RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Liver injury after Covid-19 vaccine has been described, although the incidence was not well established. We aimed to compare cumulative incidence of new onset liver test alteration after Covid-19 vaccination, and to compare with an historical control of influenza vaccination. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study which included adults who received at least one dose of Covid-19 vaccine from January 1 to May 30, 2021 and a control group who received a single dose of influenza vaccine during 2019, in a tertiary medical center from Argentina. RESULTS: We included 29 798 patients in Covid-19 vaccine group and 24 605 in influenza vaccine group. Liver function tests were performed in 7833 (26.9%) in Covid-19 vaccine group and 8459 (34.37%) in influenza vaccine group. Cumulative incidence at 90 days of new onset liver enzyme test alteration was 4.7 per 1000 (95% 4.0-5.5) for Covid-19 group, and 5.1 per 1000 (95% 4.3-6.1) for the influenza vaccine group (p value = 0.489). Two patients in the Covid-19 vaccine group developed immune mediated liver injury. CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in liver test alteration between groups. These findings support the safety of Covid-19 vaccines. While we have identified two cases that are consistent with immune mediated liver injury following COVID-19 vaccination, we believe that the available data is insufficient to attribute them solely to the vaccination.

Assuntos

RESUMO

SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of influenza immunization in elderly people in Brazil in 2019. METHODS: This is a population-based cross-sectional study. The Brazilian individuals (≥60 years) who participated in the 2019 National Health Survey were included. The survey was conducted in permanent households in Brazil from August 2019 to March 2020. The prevalences of influenza vaccination and their respective confidence intervals (95%CI) were estimated according to sociodemographic characteristics and the diagnosis of chronic diseases. RESULTS: The prevalence of influenza vaccination was 72.4% (95%CI 71.5-73.2), with statistically significant differences observed between genders (p=0.001), age groups (p=0.001), and those living with a spouse/partner (p=0.002). Significant differences were found in groups with arterial hypertension (75.2%, p<0.001), diabetes (77.2%, p<0.001), and arthritis or rheumatism (75.5%, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: A global prevalence of influenza vaccination of 72.4% was estimated among elderly people in Brazil.

RESUMO

Resumen Introducción: La Asociación para el Cuidado de la Diabetes en Argentina - CUI.D.AR, realizó una encuesta online, diseñada para recabar conocimientos y apre ciaciones de las personas con diabetes mellitus y su entorno cercano sobre el virus Influenza y los riesgos potenciales asociados con la infección, y explorar el nivel de confianza en las vacunas en general y en la vacuna antigripal en particular. Métodos: Entre el 30 de septiembre y el 15 de noviem bre de 2021, un total de 1425 participantes completaron el cuestionario de forma anónima y voluntaria. La población que respondió la encuesta incluyó personas con distinto tipo de diabetes (n = 822), familiares, cuidadores y/o con tactos cercanos (n = 603), principalmente residentes en diferentes áreas geográficas del país y de diversas edades. Resultados: El 85% de los participantes, en conjunto, consideraba que el virus Influenza y la gripe son un ries go para la salud de las personas con diabetes. El 72% de los participantes refirió que la persona con diabetes se había aplicado la vacuna anualmente, incluso durante la pandemia de COVID-19. El nivel expresado de confianza en las vacunas fue elevado. Los participantes asigna ron un rol importante a los profesionales de la salud en la indicación de la vacuna antigripal y expresaron la necesidad de mayor información en los medios de comunicación sobre las vacunas. Discusión: La presente encuesta aporta datos obte nidos en el contexto de la vida real que podrían contri buir a optimizar la inmunización de las personas con diabetes.

Abstract Introduction: The Asociación para el Cuidado de la Diabetes en Argentina - CUI.D.AR, carried out an online survey specifically designed to collect the knowledge and perceptions people who suffered from diabetes mellitus and their close contacts had on the Influenza virus and the potential risks associated with the infection. The survey also explored the confidence level in vaccines in general and in anti-influenza vaccines in particular. Methods: Between September 30th and November 15th 2021, 1425 participants anonymously and volun tarily completed the questionnaire. The survey respon dents included people with different types of diabetes (n=822), their relatives, carers and close contacts (n=603). They were of diverse ages, most of whom lived in diffe rent geographical areas of the country. Results: Overall, 85% of the participants considered that the Influenza virus and the disease represent a risk for people with diabetes. Seventy-two percent of the participants expressed that the person with diabetes had received their annual immunization, even during the COVID-19 pandemic. The referred level of confiden ce in vaccines was high. The participants assigned an important role to health professionals in vaccines pres cription and expressed the need for more information about vaccines in the media. Discussion: The present survey contributes real-world data that could help optimize diabetic people's immunization.

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: The Asociación para el Cuidado de la Diabetes en Argentina - CUI.D.AR, carried out an online survey specifically designed to collect the knowledge and perceptions people who suffered from diabetes mellitus and their close contacts had on the Influenza virus and the potential risks associated with the infection. The survey also explored the confidence level in vaccines in general and in anti-influenza vaccines in particular. METHODS: Between September 30th and November 15th 2021, 1425 participants anonymously and voluntarily completed the questionnaire. The survey respondents included people with different types of diabetes (n = 822), their relatives, carers and close contacts (n = 603). They were of diverse ages, most of whom lived in different geographical areas of the country. RESULTS: Overall, 85% of the participants considered that the Influenza virus and the disease represent a risk for people with diabetes. Seventy-two percent of the participants expressed that the person with diabetes had received their annual immunization, even during the COVID-19 pandemic. The referred level of confidence in vaccines was high. The participants assigned an important role to health professionals in vaccines prescription and expressed the need for more information about vaccines in the media. DISCUSSION: The present survey contributes realworld data that could help optimize diabetic people's immunization.

Introducción: La Asociación para el Cuidado de la Diabetes en Argentina - CUI.D.AR, realizó una encuesta online, diseñada para recabar conocimientos y apreciaciones de las personas con diabetes mellitus y su entorno cercano sobre el virus Influenza y los riesgos potenciales asociados con la infección y explorar el nivel de confianza en las vacunas en general y en la vacuna antigripal en particular. Métodos: Entre el 30 de septiembre y el 15 de noviembre de 2021, un total de 1425 participantes completaron el cuestionario de forma anónima y voluntaria. La población que respondió la encuesta incluyó personas con distinto tipo de diabetes (n = 822), familiares, cuidadores y/o contactos cercanos (n = 603) principalmente residentes en diferentes áreas geográficas del país y de diversas edades. Resultados: El 85% de los participantes, en conjunto, consideraba que el virus Influenza y la gripe son un riesgo para la salud de las personas con diabetes. El 72% de los participantes refirió que la persona con diabetes se había aplicado la vacuna anualmente, incluso durante la pandemia de COVID-19. El nivel expresado de confianza en las vacunas fue elevado. Los participantes asignaron un rol importante a los profesionales de la salud en la indicación de la vacuna antigripal y expresaron la necesidad de mayor información en los medios de comunicación sobre las vacunas. Discusión: La presente encuesta aporta datos obtenidos en el contexto de la vida real que podrían contribuir a optimizar la inmunización de las personas con diabetes.

