Vaccination versus antibody screening for measles immunity in health care workers.

Measles vaccination coverage and immunization status of nurses: An interventional study in Türkiye

Measles immunity and measles vaccine acceptance among healthcare workers in Paris, France

Immune status of health care workers to measles virus: evaluation of protective titers in four measles IgG EIAs

Limitations of serological screening for measles immunity in young health care workers in New Zealand.

A practical approach to immunization in atopic children.

Annals for Educators - 16 April 2019.

The purpose of this descriptive, quantitative study was to examine hepatitis B immunity in high risk health care workers 7 years post immunization. The study related immunity to age and site of injection, and also described titer results. The study sample was composed of 42 health care workers from areas with frequent blood exposure. The study found that 21% of the health care workers had nonreactive titers 7 or more years post immunization. No significant differences existed in the percentages of the reactive participants according to injection site, although it is recommended the injection be given intramuscularly in the deltoid. No statistically significant relationship was revealed by comparing titer results to age. The low power (.24) displays the need for larger sample sizes which could be obtained by using multicenter data sites. Future research with national collaboration and standard performance measurement systems could provide crucial information related to hepatitis B immunity in health care workers.

Antibody persistence of a whole-cell pertussis-containing hexavalent vaccine (DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T) and its co- or sequential administration with measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine were evaluated. Phase III, open-label, randomized, multicenter study in India. Healthy toddlers aged 12-24 months who had received DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T or separate DTwP-HB-PRP~T+IPV primary vaccination at 6-8, 10-12 and 14-16 weeks of age received a DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T booster concomitantly with MMR (N = 336) or 28 days before MMR (N = 340). Participants had received a first dose of measles vaccine. Immunogenicity assessment used validated assays and safety was by parental reports. All analyses were descriptive. All participants had prebooster anti-T ≥0.01 IU/mL and anti-polio 1 and 3 ≥8 1/dil, and ≥96.5% had anti-D ≥0.01 IU/mL, anti-HBs ≥10 mIU/mL, anti-polio 2 ≥8 1/dil and anti-PRP ≥0.15 µg/mL; for pertussis, antibody persistence was similar in each group. Postbooster immunogenicity for DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T was similar for each antigen in each group: ≥99.5% of participants had anti-D ≥0.01 IU/mL, anti-T ≥0.01 IU/mL, anti-polio 1, 2 and 3 >8 1/dil, anti-HBs ≥10 mIU/mL and anti-PRP ≥1 µg/mL; for pertussis, vaccine response was similar in each group [72.0%-75.9% (anti-PT), 80.8%-81.4% (anti-FIM), 77.6%-79.5% (anti-PRN), 78.2%-80.8% (anti-FHA)]. There was no difference in MMR immunogenicity between groups, and no difference in DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T booster immunogenicity based on the primary series. There were no safety concerns. DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T antibody persistence was similar to licensed comparators. Booster immunogenicity was robust after DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T with or without MMR, and MMR immunogenicity was not affected by coadministration with DTwP-IPV-HB-PRP~T. Clinical Trials Registry India Number: CTRI/2020/04/024843.

Randomised trial of effect of vitamin A supplementation on antibody response to measles vaccine in Guinea-Bissau, west Africa

SLAM and DC-SIGN measles receptor polymorphisms and their impact on antibody and cytokine responses to measles vaccine

A Case Series of Measles Vaccination Failure in Healthcare Workers

Background and objectives: Health systems all over the world are confronted with an alarming rise of cases in which individuals hesitate, delay, and even refuse vaccination, despite availability of quality vaccine services. In order to mitigate and combat this phenomenon, which are now defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as vaccine hesitancy (VH), we must first understand the factors that lead to its occurrence in an era characterized by wide access to safe and effective vaccines. To achieve this, we conducted field testing of the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (VHS), as it was developed by the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts Working Group (SAGE WG), in Cluj-Napoca city, Cluj County, Romania. The scale is designed to quantify VH prevalence in a population, establish which vaccines generate the highest percentage of hesitancy, and allow a qualitative assessment of the individual’s reasons for hesitance. Materials and Methods: We conducted an observational cross-sectional survey, which was comprised of descriptive, analytical, and qualitative elements regarding VH. The necessary sample size was 452 individuals. The VHS and Matrix of Determinants (recommended by SAGE WG) for reasons people gave to justify their hesitance, was interpreted by qualitative thematic analysis (QTA) to ensure the validity and reliability in detecting hesitancy across various cultural settings and permit global comparisons. Results: We found a VH of 30.3% and 11.7% of parents reported refusing to vaccinate their child. Among the VH responders, the varicella vaccine generated 35% hesitancy, measles vaccine 27.7%, Human Papillomavirus (HPV) 24.1%, and mumps vaccine 23.4%, respectively. The QTA values for percent agreement ranged from 91% to 100%. Cohen’s Kappa values ranged from 0.45 to 0.95. Contextual influences identified for VH were “media,” “leaders and lobbies,” and “perception of the pharmaceutical industry.” Individual and group influences for VH were “beliefs,” “knowledge,” and “risk/benefits (perceived).” Vaccine and vaccination specific issues for VH were “risk/benefit (rational)” and “health care practitioners (trustworthiness, competence).” Conclusions: One-third of the investigated population had expressed VH, and a further one-third of these had refused a vaccine for their child. Chicken Pox, Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR), and HPV vaccines generated the most hesitation. Negative information from the media was the most frequently evoked reason for VH.

Viral infections: occupational risk for pregnant health-care personnel?

MUSIC T. (2012) A review of the role the role of influenza vaccination in protecting patients, protecting healthcare workers the role of influenza vaccination. International Nursing Review59, 161–167Aim:Many health authorities recommend routine influenza vaccination for healthcare workers (HCWs), and during the 2009 A (H1N1) pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended immunization of all HCWs worldwide. As this remains an important area of policy debate, this paper examines the case for vaccination, the role of local guidelines, barriers to immunization and initiatives to increase uptake.Background:Seasonal influenza is a major threat to public health, causing up to 1 million deaths annually. Extensive evidence supports the vaccination of priority groups, including HCWs. Immunization protects HCWs themselves, and their vulnerable patients from nosocomial influenza infections. In addition, influenza can disrupt health services and impact healthcare organizations financially. Immunization can reduce staff absences, offer cost savings and provide economic benefits.Methods:This paper reviews official immunization recommendations and HCW vaccination studies, including a recent International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) survey of 26 countries from each region of the world.Results:HCW immunization is widely recommended and supported by the WHO. In the IFPMA study, 88% of countries recommended HCW vaccination, and 61% supported this financially (with no correlation to country development status). Overall, coverage can be improved, and research shows that uptake may be impacted by lack of conveniently available vaccines and misconceptions regarding vaccine safety/efficacy and influenza risk.Conclusions:Many countries recommend HCW vaccination against influenza. In recent years, there has been an increased uptake rate among HCWs in some countries, but not in others. Several initiatives can increase coverage, including education, easy access to free vaccines and the use of formal declination forms. The case for HCW vaccination is clear, and in an effort to further accelerate uptake as a patient safety measure, an increasing number of healthcare organizations, particularly in the USA, are implementing mandatory immunization policies, similar to other obligatory hygiene measures. However, it would be desirable if similar high vaccination uptake rates could be achieved through voluntary procedures.

Healthcare workers and immunity to infectious diseases