High dose trivalent influenza vaccine compared to standard dose vaccine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving TNF-alpha inhibitor therapy and healthy controls: Results of the DMID 10-0076 randomized clinical trial

IntroductionSubjects with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving tumor necrosis factor-inhibiting (TNFi) therapies are at risk for severe influenza, and may respond less well to influenza vaccine. We examined the safety and immunogenicity of high dose influenza vaccine (HD) compared to standard dose vaccine (SD) in participants with RA receiving stable TNFi.MethodsA randomized, double-blinded, Phase II study was conducted in adults with RA receiving TNFi, and healthy, gender and age-matched control subjects. Participants were immunized with HD (Sanofi Pasteur Fluzone High Dose [60 mcg × 3 strains]) or SD (Sanofi Pasteur Fluzone® [15 mcg × 3 strains]) intramuscularly (IM). A self-administered memory aid recorded temperature and systemic and local adverse events (AEs) for 8 days, and safety was evaluated and serum obtained to measure HAI activity on days 7, 21 and 180 days following vaccination.ResultsA greater proportion of RA subjects who received HD seroconverted at day 21 compared to SD, although this was not statistically significant. GMT antibody responses in RA subjects who received HD compared to SD were greater for all strains on day 21, and this was significant for H1N1. Seroconversion rates and GMT values were not different between RA subjects and control subjects. There were no safety concerns for HD or SD in RA subjects, and RA-related symptoms did not differ between SD and HD recipients by a RA-symptom questionnaire (RAPID 3).ConclusionsTNF-inhibitor therapy in people with RA did not appear to influence the immunogenicity of either SD or HD. Influenza seroconversion and GMT values were higher among RA subjects receiving HD compared to SD; however, differences were small and a larger study is needed to validate these findings. Given the apparent risk of increased influenza-related morbidity and mortality among immune compromised subjects, the higher GMT values generated by HD may be beneficial.     

The Health Belief Model in predicting healthcare workers' intention for influenza vaccine uptake in Jordan

BackgroundTheories of health behavior change are being inadequately adopted to understand the reasons behind low influenza vaccination rates among healthcare workers (HCWs). The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) is being used to predict intention-behavior relationship while the Health Belief Model (HBM) is being employed to predict actual behavior. The purpose of this study was to test a conceptual model based on the HBM’s constructs to predict Jordanian HCWs’ intentions for influenza vaccine uptake as an alternative to the TPB.MethodA cross-sectional questionnaire-based study was conducted in 2016 in a tertiary teaching hospital in Amman-Jordan including a convenience sample of 477 HCWs with direct patient contact. The study instrument was tested for validity and reliability. A conceptual regression model was proposed incorporating the constructs of the primary HBM with some modifications in the threat construct as well as an additional variable about explicit past vaccination behavior (in the past year and/or any previous history of influenza vaccine uptake).ResultsAlmost all the constructs of the HBM demonstrated significant differences between participants intending and those who did not intend to vaccinate against influenza. After adjusting for the confounding variables in the final conceptual regression model, past vaccination behavior (OR= 4.50, 95%Confidence Interval 3.38–6.00, P< 0.0005) and the perceived benefit scale (OR= 1.19, 95% Confidence Interval 1.11–1.28, P< 0.0005) were the only significant predictors of intentions to vaccinate against influenza in the next season.ConclusionTaking into consideration the altruistic beliefs of HCWs and their explicit past vaccination history augments the utility of the original HBM tool in predicting HCWs’ intentions to vaccinate against influenza in a way that is consistent with the predictive ability of the Theory of Planned Behavior.     

A 16-year review of seroprevalence studies on measles and rubella

The determination of the seroprevalence of vaccine-preventable diseases is critical in monitoring the efficacy of vaccination programmes and to assess the gaps in population immunity but requires extensive organisation and is time and resource intensive. The results of the studies are frequently reported in peer-reviewed scientific, government and non-government publications. A review of scientific literature was undertaken to advise the development of WHO guidelines for the assessment of measles and rubella seroprevalence. A search of the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed online publications using key words of ‘measles’, ‘rubella’, combined with ‘serosurvey’, ‘seroprevalence’, ‘immunity’ and ‘population immunity’ was conducted. A total of 97 articles published between January 1998 and June 2014 were retrieved, 68 describing serosurveys for measles and 58 serosurveys for rubella, conducted in 37 and 36 different countries respectively. Only 13 (19%) and 8 (14%) respectively were UN classified “least developed countries”. The study sample varied markedly and included combinations of male and female infants, children, adolescents and adults. The study sizes also varied with 28% and 33% of measles and rubella studies respectively, having greater than 2000 participants. Microtitre plate enzyme immunoassays were used in 52 (76%) measles studies and 40 (69%) rubella studies. A total of 39 (57%) measles and 44 (76%) rubella studies reported quantitative test results. Seroprevalence ranged from 60.8% to 95.9% for measles and 53.0% to 99.3% for rubella studies. The review highlighted that infants lost maternally-acquired immunity within 9 months of birth and were unprotected until vaccination. Two groups at higher risk of infection were identified: young adults between the ages of 15 and 30 years and immigrants.     

Enhanced surveillance of tetanus toxoid,reduced diphtheria toxoid,and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccines in pregnancy in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 2011–2015

BackgroundIn October 2011, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued updated recommendations that all pregnant women routinely receive a dose of tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine.ObjectivesWe characterized reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in pregnant women who received Tdap after this updated recommendation (2011–2015) and compared the pattern of adverse events (AEs) with the period before the updated recommendation (2005–2010).MethodsWe searched the VAERS database for reports of AEs in pregnant women who received Tdap vaccine after the routine recommendation (11/01/2011–6/30/2015) and compared it to published data before the routine Tdap recommendation (01/01/2005–06/30/2010). We conducted clinical review of reports and available medical records. The clinical pattern of reports in the post-recommendation period was compared with the pattern before the routine Tdap recommendation.ResultsWe found 392 reports of Tdap vaccination after the routine recommendation. One neonatal death but no maternal deaths were reported. No maternal or neonatal deaths were reported before the recommendation. We observed an increase in proportion of reports for stillbirths (1.5–2.8%) and injection site reactions/arm pain (4.5–11.9%) after the recommendation compared to the period before the routine recommendation for Tdap during pregnancy. We noted a decrease in reports of spontaneous abortion (16.7–1%). After the 2011 Tdap recommendation, in most reports, vaccination (79%) occurred during the third trimester compared to 4% before the 2011 Tdap recommendation. Twenty-six reports of repeat Tdap were received in VAERS; 13 did not report an AE. One medical facility accounted for 27% of all submitted reports.ConclusionsNo new or unexpected vaccine AEs were noted among pregnant women who received Tdap after routine recommendations for maternal Tdap vaccination. Changes in reporting patterns would be expected, given the broader use of Tdap in pregnant women in the third trimester.