Assuntos

RESUMO

RESUMEN Introducción : La influenza es una causa importante de morbilidad y mortalidad en pacientes con enfermedades cardiovasculares (ECV). El objetivo de esta revisión sistemática actualizada y metaanálisis fue evaluar los efectos de la vacunación contra la influenza (VI) sobre la mortalidad y morbilidad en pacientes adultos con ECV. Métodos : Se realizó una revisión sistemática y un metaanálisis (PubMed, Cochrane Library, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, y búsqueda manual en presentaciones en congresos de la especialidad), de ensayos clínicos aleatorizados publicados hasta abril de 2022 que investigaron si la VI reduce la mortalidad por todas las causas en pacientes adultos con ECV, incluyendo insuficiencia cardíaca (IC) y enfermedad de las arterias coronarias (EAC), en comparación con pacientes que no fueron vacunados. Resultados : Se analizaron un total de seis ensayos clínicos, que incluyeron 9316 pacientes. Cinco ensayos incluyeron pacientes con EAC, y uno con IC. El seguimiento medio fue de 16 ± 9,7 meses. La VI se asoció con una reducción de la mortalidad en comparación con el control, cociente de riesgos (RR) 0,67, intervalo de confianza del 95% (IC95%) 0,47-0,95; p = 0,03; I2 = 53%; y con una reducción de la mortalidad cardiovascular en comparación con el control, RR 0,64, IC95% 0,44-0,94; p = 0,02; I2 = 54%. El uso de la VI se asoció con una reducción no estadísticamente significativa de infarto de miocardio en comparación con el control, RR 0,82, IC95% 0,60-1,12; p = 0,57; I2 = 0%. Conclusión : En este metaanálisis de seis ensayos controlados aleatorizados, la VI se asoció con una reducción del riesgo relativo del 33% y del 36% de la mortalidad por todas las causas y cardiovascular, respectivamente, en pacientes con ECV. Intentamos promover un consenso con respecto a los beneficios persistentes de la vacuna contra la influenza en pacientes con ECV, incluyendo dos nuevos ensayos clínicos en EAC e IC, donde se confirma la asociación de la vacunación con la reducción de riesgo en sujetos con ECV.

ABSTRACT Background : Influenza is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). The aim of this updated systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of influenza vaccination (IV) on morbidity and morbidity in adult patients with CVD. Methods : We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis (PubMed, Cochrane Library, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and manual search of conference presentations) of randomized clinical trials published up to April 2022 analyzing whether IV reduced all-cause mortality in adult patients with CVD, including heart failure (HF) and coronary artery disease (CAD), compared with patients who were not vaccinated. Results : A total of six clinical trials comprising 9316 patients were analyzed. Five trials included CAD patients, and one trial included HF patients. Mean follow-up was 16 ± 9.7 months. Influenza vaccine was associated with a reduction of mortality compared to controls: relative risk (RR) 0.67 (95% CI, 0.47-0.95), p = 0.03; I2 = 53%, and with reduction of cardiovascular mortality compared to controls: RR 0.64 (95% CI, 0.44-0.94), p = 0.02; I2 = 54%. There was a non-statistically significant reduction in myocardial infarction compared to control: RR 0.82 (95% CI, 0.60-1.12), p = 0.57; I2 = 0%. Conclusion : In this meta-analysis of six randomized controlled clinical trials, IV was associated with a 33% and 36% relative risk reduction of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, respectively, in patients with CVD. We sought to promote consensus about the persistent benefits of influenza vaccination in patients with CVD by including two new clinical trials in CAD and HF, confirming the association of vaccination with risk reduction in subjects with CVD.

RESUMO

Vaccines prevent numerous infectious diseases, including influenza. Despite their significant contribution to controlling influenza, vaccine coverage against this disease varies among health care workers. The Health Belief Model could thus help to understand the reasons why these workers accept (or not) the immunobiological. The aim of this study was to describe the main results of research performed on influenza vaccination among health care workers using the Health Belief Model. This is an integrative literature review. Data search took place in October 2020 in the PubMed database, with the following descriptors: "influenza vaccine"; "health professionals"; "Health Belief Model," and their synonyms. Eleven studies were included in this review. The main dimensions of the model (susceptibility, severity, benefits, and barriers) were more explored by the studies, and self-efficacy was the least studied dimension. Moreover, we observed a relationship between the theory's dimensions (susceptibility, severity, benefits, barriers, cues to action, and self-efficacy) and influenza vaccination in health care workers. In conclusion, this review identified profiles of beliefs for each dimension of the Health Belief Model, which has traditionally been an ally for determining refusal or acceptance of the influenza vaccine among health care workers.

As vacinas previnem inúmeras doenças infecciosas, inclusive a influenza. Mesmo diante da sua significativa contribuição para o controle da enfermidade, as coberturas vacinais contra influenza entre os trabalhadores de saúde são variáveis. Dessa forma, o modelo de crenças em saúde pode auxiliar na compreensão dos motivos que levam esses trabalhadores a aceitarem ou não o imunobiológico. O objetivo deste estudo foi descrever os principais resultados de pesquisas sobre vacinação contra influenza entre trabalhadores de saúde utilizando o modelo de crenças em saúde. Tratou-se de uma revisão integrativa da literatura. A busca de dados ocorreu em outubro de 2020 na base de dados PubMed, com os descritores: "influenza vaccine"; "health professionals"; e "Health Belief Model" e seus sinônimos. Foram incluídos 11 artigos nesta revisão. Identificou-se que as principais dimensões do modelo (suscetibilidade, gravidade, benefícios e barreiras) foram mais exploradas pelos artigos, e a dimensão autoeficácia foi a menos estudada. Além disso, existe uma relação entre as dimensões da teoria (suscetibilidade, gravidade, benefícios, barreiras, estímulos para ação e autoeficácia) e a vacinação contra a influenza em trabalhadores da saúde. Conclui-se que, através da revisão proposta, pôde-se identificar perfis de crenças para cada dimensão do modelo de crenças em saúde que, tradicionalmente, vem servindo como aliado para determinar recusa ou aceitação da vacina contra influenza entre trabalhadores de saúde.

