PURPOSE Seasonal influenza vaccine is recommended and funded for groups at higher risk of serious infection, but uptake is suboptimal. We conducted a randomized controlled trial of short message service (SMS) reminders for influenza vaccination.METHODS Six weeks after seasonal influenza vaccinations began, we identified high-risk patients who had a mobile telephone number on record at 10 practices in Western Australia. Thirty-two percent of the selected patients had already been vaccinated in the current year and were ineligible. Of the remaining 12,354 eligible patients at each practice one-half were randomly assigned to receive a vaccination reminder by SMS (intervention) and the rest received no SMS (control). Approximately 3 months after the SMS was sent (the study period), vaccination data were extracted from the patients' electronic medical records. Log-binomial regression models were used to calculate the relative risk (RR) of vaccination between the intervention and control group. RESULTSTwelve-percent (769 of 6,177) of the intervention group and 9% (548 of 6,177) of the control group were vaccinated during the study period, a 39% relative increase attributable to the SMS (RR = 1.39; 95% CI, 1.26-1.54). For every 29 SMSs sent, costing $3.48, 1 additional high-risk patient was immunized. The greatest effect was observed for children younger than 5 years, whose parents were more than twice as likely to have their child vaccinated if they received a SMS reminder (RR = 2.43; 95% CI, 1.79-3.29).CONCLUSION We found SMS reminders to be a modestly effective, low-cost means to increase seasonal influenza vaccine coverage among high-risk patients. 2017;15:507-514. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2120. Ann Fam Med INTRODUCTIONI nfluenza is associated with major morbidity and mortality.1 It is estimated that globally 3 to 5 million cases of severe illness and 300,000 to 500,000 deaths can be attributed to influenza infection each year.1 Individuals aged 65 years or older and children aged 5 years or younger, those with chronic medical conditions (eg, asthma, chronic heart disease, diabetes), and pregnant women are most at increased risk of serious influenza illness.2 In Australia, seasonal influenza vaccination is provided at no cost for these high-risk groups, as well as for persons who are Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander (ie, Indigenous Australians).3 Despite a clear recommendation for annual seasonal influenza vaccination and the provision of government-purchased vaccine, seasonal influenza vaccine uptake has been poor among many high-risk groups. [4][5][6][7][8][9] The latest data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare indicate that, although 75% of adults aged 65 years or older received a seasonal influenza vaccine, only 36% of other high-risk populations are vaccinated.10 Strategies are needed to improve the uptake of seasonal influenza vaccines in these patient populations.Prior research has shown that expanded access to influenza vaccines, standing orders, provider feedback and ince...

More than 70% of patients responded by SMS to an SMS query about whether they had any vaccine reactions, with the data received in near real-time. Active surveillance of AEFI using SMS has the capacity to complement existing passive reporting systems, potentially permitting more rapid identification of emerging safety signals.

Objectives To estimate the proportion of infants introduced to peanut and other common food allergens by 12 months of age; to collect information about parent‐reported reactions to food. Design, setting Observational cohort study, applying the SmartStartAllergy SMS protocol and online questionnaire to parents of 12‐month‐old infants attending 69 Australian general practices between 21 September 2018 and 3 May 2019. Participants 3374 parents recruited via the 69 participating general practices. Main outcome measures Proportions of infants who had eaten peanut and other common food allergens; proportions with parent‐reported reactions to food. Results 1940 of 3374 invited parents participated in the study (response rate, 57%), of whom 836 (46%) completed the online questionnaire. At 12 months of age, 1673 of 1940 infants had eaten peanut‐including foods (86.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 84.6–87.7%); 235 of 1831 parents (12.8%; 95% CI, 11.3–14.5%) reported food‐related reactions. Questionnaire responses indicated that dairy was the food type most frequently reported to cause a food‐related reaction (72 of 835 exposed infants, 8.6%; 95% CI, 6.8–11%); peanut‐related reactions were reported for 20 of 764 exposed children (2.6%; 95% CI, 1.6–4.0%). 97 of 250 parent‐reported reactions to food (39%) did not include symptoms that suggested an IgE‐mediated allergic reaction. Conclusion Infant feeding practices in Australia have changed over the past decade; a large majority of infants are now fed peanut before 12 months of age. The SmartStartAllergy program allows monitoring of infant feeding practices in primary care, as well as of parent‐reported reactions to food in infants.

ObjectivesWe integrated an established participant-centred active vaccine safety surveillance system with a cloud-based pharmacy immunisation-recording program in order to measure adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) reported via the new surveillance system in pharmacies, compared with AEFI reported via an existing surveillance system in non-pharmacy sites (general practice and other clinics).DesignA prospective cohort study.Participants and settingIndividuals >10 years receiving influenza immunisations from 22 pharmacies and 90 non-pharmacy (general practice and other clinic) sites between March and October 2020 in Western Australia. Active vaccine safety surveillance was conducted using short message service and smartphone technology, via an opt-out system.Outcome measuresMultivariable logistic regression was used to assess the primary outcome: differences in proportions of AEFI between participants immunised in pharmacies compared with non-pharmacy sites, adjusting for confounders of age, sex and influenza vaccine brand. A subgroup analysis of participants over 65 years was also performed.ResultsOf 101 440 participants (6992 from pharmacies; 94 448 from non-pharmacy sites), 77 498 (76.4%) responded; 96.1% (n=74 448) within 24 hours. Overall, 4.8% (n=247) pharmacy participants reported any AEFI, compared with 6% (n=4356) non-pharmacy participants (adjusted OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.99; p=0.039). Similar proportions of AEFIs were reported in pharmacy (5.8%; n=31) and non-pharmacy participants (6; n=1617) aged over 65 years (adjusted OR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.35; p=0.725). The most common AEFIs in pharmacy were: pain (2%; n=104), tiredness (1.9%; n=95) and headache (1.7%; n=88); and in non-pharmacy sites: pain (2.3%; n=1660), tiredness (1.9%; n=1362) and swelling (1.5%; n=1121).ConclusionsHigh and rapid response rates demonstrate good participant engagement with active surveillance in both pharmacy and non-pharmacy participants. Significantly fewer AEFIs reported after pharmacist immunisations compared with non-pharmacy immunisations, with no difference in older adults, may suggest different cohorts attend pharmacy versus non-pharmacy immunisers. The integrated pharmacy system is rapidly scalable across Australia with global potential.

