Effectiveness of influenza vaccine in health care professionals: A randomized trial

James A Wilde, Julia A. McMillan, Janet Serwint, Jeanne Butta, Mary Ann O'Riordan, Mark C. Steinhoff

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

516 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Context: Data are limited and conflicting regarding the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in health care professionals. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of trivalent influenza vaccine in reducing infection, illness, and absence from work in young, healthy health care professionals. Design: Randomized, prospective, double-blind, controlled trial over 3 consecutive years, from 1992-1993 to 1994-1995. Setting: Two large teaching hospitals in Baltimore, Md. Participants: Two hundred sixty-four hospital-based health care professionals without chronic medical problems were recruited; 49 participated for 2 seasons; 24 participated for 3 seasons. The mean age was 28.4 years, 75% were resident physicians, and 57% were women. Intervention: Participants were randomly assigned to receive either an influenza vaccine or a control (meningococcal vaccine, pneumococcal vaccine, or placebo). Serum samples for antibody assays were collected at the time of vaccination, 1 month after vaccination, and at the end of the influenza season. Active weekly surveillance for illness was conducted during each influenza epidemic period. Main Outcome Measures: Serologically defined influenza infection (4- fold increase in hemagglutination-inhibiting antibodies), days of febrile respiratory illness, and days absent from work. Results: We conducted 359 person-winters of serologic surveillance (99.4% follow-up) and 4746 person- weeks of illness surveillance (100% follow-up). Twenty-four (13.4%) of 179 control subjects and 3 (1.7%) of 180 influenza vaccine recipients had serologic evidence of influenza type A or B infection during the study period. Vaccine efficacy against serologically defined infection was 88% for influenza A (95% confidence interval [CI], 47%-97%; P = .001) and 89% for influenza B (95% CI, 14%-99%; P = .03). Among influenza vaccinees, cumulative days of reported febrile respiratory illness were 28.7 per 100 subjects compared with 40.6 per 100 subjects in controls (P = .57) and days of absence were 9.9 per 100 subjects vs 21.1 per 100 subjects in controls (P = .41). Conclusions: Influenza vaccine is effective in preventing infection by influenza A and B in health care professionals and may reduce reported days of work absence and febrile respiratory illness. These data support a policy of annual influenza vaccination of health care professionals.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)908-913
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of the American Medical Association
Volume281
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 10 1999

Fingerprint

Influenza Vaccines
Human Influenza
Delivery of Health Care
Infection
Vaccination
Fever
Meningococcal Vaccines
Confidence Intervals
Pneumococcal Vaccines
Baltimore
Sick Leave
Antibodies
Hemagglutination
Teaching Hospitals
Vaccines
Placebos
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Physicians

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Effectiveness of influenza vaccine in health care professionals : A randomized trial. / Wilde, James A; McMillan, Julia A.; Serwint, Janet; Butta, Jeanne; O'Riordan, Mary Ann; Steinhoff, Mark C.

In: Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 281, No. 10, 10.03.1999, p. 908-913.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wilde, James A ; McMillan, Julia A. ; Serwint, Janet ; Butta, Jeanne ; O'Riordan, Mary Ann ; Steinhoff, Mark C. / Effectiveness of influenza vaccine in health care professionals : A randomized trial. In: Journal of the American Medical Association. 1999 ; Vol. 281, No. 10. pp. 908-913.
@article{e1d9852e044d4228a93a706815f25f11,
title = "Effectiveness of influenza vaccine in health care professionals: A randomized trial",
abstract = "Context: Data are limited and conflicting regarding the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in health care professionals. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of trivalent influenza vaccine in reducing infection, illness, and absence from work in young, healthy health care professionals. Design: Randomized, prospective, double-blind, controlled trial over 3 consecutive years, from 1992-1993 to 1994-1995. Setting: Two large teaching hospitals in Baltimore, Md. Participants: Two hundred sixty-four hospital-based health care professionals without chronic medical problems were recruited; 49 participated for 2 seasons; 24 participated for 3 seasons. The mean age was 28.4 years, 75{\%} were resident physicians, and 57{\%} were women. Intervention: Participants were randomly assigned to receive either an influenza vaccine or a control (meningococcal vaccine, pneumococcal vaccine, or placebo). Serum samples for antibody assays were collected at the time of vaccination, 1 month after vaccination, and at the end of the influenza season. Active weekly surveillance for illness was conducted during each influenza epidemic period. Main Outcome Measures: Serologically defined influenza infection (4- fold increase in hemagglutination-inhibiting antibodies), days of febrile respiratory illness, and days absent from work. Results: We conducted 359 person-winters of serologic surveillance (99.4{\%} follow-up) and 4746 person- weeks of illness surveillance (100{\%} follow-up). Twenty-four (13.4{\%}) of 179 control subjects and 3 (1.7{\%}) of 180 influenza vaccine recipients had serologic evidence of influenza type A or B infection during the study period. Vaccine efficacy against serologically defined infection was 88{\%} for influenza A (95{\%} confidence interval [CI], 47{\%}-97{\%}; P = .001) and 89{\%} for influenza B (95{\%} CI, 14{\%}-99{\%}; P = .03). Among influenza vaccinees, cumulative days of reported febrile respiratory illness were 28.7 per 100 subjects compared with 40.6 per 100 subjects in controls (P = .57) and days of absence were 9.9 per 100 subjects vs 21.1 per 100 subjects in controls (P = .41). Conclusions: Influenza vaccine is effective in preventing infection by influenza A and B in health care professionals and may reduce reported days of work absence and febrile respiratory illness. These data support a policy of annual influenza vaccination of health care professionals.",
author = "Wilde, {James A} and McMillan, {Julia A.} and Janet Serwint and Jeanne Butta and O'Riordan, {Mary Ann} and Steinhoff, {Mark C.}",
year = "1999",
month = "3",
day = "10",
doi = "10.1001/jama.281.10.908",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "281",
pages = "908--913",
journal = "JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association",
issn = "0002-9955",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effectiveness of influenza vaccine in health care professionals

T2 - A randomized trial

AU - Wilde, James A

AU - McMillan, Julia A.