RESUMO

RESUMO Objetivo: este estudo objetivou verificar a prevalência de vacinação da influenza e investigar os motivos da não vacinação na população idosa. Método: Estudo de coorte "Saúde do Idoso Gaúcho de Bagé, RS, realizada em Bagé em 2008 e 2016/2017. A variável dependente foi obtida através da pergunta: "Neste ano o(a) Sr.(a) fez a vacina contra a gripe? Sim/não". Em caso de resposta negativa o idoso era questionado sobre a razão de não ter se vacinado. Realizou-se análise descritiva, prevalência de vacinação e cálculo de Razão de prevalência no programa Stata 14.0. Resultados: a prevalência de vacinação contra Influenza no ano de 2008 foi de 58,8% e em 2016/2017 de 80,8%. O motivo mais frequente referido pelos idosos para a não realização da vacina em 2008 foram: "não quis" (29%) e em 2016/2017 "ter medo" (26,7%). Conclusão: apesar da prevalência de vacinação ter aumentado, evidencia-se que os idosos continuam com dúvidas e receios acerca da vacina, sendo necessário repensar novas estratégias em conjunto com as Equipes de Saúde da Família.

RESUMEN Objetivo: este estudio tuvo como objetivo verificar la prevalencia de vacunación de la influenza e investigar los motivos de la no vacunación en la población de personas mayores. Método: estudio de cohorte Salud del Anciano Gaucho de Bagé, RS, realizado en Bagé-RS/Brasil en 2008 y en 2016/2017. La variable dependiente fue obtenida a través de la pregunta: "¿Este año usted ya se ha vacunado contra la gripe? Sí/no". En caso de respuesta negativa el anciano era preguntado sobre la razón de no haberse vacunado. Se realizó análisis descriptivo, prevalencia de vacunación y cálculo de Razón de prevalencia en el programa Stata 14.0. Resultados: la prevalencia de vacunación contra Influenza en el año 2008 fue de 58,8% y en 2016/2017 de 80,8%. El motivo más frecuente señalado por las personas mayores para la no realización de la vacuna en 2008 fue "no quiso" (29%); y en 2016/2017 "tener miedo" (26,7%). Conclusión: aunque la prevalencia de vacunación ha aumentado, se evidencia que los ancianos continúan con dudas y recelos acerca de la vacuna, siendo necesario repensar nuevas estrategias en conjunto con los Equipos de Salud de la Familia.

ABSTRACT Objective: to verify the prevalence of vaccination against influenza and to investigate the reasons for the lack of vaccination in the elder population. Methods: cohort study "Health of the Elder Gaucho from Bagé, RS", carried out in the city of Bagé in 2008 and 2016/2017. The dependent variable was found using the question: "Did you get vaccinated against influenza this year? "Yes or no?". When the response was negative, the elder was asked why they were not vaccinated. We carried out a descriptive analysis of the vaccination prevalence and calculated the prevalence ratio using the software Stata 14.0. Results: the prevalence of vaccination against influenza in 2008 was 58.8%, reaching 80.8% in 2016/2017. In 2008, the most common answer from the elders about why they did not vaccinate was "I didn't want to" (29%); in 2016/2017, it was "I was afraid" (16.7%). Conclusion: although the prevalence of vaccination increased, elders continue to have doubts and fear about the vaccine, and it is necessary to rethink strategies together with the Family Health Teams.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Nowadays, there is a global concern about outbreaks caused by the highly pathogenic avian influenza virus H5N8 clade 2.3.4.4 which caused devastating losses in the poultry industry sector. This clade was subdivided into two waves: clade 2.3.4.4A from 2014 to 2015 and clade 2.3.4.4b from 2016 until now. In this literature we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of recently used inactivated commercial avian influenza vaccines against two new Egyptian highly pathogenic avian influenza virus H5N8 isolates of clade 2.3.4.4b, A/chicken/Egypt/1526v/2020/H5N8 (H5N8-CH) and A/Duck/Egypt/Qalubia321/2021 (H5N8-D). Three-week-old specific pathogen free chickens were vaccinated with eight types of the most recently used inactivated avian influenza vaccines containing homologous and heterologous virus to the circulating H5N8 isolates. All specific pathogen free chicken groups were bled weekly post vaccination for antibody analysis using two H5N8 isolates of chicken and duck origin as antigen in hemagglutination inhibition test. Also, all vaccinated chicken groups were challenged 4 weeks post vaccination against the H5N8 duck isolate with a dose of 109 EID50/0.1 mL per chicken to measure the protection percentage of the commercial vaccines used. The results showed that vaccines with homologous and heterologous virus showed variable degrees of accepted protection percentage ranged from 90percent to 100percent, thus it was concluded that not only the genetic and antigenic match of the vaccine strains with the circulating highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses influences vaccine efficiency; other factors, such as manufacturing procedures, adjuvant, antigen content, vaccine dose and administration factors could affect vaccine efficacy, therefore, further vaccine development studies are needed to improve the percentage of protection and prevention of viral shedding against local highly pathogenic avian influenza H5 viruses in Egypt(AU)

En la actualidad, existe una preocupación mundial por los brotes causados por el virus de la gripe aviar altamente patógena H5N8 clado 2.3.4.4 que causó pérdidas devastadoras en el sector de la industria avícola. Este clado se subdividió en dos oleadas: clado 2.3.4.4A de 2014 a 2015 y clado 2.3.4.4b de 2016 hasta ahora. En el presente trabajo, dos aislamientos egipcios de la gripe aviar altamente patógena H5N8 del clado 2.3.4.4b, A/chicken/Egypt/1526v/2020/H5N8 (H5N8_CH) y A/Duck/Egypt/Qalubia321/2021 (H5N8_D), se utilizaron para evaluar la eficacia de vacunas comerciales inactivadas contra la gripe aviar de reciente utilización. Pollos libres de patógenos específicos de tres semanas de edad fueron vacunados con ocho vacunas inactivadas contra la influenza aviar, de uso reciente, que contenían virus homólogos y heterólogos a los aislamientos circulantes de H5N8. Todos los grupos de pollos libres de patógenos específicos fueron sangrados semanalmente tras la vacunación para el análisis de anticuerpos; dos virus H5N8 aislados de pollo y pato se utilizaron como antígeno en la prueba de inhibición de la hemaglutinación. Además, todos los grupos de pollos vacunados fueron retados 4 semanas después de la vacunación con el virus H5N8 aislado de pato, con una dosis de 109 EID50/0,1 mL por pollo, para medir el porcentaje de protección de las vacunas comerciales utilizadas. Los resultados mostraron que las vacunas con virus homólogos y heterólogos presentaron grados variables de aceptada protección, la que osciló entre el 90 por ciento y el 100 por ciento, por lo que se concluyó que no sólo la coincidencia genética y antigénica de las cepas vacunales con los virus circulantes de la influenza aviar altamente patógena influye en la eficacia de la vacuna; otros factores, como los procedimientos de fabricación, el adyuvante, el contenido en antígenos, la dosis de la vacuna y los factores de administración podrían afectar a la eficacia de la vacuna, por lo que es necesario seguir estudiando el desarrollo de vacunas para mejorar la protección y la prevención de la excreción viral contra los virus H5 de la influenza aviar altamente patógena locales en Egipto(AU)

