Refine
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- adverse reaction (1)
- healthcare worker (1)
- immunization (1)
- novel H1N1 influenza (1)
Institute
- Medizin (3)
Purpose: The use of the 2009 H1N1 vaccine has generated much debate concerning safety issues among the general population and physicians. Therefore, we investigated the safety of an inactivated monovalent H1N1 pandemic influenza vaccine Methods: We focused on the H1N1 pandemic influenza vaccine Pandemrix(R) and applied a self reporting questionnaire in a population of healthcare workers (HCWs) and medical students at a major university hospital. Results: In total, 4337 individuals were vaccinated, consisting of 3808 HCWs and 529 medical students. The vaccination rate of the employees was higher than 40%.The majority of individuals were vaccinated in November 2009. In total, 291 of the 4337 vaccinations were reported to lead to one or more adverse reactions (6.7%). Local reactions were reported in 3.8%, myalgia and arthralgia in 3.7%, fatigue in 3.7%, headache in 3.1%. Conclusions: Our data together with available data from several national and international institutions points to a safe pandemic influenza vaccine.
Background: School attendance during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is intensely debated. Modelling studies suggest that school closures contribute to community transmission reduction. However, data among school-attending students and staff are scarce. In November 2020, we examined SARS-CoV-2 infections and seroreactivity in 24 randomly selected school classes and connected households in Berlin, Germany.
Methods: Students and school staff were examined, oro-nasopharyngeal swabs and blood samples collected, and SARS-CoV-2 infection and IgG antibodies detected by RT-PCR and ELISA. Household members performed self-swabs. Individual and institutional infection prevention and control measures were assessed. Classes with SARS-CoV-2 infection and connected household members were re-tested after one week.
Findings: 1119 participants were examined, including 177 primary and 175 secondary school students, 142 staff, and 625 household members. Participants reported mainly cold symptoms (19·4%). SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred in eight of 24 classes affecting each 1-2 individuals. Infection prevalence was 2·7% (95%CI; 1·2-5·0%; 9/338), 1·4% (0·2-5·1%; 2/140), and 2·3% (1·3-3·8%; 14/611) among students, staff and household members, respectively, including quarantined persons. Six of nine infected students were asymptomatic. Prevalence increased with inconsistent facemask use in school, way to school on foot, and case-contacts outside school. IgG antibodies were detected in 2·0% (0·8-4·1%; 7/347), 1·4% (0·2-5·0%; 2/141) and 1·4% (0·6-2·7%; 8/576), respectively. For three of nine households with infection(s) detected at cross-sectional assessment, origin in school seemed possible. After one week, no school-related, secondary infections appeared in affected classes; the attack rate in connected households was 1·1%.
Interpretation: These data suggest that school attendance under preventive measures is feasible, provided their rigorous implementation. In balancing threats and benefits of open versus closed schools during the pandemic, parents and society need to consider possible spill-overs into their households. Deeper insight is needed into the infection risks due to being a schoolchild as compared to attending school.
Background: School attendance during the COVID-19 pandemic is intensely debated.
Aim: In November 2020, we assessed SARS-CoV-2 infections and seroreactivity in 24 randomly selected school classes and connected households in Berlin, Germany.
Methods: We collected oro-nasopharyngeal swabs and blood samples, examining SARS-CoV-2 infection and IgG antibodies by RT-PCR and ELISA. Household members self-swabbed. We assessed individual and institutional prevention measures. Classes with SARS-CoV-2 infection and connected households were retested after 1 week.
Results: We examined 1,119 participants, including 177 primary and 175 secondary school students, 142 staff and 625 household members. SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred in eight classes, affecting each 1–2 individuals. Infection prevalence was 2.7% (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2–5.0; 9/338), 1.4% (95% CI: 0.2–5.1; 2/140), and 2.3% (95% CI: 1.3–3.8; 14/611) among students, staff and household members. Six of nine infected students were asymptomatic at testing. We detected IgG antibodies in 2.0% (95%CI: 0.8–4.1; 7/347), 1.4% (95% CI: 0.2–5.0; 2/141) and 1.4% (95% CI: 0.6–2.7; 8/576). Prevalence increased with inconsistent facemask-use in school, walking to school, and case-contacts outside school. For three of nine households with infection(s), origin in school seemed possible. After 1 week, no school-related secondary infections appeared in affected classes; the attack rate in connected households was 1.1%.
Conclusion: School attendance under rigorously implemented preventive measures seems reasonable. Balancing risks and benefits of school closures need to consider possible spill-over infection into households. Deeper insight is required into the infection risks due to being a schoolchild vs attending school.