Vaccines

Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccines are given to more than 100 million children every year, but there is considerable debate regarding the effectiveness of BCG vaccination in preventing tuberculosis and death, particularly among older children and adults.

The most extensive study ever conducted on the efficacy of the BCG vaccine for protection against tuberculosis, stratified by age and history of previous tuberculosis, was published in September 2022 in The Lancet Global Health. The study, which comprises a systematic review and meta-analysis, analyzed individual-level data from 26 case-contact cohort studies published over the past 20 years. The studies included data from 70,000 participants. The primary outcome was a composite of prevalent (diagnosed at or within 90 days of baseline) and incident (diagnosed more than 90 days after baseline) tuberculosis in contacts exposed to tuberculosis. Secondary outcomes were pulmonary tuberculosis, extrapulmonary tuberculosis, and mortality.

Participants were characterized as having been exposed to tuberculosis if they were reported to have been a close contact (either living in the same household or having substantial interaction outside the household) of a person with microbiologically or radiologically diagnosed pulmonary tuberculosis. Previous tuberculosis was defined as a positive interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) release assay or tuberculin skin test, also known as PPD or Mantoux test.

Most studies included in the analysis were conducted in the past 10 years in countries with a high tuberculosis burden. Those countries included India, South Africa, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Uganda, the Gambia, and Brazil.
 

Primary outcomes

The study’s main findings included the following:

• The overall effectiveness of BCG vaccination against all forms of tuberculosis was 18% (adjusted odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.91).
• Stratified by age, BCG vaccination only significantly protected against all tuberculosis in children younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.49-0.81).
• There was no protective effect among those whose previous tests for tuberculosis were negative unless they were younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32-0.90).
• Among contacts who had a positive tuberculin skin test or IFN-gamma release assay, BCG vaccination significantly protected against tuberculosis among all participants (aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96), participants younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.97), and participants aged 5-9 years (aOR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.38-0.99).
• BCG vaccination was protective against pulmonary tuberculosis (19% effectiveness), but this effect was only seen in children younger than 3 years (42% effectiveness) when stratified by age.
• Protection against all tuberculosis and pulmonary tuberculosis was greater among female participants than male participants.

“This is a definitive BCG protection study because it involves a significant number of individuals evaluated using this meta-analysis. Protection is clearly lost with age. From as early as age 5, no protective effect can be observed. Protection, including against pulmonary tuberculosis, can be observed up to 3 years of age,” stated study author Julio Croda, MD, PhD, chair of the Brazilian Society of Tropical Medicine.

Dr. Croda emphasized that the findings from their study indicate that BCG vaccine protects against pulmonary tuberculosis and that those results differ from results of some previous studies.

“Every physician believes the BCG vaccine protects against serious forms of tuberculosis up to age 5. That fact is not surprising at all,” Dr. Croda remarked. “However, the fact that it protects against pulmonary tuberculosis, especially in children younger than 3, was surprising. In medical practice, we did not believe in this protection.”

Currently, 1.2% of new tuberculosis cases in Brazil occur among those younger than 5. Nevertheless, these cases represent 40.1% of new diagnoses recorded among those younger than 15, highlighting the importance of protection for this age group. An increase in extrapulmonary tuberculosis cases was recently observed in patients younger than 5.

Isabella Ballalai, MD, PhD, is deputy chair of the Brazilian Society of Immunizations. Although she did not participate in this study, she commented on its findings. “All publications are welcome; they help us think,” she explained. She emphasized that the BCG vaccine is not optimal. “There are studies indicating 80% efficacy and others indicating 0%. So, what we can look at is decades of effectiveness in practice.”

Dr. Ballalai explained that the BCG vaccine could keep severe forms of tuberculosis, meningitis, and miliary tuberculosis at bay. She shared her experience of caring for several patients with tuberculous meningitis shortly after she had graduated. “Today, thanks to the BCG vaccine, we don’t see it anymore.” However, she pointed out that the vaccine›s efficacy and effectiveness against pulmonary tuberculosis are low and that pulmonary tuberculosis remains the most significant problem among adults.