Assuntos

RESUMO

Commercial inactivated avian influenza H5 vaccine is used as an essential control strategy for avian influenza disease in Egypt. Since the initial outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N8, the virus has diverged with new genotypes and variant viruses continuing to emerge which mainly stand behind vaccination failure. In the present work, four different commercial avian influenza vaccines were inoculated in specific pathogenic free chickens for assessing its efficacy against local highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N8 virus isolated in 2018 and 2020. Two hundred and forty specific pathogenic free chickens were clustered into four groups; each group was inoculated with the corresponding vaccine (60 specific pathogenic free chickens/vaccine). Sixty specific pathogenic free chicks were kept as control unvaccinated group. Sera collected from vaccinated chicken groups at 3rd and 4th week post vaccination were examined for calculating neutralizing antibodies using heterologous highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N8 2018 and 2020. At 4th week post vaccination, vaccinated chickens were challenged; moreover, oropharyngeal swabs were collected from challenged vaccinated chickens to calculate the viral shedding. Our findings revealed the groups vaccinated with vaccine code no 1 and 2 that contains two vaccine strains (H5N1 and H5N8) of local origin exhibited the highest hemagglutination inhibition titer, protection (percent) and reduction in viral shedding titer when examined by highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N8 2018 while, vaccine code no 3 induced lower antibody response, protection (percent) and reduction in viral shedding, but still within satisfactory level when compared to previous groups. When highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N8 2020 was used, it was found the seroconversion rate, protection (percent) and mean titer of reduction of viral shedding decreased in comparison to those recorded for highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N8 2018. Vaccine code no 4 was impotent to either highly pathogenic avian influenza 2018 or 2020. Accordingly, it was recommended to update vaccine strain according to epidemiological condition and used the predominant circulating strain isolate in challenge test(AU)

La vacuna comercial inactivada H5 se utiliza como estrategia esencial de control de la enfermedad de la gripe aviar en Egipto. Desde los brotes iniciales de la gripe aviar altamente patógena H5N8, el virus ha variado al aparecer continuamente nuevos genotipos y variantes virales, que son los principales responsables del fracaso de la vacunación. En el presente trabajo, cuatro vacunas comerciales diferentes contra la gripe aviar se inocularon en pollos libres de patógenos específicos para evaluar su eficacia contra cepas del virus local de la gripe aviar altamente patógeno H5N8 aisladas en 2018 y 2020. Se agruparon 240 pollos pollos libres de patógenos específicos en cuatro grupos, cada uno fue inoculado con la vacuna correspondiente (60 pollos pollos libres de patógenos específicos/vacuna). Sesenta pollos SPF se mantuvieron como grupo control sin vacunar. Los sueros de los pollos vacunados recogidos en la 3ª y 4ª semana después de la vacunación se examinaron para calcular los anticuerpos neutralizantes contra la gripe aviar heteróloga H5N8 2018 y 2020. En la cuarta semana después de la vacunación, los pollos vacunados fueron retados; además, se recogieron hisopados orofaríngeos de los pollos vacunados retados para calcular la diseminación viral. Nuestros resultados revelaron que los grupos vacunados con las vacunas con códigos nº 1 y 2, que contienen dos cepas vacunales (H5N1 y H5N8) de origen local, mostraron el mayor título de inhibición de la hemaglutinación, protección (por ciento) y reducción del título de excreción viral cuando se evaluaron contra la gripe aviar altamente patógena H5N8 2018, mientras que la vacuna con código nº 3 indujo menor respuesta de anticuerpos, protección (por ciento) y reducción de la excreción viral, pero todavía dentro de un nivel satisfactorio en comparación con los grupos anteriores. Al utilizar la vacuna contra la gripe aviar altamente patógena H5N8 2020, se observó que la tasa de seronconversión, la protección (por ciento) y el título medio de reducción de la excreción viral disminuyeron en comparación con los registrados para la gripe aviar altamente patógena H5N8 2018. La vacuna con código nº 4 no fue potente para la gripe aviar altamente patógena de 2018 o de 2020. Por consiguiente, se recomendó actualizar la cepa de la vacuna de acuerdo con las condiciones epidemiológicas y utilizar el aislamiento de la cepa circulante predominante en la prueba de reto(AU)

Assuntos

RESUMO

Introducción: la infección por el virus de la gripe genera morbimortalidad. El personal de salud es uno de los grupos prioritarios para ser vacunado. Objetivo: conocer cobertura vacunal contra la gripe del personal de salud que trabaja con niños en CASMU en 2019 y 2020, y las razones por las que se vacunaron o no. Material y método: estudio observacional, descriptivo, transversal. Recolección de datos en 2020 a través de un cuestionario anónimo. Se registraron las siguientes variables: edad, lugar de trabajo (urgencias, internación o policlínica), función, riesgo de enfermedad grave, aplicación o no de vacuna en 2019 y en 2020, y motivos de vacunación o de no vacunación. Resultados: completaron la encuesta 204 trabajadores. En 2019, se vacunó el 73 % y, en 2020, el 77,5 % (p >0,05). El personal de salud de urgencias de Montevideo presentó mayor vacunación (en 2019, el 90,7 %; en 2020, el 93 %), seguido por el personal de salud de urgencias de Ciudad de la Costa e internación. Según la ocupación, para los médicos se registró una vacunación mayor al 95 % (2019 y 2020); para las licenciadas y auxiliares de enfermería, el 68,6 % en 2019 y el 75,7 % en 2020; para el personal no clínico, el 33 % en 2019 y el 41 % en 2020. El aumento de vacunados en 2020 no fue significativo en ninguna de las ocupaciones. El 21 % de los encuestados presentaba riesgo de enfermedad grave; el 65 % de estos se vacunó en 2019 y el 74,4 % en 2020. La totalidad de las embarazadas de la muestra se vacunó. Motivos más frecuentes mencionados de vacunación (2019 y 2020): prevención (50,5 %) y ser personal de salud (36 %). El de quienes no se vacunaron fue "Nunca enfermo" (19 %). Quienes no se administraron la vacuna en 2019, pero sí en 2020, mencionaron más frecuentemente la pandemia como motivo. Conclusión: en CASMU, el porcentaje de trabajadores de la salud en contacto con niños que se adhirió a la vacunación antigripal en 2019 y 2020 fue mayor al 70 %. No se registró aumento significativo por la pandemia. Se debe mejorar la cobertura en policlínicas y del personal de salud no médico, en particular del personal de salud con factores de riesgo de enfermedad grave.