Background Upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) are a common presentation in general practice and are linked to high rates of inappropriate antibiotic prescription. There is limited information about the trajectory of patients with this condition who have been prescribed antibiotics. Objective To document the symptom profile of patients receiving antibiotics for URTIs in Australian general practice using smartphone technology and online surveys. Methods In total, 8218 patients received antibiotics after attending one of the 32 general practice clinics in Australia from June to October 2017: 4089 were identified as URTI presentations and were the cohort studied. Patients completed the Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey (WURSS-24) 3 and 7 days after visiting their general practitioner (GP). Results Six hundred fourteen URTI-specific patients responded to at least one symptom survey (RR 15%). The majority of patients reported moderate to mild symptoms at 72 hours [median global symptom severity score 37 (IQR 19, 59)] post-GP visit which reduced to very mild symptoms or not sick by day 7 [11 (IQR 4, 27)]. Patients receiving antibiotics for URTI reported the same level of symptom severity as patients in previous studies receiving no treatment. Conclusions The recovery of most patients within days of receiving antibiotics for URTI mimics the trajectory of patients with viral URTIs without treatment. Antibiotics did not appear to hasten recovery. Monitoring of patients in this context using smart phone technology is feasible but limited by modest response rates.

Four COVID-19 vaccines are approved for use in Australia: Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 (Comirnaty), AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 (Vaxzevria), Moderna mRNA-1273 (Spikevax) and Novavax NVX-CoV2373 (Nuvaxovid). We sought to examine adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) at days 3 and 42 after primary doses 1, 2, 3 and booster. We conducted active vaccine safety surveillance from 130 community pharmacies in Australia integrated with AusVaxSafety, between August 2021–April 2022. Main outcomes: AEFI at 0–3 days post-vaccination; medical review/advice at 3 days and 42 days post-vaccination; SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection by day 42. Of 110,024 completed day 3 surveys (43.6% response rate), 50,367 (45.8%) reported any AEFI (highest proportions: Pfizer 42%, primary dose 3; AstraZeneca 58.3%, primary dose 1; Moderna 65.4% and Novavax 58.8%, both primary dose 2). The most common AEFI reported across all doses/vaccines were local reactions, systemic aches and fatigue/tiredness. Overall, 2172/110,024 (2.0%) and 1182/55,329 (2.1%) respondents sought medical review at days 3 and 42, respectively, and 931/42,318 (2.2%) reported breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection at day 42. We identified similar AEFI profiles but at lower proportions than previously reported for Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna and Novavax COVID-19 vaccines. Moderna vaccine was the most reactogenic and associated with higher AEFI proportions across primary doses 2, 3, and booster.

No abstract

INTRODUCTION: Post-licensure surveillance of adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) is critical for detecting rare but severe AEFI. SmartVax software, using smartphone technology, actively solicits reports of AEFI via automated, opt-out SMS surveys to vaccine recipients in the days following immunisation. We report on a pilot study to test the feasibility and acceptance of SmartVax in Switzerland. METHODS: Between February and September 2020, consecutive subjects immunised at an adult immunisation clinic and the employee health service at the University Hospital of Basel were screened. Participants included three subgroups: healthcare workers (HCW), subjects with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID) and clients of the regular adult immunisation clinic. Three days after vaccination, participants received an SMS inquiring if they had any AEFI. In the case of an AEFI, subjects received an automated SMS with a link to an online survey assessing the type and temporal evolution of the AEFI. Descriptive statistics of response rate, time-to-response, frequency and type of AEFI by vaccine and clinical subgroup were performed. RESULTS: Of 293 subjects screened, 276 were included (46.6% routine vaccination check-up visits, 33.3% HCW, 20.1% IMID patients) receiving 625 vaccinations during 360 immunisation visits. The SMS response rate was high (90.3%), with a median time-to-respond of 47 minutes (interquartile range11–205). After 29.8% of immunisation visits at least one AEFI was reported. There were no differences in frequency or type of AEFI between the three clinical subgroups. The recombinant, adjuvanted zoster vaccine Shingrix® was associated with the highest rate of local and systemic reactions. CONCLUSION: Monitoring post-licensure vaccine safety using the active SMS-based surveillance system SmartVax is feasible in Switzerland. We observed a high acceptance in the diverse study population, including healthcare workers and IMID patients. High response rates in the elderly and reliable monitoring almost in real-time make SmartVax a promising tool for COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring.