and unequivocal advice of their health care provider.Conclusions/Significance: These results of our survey led us to formulate three main recommendations for improving adhesion to new pandemic vaccines. (1) it appears necessary to reinforce patient education about the disease and its specific risks, but also general population information about community immunity. (2) it is essential to disseminate a clear and effective message about the safety of novel vaccines. (3) this message should be conveyed by local health care providers, who should be involved in implementing immunization

Mechanical energy storage performance of an aluminum fumarate metal–organic framework

International audienc

The influence of tocolytic drugs on cardiac function, large arteries, and resistance vessels

Purpose Beta-2 adrenoceptor agonistic drugs like ritodrine have been the reference tocolytic drugs, but are associated with cardiovascular side-effects. Atosiban, a newer drug, is a competitive antagonist of oxytocin and has been claimed to have fewer cardiovascular side effects. Until now, there has mainly been a subjective reporting of adverse reactions and few objective cardiovascular data. Evaluation of the acute effects of therapeutic doses of ritodrine and atosiban compared with placebo on cardiac function, large artery properties, blood pressure, and resistance vessels. Methods A double-blind, randomized trial was carried out in 20 non-pregnant female volunteers. Hemodynamic measurements were made under standardized conditions during kinetic steady state. Cardiac output was measured with echocardiography, large artery properties with an echo-tracking device. The effect on the microcirculation was estimated using the total peripheral resistance index (TPRI). Results Atosiban did not differ from placebo. With ritodrine, cardiac function increased by 79% compared with placebo because of a rise in heart rate (91%). TPRI decreased by 48%. Ritodrine increased the distensibility of the common carotid artery by 62% and the compliance by 83%, independent of blood pressure. Compliance of the common femoral artery increased independently of pressure by 33% and the distensibility by 59%. Aortic pulse wave velocity was not influenced by either medication. Conclusions The present study shows potential beneficial vascular effects of ritodrine that are counterbalanced by the cardiac effects. Atosiban has no clinically relevant cardiovascular effects and may be a good alternative for ritodrine in pregnant women at risk of cardiovascular complications

J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol

Occupational exposure to pesticides concerns a wide population of workers not only in agriculture. The reliability of self-reported information on pesticide use is questionable because of the diversity of use. The PESTIPOP job-exposure matrix has been designed to assess pesticide occupational exposure in the general population. The matrix is composed of two axes: the first axis corresponding to jobs (combinations of occupations and industries) and the second one to pesticide exposure. The estimated exposure metric is the probability of exposure coupled with a reliability assessment (low, medium or high). These metrics were defined by combining different sources: (1) an a priori expert assessment (Agricultural industry experts); (2) data from a multicenter case-control study on brain tumors in the general population (occupational history, specific questionnaires); and (3) an a posteriori expert assessment based on the data of a case-control study. So far, 2559 jobs have been identified and 209 (8%) were found to be exposed to pesticides. Jobs with agricultural exposure had a higher exposure probability than jobs with non-agricultural exposure (wood preservation, park maintenance, pest control). Indirect exposure was more frequent than direct exposure. The PESTIPOP matrix will be transcoded into international classifications for use in epidemiological studies