<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Bruijn, I.A. de</title>
    <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/9360/</link>
    <description>List of Publications</description>
    <language>en</language>
    
    <item>
      <title>Protection against influenza after annually repeated vaccination. A meta-analysis of serologic and field studies. (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/3679/</link>
      <pubDate>1999-01-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>BACKGROUND: According to common recommendations, influenza vaccination should be performed annually. It has been suggested that vaccination in previous years reduces vaccine efficacy in the long term. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the protection of influenza vaccine decreases when vaccination is repeated annually. METHODS: Articles published between 1966 and 1997 were selected from MEDLINE. The end point for field studies was the influenza-related morbidity or mortality during influenza outbreaks (resulting in field protection rates). The end point for serologic studies was exceeding a protective postvaccination hemagglutination-inhibition titer (serologic protection rates). Protection rate differences between groups with single and multiple vaccinations were subjected to meta-analysis. RESULTS: Seven field studies (including 13 trials) supported the hypothesis that protection in multiple-vaccination groups is at least as good as that in single-vaccination groups. Ten trials with 5117 observations could be subjected to meta-analysis. The pooled protection-rate difference was close to 0 (1.1%; 95% confidence interval, -0.2% to 2.4%), thus detecting no difference between single or multiple vaccination. Twelve serologic studies (including 53 trials) showed heterogeneous results: 9 trials were significantly in favor of single vaccination, and 7 were in favor of multiple vaccination, but in most cases, there was no significant difference between the 2 vaccination groups. The pooled serologic protection-rate difference from 52 trials (12341 observations) was again close to 0 (1.7%; 95% confidence interval, -1.3% to 4.8%). CONCLUSIONS: We did not detect any evidence for a decreasing protection with annually repeated influenza vaccination. Annual vaccination should not be discouraged in populations at risk.</description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>The plea against annual influenza vaccination? "The Hoskins' Paradox" revisited. (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/3656/</link>
      <pubDate>1998-12-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Three papers by Hoskins and collaborators published in The Lancet in the 70s, have been challenging the common policy to annually vaccinate people at risk with inactivated influenza virus vaccine. From an analysis of a vaccination campaign in adolescent pupils of a boarding school and four influenza outbreaks in the period 1970-76, Hoskins et al. concluded that annually repeated vaccinations would not confer protection against epidemic influenza in the long-term ('Hoskins' Paradox'). A review of the papers revealed, however, that most of the study subjects were not consequently vaccinated every year and that most of the presented data were, therefore, not relevant for the problem of annually repeated influenza vaccination. When applying strict definitions of single vaccination (immunised immediately prior to the epidemic, but not in the years before) and multiple vaccination (immunised immediately prior to the epidemic, and also in the year(s) before), only two of four epidemics (A/England/42/72 (H3N2) in 1972/73 and A/Port Chalmers/1/73 (H3N2) in 1973/74) could be evaluated: in one case, no negative effect of repeated vaccination could be detected, in the second case, the attack rate difference between groups with single and multiple vaccination was of borderline significance. Data on two other epidemics (B/Hong Kong/8/73 in 1973/74 and A/Victoria/3/75 (H3N2) in 1975/76) could not be interpreted because of incomplete vaccination strategies. In conclusion, Hoskins' Paradox cannot be substantiated by Hoskins' own data. Considering other published data on the subject, it is suggested that no negative effect of annually repeated vaccination on protection against epidemic influenza exists.</description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Annually repeated influenza vaccination improves humoral responses to several influenza virus strains in healthy elderly (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/15002/</link>
      <pubDate>1997-08-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>The benefit of annually repeated influenza vaccination on antibody formation is still under debate. In this study the effect of annually repeated influenza vaccination on haemagglutination inhibiting (HI) antibody formation in the elderly is investigated. Between 1990 and 1993 healthy young and elderly, both selected by the SENIEUR protocol, were vaccinated consecutively with commercially available influenza vaccines. The elderly had a lower HI antibody response after one vaccination as compared to the young against the A/Taiwan/1/86 (HINI), B/Yamagata/16/88 and B/Panama/45/90 strains. Annually repeated vaccination did not result in a decrease of the HI antibody titres against the A and B vaccine strains in both age groups. Moreover, the elderly had a significantly higher HI titre against the B strains after the second vaccination as compared to the first, resulting in comparable HI titres for young and elderly. Thus, annually repeated vaccination has a beneficial effect on the antibody titre against influenza virus and can contribute to a better antibody-response in the elderly.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>