2,589
Views
7
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Review

Influenza immunization policies: Which could be the main reasons for differences among countries?

, , &
Pages 684-692 | Received 02 Aug 2017, Accepted 10 Nov 2017, Published online: 21 Dec 2017

ABSTRACT

Despite the availability of effective prophylactic and therapeutic measures, influenza remains one of the most important infectious disease threats to the human population. Every year, seasonal influenza epidemics infect up to 30% of the population; a relevant portion of the ill are hospitalized, and more than a marginal number die. In an attempt to reduce the medical, social and economic burden of influenza, vaccines are recommended by many health authorities worldwide. However, not all countries have a national program for influenza immunization. The main aim of this paper is to list the differences among influenza immunization policies of various countries, highlighting the most important scientific reasons that may have led health authorities to make different decisions. The manuscript highlights that national influenza immunization policies can vary significantly from country to country. These differences arise from insufficient evidence of the relevance of influenza infection from a clinical, social and economic point of view. The lack of precise data on the true frequency and clinical relevance of influenza infection makes it nearly impossible to establish the economic burden of influenza. Moreover, it remains very difficult to evaluate the efficacy of the different influenza vaccines and whether their use is cost-effective considering the various types of people receiving them and the indirect advantages. Disparities among countries will be overcome only when more reliable data regarding all these aspects of influenza infection, particularly those related to the true impact of the disease, are precisely defined.

Introduction

Despite the availability of effective prophylactic and therapeutic measures, influenza remains one of the most important infectious disease threats to the human population.Citation1 Every year, seasonal influenza epidemics infect up to 30% of the population; a relevant portion of the ill are hospitalized, and more than a marginal number die. The World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that the annual epidemics of influenza cause approximately 3 to 5 million cases of severe illness requiring hospitalization and approximately 250,000 to 500,000 deaths worldwide.Citation2 The impact of influenza is even greater when occasional drifted viruses emerge, as demonstrated by the dramatic 1918 Spanish pandemic, which caused an estimated 50 to 100 million deaths.Citation3

In an attempt to reduce the medical, social and economic burdens of influenza, vaccines are recommended by many health authorities worldwide, including the WHO through the Global Action Plan.Citation4 However, not all countries have a national program for influenza immunization. In 2014, only 59% of the 194 WHO Member States had a national influenza immunization policy. In addition, the immunization rates were significantly higher in high-income (92%) than in low and lower-middle income countries (8–47%). Moreover, even when a national policy had been developed, details of such programs varied significantly from country to country and from WHO recommendations. Differences were found in the types of people for whom immunization was recommended, the types of vaccine that were administered and the mechanisms for funding.Citation5 These differences reflect unsolved doubts regarding the clinical relevance of influenza and the need for its prevention with the presently available vaccines, together with many organizational and economic problems. Moreover, they partially explain why influenza vaccination coverage remains significantly lower than desired, even in those groups of individuals for whom epidemiological and clinical evidence strongly recommends influenza vaccination.Citation6-8 The main aim of this paper is to discuss the differences among influenza immunization policies of various countries, highlighting the most important scientific reasons that may have led health authorities to make different decisions.

Types of people requiring immunization against influenza

In some countries, such as the USA, influenza vaccination is recommended for all individuals, regardless of age and health conditions.Citation9 However, in most countries that have an influenza immunization policy, vaccination is recommended only to the elderly and to subjects of any age who are considered to be at an increased risk of influenza related complications. However, although the target population appears the same for all the countries with advanced health system, the subjects for whom vaccination is recommended can be different. For example, in Europe, the cut-off age for vaccination of the elderly is 64 years in most countries, but it is 59 years in Germany, Hungary, Iceland, the Netherlands, and Slovakia, and only 54 years in Malta and Poland ().Citation10 These differences are not based on real variations in biological stages among people; they are simply the consequence of a social construct that can vary culturally and historically. However, studies show that immunosenescence begins by 65–70 years of age.Citation11 Therefore, if the rationale to recommend influenza vaccination is to protect immunocompromised elderly people from severe influenza, anticipating the administration of the vaccine before the age of 65 seems an excessive precaution. Furthermore, advances in medical and health science have led to a rapid increase in the average lifespan, with the persistence of normal body functions much longer than previously thought.Citation12

Table 1. EU/EEA Member States recommendations for influenza vaccinations in the general population.

However, the most striking differences regard the list of patients to whom the influenza vaccine is recommended because of suffering from a severe chronic condition. During the 2014–2015 influenza season, all 30 Member States of the European Union that participated in a survey sponsored by the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) recommended seasonal influenza vaccination for patients with immunosuppression, metabolic disorders, and chronic pulmonary, cardiovascular and renal diseases. However, only 28, 27, and 19 countries recommended vaccination for people with HIV/AIDS, hepatic disease, and morbid obesity, respectively.Citation13 Several reasons may explain these different policies. First of all, this happens because the association between a given underlying condition and the development of influenza-related complications may have been considered but not fully confirmed. The available data regarding the immunogenicity of and protection offered by influenza vaccines may have been considered inadequate to support vaccination. In patients with immune-mediated diseases, vaccine administration may have been associated with the risk of deterioration of the underlying clinical problem. Finally, it is possible that in some cases, the lack of attention of healthcare providers regarding influenza and its complications may have caused a delay in recruiting useful information capable of better defining vaccine use policy. Obesity is one of the best examples in this regard. Morbid obesity is a predisposing factor for the development of serious co-morbidities, such as type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular problems. Moreover, it is associated with an increased risk of infection, partly due to a slight but significant immunodeficiency.Citation14,Citation15 Both co-morbidities and immunodeficiency are per se risk factors for severe influenza, which explains why most national health authorities worldwide have recommended influenza vaccination for patients with these conditions for many years. However, very few countries, including the USA, have previously recommended influenza vaccination for obese subjects without clinically symptomatic co-morbidities.Citation16 The policies of many countries changed only after the 2009 influenza pandemic, when it was demonstrated that obese adults could have a more severe case of influenza with increased rates of admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) than normal weight subjects, independent of the presence of other, already diagnosed, obesity-related underlying diseases.Citation17 After that pandemic, the number of countries that recommend influenza vaccination to obese subjects has progressively increased, but several of those countries have still not changed their policy. Between 2102 and 2014 in Europe, the proportion of Member States recommending the seasonal influenza vaccine for obese individuals has only increased from approximately 50 to 60%.Citation13

Along with the poor consideration of the data that emerged during the pandemic, another reason for the lack of recommendations is a certain degree of perplexity about the actual immunogenicity and efficacy of the influenza vaccine in obese patients. Data regarding the protection offered by this preventive measure are contrasting, although the most recent clinical trials seem to indicate that obese humans have a normal or even higher antibody production.Citation18

Recommendations for specific groups of people

Pregnant women, healthy children and health care workers (HCWs) are three groups of subjects for whom the importance of a systematic influenza vaccination has been largely discussed in recent years and for whom national policies vary significantly.

