Increasing influenza vaccination coverage in healthcare workers: analysis of an intensified on-site vaccination campaign during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: Influenza infections have substantial impact on healthcare institutions. While vaccination is the most effective preventive measure against influenza infection, vaccination coverage in healthcare workers is low. The study investigates the impact of an intensified influenza vaccination campaign in a maximum-care hospital on influenza vaccination coverage in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020/21. METHODS: Building on findings from our previously published review Schumacher et al. (Infection 49(3): 387, 2021), an intensified influenza vaccination campaign comprising a mobile vaccination team providing on-site vaccination and vaccination at a recurring central vaccination site in addition to promotional measures was performed and analysed regarding vaccination coverage. A survey querying vaccination motivation was performed. Campaign strategies and vaccination coverage of influenza seasons between 2017/18 and 2019/20 were analysed. RESULTS: The influenza vaccination campaign 2020/21 led to a significant 2.4-fold increase yielding an overall vaccination coverage of 40% among healthcare workers. A significant increase in vaccination coverage was observed across all professional fields; especially among nurses, a 2.7-fold increase, reaching a vaccination coverage of 48%, was observed. The COVID-19 pandemic positively influenced vaccination decision in 72% of first time ever or first time in over ten years influenza vaccinees. Vaccination coverage during prior vaccination campaigns focusing on educational measures did not exceed 17%. CONCLUSION: A mobile vaccination team providing on-site vaccination and vaccinations at a central vaccination site in addition to promotional measures can be implemented to increase influenza vaccination coverage in healthcare workers. Our concept can inform influenza and other vaccination campaigns for healthcare workers.

Prevalence of Cancer Predisposition Germline Variants in Male Breast Cancer Patients: Results of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer.

Male breast cancer (mBC) is associated with a high prevalence of pathogenic variants (PVs) in the BRCA2 gene; however, data regarding other BC predisposition genes are limited. In this retrospective multicenter study, we investigated the prevalence of PVs in BRCA1/2 and 23 non-BRCA1/2 genes using a sample of 614 patients with mBC, recruited through the centers of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer. A high proportion of patients with mBC carried PVs in BRCA2 (23.0%, 142/614) and BRCA1 (4.6%, 28/614). The prevalence of BRCA1/2 PVs was 11.0% in patients with mBC without a family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer. Patients with BRCA1/2 PVs did not show an earlier disease onset than those without. The predominant clinical presentation of tumor phenotypes was estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, progesterone receptor (PR)-positive, and HER2-negative (77.7%); further, 10.2% of the tumors were triple-positive, and 1.2% were triple-negative. No association was found between ER/PR/HER2 status and BRCA1/2 PV occurrence. Comparing the prevalence of protein-truncating variants (PTVs) between patients with mBC and control data (ExAC, n = 27,173) revealed significant associations of PTVs in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 with mBC (BRCA1: OR = 17.04, 95% CI = 10.54−26.82, p < 10−5; BRCA2: OR = 77.71, 95% CI = 58.71−102.33, p < 10−5). A case-control investigation of 23 non-BRCA1/2 genes in 340 BRCA1/2-negative patients and ExAC controls revealed significant associations of PTVs in CHEK2, PALB2, and ATM with mBC (CHEK2: OR = 3.78, 95% CI = 1.59−7.71, p = 0.002; PALB2: OR = 14.77, 95% CI = 5.02−36.02, p < 10−5; ATM: OR = 3.36, 95% CI = 0.89−8.96, p = 0.04). Overall, our findings support the benefit of multi-gene panel testing in patients with mBC irrespective of their family history, age at disease onset, and tumor phenotype.