Immunization updates and challenges

Keeton, Victoria; Chen, Angel K.

doi:10.1097/mop.0b013e328337685b

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, a well-established barrier to influenza immunization is a general lack of patient acceptance of traditional intramuscular vaccination: results obtained from recent European surveys indicate that 20% of adults and 14% of elderly patients refuse vaccination because they dislike injections or needles, considering other ways of vaccine administration an encouraging option to implement vaccination against influenza 15 - 18 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current evidence on intradermal influenza vaccines administered by Soluvia™ licensed micro injection system

Icardi

Orsi

Ceravolo

et al. 2012

Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Among the several strategies explored for (1) the enhancement of the immune response to influenza immunization, (2) the improvement of the vaccine acceptability and (3) the overcoming of the egg-dependency for vaccine production, intradermal administration of influenza vaccine emerges as a promising alternative to conventional intramuscular route, thanks to the recent availability of new delivery devices and the perception of advantages in terms of immunogenicity, safety, reduction of antigen content and acceptability. Data from clinical trials performed in children, adults <60 y and elderly people and post-marketing surveillance demonstrate that actually, licensed intradermal influenza vaccines, Intanza™ 9 and 15 µg and Fluzone™ Intradermal, administered by the microinjection system Soluvia™, show an excellent acceptability, tolerability and safety profile. Formulations containing 9 and 15 μg per strain demonstrate, respectively, comparable and superior immunogenicity than conventional intramuscular vaccines. Licensed intradermal influenza vaccines can be considered a valid alternative to standard intramuscular vaccination offering significant advantages in low-responder populations and helping to increase influenza vaccination coverage rates especially in people with fear of needles or high apprehension associated with annual vaccination.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current evidence on intradermal influenza vaccines administered by Soluvia™ licensed micro injection system

Icardi

Orsi

Ceravolo

et al. 2012

Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A well-established barrier to influenza immunization is a general lack of patient acceptance of traditional intramuscular vaccination: recent studies have demonstrated that the most common reasons for missing previous vaccinations are fear of adverse events, bothered by pain during injection and dislike for injections or needles, and that other ways of vaccine administration were considered to be an encouraging alternative to implement vaccination against influenza. [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] For all these reasons, new vaccines providing (1) a robust, effective and protective antibody response in patients with impaired innate and adaptive immunity, such as older people or patients with chronic diseases, (2) a broader and cross-reactive immune response against drifted influenza variants and (3) an excellent safety, tolerability and acceptability profile are urgently needed. Among several strategies explored to enhance immunogenicity of plain -subunit and split -vaccines, the use of adjuvants (i.e., MF59 ® ), or carriers, (i.e., virosome), have led to licensed vaccines in Europe, while intradermal administration of influenza vaccine has emerged as a promising option, thanks to the recent availability of a new delivery device.…”

Section: Head-to-head Comparison Of An Intradermal and A Virosome Infmentioning

confidence: 99%

Head-to-head comparison of an intradermal and a virosome influenza vaccine in patients over the age of 60

Ansaldi

Orsi

Florentiis

et al. 2013

Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…1 Current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines recommend routine yearly influenza vaccination for all people $6 months of age, with emphasis on those who are immunosuppressed or have chronic illness. 1,12,13 Patients who are ,9 years of age who have never been immunized against influenza should receive 2 doses, 1 month apart, which is associated with a better immunologic response. 12, 14 Because the vaccine is safe and poses no risk of viral transmission, routine vaccination of the pediatric cancer population is recommended.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality Improvement Initiative to Increase Influenza Vaccination in Pediatric Cancer Patients

Freedman¹,

Reilly

Powell

et al. 2015

Pediatrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Pediatric patients with cancer face more severe complications of influenza than healthy children. Although Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines recommend yearly vaccination in these patients, in our large academic center, ,60% of oncology patients receiving chemotherapy were immunized at baseline. Our objective was to increase this rate through a multifaceted quality improvement initiative.METHODS: Eligible patients were .6 months old, within 1 year of receiving chemotherapy, .100 days from stem cell transplant, and had $1 outpatient oncology visit between September 1, 2012, and March 31, 2013. Five interventions were instituted concomitantly: (1) family education: influenza/ vaccine handouts were provided to families in clinic waiting rooms; (2) health informatics: daily lists of outpatients due for immunization were generated from the electronic medical record and sent automatically to triage staff and nurses; (3) outpatient clinic: patients due for vaccination were given colored wristbands during triage to alert providers; (4) inpatient: vaccine order was built into admission order set; and (5) provider education: staff education was provided at conferences on screening of patients, vaccine ordering, and documentation of refusals/contraindications. RESULTS:The complete influenza immunization rate increased by 20.1% to 64.5%, and the proportion of patients receiving $1 dose of vaccination increased by 22.9% to 77.7%. Similar changes were noted across all cancer types, with highest rates of immunization in leukemia/lymphoma patients (86.8%) and lowest in patients after stem cell transplant (66.7%).CONCLUSIONS: Technology, education, and multidisciplinary clinical process changes increased influenza vaccination rates. Ongoing efforts are targeting subgroups with lowest rates of immunization.

show abstract

Immunization updates and challenges

Cited by 13 publications

References 34 publications

Current evidence on intradermal influenza vaccines administered by Soluvia™ licensed micro injection system

Current evidence on intradermal influenza vaccines administered by Soluvia™ licensed micro injection system

Head-to-head comparison of an intradermal and a virosome influenza vaccine in patients over the age of 60

Quality Improvement Initiative to Increase Influenza Vaccination in Pediatric Cancer Patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About