401. Influenza Vaccination in Healthcare Workers; Comparison of the Perception of Intradermal versus Intramuscular Administration
Session: Poster Abstract Session: Occupational Health
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Room: The Moscone Center: Poster Hall C
  • ID Week 40373 Vaccination in Healthcare Workers.pdf (105.2 kB)
  • Background:

    Recently, for influenza vaccination an intradermal (i.d.) administration has been developed. Advantages over the intramuscular (i.m.) administration are induction of higher immunogenicity and more convenient use. Influenza vaccination of healthcare workers has the potential to protect patient safety. Yet, despite yearly campaigns, the vaccination rates remain unacceptably low. One of the major drawbacks to vaccination is the occurrence of side effects. In this study, the nature, severity and experience of the side effects induced upon the two different administration routes were compared by a prospective cohort questionnaire study. 


    The study was conducted among healthcare workers of two University Medical Centers in the Netherlands, Utrecht and Groningen, during the influenza vaccination season of 2012. Healthcare workers were vaccinated with either Vaxigrip® (i.m.) or Intanza® (i.d.). All were approached after vaccination to take part in this study and participants were sent an anonymous web-based questionnaire. The side effects were scored on a scale from 0-10. Data were analyzed using SPSS. For statistical analysis an independent samples t-test was used.


    In total 1477 persons returned the questionnaire, 1073 received i.d. vs 396 i.m. vaccination. There was a significant difference in side effects between both administration routes. Of the i.d. vaccinated subjects 56.8% experienced side effects compared to 26% of the i.m. vaccinated subjects. I.d. administration led to a significant higher rating of the local side effects swelling (5.67 vs. 3.41), redness of skin (6.53 vs. 3.87), warm feeling (5.41 vs. 3.53) and itching (5.26 vs. 3.02).  Only fatigue was reported significantly less after i.d. administration (5.34 vs 7.00). Although the majority of vaccination-experienced subjects reported significantly more side effects following i.d. administration, 39,6 would still prefer i.d. vaccination for next year vs 30.1% with no preference and 30.3% would prefer i.m. vaccination.


    This study shows significant difference in the nature and severity of side effects between i.m. and i.d. vaccination. This difference, however, could not be linked to the preferred type of administration by the vaccinated subjects.

    Annelies Riezebos-Brilman, MD, PhD1, Nita Bos, MD2, Joep Kuiphuis, student3, Edwin Hagelen2, Jan Wilschut, PhD3, Marjan De Vries, MD4 and Anne Wensing, MD, PhD5, (1)Medical Microbiology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands, (2)Department of Occupational Health and Environment Services, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands, (3)Department of Medical Microbiology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands, (4)Department of Occupational Health, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands, (5)Virology, Department of Medical Microbiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands


    A. Riezebos-Brilman, None

    N. Bos, None

    J. Kuiphuis, None

    E. Hagelen, None

    J. Wilschut, None

    M. De Vries, None

    A. Wensing, None

    See more of: Occupational Health
    See more of: Poster Abstract Session

    Findings in the abstracts are embargoed until 12:01 a.m. PST, Oct. 2nd with the exception of research findings presented at the IDWeek press conferences.