Introduction: the influenza virus infection causes morbidity and mortality. Health care personnel (HCP) is one of the priority groups to be vaccinated. Objective: to learn about HCP's vaccination coverage against influenza of those workers working with children at CASMU in 2019 and 2020, and the reasons why they received vaccination or did not. Material and Methods: observational, descriptive, crosssectional study. Data collection in 2020: anon ymous survey. Variables: age, place of work (emer gency, hospital or clinic), function, risk of serious illness, vaccination received (or not received) in 2019 and 2020 and reasons. Results: 204 workers completed the survey; influenza vaccination: 73% in 2019 and 77.5% in 2020 (p>0.05). Montevideo's Emergency Department presented the highest level of vaccination and hospitalization (2019-90.7%; 2020-93%) followed by the Ciudad de la Costa's Emergency Department. By occupational level: doctors: vaccination> 95% (2019 and 2020); graduates and nursing assistants: 2019-68.6%; 2020- 75.7%; administrative, kitchen, cleaning and gate house staff: 2019-33%, 2020-41%. The increase in vaccinated personnel in 2020 was not significant for any of the occupations. 21% of those surveyed had a risk of serious illness; 65% were vaccinated in 2019 and 74.4% in 2020. All the sampled pregnant women were vaccinated. The most frequent reasons mentioned for vaccination (2019 and 2020): "prevention" (50.5%), being PS (36%). Those who were not vaccinated stated that were "never ill" (19%). Those who had not received the vaccine in 2019, but received in 2020, mostly mentioned the "pandemic" as a reason. Conclusion: in CASMU, the percentage of health workers in contact with children who adhered to the flu vaccination in 2019 and 2020 was higher than 70%. There was no significant increase after to the pandemic. Coverage in polyclinics and nonmedical HCP, in particular those HCP with risk factors for serious diseases, should be improved.

Introdução: a infecção pelo vírus influenza gera morbimortalidade. O pessoal de saúde (PS) é um dos grupos prioritários a ser vacinado. Objetivo: conhecer a cobertura vacinal contra influenza do PS que atende crianças no CASMU em 2019 e 2020, e os motivos pelos quais foram vacinados ou não. Material e Métodos: estudo observacional, descritivo e transversal. Coleta de dados em 2020: questionário anônimo. Variáveis: idade, local de trabalho (emergência, internação ou policlínica), função, anos de trabalho, risco de doença grave, aplicação ou não da vacinação em 2019 e 2020 e motivos. Resultados: 204 trabalhadores responderam à pesquisa; vacinação contra influenza: 73% em 2019 e 77,5% em 2020 (p> 0,05). O pronto socorro de Montevidéu apresentou o maior nível de vacinação (2019-90,7%; 2020-93%) seguido pelo pronto socorro de Ciudad de la Costa e internação. Ocupação: médicos: vacinação> 95% (2019 e 2020); graduados e auxiliares de enfermagem: 2019-68,6%; 2020-75,7%; Pessoal administrativo, cozinha, limpeza e porteiros: 2019-33%, 2020-41%. O aumento de vacinados em 2020 não foi significativo em nenhuma das ocupações. 21% dos entrevistados corriam risco de doenças graves; 65% deles foram vacinados em 2019 e 74,4% em 2020. Todas as gestantes da amostra foram vacinadas. Motivos mais citados para a vacinação (2019 e 2020): "prevenção" (50,5%), sendo PS (36%). Aqueles que não foram vacinados disseram que eles "nunca ficavam doentes" (19%). Os que não receberam a vacina em 2019, mas sim em 2020, citaram com mais frequência a "pandemia" como motivo. Conclusão: no CASMU, a percentagem de profissionais de saúde em contato com crianças que aderiram à vacinação contra gripe em 2019 e 2020 foi superior a 70%. Não houve aumento significativo após a pandemia. A cobertura em policlínicas e profissionais de saúde não médicos e, em particular, profissionais de saúde com fatores de risco para doenças graves, deve ser melhorada.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Influenza increases stillbirth risk, morbidity and mortality in pregnant women. Vaccination protects pregnant women against severe disease and indirectly protects their infants, but coverage among pregnant women remains low worldwide. We aimed to describe knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) regarding seasonal influenza vaccination among postpartum women and prenatal care physicians in Costa Rica. METHODS: We conducted cross-sectional KAP surveys to women one to three days after childbirth at Costa Rican Social Security Fund maternity hospitals, and obstetricians and general practitioners who provided prenatal care in 2017. Principal components analysis, multiple imputation, and logistic regression were used to examine associations between influenza vaccination and demographics, prenatal care, and sources of information-separately for postpartum women and physicians. We also held two focus groups of six healthcare workers each to further describe vaccination KAP. RESULTS: We surveyed 642 postpartum women and 146 physicians in maternity hospitals in five Costa Rican provinces of whom 85.5 % (95 % CI: 82.6 %-88.0 %) and 57.9 % (95 % CI: 49.6 %-65.7 %) were vaccinated for influenza, respectively. Factors associated with influenza vaccination for postpartum women included tetanus vaccination (aOR: 3.62, 95 % CI: 1.89-6.92); received vaccination recommendations from clinicians during prenatal check-ups (aOR: 3.39, 95 % CI: 2.06-5.59); had other children in household vaccinated for influenza (aOR: 2.25, 95 % CI: 1.08-4.68); and secondary/university education (aOR: 0.15-0.31) with no formal education as reference. For postpartum women, reasons for vaccination were perceived benefits for mother and infant, whereas not being offered vaccines was most cited for non-vaccination. Most prenatal care physicians recommended influenza vaccines during prenatal check-ups but believed vaccination causes flu-like symptoms. CONCLUSION: Vaccination campaigns and provisions of free vaccines effectively increased knowledge and coverage among women in Costa Rica. To improve access, women should be offered vaccines during prenatal care appointments. Educating healthcare workers about vaccine benefits for themselves and patients is needed to mitigate safety concerns.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Resumo É observada a queda nos percentuais de cobertura vacinal no Brasil, num cenário de crescimento progressivo da cobertura da Atenção Primária à Saúde (APS), locus onde grande parte das ações de vacinação ocorre. Investigou-se as diferenças nos perfis de acesso e qualidade da APS entre municípios que atingiram ou não as metas de cobertura vacinal para influenza em 2019. Neste estudo ecológico, comparou-se variáveis potencialmente preditoras do alcance da meta de cobertura vacinal para influenza, considerando as dimensões de acesso, qualidade e características do município. Para todos os grupos, o conjunto de municípios que atingiu a cobertura preconizada tinha maiores coberturas de APS e de Estratégia de Saúde da Família e maior número de Agentes Comunitários de Saúde por mil habitantes. Também realizavam mais busca ativa de crianças com calendário vacinal atrasado, registravam a vacinação em dia das gestantes, o horário de funcionamento da unidade atendia às expectativas do usuário, havia maior satisfação do usuário com o cuidado recebido e maior percentual da população com acesso à coleta de lixo. As variáveis podem servir de apoio para a tomada de decisão quanto à organização dos serviços de APS na busca de ampliar as coberturas vacinais para influenza.

