\n\nData collection and analysis: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias.\n\nMain results: We identified four cluster-RCTs (C-RCTs)
(n = 7558) and one cohort (n = 12742) of influenza vaccination for HCWs caring for individuals >= 60 in LTCFs. Pooled data from three C-RCTs showed no effect on specific outcomes: laboratory-proven www.selleckchem.com/products/Erlotinib-Hydrochloride.html influenza, pneumonia or deaths from pneumonia. For non-specific outcomes pooled data from three C-RCTs showed HCW vaccination reduced ILI; data from one C-RCT that HCW vaccination reduced GP consultations for ILI; and pooled data from three C-RCTs showed reduced all-cause mortality in individuals >= 60.\n\nAuthors’ conclusions: No effect was shown for specific outcomes: laboratory-proven influenza, pneumonia and death from pneumonia. An effect was shown for the non-specific outcomes of ILI, GP consultations for ILI and all-cause
mortality in individuals >= 60. These non-specific outcomes are difficult to interpret because ILI includes many pathogens, and winter influenza contributes < 10% to all-cause mortality in individuals >= 60. The key interest NU7441 in vitro is preventing laboratory-proven influenza in individuals >= 60, pneumonia and deaths from pneumonia, and we cannot draw such conclusions. The identified studies are at high risk of bias. Some HCWs remain unvaccinated because they do not perceive risk, doubt vaccine efficacy and are concerned about AZD9291 order side effects. This review did not find information on co-interventions
with HCW vaccination: hand washing, face masks, early detection of laboratory-proven influenza, quarantine, avoiding admissions, anti-virals, and asking HCWs with ILI not to work. We conclude there is no evidence that vaccinating HCWs prevents influenza in elderly residents in LTCFs. High quality RCTs are required to avoid risks of bias in methodology and conduct, and to test these interventions in combination.”
“In order to assess immunity to rubella in Izmir, Turkey, a total of 600 persons of 1-70 y of age were selected with cluster sampling. Of the 597 subjects, 120(20.1%) was susceptible to the rubella according to their serum antibody levels. Of children 1 to 6 y of age, 50.9% was found to be serologically susceptible to rubella. Rubella protection rates showed a age-related increase, reaching maximum in the 15-19 age group, in which 98.1% of these subjects had antibody titer above the full protective level. Of the 126 females in the reproductive age group, only 4(3.1%) were found to be serologically susceptible to rubella. Logistic regression analysis showed that among the several independent variables, only age (p < 0.001) was significantly associated with rubella protective antibody levels.