AU - Serwint, Janet

AU - Butta, Jeanne

AU - O'Riordan, Mary Ann

AU - Steinhoff, Mark C.

PY - 1999/3/10

Y1 - 1999/3/10

N2 - Context: Data are limited and conflicting regarding the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in health care professionals. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of trivalent influenza vaccine in reducing infection, illness, and absence from work in young, healthy health care professionals. Design: Randomized, prospective, double-blind, controlled trial over 3 consecutive years, from 1992-1993 to 1994-1995. Setting: Two large teaching hospitals in Baltimore, Md. Participants: Two hundred sixty-four hospital-based health care professionals without chronic medical problems were recruited; 49 participated for 2 seasons; 24 participated for 3 seasons. The mean age was 28.4 years, 75% were resident physicians, and 57% were women. Intervention: Participants were randomly assigned to receive either an influenza vaccine or a control (meningococcal vaccine, pneumococcal vaccine, or placebo). Serum samples for antibody assays were collected at the time of vaccination, 1 month after vaccination, and at the end of the influenza season. Active weekly surveillance for illness was conducted during each influenza epidemic period. Main Outcome Measures: Serologically defined influenza infection (4- fold increase in hemagglutination-inhibiting antibodies), days of febrile respiratory illness, and days absent from work. Results: We conducted 359 person-winters of serologic surveillance (99.4% follow-up) and 4746 person- weeks of illness surveillance (100% follow-up). Twenty-four (13.4%) of 179 control subjects and 3 (1.7%) of 180 influenza vaccine recipients had serologic evidence of influenza type A or B infection during the study period. Vaccine efficacy against serologically defined infection was 88% for influenza A (95% confidence interval [CI], 47%-97%; P = .001) and 89% for influenza B (95% CI, 14%-99%; P = .03). Among influenza vaccinees, cumulative days of reported febrile respiratory illness were 28.7 per 100 subjects compared with 40.6 per 100 subjects in controls (P = .57) and days of absence were 9.9 per 100 subjects vs 21.1 per 100 subjects in controls (P = .41). Conclusions: Influenza vaccine is effective in preventing infection by influenza A and B in health care professionals and may reduce reported days of work absence and febrile respiratory illness. These data support a policy of annual influenza vaccination of health care professionals.

AB - Context: Data are limited and conflicting regarding the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in health care professionals. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of trivalent influenza vaccine in reducing infection, illness, and absence from work in young, healthy health care professionals. Design: Randomized, prospective, double-blind, controlled trial over 3 consecutive years, from 1992-1993 to 1994-1995. Setting: Two large teaching hospitals in Baltimore, Md. Participants: Two hundred sixty-four hospital-based health care professionals without chronic medical problems were recruited; 49 participated for 2 seasons; 24 participated for 3 seasons. The mean age was 28.4 years, 75% were resident physicians, and 57% were women. Intervention: Participants were randomly assigned to receive either an influenza vaccine or a control (meningococcal vaccine, pneumococcal vaccine, or placebo). Serum samples for antibody assays were collected at the time of vaccination, 1 month after vaccination, and at the end of the influenza season. Active weekly surveillance for illness was conducted during each influenza epidemic period. Main Outcome Measures: Serologically defined influenza infection (4- fold increase in hemagglutination-inhibiting antibodies), days of febrile respiratory illness, and days absent from work. Results: We conducted 359 person-winters of serologic surveillance (99.4% follow-up) and 4746 person- weeks of illness surveillance (100% follow-up). Twenty-four (13.4%) of 179 control subjects and 3 (1.7%) of 180 influenza vaccine recipients had serologic evidence of influenza type A or B infection during the study period. Vaccine efficacy against serologically defined infection was 88% for influenza A (95% confidence interval [CI], 47%-97%; P = .001) and 89% for influenza B (95% CI, 14%-99%; P = .03). Among influenza vaccinees, cumulative days of reported febrile respiratory illness were 28.7 per 100 subjects compared with 40.6 per 100 subjects in controls (P = .57) and days of absence were 9.9 per 100 subjects vs 21.1 per 100 subjects in controls (P = .41). Conclusions: Influenza vaccine is effective in preventing infection by influenza A and B in health care professionals and may reduce reported days of work absence and febrile respiratory illness. These data support a policy of annual influenza vaccination of health care professionals.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033540993&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033540993&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jama.281.10.908

DO - 10.1001/jama.281.10.908

M3 - Article

C2 - 10078487

AN - SCOPUS:0033540993

VL - 281

SP - 908

EP - 913

JO - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

JF - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

SN - 0002-9955

IS - 10

ER -