Dr. Ballalai also emphasized a few shortcomings of the study. “One is the definition of ‘vaccinated’ and ‘unvaccinated,’ which was based on the presence or absence of a mark on the arm. Today, we know that the absence of a mark does not indicate that the child has not been vaccinated, nor that the vaccine has not been effective. Therefore, several vaccinated participants may have been included amongst the unvaccinated participants.”

The authors emphasized that the definition of “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” was based on a scar and on vaccination records, and they recognized that participants who did not have a scar on their arm could have been misclassified. Regardless, it is still considered a sensitive indicator. “Few vaccinated children from various settings do not show a scar years after vaccine administration,” they stated in their article.
 

Adults unprotected

Dr. Ballalai also shared her concerns regarding the lack of protection for older individuals. “We know those older than 60 are at greater risk for complications of tuberculosis. Individuals in this age group naturally have a lower immunity, and they usually have comorbidities. From this study, I can only conclude what was already expected: that adults who received a BCG vaccine as infants are not clear of pulmonary tuberculosis.”

Dr. Croda agreed that it was already evident that the BCG vaccine administered at birth did not provide protection for adults. “In the past, even with 80%-90% vaccine coverage, there were numerous tuberculosis cases in adults in Brazil.”
 

Are boosters needed?

The authors concluded that immunoprotection needs to be boosted in older populations, as vaccination at birth is ineffective for adolescents and adults. They have also discussed whether children older than 10 years and adults could benefit from a booster shot.

Dr. Croda emphasized that there is no indication for this, because there are no data regarding protection with a booster dose during adulthood. However, he cited a study conducted in South Africa in which the BCG vaccine was compared with another vaccine, and another study, which is being conducted in India, is assessing whether a BCG booster offers protection against pulmonary tuberculosis. “There are few studies. Perhaps the revaccination of more vulnerable groups could be of interest, but additional studies are needed first.”

Dr. Croda intends to assess revaccination in those deprived of liberty, in which the incidence of tuberculosis is very high. From 2015 to 2021, many new cases were recorded in this population in Brazil. The number rose from 5,860 to 6,773 during that period.

“However, BCG revaccination carries a significant risk of patients presenting with serious adverse events,” Dr. Ballalai pointed out. He noted that several years ago, to extend protection, Brazil adopted a booster program for persons aged 10 years or older, but the program was discontinued owing to the numerous adverse events reported and the absence of evidence of benefit from increased protection against tuberculosis.

“The adult groups at greater risk for severe tuberculosis manifestations normally presented with an underlying disease, particularly in immunocompromised patient groups. The [administration of the] BCG [vaccine] is contraindicated for those who are immunocompromised. And, for the older population, we do not have data on [vaccine] safety,” she emphasized.
 

Nonspecific immune protection

One of the study’s secondary outcomes regarded mortality. Four studies in the meta-analysis followed up tuberculosis contacts for death. In these studies, which evaluated 20,000 participants, BCG vaccination was shown to be significantly protective against death for participants younger than 15 years.

However, the authors urged caution in interpreting these data. They emphasized that they were unable to identify specific mechanisms by which BCG vaccination might have reduced mortality, and there are possible study biases that could have led to an overestimation of mortality benefit. Moreover, given the observational nature of the included studies, vaccinated children might have had higher socioeconomic status and greater access to health care, and they may have been more likely to have received other vaccinations, compared with children who did not receive BCG vaccines.

Nevertheless, previous experimental and observational studies have found that BCG vaccination might provide nonspecific or off-target immune protection against an array of other pathogens.

“In small studies conducted in Africa, those younger than 5 were protected not only against tuberculosis but also against other respiratory diseases,” Dr. Croda affirmed. “However, these are small studies, and for now, there is no recommendation for using BCG vaccination to prevent other respiratory infections.”

A long-awaited, critical study on the impact of the BCG vaccine on COVID-19, in which Brazilian researchers participated, will be published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New vaccines needed

The BCG vaccine is one of the oldest vaccines, but there are still several crucial unanswered questions about its use.

Previously published studies that examined the protective effect of BCG vaccination only considered low-burden settings and the historical literature before 1950. These studies need updating, but doing so has not been a simple task. To answer their questions, individual-level participant data for a prespecified list of variables, including the characteristics of the exposed participant (contact), the index case, and the environment, were requested from authors of all eligible studies.