Pregnant women

The need for the protection of pregnant women is strongly supported by those who believe that some of the physiological changes that occur during pregnancy, particularly those regarding respiratory function, leave the woman and her growing baby at a greater risk of serious influenza complications.Citation19 However, this is not a universally accepted position: in 2014, among the WHO Member States, 25% of high-income countries, 50% of upper middle-income countries and 74%-96% of lower and lower-middle income countries did not consider influenza a disease for which prevention during pregnancy was necessary.Citation5 In Europe, in the same influenza season, 27 out of 30 European Member States that had participated in the previously cited ECDC survey recommended influenza vaccination for pregnant women.Citation13 Conversely, Bulgaria, Malta and Slovakia did not include pregnant women in the national immunization program. Moreover, among those countries recommending the vaccine, Croatia and the Netherlands considered vaccination only for pregnant women with chronic medical conditions. Differences were also evidenced in the period of pregnancy suggested for vaccination. Most of the countries recommended vaccination at any stage of pregnancy, but Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Norway, and Sweden indicated that the best time was during the second and third trimesters. Finally, in Germany and Norway, healthy pregnant women were considered differently from those with chronic medical conditions. In the first case, the second and third trimesters of pregnancy were suggested, whereas in the second case, the first trimester was considered the best time for immunization.Citation13

In an attempt to explain these differences, most of the potential reasons already cited can be considered. First, it is possible that national immunization policies have been influenced by the opinion that a positive impact of the influenza vaccine on pregnancy has not been demonstrated. The results of ad hoc studies are conflicting, and in many cases, the methods used to collect data are largely questionable. It has long been thought that pregnant women were at an increased risk of severe influenza and death. This was suggested mainly by epidemiological studies including those performed during the 1918, 1957, and 1968 pandemics.Citation20-22 However, several observational studies have led to different conclusions. A recently published systematic review and meta-analysis that included 152 observational studies reported that only hospitalization was more common in pregnant patients than in non-pregnant patients (odds ratio [OR] 2.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22–4.87), whereas pneumonia incidence (OR 1.80, 95% CI 0.72–4.49), ICU admission (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.62–1.17), mechanical ventilation support (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.70–2.08), and all-cause mortality (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.81–1.33) were equally distributed between groups.Citation23 This could be considered evidence that health care providers are prone to hospitalize pregnant women for precautionary reasons fearing complications rather than complications that really exist. Conversely, several studies included in the meta-analysis had relevant methodological problems and, as reported by the authors themselves, it remains uncertain whether these findings represent a true absence of association or whether they are a result of bias. Similar conclusions have been drawn by Katz et al. in a systematic review of the available literature.Citation24 These authors reported that almost all of the studies that have evaluated the impact of influenza on pregnancy were of low quality because they lacked laboratory confirmation of diagnosis, lacked population denominators, or used ecological study methods.

A second problem that may have led decision-makers to exclude pregnant women from vaccination is the fear of severe adverse events for the mother or the fetus. These concerns of health authorities are clearly demonstrated by evidence that the information regarding the use of influenza vaccines during pregnancy, including those that are detailed in commercial products, limit or even contraindicate the administration of the vaccine in pregnant women, although they have been approved by regulatory authorities.Citation25 However, in the light of the available data these concerns do not seem adequately motivated. A review of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System of the USA has highlighted that this problem does not exist because spontaneous abortion, stillbirth and preterm delivery were reported with similar prevalences in vaccinated and unvaccinated mothers.Citation26 Moreover, the incidence of major birth defects did not differ substantially in the babies, even when the vaccine was administered during the embryonic life.Citation27,Citation28

The exclusion of pregnant women from influenza vaccination could also depend on negative opinions about the existence of true advantages for the child. Several randomized, placebo-controlled trials have recently assessed the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza in children born to mothers who had received the vaccine during pregnancy. In all cases, a reduction of influenza infection in the child during the first months of life was reported. Steinoff et al., who followed children for 180 days after birth, reported a 30% (95% CI 5–48) reduction in infant influenza infections.Citation29 Even better results were obtained in prospective, controlled, blinded, randomized studies conducted in Bangladesh,Citation30 South AfricaCitation31 and MaliCitation32 where reductions of 63% (95% CI 5–85), 48.8% (95% CI 11.6–70·4), and 33.1% (95% CI 3.7–53.9), respectively, were observed. Antibodies cross the placenta and reach the fetus,Citation33 and the monovalent 2009 pandemic vaccine has demonstrated that antibody levels equal to or greater than the correlate of protection calculated in adults (HAI titer ≥1:40) can be achieved in 87% of infants.Citation34 This is a critical point because maternal immunization is the only method that can ensure a certain degree of protection against influenza in babies younger than 6 months of age when they cannot receive any of the presently available vaccines.Citation35

However, these results may have been considered inadequate to justify the recommendation in pregnant women. In some of these studies, although it was effective, the administration of a vaccine was associated with the protection of a relatively low number of children, justifying doubts on the real cost-effectiveness of the vaccination. Moreover, recent studies in which the impact of the vaccine was evaluated using laboratory confirmed influenza diagnoses have been preceded by a number of studies in which hospitalization rates or severity of the respiratory infection have been tested as indirect alternative markers of the effectiveness of the vaccine. Although debatable for the methods used, these studies frequently reported that maternal immunization was poorly or ineffective in reducing respiratory infections in the infant.Citation36

