Risk Factors for Severe Cases of 2009 Influenza A (H1N1): A Case Control Study in Zhejiang Province, China

Few case control studies were conducted to explore risk factors for severe cases of 2009 influenza A (H1N1) with the mild cases as controls. Mild and severe cases of 2009 influenza A (H1N1), 230 cases each, were randomly selected from nine cities in Zhejiang Province, China, and unmatched case control study was conducted. This study found that it averagely took 5 days for the severe cases of 2009 influenza A (H1N1) to start antiviral therapy away from onset, 2 days later than mild cases. Having chronic underlying diseases and bad psychological health combined with chronic underlying diseases were two important risk factors for severe cases, and their OR values were 2.39 and 5.85 respectively. Timely anti-viral therapy was a protective factor for severe cases (OR = 0.35, 95% CI: [0.18–0.67]). In conclusion, psychological health education and intervention, as well as timely anti-viral therapy, could not be ignored in the prevention, control and treatment of 2009 influenza A (H1N1)

No systemic reactions to influenza vaccination in egg-sensitized tertiary-care pediatric patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There are numerous, disparate guidelines for influenza vaccination in egg-allergic patients. We aimed to describe the outcome of selectively applied guidelines, based on risk-stratification, to our high risk, egg-allergic, tertiary-care pediatric population.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Egg allergy was confirmed with skin testing. The vaccine administered was an adjuvunated 2009 H1N1 influenza A vaccine with < 0.165 mcg/ml ovalbumin. Patients with mild egg allergy were to receive the vaccination in 1 dose, those with severe egg allergy were to receive 2 split doses, and patients with exquisite egg allergy or significant co-morbidities were to be skin tested with the vaccine (prick full strength, intradermal 1:100 of final concentration without adjuvant) and had 5 step desensitization if the testing was positive, or 1-2 step administration if negative. Patients were observed for 60 minutes after the final dose and anaphylaxis treatment was available. We report the frequency of allergic reactions.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Ninety-nine patients were referred and 79 had positive egg testing. Asthma was present in 67% and 30% had prior anaphylaxis to egg. We vaccinated 77 of 79 patients: 71 without performing vaccine skin testing. Two refused vaccination. No patient had a systemic reaction or required treatment. Two patients experienced positive testing to the adjuvanated intradermal vaccine, but were negative without adjuvant.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our results suggest that most egg-allergic tertiary care pediatric patients can be vaccinated with a low ovalbumin content influenza vaccine without prior vaccine testing. Vaccine skin testing, if used at all, can be reserved for special circumstances. The squalene adjuvant may cause an irritant reaction with intradermal testing.</p

Safety of live attenuated influenza vaccine in young people with egg allergy: multicentre prospective cohort study

Study question How safe is live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV), which contains egg protein, in young people with egg allergy? Methods In this open label, phase IV intervention study, 779 young people (2-18 years) with egg allergy were recruited from 30 UK allergy centres and immunised with LAIV. The cohort included 270 (34.7%) young people with previous anaphylaxis to egg, of whom 157 (20.1%) had experienced respiratory and/or cardiovascular symptoms. 445 (57.1%) had doctor diagnosed asthma or recurrent wheeze. Participants were observed for at least 30 minutes after vaccination and followed-up by telephone 72 hours later. Participants with a history of recurrent wheeze or asthma underwent further follow-up four weeks later. The main outcome measure was incidence of an adverse event within two hours of vaccination in young people with egg allergy. Study answer and limitations No systemic allergic reactions occurred (upper 95% confidence interval for population 0.47% and in participants with anaphylaxis to egg 1.36%). Nine participants (1.2%, 95% CI 0.5% to 2.2%) experienced mild symptoms, potentially consistent with a local, IgE mediated allergic reaction. Delayed events potentially related to the vaccine were reported in 221 participants. 62 participants (8.1%, 95% CI for population 6.3% to 10.3%) experienced lower respiratory tract symptoms within 72 hours, including 29 with parent reported wheeze. No participants were admitted to hospital. No increase in lower respiratory tract symptoms occurred in the four weeks after vaccination (assessed with asthma control test). The study cohort may represent young people with more severe allergy requiring specialist input, since they were recruited from secondary and tertiary allergy centres. What this study adds LAIV is associated with a low risk of systemic allergic reactions in young people with egg allergy. The vaccine seems to be well tolerated in those with well controlled asthma or recurrent wheeze

Safety of live attenuated influenza vaccine in atopic children with egg allergy

Background Live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) is an intranasal vaccine recently incorporated into the United Kingdom immunization schedule. However, it contains egg protein and, in the absence of safety data, is contraindicated in patients with egg allergy. Furthermore, North American guidelines recommend against its use in asthmatic children. Objective We sought to assess the safety of LAIV in children with egg allergy. Methods We performed a prospective, multicenter, open-label, phase IV intervention study involving 11 secondary/tertiary centers in the United Kingdom. Children with egg allergy (defined as a convincing clinical reaction to egg within the past 12 months and/or >95% likelihood of clinical egg allergy as per published criteria) were recruited. LAIV was administered under medical supervision, with observation for 1 hour and telephone follow-up 72 hours later. Results Four hundred thirty-three doses were administered to 282 children with egg allergy (median, 4.9 years; range, 2-17 years); 115 (41%) had experienced prior anaphylaxis to egg. A physician's diagnosis of asthma/recurrent wheezing was noted in 67%, and 51% were receiving regular preventer therapy. There were no systemic allergic reactions (upper 95% CI for population, 1.3%). Eight children experienced mild self-limiting symptoms, which might have been due an IgE-mediated allergic reaction. Twenty-six (9.4%; 95% CI for population, 6.2% to 13.4%) children experienced lower respiratory tract symptoms within 72 hours, including 13 with parent-reported wheeze. None of these episodes required medical intervention beyond routine treatment. Conclusions In contrast to current recommendations, LAIV appears to be safe for use in children with egg allergy. Furthermore, the vaccine appears to be well tolerated in children with a diagnosis of asthma or recurrent wheeze

Can the Brighton Collaboration case definitions be used to improve the quality of Adverse Event Following Immunization (AEFI) reporting? Anaphylaxis as a case study

The Brighton Collaboration (BC) was established in 2000 with the aim of developing globally accepted standardized case definitions for adverse events following immunizations (AEFI) as well as guidelines for the collection, analysis and presentation of surveillance data. Some of the BC case definitions are complex and this may limit their application for use in post-marketing vaccine surveillance. Barriers to the application of the BC case definitions include an incomplete description of an adverse event and inconsistencies in reporter use of adverse event terms. We have taken the BC case definition for anaphylaxis and developed a clinical checklist and glossary of terms used in the case definition. It is anticipated that these resources can be used at a community level by AEFI reporters. If used, these resources could improve the quality of adverse event reports which would facilitate the application of the BC case definition at a regional and/or national level.Michael S. Gold, Jane Gidudu, Mich Erlewyn-Lajeunesse, Barbara Law and Brighton Collaboration Working Group on Anaphylaxi