Much of the data used in the published research were found through discussions with authors and experts in the field, as well as through data deposited in data storage repositories, conference abstracts, dissertations, and even direct requests to the authors. “The Pan-American Health Organization helped with this data collection and contacting some authors,” said Dr. Croda.

With the new data, the authors confirmed that infant BCG vaccination, although important to young children who are at high risk for tuberculosis, does not prevent adult-type cavitary tuberculosis and is therefore insufficient to impede the tuberculosis epidemic. “Novel vaccines are urgently needed,” they concluded.

“We need to develop novel, more effective vaccines, which, when administered during infancy, would ensure lifelong protection,” Dr. Croda added.

Dr. Croda and Dr. Ballalai reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccines are given to more than 100 million children every year, but there is considerable debate regarding the effectiveness of BCG vaccination in preventing tuberculosis and death, particularly among older children and adults.

The most extensive study ever conducted on the efficacy of the BCG vaccine for protection against tuberculosis, stratified by age and history of previous tuberculosis, was published in September 2022 in The Lancet Global Health. The study, which comprises a systematic review and meta-analysis, analyzed individual-level data from 26 case-contact cohort studies published over the past 20 years. The studies included data from 70,000 participants. The primary outcome was a composite of prevalent (diagnosed at or within 90 days of baseline) and incident (diagnosed more than 90 days after baseline) tuberculosis in contacts exposed to tuberculosis. Secondary outcomes were pulmonary tuberculosis, extrapulmonary tuberculosis, and mortality.

Participants were characterized as having been exposed to tuberculosis if they were reported to have been a close contact (either living in the same household or having substantial interaction outside the household) of a person with microbiologically or radiologically diagnosed pulmonary tuberculosis. Previous tuberculosis was defined as a positive interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) release assay or tuberculin skin test, also known as PPD or Mantoux test.

Most studies included in the analysis were conducted in the past 10 years in countries with a high tuberculosis burden. Those countries included India, South Africa, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Uganda, the Gambia, and Brazil.
 

Primary outcomes

The study’s main findings included the following:

• The overall effectiveness of BCG vaccination against all forms of tuberculosis was 18% (adjusted odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.91).
• Stratified by age, BCG vaccination only significantly protected against all tuberculosis in children younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.49-0.81).
• There was no protective effect among those whose previous tests for tuberculosis were negative unless they were younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32-0.90).
• Among contacts who had a positive tuberculin skin test or IFN-gamma release assay, BCG vaccination significantly protected against tuberculosis among all participants (aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96), participants younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.97), and participants aged 5-9 years (aOR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.38-0.99).
• BCG vaccination was protective against pulmonary tuberculosis (19% effectiveness), but this effect was only seen in children younger than 3 years (42% effectiveness) when stratified by age.
• Protection against all tuberculosis and pulmonary tuberculosis was greater among female participants than male participants.

“This is a definitive BCG protection study because it involves a significant number of individuals evaluated using this meta-analysis. Protection is clearly lost with age. From as early as age 5, no protective effect can be observed. Protection, including against pulmonary tuberculosis, can be observed up to 3 years of age,” stated study author Julio Croda, MD, PhD, chair of the Brazilian Society of Tropical Medicine.

Dr. Croda emphasized that the findings from their study indicate that BCG vaccine protects against pulmonary tuberculosis and that those results differ from results of some previous studies.

“Every physician believes the BCG vaccine protects against serious forms of tuberculosis up to age 5. That fact is not surprising at all,” Dr. Croda remarked. “However, the fact that it protects against pulmonary tuberculosis, especially in children younger than 3, was surprising. In medical practice, we did not believe in this protection.”

Currently, 1.2% of new tuberculosis cases in Brazil occur among those younger than 5. Nevertheless, these cases represent 40.1% of new diagnoses recorded among those younger than 15, highlighting the importance of protection for this age group. An increase in extrapulmonary tuberculosis cases was recently observed in patients younger than 5.

