RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The province of Ontario, Canada initiated mass immunization clinics with adjuvanted pandemic H1N1 influenza vaccine in October 2009. Due to the scale of the campaign, temporal associations with Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and vaccination were expected. The objectives of this analysis were to estimate the number of background GBS cases expected to occur in the projected vaccinated population and to estimate the number of additional GBS cases which would be expected if an association with vaccination existed. The number of influenza-associated GBS cases was also determined. METHODS: Baseline incidence rates of GBS were determined from published Canadian studies and applied to projected vaccine coverage data to estimate the expected number of GBS cases in the vaccinated population. Assuming an association with vaccine existed, the number of additional cases of GBS expected was determined by applying the rates observed during the 1976 Swine Flu and 1992/1994 seasonal influenza campaigns in the United States. The number of influenza-associated GBS cases expected to occur during the vaccination campaign was determined based on risk estimates of GBS after influenza infection and provincial influenza infection rates using a combination of laboratory-confirmed cases and data from a seroprevalence study. RESULTS: The overall provincial vaccine coverage was estimated to be between 32% and 38%. Assuming 38% coverage, between 6 and 13 background cases of GBS were expected within this projected vaccinated cohort (assuming 32% coverage yielded between 5-11 background cases). An additional 6 or 42 cases would be expected if an association between GBS and influenza vaccine was observed (assuming 32% coverage yielded 5 or 35 additional cases); while up to 31 influenza-associated GBS cases could be expected to occur. In comparison, during the same period, only 7 cases of GBS were reported among vaccinated persons. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses do not suggest an increased number of GBS cases due to the vaccine. Awareness of expected rates of GBS is crucial when assessing adverse events following influenza immunization. Furthermore, since individuals with influenza infection are also at risk of developing GBS, they must be considered in such analyses, particularly if the vaccine campaign and disease are occurring concurrently.
Assuntos
Programas de Imunização/estatística & dados numéricos , Vírus da Influenza A Subtipo H1N1/isolamento & purificação , Influenza Humana/epidemiologia , Gestão da Segurança , Estudos Epidemiológicos , Feminino , Síndrome de Guillain-Barré/epidemiologia , Humanos , Masculino , Ontário/epidemiologia , Pandemias , Medição de RiscoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: This investigation was done to assess vaccine effectiveness of one and two doses of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine during an outbreak of mumps in Ontario. The level of coverage required to reach herd immunity and interrupt community transmission of mumps was also estimated. METHODS: Information on confirmed cases of mumps was retrieved from Ontario's integrated Public Health Information System. Cases that occurred between Sept. 1, 2009, and June 10, 2010, were included. Selected health units supplied coverage data from the Ontario Immunization Record Information System. Vaccine effectiveness by dose was calculated using the screening method. The basic reproductive number (R(0)) represents the average number of new infections per case in a fully susceptible population, and R(0) values of between 4 and 10 were considered for varying levels of vaccine effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 134 confirmed cases of mumps were identified. Information on receipt of MMR vaccine was available for 114 (85.1%) cases, of whom 63 (55.3%) reported having received only one dose of vaccine; 32 (28.1%) reported having received two doses. Vaccine effectiveness of one dose of the MMR vaccine ranged from 49.2% to 81.6%, whereas vaccine effectiveness of two doses ranged from 66.3% to 88.0%. If we assume vaccine effectiveness of 85% for two doses of the vaccine, vaccine coverage of 88.2% and 98.0% would be needed to interrupt community transmission of mumps if the corresponding reproductive values were four and six. INTERPRETATION: Our estimates of vaccine effectiveness of one and two doses of mumps-containing vaccine were consistent with the estimates that have been reported in other outbreaks. Outbreaks occurring in Ontario and elsewhere serve as a warning against complacency over vaccination programs.
Assuntos
Surtos de Doenças , Vacina contra Sarampo-Caxumba-Rubéola/administração & dosagem , Caxumba/prevenção & controle , Vacinação , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Anticorpos Antivirais/sangue , Criança , DNA Viral , Feminino , Humanos , Esquemas de Imunização , Imunoglobulina G/sangue , Masculino , Vacina contra Sarampo-Caxumba-Rubéola/imunologia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Caxumba/epidemiologia , Vacina contra Caxumba/imunologia , Vírus da Caxumba/imunologia , Vírus da Caxumba/isolamento & purificação , Ontário/epidemiologia , Resultado do Tratamento , Adulto JovemRESUMO
AIM: This paper is a report of a survey: (1) to document nurses' knowledge, attitudes and information needs regarding human papillomavirus prevention and (2) to determine factors associated with their willingness to recommend human papillomavirus vaccines. BACKGROUND: Persistent infection with human papillomavirus has been causally linked to cervical cancer. Two human papillomavirus vaccines have recently been approved for use in more than 65 countries. Nurses' level of support for the prevention of human papillomavirus related diseases by vaccination has not been researched. METHODS: A survey was conducted in 2007. Self-administered questionnaires were mailed to 1799 randomly selected nurses. Descriptive statistics were generated for all variables. Multivariable logistic regression models were estimated to determine variables associated with the willingness to recommend human papillomavirus vaccines. RESULTS: A total of 946 questionnaires were analyzed and showed that: 97% of nurses perceived routinely recommended vaccines as very useful; 93% would support human papillomavirus vaccination if it is publicly funded; 85% would recommend human papillomavirus vaccines to their patients; 33%, 46% and 61% expect the vaccination to permit screening to begin later in life, reduction of the frequency of screening, and reduction of the number of postscreening interventions, respectively. Respondents' knowledge score was 3.8 out of 7. Several modifiable factors, including knowledge, perceived self-efficacy, and societal and colleagues support were associated with willingness to recommend vaccines. CONCLUSION: Most nurses' support human papillomavirus vaccination, but their active involvement should not be taken for granted. Targeted educational efforts are needed to ensure nurses' involvement in the prevention of human papillomavirus-related diseases.