Impact of live attenuated influenza vaccination programme for healthy children in Northern Ireland: A comparison of seven influenza seasons, 2010/11–2016/17

Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene, Vol. 62 No. 2s1 (2021): Health Technology Assessment (HTA) dell’introduzione della vaccinazione antinfluenzale per la popolazione giovanile italiana con il vaccino Fluenz Tetra®

“…Sono emerse riduzioni statisticamente significative nelle consultazioni durante l’orario e nelle chiamate fuori orario nelle stagioni post-programma rispetto alle stagioni pre-programma, sia nel complesso (nell’orario RR: 0,61, IC 95%: 0,38-0,98, p = 0,040; fuori orario RR: 0,51, IC 95%: 0,27-0,97, p = 0,041) sia nel gruppo di soggetti di età < 14 anni (nell’orario RR: 0,38, IC 95%: 0,19-0,75, p = 0,006, fuori orario RR: 0,39, IC 95%: 0,19-0,83, p = 0,014). Questi dati dimostrano che, grazie all’introduzione della vaccinazione contro l’influenza dei bambini sani, sono state registrate riduzioni dell’impatto dell’influenza sull’assistenza primaria sia in generale sia nei bambini di età inferiore ai 14 anni [ 47 ].…”

“…È pertanto ipotizzabile che una somministrazione che escluda la via iniettiva possa essere meglio tollerata sia dai genitori che dai bambini con un possibile incremento della compliance vaccinale. Questa ipotesi viene confermata dal fatto che la vaccinazione intranasale ha comportato un incremento delle coperture vaccinali nei contesti ove è stata implementata [ 11 ], così come si è osservato che circa il 10% dei genitori avrebbe rifiutato la vaccinazione in assenza della via intranasale [ 12 ].…”

Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine: Is Past Performance a Guarantee of Future Results?

“…47 The United Kingdom continued to use LAIV for the school-based programs mentioned previously, with very effective results. 48,49 Across the United Kingdom during the 2016À2017 season, when the same H3N2 strain as in the United States was predominant, with little H1N1, LAIV efficacy in children aged 2 to 17 years was 65.8%. 48 The estimates against the H3N2 and B strains were 57% and 78.6% respectively.…”

A Mixed-Methods Study to Evaluate Elementary School Staff’s Acceptability, Delivery Challenges, and Communication Regarding the Implementation of School-Located Influenza Vaccination Program in Hong Kong

“…Seasonal influenza easily attacks children, with an annual attack rate of ~20% among unvaccinated children [ 1 ], and was associated with 16.4% of the hospitalizations among children aged 5–17 years [ 2 ]. Vaccinating school-aged children against seasonal influenza can significantly reduce the burden of influenza-like illness in children [ 3 , 4 ] and confer protection to a broader community [ 5 , 6 ]. School-located influenza vaccination program (SIVP) was evidenced to be efficient for promoting vaccination uptake rates among school-aged children elsewhere [ 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 ] and acceptable for elementary schools and parents in the context of the United States [ 8 , 9 , 10 ].…”

“…Vaccinating school-aged children against seasonal influenza can significantly reduce the burden of influenza-like illness in children [ 3 , 4 ] and confer protection to a broader community [ 5 , 6 ]. School-located influenza vaccination program (SIVP) was evidenced to be efficient for promoting vaccination uptake rates among school-aged children elsewhere [ 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 ] and acceptable for elementary schools and parents in the context of the United States [ 8 , 9 , 10 ]. However, the acceptability, delivery challenges, and communication about SIVP in the Asian context remained underexplored, which raised questions about the sustainability of the program in relevant contexts [ 11 ].…”