ABSTRACT
Objetivo: La vacuna de la hepatitis A está indicada para colectivos de riesgo, incluidos los profesionales sanitarios. El objetivo fue conocer la prevalencia de anticuerpos frente al virus de la hepatitis A (IgG) en trabajadores de este ámbito, para establecer criterios de vacunación. Métodos: Estudio transversal y analítico con 4864 trabajadores de cuatro empresas sanitarias de Cataluña. El registro incluyó datos personales, categoría profesional, lugar de trabajo y serología. Resultados: La prevalencia global de anticuerpos fue del 52,7%. Se observó un incremento significativo con la edad: la media de los seropositivos fue de 41,5 años, frente a 34,3 años la de los seronegativos. Los colectivos de limpieza y cocina presentan una mayor prevalencia de anticuerpos (limpieza 74,2% y cocina 75,3%). Discusión: Considerando la alta prevalencia de adultos seronegativos, susceptibles de contraer la infección, y teniendo en cuenta las características de su actividad profesional, se sugiere valorar la indicación de vacunar a todo el personal que trabaja en instituciones sanitarias (AU)
Objective: Vaccination against hepatitis A is recommended in risk groups, including healthcare workers. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of antibodies to HAV (IgG) among workers in the healthcare setting in order to establish criteria for vaccination. Methods: A cross-sectional, analytic, observational study of 4,864 employees was undertaken in four healthcare companies in Catalonia (Spain). The variables gathered included personal data, professional category, location of employment, and serology. Results: The overall prevalence of antibodies to HAV was 52.7%. The prevalence significantly increased with greater age. The mean age of seropositive workers was 41.5 years compared with 34.3 in workers with negative serology. The highest prevalence of antibodies was found in cleaning employees (74.2%) and catering staff (75.3%). Discussion: Given the high prevalence of seronegative adults susceptible to infection and the characteristics of their professional activities, vaccination of all staff working in health institutions should be considered (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Hepatitis A virus/pathogenicity , Hepatitis A Antibodies/isolation & purification , Hepatitis A/epidemiology , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Hepatitis A VaccinesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Vaccination against hepatitis A is recommended in risk groups, including healthcare workers. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of antibodies to HAV (IgG) among workers in the healthcare setting in order to establish criteria for vaccination. METHODS: A cross-sectional, analytic, observational study of 4,864 employees was undertaken in four healthcare companies in Catalonia (Spain). The variables gathered included personal data, professional category, location of employment, and serology. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of antibodies to HAV was 52.7%. The prevalence significantly increased with greater age. The mean age of seropositive workers was 41.5 years compared with 34.3 in workers with negative serology. The highest prevalence of antibodies was found in cleaning employees (74.2%) and catering staff (75.3%). DISCUSSION: Given the high prevalence of seronegative adults susceptible to infection and the characteristics of their professional activities, vaccination of all staff working in health institutions should be considered.
Subject(s)
Health Personnel , Hepatitis A Antibodies/blood , Hepatitis A Vaccines , Hepatitis A/blood , Hepatitis A/epidemiology , Occupational Diseases/blood , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Young AdultABSTRACT
Objetivos. Valorar y comparar los efectos indeseados de la vacuna de la gripe estacional (VGE) y vacuna de la gripe AH1N1 (VGA) en trabajadores sanitarios. Métodos. Estudio transversal multicéntrico en trabajadores sanitarios de hospitales de agudos, centros de asistencia primaria, centros sociosanitarios, centros de salud mental y un hospital geriátrico participantes en la campaña de vacunación antigripal del 2009. Se enviaron encuestas autocumplimentadas a todos los vacunados con VGE y/o VGA. Resultados. De los 1123 vacunados con VGE se obtienen 527 encuestas válidas (46,9%) y de 461 vacunados con VGA se obtienen 242 encuestas (52,5%). De los trabajadores participantes 527 estaban vacunados sólo con VGE, 117 vacunados previamente con VGE y después VGA (VGE+VGA) y 125 sólo vacunados sólo con VGA. El 18,4% (IC 95% 15,1-21,7) del grupo VGE presentaron algún efecto adverso a la vacuna VGE; en el grupo VGE+VGA el 45,3% (IC 95% 36,3-54,3) presentó una reacción adversa al recibir la VGA, y en el grupo VGA fue el 46,4% (IC 95% 37,7-55,1). En todos los participantes el problema más frecuente fue una reacción local. Las mujeres presentan mayor reacción a VGA y VGE que los hombres. Para todas las edades la VGE es menos reactógena que VGA y que la combinación de ambas vacunas, con la excepción de los trabajadores menores de 29 años. Conclusiones. La VGA es más reactógena que la VGE, sin diferencias por orden de administración. Se observan variaciones por sexo y edad, pero siempre con mayor reactogenicidad para la VGA(AU)
Objectives. To assess and compare adverse effects of Seasonal Influenza Vaccine (SIV) and new Influenza A(H1N1)Vaccine (AIV) in health care workers. Methods. Multicenter cross-sectional study in health care workers from acute care hospitals, primary health care centers, social centers, mental health centers and a geriatric hospital participating in the 2009 vaccination campaign. Self-administered questionnaires were sent to all workers vaccinated with SIV and/or AIV. Results. 527 valid questionnaires were collected out of 1123 sent to SIV vaccinated workers (46.9%), and 241 out of 461 sent to AIV vaccinated workers (52.5%). Participant workers include 527 vaccinated only with SIV, 117 first vaccinated with SIV and later with AIV (SIV+AIV), and 125 vaccinated only with AIV. Overall, 18.4% (95% CI 15.1-21.7) of workers vaccinated only with SIV reported adverse effects, as compared to 45.3% (95% CI 36.3-54.3) reporting adverse effects to AIV in the SIV+AIV group and 46.4% (95% CI 37.7-55.1) of workers vaccinated only with AIV. In all participants the most common adverse effect was a local reaction. Women were more reactive to both SIV and AIV than men. In all age groups SIV vaccination alone caused fewer reactions than either AIV only or the combination of SIV+AIV, with the exception of workers below 29 years of age. Conclusions. AIV was associated with more reactions than SIV, with no differences observed in relation to administration sequence. There were differences by sex and age, but reactions always occurred more commonly with AIV(AU)