In summary, conflicting information is available, and it is possible that negative results have made decision makers cautious and have led them to exclude pregnant women from recommendations. Additional incentives to wait for the results of further studies before recommending the influenza vaccine to pregnant women may have been derived from the lack of definitive data about the best moment for vaccine administration and the duration of protection in the infant. Peak antibody concentrations in the blood of the mother occur approximately 4 weeks after vaccine administration, similar to non-pregnant subjects.Citation37 Maternal immunoglobulin G (IgG) concentrations in fetal blood increase from early in the second trimester through term, with most antibodies being acquired during the third trimester.Citation38 This indicates that for the protection of the child, the best moment for maternal immunization is the end of the second or the beginning of the third trimester of pregnancy. However, if the target is the protection of the mother, the influenza vaccine should be given during the first trimester. Moreover, there are data indicating that protection declines with time and that at 16 and 24 weeks of age, less than 40% and less than 10.0% of children, respectively, have antibody concentrations against influenza strains higher than the minimum considered protective.Citation39 Furthermore, true protection might be even lower if the hypothesis is confirmed that the correlate of protection in children is significantly higher (HAI titer ≥ 1:110) than in adults.Citation40

Healthy children

National influenza immunization policies differ significantly among various countries. The USA recommends influenza vaccination for all healthy children, independent of age,Citation9 Canada considers only healthy children aged 6 to 59 months to be at risk,Citation41 and recommendations in Europe vary from country to countryCitation13 (). Austria, Estonia, and Poland follow the same national immunization policy of the USA whereas all other countries have limitations or do not recommend influenza vaccination for healthy children. Latvia and Slovenia in particular limit vaccination to children aged ≥6 to 24 months, whereas Finland, Malta and Slovakia extend recommendations to those aged ≥6 to 36 months, ≥6 to 24 months and ≥6 months to 12 years, respectively. In the UK, EnglandCitation42 and WalesCitation43 have implemented a program starting in younger children and progressively including the entire pediatric population up to 13 years old. Conversely, ScotlandCitation44 and Northern IrelandCitation10 have decided to directly vaccinate all subjects aged 2 to 11 years. All other countries, including France, Germany and Italy, do not consider vaccinating healthy children.

Supporters of general immunization base their recommendations on two assumptions. Younger children, particularly those aged <2 years, are not thought to differ substantially from the elderly. Similar to elderly people, younger children are thought to be more susceptible to influenza infection and to suffer from more severe disease compared to older children and adults.Citation45 The recommendations for school-aged children arise from the evidence that they are the most important cause of the diffusion of the infection because they spread the virus for a longer time and in greater amounts than adults.Citation46

The clinical relevance of influenza in the first years of life in the pediatric population was first suggested by two well-conducted studies published at the beginning of this century. These studies showed that during the influenza season, outpatient visits, hospitalization rates and antibiotic consumption for respiratory infections significantly increased in younger healthy children.Citation47,Citation48 Despite their interest, these findings had a poor impact on influenza vaccination recommendations, and in most countries, younger children remained excluded from national immunization policies, primarily because no identification of disease etiology was determined in these studies. Consequently, it is possible that other viruses, instead of influenza viruses, could be the cause of the increased incidence of respiratory infections. However, more convincing data were collected during the 2009 influenza pandemic. Several studies in which the diagnosis of influenza was based on specific reliable laboratory tests have confirmed that infants and toddlers, even if healthy, have the highest risk of hospitalization and the highest proportion of severe respiratory cases among all monitored subjects.Citation49-59 Moreover, contrary to what was previously thought, healthy children with influenza are at a high risk of death. During the four influenza seasons from 2013–2014 to 2016–2017, 452 influenza-associated pediatric deaths were reported to the CDC.Citation60 As previously reported for the 2009–2010 pandemic season,Citation61 many of these cases (up to 50% in some seasons) occurred in otherwise healthy children.Citation62 Finally, the data from Europe showing that pediatric influenza had marginal clinical relevance and did not cause death largely underestimated the importance of the disease. This occurred because in many European countries, even in hospitalized children, influenza is diagnosed in few cases. Frequently, the etiology of respiratory infections is not confirmed by reliable laboratory tests, and even when they are performed, they frequently do not lead to an influenza diagnosis because virus shedding is no longer present. Moreover, influenza does not appear as the cause of death because complications are preferentially reported.Citation63-67 When all these findings were considered, a number of European countries have modified their immunization policies and have followed the USA by including younger children in the recommendations. However, in most cases, school-aged children are presently not included because the disease in these subjects is usually mild, and poor importance is ascribed to the role the children can have in the diffusion of the infection. This can be debated because administration of the vaccine to a large portion of school-aged children is not only useful to reduce absenteeism during the influenza season,Citation68-70 but it has also been associated with a significant reduction of influenza-like illness (ILI) incidence in the general population.Citation71-74 Moreover, a direct relationship between the activation of influenza vaccination programs in older children and a reduction of all cause-deaths and of deaths related to pneumonia and influenza in the community was reported.Citation72,Citation75 However, most decision makers attach more importance to the fact that reaching high vaccination coverage, even through the school, can be very difficult and can cause problems with parents.Citation76-78

A second problem that might explain why vaccination is not recommended in younger children despite their increased risk of severe influenza is the conviction that the available influenza vaccines are poorly effective in the first years of life. Most of the opponents to vaccination highlight the results of a meta-analysis, concluding that influenza vaccines are hardly effective in children >2 years of age and do not differ from placebo in younger children.Citation79 However, these conclusions are not supported by the evaluation of some of the studied included in the meta-analysis and by the consideration of the most recent clinical trials. The meta-analysis includes some studies with a relevant risk of bias that might have led to incorrect results. Moreover, the meta-analysis was conducted before the completion of a number of well-conducted studies in which the effectiveness of vaccines was measured by diagnosing influenza only with reliable molecular biology tests.Citation80-83 In these studies, a vaccine efficacy not substantially different from that usually reported for old people receiving the same vaccine was reported. If the vaccination of elderly people is considered mandatory, it is difficult to understand why the vaccine cannot be recommended for younger children, who have a similar risk of severe disease.