Abstract A drop in the percentages of vaccination coverage in Brazil has been detected in a scenario where there is progressive growth in the coverage of Primary Health Care (PHC), namely the location where most of the vaccination actions occur. This article investigated the differences in PHC access and quality profiles among municipalities that attained or failed to attain coverage targets for influenza in 2019, stratified by vaccination priority groups. In this ecological study, we compared predictors of reaching the goal of vaccination coverage for influenza, considering access, quality, and characteristics of the municipality. For all groups, the set of municipalities that reached the targets had greater PHC and Family Health Strategy coverage and a greater number of Community Health Agents per thousand inhabitants. They also carried out more active searches for children with delayed vaccination schedules, registered the vaccination of pregnant women on the same day, had unit opening hours that met user expectations, showed greater user satisfaction with the care received and had a higher percentage of the population with access to garbage collection. The variables may support decision-making about the organization of PHC services with the purpose of expanding vaccine coverage for influenza.

RESUMO

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has imposed a huge challenge on the antenatal care of pregnant women worldwide, with the maternal mortality rate being raised to alarming levels. While COVID-19 vaccines were developed, some studies highlighted a possible relationship between influenza vaccination and lower odds of COVID-19 infection. As obstetric patients belong to a high-risk group for respiratory diseases, this study evaluated whether influenza vaccination reduces the severity of COVID-19 infection and mortality among pregnant and postpartum women. We conducted a retrospective cohort study on 3370 pregnant and postpartum women from the Brazilian national database, where they were grouped according to their influenza vaccination status before the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. The intensive care unit admission and intubation rates were significantly higher among subjects in the unvaccinated group (p = 0.002 and p < 0.001, respectively). The odds of mortality risk among those who received the vaccine was 0.33, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.23-0.47. The numbers of patients who needed to be vaccinated to avoid a case of intensive care unit admission, intubation, or death due to COVID-19 were 11, 15, and 11, respectively. Influenza vaccines could confer protection against severe COVID-19 infection in pregnant and postpartum women.

RESUMO

Objetivo: Analisar a cobertura vacinal contra a influenza em gestantes na região Sudeste do Brasil, nos anos de 2010 a 2020. Métodos:Estudo ecológico, de série temporal, realizado com dados do Sistema de Informação do Programa Nacional de Imunizações (SI-PNI), referentes aos registros de doses da vacina contra influenza em gestantes no estado de Minas Gerais. Resultados: A cobertura vacinal adequada foi alcançada em apenas quatro dos 11 anos estudados, variando de 49,75% em 2011 a 88,5% em 2015. No ano de 2020 foi alcançado 80,82%. Possíveis determinantes são discutidos em uma perspectiva ampliada, que pode subsidiar planejamento de ações em todo o país. Conclusão: A cobertura vacinal contra Influenza nas gestantes apresentou, em sua maior parte, uma tendência estacionária, apontando para a possível necessidade de educação permanente dos profissionais de saúde envolvidos no pré-natal, qualificação de suas ações na área de educação em saúde para esclarecer dúvidas das gestantes sobre a temática.

Objective: To analyze the influenza vaccination coverage in pregnant women in the Southeast region of Brazil between years 2010 and 2020. Methods: An ecological, time series study conducted with data from the National Immunization Program Information System (SI-PNI) referring to records of doses of influenza vaccine in pregnant women in the state of Minas Gerais. Results:Adequate vaccination coverage was achieved in only four out of the 11 years studied, ranging from 49.75% in 2011 to 88.5% in 2015. In 2020, the rate of 80.82% was reached. Possible determinants are discussed in an expanded perspective that can support the planning of actions across the country. Conclusion: Influenza vaccination coverage in pregnant women showed a stagnation trend for the most part, pointing to the possible need for continuing education of health professionals involved in antenatal care and qualification of their actions in the area of health education to clarify pregnant women's doubts on the subject.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Quadrivalent influenza vaccines (QIVs) are designed to prevent influenza disease caused by two influenza A viruses (H1N1 and H3N2) and both influenza B lineages. Risk-monitoring of QIVs to identify adverse events (AEs) is necessary as influenza vaccines are reformulated each year. We developed a new active surveillance system (Sistema de Control de Vacunación; SICOVA) to improve pharmacovigilance in Mexico. Participants (N = 2013) aged 0 - 96 years from nine sites across three influenza seasons (n = 1166 in 2015 - 2016; n = 633 in 2016 - 2017; and n = 214 in 2017 - 2018) agreed to receive text messages 1, 7, 28, and 42 days post-vaccination to know if they had experienced any AEs. The study was completed electronically by 1763 (87.6%) participants; manual follow-up was conducted for 250 participants whose reporting was incomplete. The overall AE rate was 9.09%. At least one AE was reported by 183 participants, of whom 131 (71.58%) did not require a medical visit and 52 (28.42%) needed medical attention, with none requiring hospitalization. Most AEs requiring medical attention occurred in children aged 0 - 5 years (n = 22, 42.31%) and adults aged 31 - 35 years (n = 5, 9.62%). These results are consistent with the established safety profile of Fluzone® Quadrivalent, and show that SICOVA can facilitate surveillance and increase AE reporting in Mexico.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Resumo Objetivo Avaliar a cobertura vacinal para influenza e os motivos para vacinação ou não em idosos, nas campanhas dos anos de 2019 e 2020. Métodos Estudo quantitativo e longitudinal, realizado em Três Lagoas (MS). Participaram idosos cadastrados em serviços de saúde ou de convivência. No primeiro trimestre de 2020, foram avaliados presencialmente 172 idosos, dos quais 86 foram reentrevistados entre agosto e outubro de 2020 por meio de contato telefônico. Na primeira entrevista, questionou-se sobre a vacinação contra a gripe em 2019 e os motivos para vacinação ou não. Na segunda, as questões foram sobre a vacinação em 2020 e os motivos. As coberturas vacinais de 2019 e 2020 foram comparadas pelo teste de McNemar. Resultados Houve predomínio de mulheres, com média de 69,1 anos de idade. A cobertura vacinal em 2019 foi de 90,7%. A maioria tomou a vacina por acreditar que era importante se vacinar. Como motivos para a não vacinação, destacaram-se as reações anteriores e o fato de não ficar gripado. Em 2020, a cobertura foi de 86,0%. A maioria dos idosos se vacinou pelo fato de a vacina estar disponível no Sistema Único de Saúde. Os motivos para não vacinação foram medo de sair de casa devido à pandemia e falta de orientação profissional. Não houve diferença significativa na cobertura vacinal em 2019 e 2020 (p=0,388). Conclusão A cobertura vacinal diminuiu no ano da pandemia, sem diferença significativa. Informações confiáveis de profissionais de saúde e da mídia são essenciais para a manutenção de altas coberturas vacinais.