Isabella Ballalai, MD, PhD, is deputy chair of the Brazilian Society of Immunizations. Although she did not participate in this study, she commented on its findings. “All publications are welcome; they help us think,” she explained. She emphasized that the BCG vaccine is not optimal. “There are studies indicating 80% efficacy and others indicating 0%. So, what we can look at is decades of effectiveness in practice.”

Dr. Ballalai explained that the BCG vaccine could keep severe forms of tuberculosis, meningitis, and miliary tuberculosis at bay. She shared her experience of caring for several patients with tuberculous meningitis shortly after she had graduated. “Today, thanks to the BCG vaccine, we don’t see it anymore.” However, she pointed out that the vaccine›s efficacy and effectiveness against pulmonary tuberculosis are low and that pulmonary tuberculosis remains the most significant problem among adults.

Dr. Ballalai also emphasized a few shortcomings of the study. “One is the definition of ‘vaccinated’ and ‘unvaccinated,’ which was based on the presence or absence of a mark on the arm. Today, we know that the absence of a mark does not indicate that the child has not been vaccinated, nor that the vaccine has not been effective. Therefore, several vaccinated participants may have been included amongst the unvaccinated participants.”

The authors emphasized that the definition of “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” was based on a scar and on vaccination records, and they recognized that participants who did not have a scar on their arm could have been misclassified. Regardless, it is still considered a sensitive indicator. “Few vaccinated children from various settings do not show a scar years after vaccine administration,” they stated in their article.
 

Adults unprotected

Dr. Ballalai also shared her concerns regarding the lack of protection for older individuals. “We know those older than 60 are at greater risk for complications of tuberculosis. Individuals in this age group naturally have a lower immunity, and they usually have comorbidities. From this study, I can only conclude what was already expected: that adults who received a BCG vaccine as infants are not clear of pulmonary tuberculosis.”

Dr. Croda agreed that it was already evident that the BCG vaccine administered at birth did not provide protection for adults. “In the past, even with 80%-90% vaccine coverage, there were numerous tuberculosis cases in adults in Brazil.”
 

Are boosters needed?

The authors concluded that immunoprotection needs to be boosted in older populations, as vaccination at birth is ineffective for adolescents and adults. They have also discussed whether children older than 10 years and adults could benefit from a booster shot.

Dr. Croda emphasized that there is no indication for this, because there are no data regarding protection with a booster dose during adulthood. However, he cited a study conducted in South Africa in which the BCG vaccine was compared with another vaccine, and another study, which is being conducted in India, is assessing whether a BCG booster offers protection against pulmonary tuberculosis. “There are few studies. Perhaps the revaccination of more vulnerable groups could be of interest, but additional studies are needed first.”

Dr. Croda intends to assess revaccination in those deprived of liberty, in which the incidence of tuberculosis is very high. From 2015 to 2021, many new cases were recorded in this population in Brazil. The number rose from 5,860 to 6,773 during that period.

“However, BCG revaccination carries a significant risk of patients presenting with serious adverse events,” Dr. Ballalai pointed out. He noted that several years ago, to extend protection, Brazil adopted a booster program for persons aged 10 years or older, but the program was discontinued owing to the numerous adverse events reported and the absence of evidence of benefit from increased protection against tuberculosis.

“The adult groups at greater risk for severe tuberculosis manifestations normally presented with an underlying disease, particularly in immunocompromised patient groups. The [administration of the] BCG [vaccine] is contraindicated for those who are immunocompromised. And, for the older population, we do not have data on [vaccine] safety,” she emphasized.
 

Nonspecific immune protection

One of the study’s secondary outcomes regarded mortality. Four studies in the meta-analysis followed up tuberculosis contacts for death. In these studies, which evaluated 20,000 participants, BCG vaccination was shown to be significantly protective against death for participants younger than 15 years.

However, the authors urged caution in interpreting these data. They emphasized that they were unable to identify specific mechanisms by which BCG vaccination might have reduced mortality, and there are possible study biases that could have led to an overestimation of mortality benefit. Moreover, given the observational nature of the included studies, vaccinated children might have had higher socioeconomic status and greater access to health care, and they may have been more likely to have received other vaccinations, compared with children who did not receive BCG vaccines.

