Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Letters

Mandatory vaccination

Michael Gardam and Camille Lemieux
CMAJ August 06, 2013 185 (11) 984; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.113-2125
Michael Gardam
Infection Prevention and Control Unit (Gardam, Lemieux), the Division of Infectious Diseases, (Gardam) and the Division of Family Medicine (Lemieux), University Health Network; and the Faculty of Medicine, (Gardam, Lemieux), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Camille Lemieux
Infection Prevention and Control Unit (Gardam, Lemieux), the Division of Infectious Diseases, (Gardam) and the Division of Family Medicine (Lemieux), University Health Network; and the Faculty of Medicine, (Gardam, Lemieux), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Regarding the letters in response to our article in CMAJ,1 we agree with Van Buynder and colleagues,2 and Woeltje and Babcock3 that, despite its shortcomings, the influenza vaccine is currently the best defence against influenza, and that receiving the vaccine is better than not. We are strong supporters of immunization. Where we differ is on the issue of whether receipt of the influenza vaccine should be made a mandatory condition of employment for health care workers.

We need to be honest with our audience. Although seasonal all-cause mortality is traditionally used as a convenient surrogate for more influenza-specific causes of death, this highly sensitive outcome is also very nonspecific. Other common high-mortality conditions, such as myocardial infarction, Clostridium difficile infections and respiratory syncytial virus infection are also more common in the winter, and all contribute to a likely highly inflated estimate of influenza deaths when using all-cause mortality in place of more specific outcomes. The true impact of the influenza vaccine on mortality is overestimated by this approach and if we do not acknowledge this, we risk losing credibility.

We do not agree with Woeltje and Babcock’s3 interpretation of influenza vaccine effectiveness. They suggest that 60% effectiveness means that most individuals will be 100% protected, and that protection is durable for the entire influenza season. That breakthrough laboratory-confirmed influenza in immunized individuals can cause milder disease is well known; that is, the vaccine can protect against more severe illness. Immunized health care workers may mistake influenza symptoms for a more benign illness and continue to work. Further, 3 recent large European studies showed that vaccine effectiveness waned to near 0 or 0 within roughly 3 months after vaccination for the 2011–2012 season.4–6

With any issue that raises debate, citing and critically analyzing all of the evidence is necessary, even if it does not support a given position. As an example, the study7 mentioned by Van Buynder and colleagues2 did show a higher vaccine effectiveness in relation to influenza-related hospital admissions for the 2011–2012 season; however, the study had a very small sample size and very broad 95% confidence intervals (CIs) around the protective effect of the vaccine (95% CI 17.1–94.9).7 Furthermore, a much larger international study published only 1 day later calculated the overall adjusted vaccine effectiveness for the same season to be just 24.9% (95% CI 1.8–44.6), but this article8 was not cited.

A small number of American facilities have implemented mandatory vaccination and have seen their immunization rates increase to well over 95%. We have not seen evidence that the policy has brought about a significant reduction in both nosocomial influenza and influenza-related deaths. Vaccination rates alone should not be the outcome we are interested in.

We unreservedly support annual influenza vaccination. But we believe that “it’s the best we have right now” and “it might help” are not sufficiently valid bases upon which to compel influenza immunization for health care workers. Taking such steps may paradoxically lead to a negative impact on overall vaccination rates, including those of much more effective vaccines.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Gardam M,
    2. Lemieux C
    . Mandatory influenza vaccination? First we need a better vaccine. CMAJ 2013;185:639–40.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Van Buynder PG,
    2. Bryce E,
    3. Henry B
    . Mandatory vaccination [letter]. CMAJ 2013;185:983.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Woeltje KF,
    2. Babcock HM
    . Mandatory vaccination [letter]. CMAJ 2013;185:983–4.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Castilla J,
    2. Martínez-Baz I,
    3. Martínez-Artola V,
    4. et al
    . Decline in influenza vaccine effectiveness with time after vaccination, Navarre Spain, season 2011/12. Euro Surveill 2013;18. pii: 20388
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Pebody RG,
    2. Andrews N,
    3. McMenamin J,
    4. et al
    . Vaccine effectiveness of 2011/2012 trivalent seasonal influenza vaccine in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza in primary care in the United Kingdom: Evidence of wanting intraseasonal protection. Euro Surveill 2013;18. pii: 20389.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Kissling E,
    2. Valenciano M,
    3. Larrauri A,
    4. et al
    . Low and decreasing vaccine effectiveness against influenza A(H3) in 2011/12 among vaccination target groups in Europe: Results from the I-MOVE multicenter case–control study. Euro Surveill 2013;18. pii: 20390.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Talbot HK,
    2. Zhu Y,
    3. Chen Q,
    4. et al
    . Effectiveness of influenza vaccine for preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalizations in adults, 2011–2012 influenza season. Clin Infect Disease 2013; 56:1774–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Rondy M,
    2. Puig-Barbera J,
    3. Launay O,
    4. et al
    . 2011–12 Seasonal influenza vaccines effectiveness against confirmed a(h3n2) influenza hospitalisation: pooled analysis from a european network of hospitals. A pilot study. PLoS ONE 2013;8:e59681.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 185 (11)
CMAJ
Vol. 185, Issue 11
6 Aug 2013
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Mandatory vaccination
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Mandatory vaccination
Michael Gardam, Camille Lemieux
CMAJ Aug 2013, 185 (11) 984; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.113-2125

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Mandatory vaccination
Michael Gardam, Camille Lemieux
CMAJ Aug 2013, 185 (11) 984; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.113-2125
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Hospital-at-home programs in Canada: challenges and pitfalls
  • Pitfalls of analyzing perinatal outcomes by health care provider
  • Author response to “Pitfalls of analyzing perinatal outcomes by health care provider”
Show more Letters

Similar Articles

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

Powered by HighWire