Health care workers (HCWs)

Health care workers (HCWs) are the people who are directly involved in patient care and those who are potentially exposed to infections that can be transmitted to and from HCWs and patients. The CDC recommends that these individuals, irrespective of their work, receive an annual influenza vaccine.Citation84 The same recommendation has been made in 2014 in Europe in 24 of the 30 Members that participated in the ECDC survey.Citation13 However, in Portugal, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Slovakia and Sweden, the recommendation was only made for specific groups of HCWs, including those caring for outpatients, inpatients, and patients in long-term care. Finally, in Denmark, no national recommendation has been officially prepared, but most regions and municipalities offer HCWs free vaccinations. In all European countries, however, HCW vaccination is voluntary, and there is no penalty for not receiving the vaccine. The same is true in the USA, although attempts to oblige HCWs to receive the influenza vaccine have been made. In 2009, the state of New York established that all HCWs, with the exception of those with medical contraindications, should be vaccinated annually as a condition of employment.Citation85 Moreover, despite the legal challenges triggered by this decision, similar initiatives have been taken by several medical centers, including the Virginia Mason Medical Center. The resulting increase in vaccination coverage was significant.Citation86 However, the influenza vaccine is no longer mandatory in the state of New York for HCWs, although any effort to increase vaccination coverage among these individuals must be made, and it is established that any healthcare facility, residential facility and hospice must require that HCWs who are not vaccinated against influenza wear a surgical or procedure mask during influenza season while working in areas where patients may be present.Citation87 The idea that health treatment cannot be mandatory has prevailed worldwide. Presently, differences among countries regarding the recommendations for influenza vaccination in HCWs are likely related to organizational and economic evaluations.

Vaccines and immuinization policies

Differences among influenza immunization policies can derive from the characteristics of the available vaccines. Presently, two types of influenza vaccines are on the market: the parenteral inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) and the intranasal live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV). Several preparations of IIVs exist on the market. The most largely used is the traditional trivalent IIV, which contains two A viruses (A H1N1 and A H3N2) and one B virus; these viruses are representative of the strains that are predicted to circulate according to the annual WHO prevision. Recently, quadrivalent preparations containing a second B virus have been licensed.Citation88

Traditional trivalent IIVs can be used worldwide in all individuals starting from 6 months of age. Conversely, quadrivalent vaccines are licensed differently in various countries according to age.Citation89 In the USA, a quadrivalent preparation can be given to children as young as 6 months old, whereas other quadrivalent shots are approved only for people 3 years and older.Citation90 However, the policy of IIV use is strictly related to the vaccine supply. When the vaccine supply is limited in the USA, the CDC selects the population for whom the vaccines are reserved. Subjects who are considered to be at a higher risk are prioritized.Citation91

Together with these basic formulations, several other IIV types are licensed. Some preparations include an increased dose of antigens, whereas in others adjuvants are added. Finally, a preparation can be administered via the intradermal route. However, these recently licensed IIVs cannot be used in children. They have been designed to overcome the main limit of the basic preparations, which is the reduced immune response in some groups, but because they are not licensed for children, they overcome that limit only for the elderly and some adults at risk. For protection in children, the LAIV has been developed in a three component formulation and, recently, in a four component formulation. Contrary to IIV, which assures protection by the induction of a vaccine strain specific antibody response and has poor efficacy against heterologous viral strains, LAIVs elicit a long-lasting, humoral and cellular response resembling natural immunity evoked after wild virus infection.Citation92 Several studies conducted before licensing and in the first year after marketing have reported a greater efficacy of LAIVs compared to traditional IIVs, particularly against heterologous viral strains.Citation93-95 This seems to explain why LAIV was chosen in the UK, when influenza vaccination was recommended in healthy children.Citation96 In 2014, in the USA, health authorities suggested the preferential use of LAIV, when immediately available, for healthy children aged 2–8 years who did not have contraindications to the vaccine.Citation97 However, national policies were reconsidered after evidence in the USA showed that LAIV efficacy in the 2013–2014 season, particularly against the A H1N1 strain, was marginal and significantly lower than that of IIV. This led the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the USA to indicate that LAIV should not be used for the influenza season of 2016–2017.Citation9 In other countries, including Canada,Citation98 the UK,Citation99 and Finland,Citation100 LAIV was found to be less effective than expected but was more protective than in the USA. Consequently, it was not withdrawn from the list of influenza vaccines recommended for use in children by health authorities, although a continuous monitoring of LAIV efficacy was suggested.

Irrespective of its efficacy, LAIV can influence immunization policies because, contrary to traditional IIVs, it can cause clinical problems in some subjects. It is based on live attenuated viruses and cannot be administered to subjects with primary or secondary immunodeficiency. Moreover, its administration has been associated with an increased risk of hospitalization and wheezing development in children < 2 years and cannot be used in these subjects for whom only traditional IIVs are licensed.Citation101

Conclusions

National influenza immunization policies can vary significantly from country to country. These differences arise from insufficient information of the relevance of influenza infection from a clinical, social and economic point of view. Estimating the influenza disease burden has been very difficult until the beginning of this century because only recently have reliable laboratory tests capable of identifying influenza viruses among all respiratory infectious agents that can cause ILI been currently used in clinical settingsTherefore, a number of influenza cases are not detected, and the total burden of influenza is largely underestimated. The lack of precise data on the true frequency and clinical relevance of influenza infection makes it nearly impossible to establish the economic burden of influenza. Moreover, it remains very difficult to evaluate the efficacy of the different influenza vaccines and whether their use is cost-effective considering the various types of people receiving them and the indirect advantages. Fortunately, World health Organization has published a protocol to help countries estimate influenza diseases and economic burden through surveillance. Most of the disparities among countries will be overcome only when more reliable data regarding all these aspects of influenza infection, particularly those related to the true impact of the disease, are precisely defined. Only differences related to particular local situations can justify persistent different policies among countries with similar organization and quality of the health system.

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Additional information

Funding

This review was supported by an unrestricted grant from the World Association for Infectious Diseases and Immunological Disorders (WAidid) and a grant from the Italian Ministry of Health (Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Ricerca Corrente 2017).

References

  • Paules C, Subbarao K. Influenza. Lancet. 2017;390:697–708. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30129-0. PMID:28302313.
  • World Health Organization. (WHO) Influenza (Seasonal). Available at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs211/en/ Accessed on: July 7, 2017.
  • Saunders-Hastings PR, Krewski D. Reviewing the history of pandemic influenza: understanding patterns of emergence and transmission. Pathogens. 2016;5:piiE66. doi:10.3390/pathogens5040066.
  • World Health Organization (WHO). Global action plan for influenza vaccines. Available at: http://www.who.int/influenza_vaccines_plan/en/ Accessed on: July 7, 2017.
  • Ortiz JR, Perut M, Dumolard L, Wijesinghe PR, Jorgensen P, Ropero AM, Danovaro-Holliday MC, Heffelfinger JD, Tevi-Benissan C, Teleb NA, et al. A global review of national influenza immunization policies: analysis of the 2014 WHO/UNICEF Joint Reporting Form on immunization. Vaccine. 2016;34:5400–5405. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.07.045. PMID:27646030.
  • Principi N, Esposito S; ESCMID Vaccine Study Group (EVASG). Influenza vaccination in patients with end-stage renal disease. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2015;14:1249–1258. doi:10.1517/14740338.2015.1053459. PMID:26043970.
  • Patria MF, Tagliabue C, Longhi B, Esposito S. Influenza vaccination in children at high risk of respiratory disease. Ther Adv Vaccines. 2013;1:21–31. doi:10.1177/2051013613480770. PMID:24757513.
  • Jiménez-García R, Rodríguez-Rieiro C, Hernandez-Barrera V, Carrasco Garrido P, López de Andres A, Esteban-Vasallo MD, Domínguez-Berjón MF, Astray-Mochales J. Negative trends from 2008/9 to 2011/12 seasons in influenza vaccination coverages among high risk subjects and health care workers in Spain. Vaccine. 2014;32:350–354. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.11.040. PMID:24269621.
  • Grohskopf LA, Sokolow LZ, Broder KR, Olsen SJ, Karron RA, Jernigan DB, Bresee JS. Prevention and control of seasonal influenza with vaccines. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2016;65:1–54. doi:10.15585/mmwr.rr6505a1. PMID:27560619.
  • European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Vaccine schedule. Recommended immunizations for influenza. Available at: http://vaccine-schedule.ecdc.europa.eu/Pages/Scheduler.aspx Accessed on: July 7, 2017.
  • Farber DL, Yudanin NA, Restifo NP. Human memory T cells: generation, compartmentalization and homeostasis. Nat Rev Immunol. 2014;14:24–35. doi:10.1038/nri3567. PMID:24336101.
  • Orimo H, Ito H, Suzuki T, Araki A, Hosoi T, Sawabe M. Reviewing the definition of “elderly”. Geriatrics & Gerontol Intern. 2006;6:149–158. doi:10.1111/j.1447-0594.2006.00341.x.
  • European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) Seasonal influenza vaccination and antiviral use in Europe – Overview of vaccination recommendations and coverage rates in the EU Member States for the 2013–14 and 2014–15 influenza seasons. Stockholm: ECDC; 2016. Available at: https://ecdc.europa.eu/sites/portal/files/media/en/publications/Publications/Seasonal-influenza-vaccination-antiviral-use-europe.pdf Accessed on: July 7, 2017.
  • Abdullah A, Wolfe R, Stoelwinder JU, de Courten M, Stevenson C, Walls HL, Peeters A. The number of years lived with obesity and the risk of all-cause and cause-specific mortality. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40:985–996. doi:10.1093/ije/dyr018. PMID:21357186.
  • World Health Organization (WHO). Global strategy on diet, physical activity and health. Childhood overweight and obesity. Available online at: http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/childhood/en/. Accessed on: July 7, 2017.
  • Harper SA, Fukuda K, Uyeki TM, Cox NJ, Bridges CB, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Prevention and control of influenza. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep. 2005;54:1–40.
  • Van Kerkhove MD, Vandemaele KA, Shinde V, Jaramillo-Gutierrez G, Koukounari A, Donnelly CA, Carlino LO, Owen R, Paterson B, Pelletier L, et al. Risk factors for severe outcomes following 2009 influenza A (H1N1) infection: a global pooled analysis. PLoS Med. 2011;8:e1001053. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001053. PMID:21750667.
  • Tagliabue C, Principi N, Giavoli C, Esposito S. Obesity: impact of infections and response to vaccines. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2016;35:325–331. doi:10.1007/s10096-015-2558-8. PMID:26718941.
  • Mighty HE. Acute respiratory failure in pregnancy. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 53:360–368. doi:10.1097/GRF.0b013e3181deb3f1. PMID:20436311.
  • Freeman DW, Barno A. Deaths from Asian influenza associated with pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1959;78:1172–1175. doi:10.1016/0002-9378(59)90570-8. PMID:13824729.
  • Neuzil KM, Reed GW, Mitchel EF, Simonsen L, Griffin MR. Impact of influenza on acute cardiopulmonary hospitalizations in pregnant women. Am J Epidemiol 1998;148:1094–1102. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009587. PMID:9850132.
  • Taubenberger JK, Morens DM. 1918 Influenza: the mother of all pandemics. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12:15–22. doi:10.3201/eid1209.05-0979. PMID:16494711.
  • Mertz D, Geraci J, Winkup J, Gessner BD, Ortiz JR, Loeb M. Pregnancy as a risk factor for severe outcomes from influenza virus infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Vaccine. 2017;35:521–528. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.12.012. PMID:28024955.
  • Katz MA, Gessner BD, Johnson J, Skidmore B, Knight M, Bhat N, Marshall H, Horne DJ, Ortiz JR, Fell DB. Incidence of influenza virus infection among pregnant women: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2017;17:155. doi:10.1186/s12884-017-1333-5. PMID:28558777.
  • Proveaux T, Lambach P, Ortiz JR, Hombach J, Halsey NA. Review of prescribing information for influenza vaccines for pregnant and lactating women. Vaccine. 2016;34:5406–5409. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.08.042. PMID:27595450.
  • Moro P, Baumblatt J, Lewis P, Cragan J, Tepper N, Cano M. Surveillance of adverse events after seasonal influenza vaccination in pregnant women and their infants in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, July 2010-May 2016. Drug Saf. 2017;40:145–152.
  • Kharbanda EO, Vazquez-Benitez G, Romitti PA, Naleway AL, Cheetham TC, Lipkind HS, Klein NP, Lee G, Jackson ML, Hambidge SJ, et al. First trimester influenza vaccination and risks for major structural birth defects in offspring. J Pediatr. 2017;187:234–239.e4. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.04.039. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.04.039. PMID:28550954
  • Munoz FM. Infant protection against influenza through maternal immunization: a call for more immunogenic vaccines. JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170:832–833. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.1322. PMID:27380323.
  • Steinhoff MC, Katz J, Englund JA, Khatry SK, Shrestha L, Kuypers J, Stewart L, Mullany LC, Chu HY, LeClerq SC, et al. Year-round influenza immunisation during pregnancy in Nepal: a phase 4, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017;17:981–989. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30252-9. PMID:28522338
  • Zaman K, Roy E, Arifeen SE, Rahman M, Raqib R, Wilson E, Omer SB, Shahid NS, Breiman RF, Steinhoff MC. Effectiveness of maternal influenza immunization in mothers and infants. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1555–1564. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0708630. PMID:18799552.
  • Madhi SA, Cutland CL, Kuwanda L, Weinberg A, Hugo A, Jones S, Adrian PV, van Niekerk N, Treurnicht F, Ortiz JR, et al. Influenza vaccination of pregnant women and protection of their infants. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:918–931. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1401480. PMID:25184864.
  • Tapia MD, Sow SO, Tamboura B, Tégueté I, Pasetti MF, Kodio M, Onwuchekwa U, Tennant SM, Blackwelder WC, Coulibaly F, et al. Maternal immunisation with trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine for prevention of influenza in infants in Mali: a prospective, active-controlled, observer-blind, randomised phase 4 trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16:1026–1035. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30054-8. PMID:27261067.
  • Zuccotti G, Pogliani L, Pariani E, Amendola A, Zanetti A. Transplacental antibody transfer following maternal immunization with a pandemic 2009 influenza A (H1N1) MF59-adjuvanted vaccine. JAMA. 2010;304:2360–2361. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1729. PMID:21119083.
  • Jackson LA, Patel SM, Swamy GK, Frey SE, Creech CB, Munoz FM, Artal R, Keitel WA, Noah DL, Petrie CR, et al. Immunogenicity of an inactivated monovalent 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine in pregnant women. J Infect Dis. 2011;204:854–863. doi:10.1093/infdis/jir440. PMID:21849282.
  • Esposito S, Principi N. Influenza vaccination in pediatric age. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2015;14:785–787. doi:10.1586/14760584.2015.1037290. PMID:25872557.
  • Takeda S, Hisano M, Komano J, Yamamoto H, Sago H, Yamaguchi K, et al. Influenza vaccination during pregnancy and its usefulness to mothers and their young infants. J Infect Chemother. 2015;21:238–246. doi:10.1016/j.jiac.2015.01.015. PMID:25708925.
  • Kay AW, Bayless NL, Fukuyama J, Aziz N, Dekker CL, Mackey S, Swan GE, Davis MM, Blish CA. Pregnancy does not attenuate the antibody or plasmablast response to inactivated influenza vaccine. J Infect Dis. 2015;212:861–870. doi:10.1093/infdis/jiv138. PMID:25740957.
  • Niewiesk S. Maternal antibodies: clinical significance, mechanism of interference with immune responses, and possible vaccination strategies. Front Immunol. 2014;5:446. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2014.00446. PMID:25278941.
  • Nunes MC, Cutland CL, Jones S, Hugo A, Madimabe R, Simões EA, Weinberg A, Madhi SA; Maternal Flu Trial Team. Duration of infant protection against influenza illness conferred by maternal immunization: secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170:840–847. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.0921. PMID:27380464.
  • Black S, Nicolay U, Vesikari T, Knuf M, Del Giudice G, Della Cioppa G, Tsai T, Clemens R, Rappuoli R. Hemagglutination inhibition antibody titers as a correlate of protection for inactivated influenza vaccines in children. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2011;30:1081–1085. doi:10.1097/INF.0b013e3182367662. PMID:21983214.
  • Public Health Agency of Canada. Canadian immunization guide chapter on influenza and statement on seasonal influenza vaccine for 2016–2017. Available at: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/naci-ccni/flu-2016-grippe-eng.php Accessed on: July, 11, 2017.
  • National Health System. Children's flu vaccine. Available at: http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/pages/child-flu-vaccine.aspxand Accessed on: July 11, 2017.
  • Public Health Wales. Childhood influenza vaccination programme 2016–17. Available at: http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/888/page/69532 Accessed on: July 11, 2017.
  • Immunization Scotland. Child flu. Available at: http://www.immunisationscotland.org.uk/vaccines-and-diseases/seasonalflu/childflu.aspx?utm_campaign=childflu&utm_source=print# Accessed on July 11, 2017.
  • Principi N, Esposito S. Severe influenza in children: incidence and risk factors. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2016;14:961–968. doi:10.1080/14787210.2016.1227701. PMID:27560100.
  • Ng S, Lopez R, Kuan G, Gresh L, Balmaseda A, Harris E, Gordon A. The timeline of influenza virus shedding in children and adults in a household transmission study of influenza in Managua, Nicaragua. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2016;35:583–586. doi:10.1097/INF.0000000000001083. PMID:26910589.
  • Neuzil KM, Mellen BG, Wright PF, Mitchel EF Jr, Griffin MR. The effect of influenza on hospitalizations, outpatient visits, and courses of antibiotics in children. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:225–231. doi:10.1056/NEJM200001273420401. PMID:10648763.
  • Izurieta HS, Thompson WW, Kramarz P, Shay DK, Davis RL, DeStefano F, Black S, Shinefield H, Fukuda K. Influenza and the rates of hospitalization for respiratory disease among infants and young children. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:232–239. doi:10.1056/NEJM200001273420402. PMID:10648764.
  • Fuhrman C, Bonmarin I, Paty AC, Duport N, Chiron E, Lucas E, Bitar D, Mailles A, Herida M, Vaux S, et al. Severe hospitalised 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) cases in France, 1 July-15 November 2009. Euro Surveill. 2010;15:pii19463. doi:10.2807/ese.15.02.19463-en.
  • Nguyen-Van-Tam JS, Openshaw PJ, Hashim A, Gadd EM, Lim WS, Semple MG, Read RC, Taylor BL, Brett SJ, McMenamin J, et al. Risk factors for hospitalisation and poor outcome with pandemic A/H1N1 influenza: United Kingdom first wave (May-September 2009). Thorax. 2010;65:645–651. doi:10.1136/thx.2010.135210. PMID:20627925.
  • van 't Klooster TM, Wielders CC, Donker T, Isken L, Meijer A, van den Wijngaard CC, van der Sande MA, van der Hoek W. Surveillance of hospitalisations for 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) in the Netherlands, 5 June – 31 December 2009. Euro Surveill. 2010;15:pii 19461. doi:10.2807/ese.15.02.19461-en.
  • Bettinger JA, Sauve LJ, Scheifele DW, Moore D, Vaudry W, Tran D, Halperin SA, Pelletier L. Pandemic influenza in Canadian children: a summary of hospitalised pediatric cases. Vaccine. 2010;28:3180–3184. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.02.044. PMID:20189488.
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus infections – Chicago, Illinois, April-July 2009. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2009;58:913–918. PMID:19713879.
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Update: influenza activity–United States, August 30, 2009-January 9, 2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2010;59:38–43. PMID:20094026.
  • Jain S, Kamimoto L, Bramley AM, Schmitz AM, Benoit SR, Louie J, Sugerman DE, Druckenmiller JK, Ritger KA, Chugh R, et al. Hospitalised patients with 2009 H1N1 influenza in the United States, April-June 2009. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1935–1944. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0906695. PMID:19815859.
  • New South Wales public health network. Progression and impact of the first winter wave of the 2009 pandemic H1N1 influenza in New South Wales, Australia. Euro Surveill. 2009;14:pii = 19365.
  • Paine S, Mercer GN, Kelly PM, Bandaranayake D, Baker MG, Huang QS, Mackereth G, Bissielo A, Glass K, Hope V. Transmissibility of 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) in New Zealand: effective reproduction number and influence of age, ethnicity and importations. Euro Surveill. 2010;15:pii19591.
  • Presanis AM, De Angelis D, Hagy A, Reed C, Riley S, Cooper BS, Finelli L, Biedrzycki P, Lipsitch M. The severity of pandemic H1N1 influenza in the United States, from April to July 2009: a Bayesian analysis. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000207. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000207. PMID:19997612.
  • Tuite AR, Greer AL, Whelan M, Winter AL, Lee B, Yan P, Wu J, Moghadas S, Buckeridge D, Pourbohloul B, et al. Estimated epidemiologic parameters and morbidity associated with pandemic H1N1 influenza. CMAJ. 2010;182:131–136. 40-50. doi:10.1503/cmaj.091807. PMID:19959592.
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Influenza-associated pediatric mortality. Available at: https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/fluview/pedfludeath.html Accessed on: July 7, 2017.
  • Cox CM, Blanton L, Dhara R, Brammer L, Finelli L. 2009 Pandemic influenza A (H1N1) deaths among children–United States, 2009–2010. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52 Suppl 1:S69–S74. doi:10.1093/cid/ciq011. PMID:21342902.
  • Wong KK, Jain S, Blanton L, Dhara R, Brammer L, Fry AM, Finelli L. Influenza-associated pediatric deaths in the United States, 2004–2012. Pediatrics. 2013;132:796–804. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-1493. PMID:24167165.
  • Baydur A. Influenza vaccination in vulnerable populations. Chest. 2004;125:1971–1972. doi:10.1378/chest.125.6.1971. PMID:15189905.
  • Beard F, McIntyre P, Gidding H, Watson M. Influenza related hospitalisations in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Arch Dis Child. 2006;91:20–25. doi:10.1136/adc.2004.060707. PMID:16371373.
  • Brent RL. Risks and benefits of immunizing pregnant women: the risk of doing nothing. Reprod Toxicol. 2006;21:383–389. doi:10.1016/j.reprotox.2005.09.009. PMID:16290279.
  • Brouard J, Vabret A, Nimal D, Bach N, Trippey V, Freymuth F. Emerging viral diseases in pulmonary medicine. Arch Pediatr. 2007;14:649–651. doi:10.1016/j.arcped.2007.02.073. PMID:17419026.
  • Bryant PA, Tebruegge M, Papadakis G, Clarke C, Barnett P, Daley AJ, South M, Curtis N. Clinical and microbiologic features associated with novel swine-origin influenza A pandemic 2009 (H1N1) virus in children: a prospective cohort study. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010;29:694–698. 52-56. doi:10.1097/INF.0b013e3181de4b9c. PMID:20458257.
  • Hull HF, Ambrose CS. Current experience with school-located influenza vaccination programs in the United States: a review of the medical literature. Hum Vaccin. 2011;7:153–160. doi:10.4161/hv.7.2.13668. PMID:21311217.
  • Hull HF, Frauendienst RS, Gundersen ML, Monsen SM, Fishbein DB. School-based influenza immunization. Vaccine. 2008;26:4312–4313. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.06.015. PMID:18577411.
  • Keck PC, Ynalvez MA, Gonzalez HF, Castillo KD. School-located influenza vaccination and absenteeism among elementary school students in a Hispanic community. J Sch Nurs. 2013;29:271–283. doi:10.1177/1059840513486008. PMID:23598571.
  • King JC, Stoddard JJ, Gaglani MJ, Moore KA, Magder L, McClure E, Rubin JD, Englund JA, Neuzil K. Effectiveness of school-based influenza vaccination. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2523–2532. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa055414. PMID:17167135.
  • Monto AS, Davenport FM, Napier JA, Francis T. Effect of vaccination of a school-age population upon the course of an A2-Hong\sKong influenza epidemic. Bull World Health Organ 1969;41:537–542. PMID:5309469.
  • Glezen WP, Gaglani MJ, Kozinetz CA, Piedra PA. Direct and indirect effectiveness of influenza vaccination delivered to children at school preceding an epidemic caused by 3 new influenza virus variants. J Infect Dis. 2010;202:1626–1633. doi:10.1086/657089. PMID:21028955.
  • Rudenko LG, Slepushkin AN, Monto AS, Kendal AP, Grigorieva EP, Burtseva EP, Rekstin AR, Beljaev AL, Bragina VE, Cox N, et al. Efficacy of live attenuated and inactivated influenza vaccines in schoolchildren and their unvaccinated contacts in Novgorod, Russia. J Infect Dis 1993;168:881–887. doi:10.1093/infdis/168.4.881. PMID:8376833.
  • Reichert TA, Sugaya N, Fedson DS, Glezen WP, Simonsen L, Tashiro M. The Japanese experience with vaccinating schoolchildren against influenza. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:889–896. doi:10.1056/NEJM200103223441204. PMID:11259722.
  • Esposito S, Principi N, Cornaglia G. Barriers to the vaccination of children and adolescents and possible solutions. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20 Suppl. 5:25–31. doi:10.1111/1469-0691.12447. PMID:24354949.
  • Lind C, Russell ML, MacDonald J, Collins R, Frank CJ, Davis AE. School-based influenza vaccination: parents' perspectives. PLoS One. 2014;9:e93490. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0093490. PMID:24686406.
