Objectives: To evaluate pooling of first catch urine (FCU) specimens as a cost eVective strategy for chlamydia testing. Methods: Mock specimens were pooled with and without dilution to determine optimal pool size and ease of work flow. The performance of the Amplicor Chlamydia trachomatis PCR assay on pooled specimens was compared with individual testing using 370 FCU specimens from asymptomatic men presenting to an STD clinic. Cost savings associated with pooling were estimated. Results: Using mock specimens, the sensitivity and specificity of the Amplicor PCR assay were not aVected by pool sizes of two and five, but at a pool size of 10 decreased sensitivity due to inhibition was observed in one of five mock pools when the pooling method which involved no dilution was used. Archived FCU specimens from a study of 370 asymptomatic men were combined consecutively into 74 pools of five and tested by PCR. Of the 18 pools that contained positive specimens, 17 were PCR positive. Compared with testing FCU specimens individually, pooling resulted in a sensitivity of 95%, specificity of 100%, and a cost savings of 57% based on reduced number of tests required. Conclusion: Depending on the prevalence of infection, pooling of FCU specimens for PCR testing may result in cost savings compared with testing specimens individually. Further evaluations to validate this strategy using fresh FCU specimens are needed. (Sex Transm Inf 1998;74:66-70)

No abstract

BackgroundOntario’s 36 Public Health Units (PHUs) were responsible for implementing the H1N1 Pandemic Influenza Plans (PIPs) to address the first pandemic influenza virus in over 40 years. It was the first under conditions which permitted mass immunization. This is therefore the first opportunity to learn and document what worked well, and did not work well, in Ontario’s response to pH1N1, and to make recommendations based on experience.MethodsOur objectives were to: describe the PIP models, obtain perceptions on outcomes, lessons learned and to solicit policy suggestions for improvement. We conducted a 3-phase comparative analysis study comprised of semi-structured key informant interviews with local Medical Officers of Health (n = 29 of 36), and Primary Care Physicians (n = 20) and in Phase 3 with provincial Chief-Medical Officers of Health (n = 6) and a provincial Medical Organization. Phase 2 data came from a Pan-Ontario symposium (n = 44) comprised leaders representing: Public Health, Primary Care, Provincial and Federal Government.ResultsPIPs varied resulting in diverse experiences and lessons learned. This was in part due to different PHU characteristics that included: degree of planning, PHU and Primary Care capacity, population, geographic and relationships with Primary Care. Main lessons learned were: 1) Planning should be more comprehensive and operationalized at all levels. 2) Improve national and provincial communication strategies and eliminate contradictory messages from different sources. 3) An integrated community-wide response may be the best approach to decrease the impact of a pandemic. 4) The best Mass Immunization models can be quickly implemented and have high immunization rates. They should be flexible and allow for incremental responses that are based upon: i) pandemic severity, ii) local health system, population and geographic characteristics, iii) immunization objectives, and iv) vaccine supply.Conclusion“We were very lucky that pH1N1 was not more severe.” Consensus existed for more detailed planning and the inclusion of multiple health system and community stakeholders. PIPs should be flexible, allow for incremental responses and have important decisions (E.g., under which conditions Public Health, Primary Care, Pharmacists or others act as vaccine delivery agents.) made prior to a crisis.

BackgroundOne of the main determinants of public immunization success is health professionals' support and recommendations. Little is known about the physicians' level of support and intentions regarding A(H1N1) pandemic influenza vaccination. The aim of this survey was to document Canadian family physicians' and paediatricians' knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) as well as their intentions regarding A(H1N1) pandemic influenza vaccines right before the beginning of the largest immunization campaign in Canadian history.FindingsA self-administered, anonymous, mail-based questionnaire was sent to a random sample of family physicians and to all paediatricians practicing in Canada. All 921 questionnaires received by October 29 2009 were included in the analysis. Between 72% and 92% of respondents agreed with the statements regarding vaccine safety, effectiveness and acceptability. More than 75% of respondents intended to recommend the A(H1N1) pandemic influenza vaccine to their patients and to get vaccinated themselves. The most significant factors associated with the intention to recommend A(H1N1) pandemic vaccines were physicians' intention to be vaccinated against influenza themselves and the perceived acceptability of the vaccine by the vaccinators.ConclusionsMost Canadian family physicians and paediatricians surveyed were supportive of the A(H1N1) pandemic influenza vaccination before its implementation and large media coverage.

Ontario has a single payer provincial health insurance program. Administrative data may provide a potentially robust source of information for post-marketing vaccine studies. Vaccine-specific immunization billing codes were introduced in 2011. Our objective was to validate Ontario's universal health care administrative datasets to assess infant immunization status. Electronic medical record data from the Electronic Medical Record Administrative data Linked Database (EMRALD) was used as the reference standard to calculate performance characteristics of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) database vaccine-specific and general immunization codes for 4 primary infant immunizations: diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, inactivated polio, Haemophilus influenzae type B (DTaP-IPV-Hib) combination vaccine, pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine, and meningococcal conjugate serogroup C vaccine. OHIP billing claims had specificity ranging from 81% to 92%, sensitivity 70% to 83%, positive predictive value (PPV) 97% to 99%, and negative predictive value (NPV) 13% to 46% for identifying the various specific vaccines in administrative data. For cohorts vaccinated in the new code introduction phase, using both the vaccinespecific and general codes had higher sensitivity than the vaccine-specific codes alone. In conclusion, immunization billing claims from administrative data in Ontario had high specificity and PPV, moderate sensitivity, and low NPV. This study identifies some of the applications of utilizing administrative data for post-marketing vaccine studies. However, limitations of these data decrease their utility for measuring vaccine coverage and effectiveness. Therefore, the establishment of a comprehensive and linkable immunization registry should be a provincial priority.