Resumen Objetivo Evaluar la cobertura vacunal de la influenza y los motivos para la vacunación o no de adultos mayores en las campañas de los años de 2019 y de 2020. Métodos Estudio cuantitativo y longitudinal, realizado en Três Lagoas (Mato Grosso do Sul). Participaron adultos mayores registrados en servicios de salud o de convivencia. En el primer trimestre de 2020, 172 adultos mayores fueron evaluados presencialmente de los que 86 fueron entrevistados nuevamente entre agosto y octubre de 2020 por medio de contacto telefónico. En la primera entrevista, se preguntó sobre la vacunación contra la gripe en el 2019 y los motivos para vacunarse o no vacunarse. En la segunda, las preguntas fueron sobre la vacunación en el 2020 y los motivos. Las coberturas vacunales de 2019 y de 2020 fueron comparadas por la prueba de McNemar. Resultados Hubo un predominio de mujeres, con un promedio de 69,1 años de edad. La cobertura vacunal en el 2019 fue del 90,7 %. La mayoría tomó la vacuna por considerar que era importante vacunarse. Como motivos para la no vacunación, se destacaron las reacciones anteriores y el hecho de no quedarse engripado. En el 2020, la cobertura fue del 86,0 %. La mayoría de los adultos mayores se vacunó por el hecho de que la vacuna está disponible en el Sistema Único de Salud. Los motivos para la no vacunación fueron el miedo de salir de casa en función de la pandemia y la falta de orientación profesional. No hubo diferencia significante en la cobertura vacunal en el 2019 y el 2020 (p=0,388). Conclusión La cobertura vacunal disminuyó el año de la pandemia, sin significante diferencia. Informaciones confiables de profesionales de salud y de los medios son esenciales para el mantenimiento de altas coberturas vacunales.

Abstract Objective To assess influenza vaccination coverage and reasons for vaccination or not in older adults, in the campaigns of 2019 and 2020. Methods This is a quantitative and longitudinal study, carried out in Três Lagoas (MS). Older adults registered in health care or social services participated. In the first quarter of 2020, 172 older adults were assessed in person, of whom 86 were re-interviewed between August and October 2020 through telephone contact. In the first interview, questions were asked about the flu vaccination in 2019 and the reasons for vaccination or not. In the second, the questions were about vaccination in 2020 and why. Vaccination coverage for 2019 and 2020 was compared using the McNemar test. Results There was a predominance of women, with an average age of 69.1 years. Vaccination coverage in 2019 was 90.7%. Most of them took the vaccine because they believed it was important. As reasons for non-vaccination, the previous reactions and the fact that they did not have the flu were highlighted. In 2020, coverage was 86.0%. Most older adults were vaccinated because the vaccine was available in the Unified Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde). The reasons for non-vaccination were fear of leaving home due to the pandemic and lack of professional guidance. There was no significant difference in vaccination coverage in 2019 and 2020 (p=0.388). Conclusion Vaccination coverage decreased in the year of the pandemic, with no significant difference. Reliable information from healthcare professionals and the media is essential for maintaining high vaccination coverage.

Assuntos

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Annual seasonal influenza vaccination in healthcare workers prevents nosocomial transmission to patients, coworkers, and visitors, and reduces absenteeism. This study aimed to describe knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of seasonal influenza vaccine among public healthcare workers attending patients in Costa Rica. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of healthcare personnel attending patients in public hospitals in 2017-2018. Frequency distributions of demographics, vaccination KAP, sources of information, clinical manifestations and reasons for non-vaccination were reported. Logistic regression was used to analyze associations between exposures of interest (demographics, sources of information, knowledge, attitudes towards vaccination) and self-reported influenza vaccination. RESULTS: We surveyed 747 healthcare workers in 2017-2018. Of 706 participants who knew their vaccination status, 55.7% were vaccinated for seasonal influenza. Only 20.7% of participants knew the influenza vaccine was an inactivated virus, and 94.6% believed the vaccine causes flu-like symptoms. Factors associated with current influenza vaccination were vaccination in previous year (aOR: 8.13; 95% CI: 5.65-11.71) and believed influenza vaccination may be harmful (aOR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.44-0.89). Reasons for non-vaccination included fear of adverse effects and access limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Suboptimal influenza vaccination among healthcare workers may be attributed to misconceptions about the vaccine and limited engagement strategies focusing on healthcare workers. Appropriate interventions are needed to increase healthcare worker vaccination rates and improve their knowledge and beneficence, which would improve patient safety in hospitals.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Abstract Adverse reactions to vaccine injections are usually mild and incredibly rare in nature, but multiple cases of shoulder events including bursitis, generalized pain or decreased range of motion have been reported following routine vaccine administrations. These events are known as Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration or SIRVA. A systematic review of literature was performed to identify all published accounts of SIRVA. Twenty-seven papers reporting one or more accounts of SIRVA were identified. The most common vaccination involved was the Influenza vaccine. The most common symptoms were pain that began in 48 hours or less and loss of shoulder range of motion. The most common treatment modalities were physical therapy, corticosteroid injections and anti-inflammatory medication; but in some patients, surgery was required. Regardless of intervention, the vast majority of outcomes demonstrated improved pain and functional except in the occasions of nerve injury. The etiology of SIRVA injuries has multiple possibilities including needle length, mechanical injury from needle overpenetration and the possibility of an immune inflammatory response from the vaccine components, but a unique definitive test or quantifiably result does not yet exist.