  • Prosser LA, Meltzer MI, Fiore A, Epperson S, Bridges CB, Hinrichsen V, Lieu TA. Effects of adverse events on the projected population benefits and cost-effectiveness of using live attenuated influenza vaccine in children aged 6 months to 4 years. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2011;165:112–118. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2010.182. PMID:20921341.
  • Jefferson T, Rivetti A, Di Pietrantonj C, Demicheli V, Ferroni E. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;8:CD004879.
  • Blyth CC, Jacoby P, Effler PV, Kelly H, Smith DW, Robins C, et al. Effectiveness of trivalent flu vaccine in healthy young children. Pediatrics. 2014;133:e1218–e1225. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-3707. PMID:24753525.
  • Blyth CC, Jacoby P, Effler PV, Kelly H, Smith DW, Borland ML, Willis GA, Levy A, Keil AD, Richmond PC, et al. Influenza vaccine effectiveness and uptake in children at risk of severe disease. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2016;35:309–315. doi:10.1097/INF.0000000000000999. PMID:26646548.
  • Thompson MG, Clippard J, Petrie JG, Jackson ML, McLean HQ, Gaglani M, Reis EC, Flannery B, Monto AS, Jackson L, et al. Influenza vaccine effectiveness for fully and partially vaccinated children 6 months to 8 years old during 2011–2012 and 2012–2013: the importance of two priming doses. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2016;35:299–308. doi:10.1097/INF.0000000000001006. PMID:26658375.
  • Fu C, Xu J, Lin J, Wang M, Li K, Ge J, Thompson MG. Concurrent and cross-season protection of inactivated influenza vaccine against A(H1N1)pdm09 illness among young children: 2012–2013 case-control evaluation of influenza vaccine effectiveness. Vaccine. 2015;33:2917–2921. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.063. PMID:25921713.
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Influenza vaccination information for health care workers. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/healthcareworkers.htm Accessed on: July 7, 2017.
  • Ottenberg AL, Wu JT, Poland GA, Jacobson RM, Koenig BA, Tilburt JC. Vaccinating health care workers against influenza: the ethical and legal rationale for a mandate. Am J Public Health. 2011;101:212–216. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.190751. PMID:21228284.
  • Talbot TR, Schaffner W. On being the first: Virginia Mason Medical Center and mandatory influenza vaccination of healthcare workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31:889–892. doi:10.1086/656211. PMID:20653446.
  • New York State. Dear Colleague Letter: Importance of influenza vaccination for all health care personnel (HCP). Available at:. https://www.health.ny.gov/prevention/immunization/health_care_personnel/dear_colleague_hcp_vaccination.htm. Accessed on: July 7, 2017.
  • Barberis I, Myles P, Ault SK, Bragazzi NL, Martini M. History and evolution of influenza control through vaccination: from the first monovalent vaccine to universal vaccines. J Prev Med Hyg. 2016;57:E115–E120. PMID:27980374.
  • Barberis I, Martini M, Iavarone F, Orsi A. Available influenza vaccines: immunization strategies, history and new tools for fighting the disease. J Prev Med Hyg. 2016;57:E41–E46. PMID:27346939.
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Quadrivalent Influenza vaccine. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/quadrivalent.htm Accessed on July 7, 2017.
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Vaccination: who should do it, who should not and who should take precautions. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/whoshouldvax.htm#flu-shot Accessed on: July 7, 2017.
  • Sridhar S, Brokstad KA, Cox RJ. Influenza vaccination strategies: comparing inactivated and live attenuated influenza vaccines. Vaccines (Basel). 2015;3:373–379. doi:10.3390/vaccines3020373. PMID:26343192.
  • Fleming DM, Crovari P, Wahn U, Klemola T, Schlesinger Y, Langussis A, Øymar K, Garcia ML, Krygier A, Costa H, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of live attenuated cold-adapted influenza vaccine, trivalent, with trivalent inactivated influenza virus vaccine in children and adolescents with asthma. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006;25:860–869. doi:10.1097/01.inf.0000237797.14283.cf. PMID:17006278.
  • Ashkenazi S, Vertruyen A, Aristegui J, Esposito S, McKeith DD, Klemola T, Biolek J, Kühr J, Bujnowski T, Desgrandchamps D, et al. Superior relative efficacy of live attenuated influenza vaccine compared with inactivated influenza vaccine in young children with recurrent respiratory tract infections. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006;25:870–879. doi:10.1097/01.inf.0000237829.66310.85. PMID:17006279.
  • Belshe RB, Coelingh K, Ambrose CS, Woo JC and Wu X. Efficacy of live attenuated influenza vaccine in children against influenza B viruses by lineage and antigenic similarity. Vaccine. 2010;28:2149–2156. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.11.068. PMID:20003926.
  • Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI). JCVI statement on the annual influenza vaccination programme – extension of the programme to children. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jcvi-statement-on-the-routine-annual-influenza-vaccination-programme. Accessed on: October 3, 2016.
  • Grohskopf LA, Olsen SJ, Sokolow LZ, Bresee JS, Cox NJ, Broder KR, Karron RA, Walter EB; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevention and control of seasonal influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)—United States, 2014–15 influenza season. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014;63:691–697. PMID:25121712.
  • Public Health Agency of Canada. Canadian immunization guide chapter on influenza and statement on seasonal influenza vaccine for 2016–2017. Available at: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/naci-ccni/flu-2016-grippe-addendum-children-enfants-eng.php#footnote28. Accessed on: July 7, 2017.
  • Public Health England. Use of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) FluMist quadrivalent: frequently asked questions for healthcare workers. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/469992/Q_A_for_FluMist_Quadrivalent.pdf. Accessed on: July 7, 2017.
  • Department of Health Protection. Seasonal childhood influenza vaccinations. Experiences from Finland. Available at: http://www.nvm2016.is/sites/default/files/Nohynek_NorVac_influenzaLessonsNohynek_short.pdf. Accessed on: July 7, 2013.
  • Esposito S, Montinaro V, Groppali E, Tenconi R, Semino M, Principi N. Live attenuated intranasal influenza vaccine. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2012;8:76–80. doi:10.4161/hv.8.1.18809. PMID:22251995.