Vaccination coverage and mortality after splenectomy: results from an Italian single-centre study.

Splenectomy is a well-recognised risk factor for life-threatening overwhelming post-splenectomy infection (OPSI). To prevent OPSI, immunisations against encapsulated bacteria (S. pneumoniae, N. meningitidis, H. influenzae) and influenza virus are recommended. However, there is still a lack of uniformity and poor compliance with these recommendations. Following a local physicians' awareness campaign regarding the importance of vaccine prophylaxis of splenectomised patients, we aimed to register vaccination coverage, mortality and infection rates in all patients who underwent splenectomy at our hospital, over a six-year time span. Reasons for splenectomy, patients' compliance with vaccinations, mortality and infectious events were recorded. The reasons for splenectomy in the 216 identified patients (mean age 58.2 ± 14; M:F ratio 1.4:1) were haematologic disorders (38.8%), solid tumours (28.7%), traumatic rupture (22.7%) and other causes (9.7%). A total of 146 patients (67.6%) received at least one of the four vaccines. Overall, the mortality rate was significantly greater in unvaccinated compared to vaccinated patients (p < 0.001), although after the adjustment for the cause of splenectomy the statistical significance was lost (p = 0.085) due to the burden of solid tumour-related mortality. Among the 21 reported cases of OPSI, eight were fatal and five were potentially vaccine-preventable. Our results show that two-thirds of splenectomised patients comply with vaccine prophylaxis. Future interventional studies or ad hoc registries might overcome barriers to vaccination or intentional non-compliance.

Safety of MF59-adjuvanted influenza vaccination in the elderly: results of a comparative study of MF59-adjuvanted vaccine versus nonadjuvanted influenza vaccine in northern Italy.

MF59-adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine (Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Siena, Italy) has been shown to be more effective than nonadjuvanted vaccine in the elderly population. Here we present results from a large-scale, observational, noninterventional, prospective postlicensure study that evaluated the safety of MF59-adjuvanted vaccine in elderly subjects aged 65 years or more. The study was performed in 5 northern Italian health districts during the 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009 influenza seasons. The choice of vaccine-either adjuvanted vaccine or a nonadjuvanted influenza vaccine-was determined by individual providers on the basis of local influenza vaccination policy. Hospitalizations for potential adverse events of special interest (AESIs) were identified from hospital databases and then reviewed against recognized case definitions to identify confirmed cases of AESI. Cumulative incidences were calculated for AESIs in predefined biologically plausible time windows, as well as in a 6-month window following vaccination. During the 3-year study period, 170,988 vaccine doses were administered to a total of 107,661 persons. Despite the large study size, cases of AESI resulting in hospitalization were rare, and risks of AESI were similar in both the MF59-adjuvanted and nonadjuvanted vaccination groups. In conclusion, similar safety profiles were observed for both nonadjuvanted and MF59-adjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccines in elderly recipients.

Effectiveness of adjuvanted influenza vaccination in elderly subjects in northern Italy.

Although vaccination against influenza is recommended for elderly and high-risk patients in many countries, efficacy in the elderly has been suboptimal. The MF59 adjuvanted trivalent inactivated vaccine (ATIV) was developed to increase the immune response of elderly subjects to influenza vaccination, but its effectiveness has not yet been well documented. This prospective, observational study evaluated the relative effectiveness of ATIV versus nonadjuvanted trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV) in individuals at least 65 years of age in Lombardy, northern Italy. Hospitalizations for influenza or pneumonia (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, codes 480-487) during the 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009 influenza seasons were identified from administrative databases. Stratified and regression analyses, including the propensity score to adjust for confounding, as well as generalized estimating equations to account for repeated vaccination, were used. Overall, 107,661 records were evaluated, contributing 170,988 person-seasons of observation. Since ATIV is preferentially recommended for more frail individuals, subjects vaccinated with ATIV were older and had more functional impairment and comorbidities. In the primary analysis, risk of hospitalization for influenza or pneumonia was 25% lower for ATIV relative to TIV (relative risk = 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.57, 0.98). To the extent that there is residual bias, ATIV is likely to be even more protective than this result suggests.