Resumo As reações adversas às injeções de vacina tendem a ser brandas e são incrivelmente raras. No entanto, vários casos de eventos em ombros, como bursite, dor generalizada ou diminuição da amplitude de movimento, foram relatados após vacinações de rotina. Esses eventos são conhecidos como lesões em ombro relacionadas à administração de vacina (SIRVA, do inglês shoulder injury related to vaccine administration). Uma revisão sistemática da literatura foi realizada para identificar todos os relatos publicados de SIRVA. Vinte e sete artigos que relataram um ou mais casos de SIRVA foram encontrados. A vacina mais comumente citada foi a vacina contra influenza. Os sintomas mais comuns foram dor com início em até 48 horas e perda da amplitude de movimento do ombro. As modalidades de tratamento mais comuns foram fisioterapia, injeções de corticosteroides e administração de medicamentos anti-inflamatórios; alguns pacientes, porém, precisaram de cirurgia. Independentemente da intervenção, a grande maioria dos casos apresentou melhora da dor e da função, à exceção dos pacientes com lesão nervosa. A SIRVA tem múltiplas possíveis etiologias, inclusive comprimento da agulha, lesão mecânica por penetração excessiva da agulha e resposta inflamatória aos componentes da vacina; no entanto, ainda não há um exame definitivo ou resultado quantificável.

Assuntos

RESUMO

ABSTRACT Objective To evaluate the prevalence and factors associated with non-vaccination against influenza in the risk group. Methods A cross-sectional, population-based study, carried out in the city of Rio Grande (RS). The outcome was defined as belonging to risk groups and not having been vaccinated in the last 12 months. Demographic, socioeconomic, behavioral variables, and access for health services were analyzed. Results In this study, 680 individuals participated. The prevalence was 46.0% (95%CI: 41.8-50.3), ranging from 27.9% (elderly) to 81.8% (pregnant women). Young adults, single, intermediate socioeconomic bracket, smoker, with depressive symptoms, who did not perform physical activity and did not consult a physician in the last year, had a higher prevalence of non-vaccination. Conclusion Half of the sample was not vaccinated in the period. Due to the similarity of influenza-like illness and the coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19), increasing vaccination would minimize mortality and use of hospital beds due to influenza, optimizing the response of hospital capacity.

RESUMO Objetivo Avaliar a prevalência e os fatores associados à não vacinação contra influenza em grupos de risco. Métodos Estudo transversal, de base populacional, realizado em Rio Grande (RS). O desfecho foi definido como pertencer aos grupos de risco e não ter se vacinado nos últimos 12 meses. Foram analisadas variáveis demográficas, socioeconômicas, comportamentais e de acesso a serviços de saúde. Resultados Participaram 680 indivíduos. A prevalência foi de 46,0% (IC95%: 41,8-50,3), variando de 27,9% (idosos) a 81,8% (gestantes). Adultos jovens, solteiros, de nível econômico intermediário, tabagistas, com sintomas depressivos, que não praticavam atividade física e não consultaram um médico no último ano tiveram maior prevalência de não vacinação. Conclusão Metade da amostra não foi vacinada no período. Pela semelhança da síndrome gripal com a doença pelo coronavírus 2019 (COVID-19), aumentar a vacinação minimizaria a mortalidade e a utilização de leitos hospitalares devido à influenza, otimizando a resposta da capacidade hospitalar.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Resumo Objetivo Avaliar a proporção de pessoas idosas não vacinadas e os motivos que interferem na imunização contra influenza em localidades rurais ribeirinhas, discutindo as potenciais implicações na vacinação contra a infecção por SARS-CoV-2. Método Inquérito epidemiológico de base domiciliar realizado em 38 localidades rurais ribeirinhas de Manaus (AM), Brasil, assistidas por uma Unidade Básica de Saúde Fluvial. Os participantes responderam a um questionário que investigou condições de vida, saúde e acesso aos serviços de saúde. Para este estudo foram avaliados os desfechos relacionados à imunização contra a Influenza nos últimos 12 meses e o principal motivo alegado para a não vacinação. Foi realizada análise descritiva dos dados, seguida por análise de regressão logística para identificar fatores associados à não vacinação. Resultados Das 102 pessoas idosas incluídas no estudo, 28 (27,5%) referiram não vacinação contra a Influenza no ano anterior. Os principais motivos foram a falta de informação sobre a vacinação (60,7%) e barreiras de acesso aos serviços de saúde (28,6%). Foi identificada maior chance de não vacinação entre aqueles que não consultaram o médico no último ano (RC=4,18; IC95%=1,57-11,11) e com maior renda domiciliar (RC=1,08; IC95%=1,02-1,14). Conclusão Verificou-se elevada proporção de pessoas idosas autorreferindo não imunização contra Influenza. Os motivos identificados para a não vacinação podem também representar barreiras à vacinação desse grupo populacional contra a covid-19. Dessa forma, faz-se necessário adequar o planejamento da vacinação em contextos rurais ribeirinhos, desenvolvendo estratégias mais contextualizadas para garantia de cobertura a essa população com maior vulnerabilidade aos efeitos de doenças respiratórias.

Abstract Objective To evaluate the proportion of unvaccinated older adults and the reasons that interfere with immunization against Influenza in rural riverside locations, discussing the potential implications on vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Method Household-based survey conducted in 38 rural riverside locations in Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil, covered by a primary care Fluvial Health Unit. Participants answered a questionnaire that investigated living conditions, health status and access to health services. In this study, the outcomes related to immunization against Influenza in the last 12 months and the main reported reason for non-vaccination were evaluated. Descriptive data analysis was performed, followed by logistic regression to identify factors associated with non-vaccination. Results Of the 102 older adults included in the study, 28 (27.5%) reported not vaccinating against Influenza in the previous year. The main reasons were lack of information about vaccination (60.7%) and barriers to accessing health services (28.6%). An increased chance of non-vaccination was identified among those who did not see a doctor in the last year (OR=4.18; 95%CI=1.57-11.11) and those with higher household income (OR=1.08; 95%CI= 1.02-1.14). Conclusion A high proportion of older adults reporting no immunization against Influenza was identified. The reasons for non-vaccination may also represent barriers to the vaccination of this population group against COVID-19. Thus, it is necessary to improve the vaccination planning in rural riverside contexts, developing more contextualized strategies to assure coverage for this population, more vulnerable to the effects of respiratory diseases.