Nevertheless, previous experimental and observational studies have found that BCG vaccination might provide nonspecific or off-target immune protection against an array of other pathogens.

“In small studies conducted in Africa, those younger than 5 were protected not only against tuberculosis but also against other respiratory diseases,” Dr. Croda affirmed. “However, these are small studies, and for now, there is no recommendation for using BCG vaccination to prevent other respiratory infections.”

A long-awaited, critical study on the impact of the BCG vaccine on COVID-19, in which Brazilian researchers participated, will be published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New vaccines needed

The BCG vaccine is one of the oldest vaccines, but there are still several crucial unanswered questions about its use.

Previously published studies that examined the protective effect of BCG vaccination only considered low-burden settings and the historical literature before 1950. These studies need updating, but doing so has not been a simple task. To answer their questions, individual-level participant data for a prespecified list of variables, including the characteristics of the exposed participant (contact), the index case, and the environment, were requested from authors of all eligible studies.

Much of the data used in the published research were found through discussions with authors and experts in the field, as well as through data deposited in data storage repositories, conference abstracts, dissertations, and even direct requests to the authors. “The Pan-American Health Organization helped with this data collection and contacting some authors,” said Dr. Croda.

With the new data, the authors confirmed that infant BCG vaccination, although important to young children who are at high risk for tuberculosis, does not prevent adult-type cavitary tuberculosis and is therefore insufficient to impede the tuberculosis epidemic. “Novel vaccines are urgently needed,” they concluded.

“We need to develop novel, more effective vaccines, which, when administered during infancy, would ensure lifelong protection,” Dr. Croda added.

Dr. Croda and Dr. Ballalai reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccines are given to more than 100 million children every year, but there is considerable debate regarding the effectiveness of BCG vaccination in preventing tuberculosis and death, particularly among older children and adults.

The most extensive study ever conducted on the efficacy of the BCG vaccine for protection against tuberculosis, stratified by age and history of previous tuberculosis, was published in September 2022 in The Lancet Global Health. The study, which comprises a systematic review and meta-analysis, analyzed individual-level data from 26 case-contact cohort studies published over the past 20 years. The studies included data from 70,000 participants. The primary outcome was a composite of prevalent (diagnosed at or within 90 days of baseline) and incident (diagnosed more than 90 days after baseline) tuberculosis in contacts exposed to tuberculosis. Secondary outcomes were pulmonary tuberculosis, extrapulmonary tuberculosis, and mortality.

Participants were characterized as having been exposed to tuberculosis if they were reported to have been a close contact (either living in the same household or having substantial interaction outside the household) of a person with microbiologically or radiologically diagnosed pulmonary tuberculosis. Previous tuberculosis was defined as a positive interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) release assay or tuberculin skin test, also known as PPD or Mantoux test.

Most studies included in the analysis were conducted in the past 10 years in countries with a high tuberculosis burden. Those countries included India, South Africa, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Uganda, the Gambia, and Brazil.
 

Primary outcomes

The study’s main findings included the following:

• The overall effectiveness of BCG vaccination against all forms of tuberculosis was 18% (adjusted odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.91).
• Stratified by age, BCG vaccination only significantly protected against all tuberculosis in children younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.49-0.81).
• There was no protective effect among those whose previous tests for tuberculosis were negative unless they were younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32-0.90).
• Among contacts who had a positive tuberculin skin test or IFN-gamma release assay, BCG vaccination significantly protected against tuberculosis among all participants (aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96), participants younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.97), and participants aged 5-9 years (aOR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.38-0.99).
• BCG vaccination was protective against pulmonary tuberculosis (19% effectiveness), but this effect was only seen in children younger than 3 years (42% effectiveness) when stratified by age.
• Protection against all tuberculosis and pulmonary tuberculosis was greater among female participants than male participants.

“This is a definitive BCG protection study because it involves a significant number of individuals evaluated using this meta-analysis. Protection is clearly lost with age. From as early as age 5, no protective effect can be observed. Protection, including against pulmonary tuberculosis, can be observed up to 3 years of age,” stated study author Julio Croda, MD, PhD, chair of the Brazilian Society of Tropical Medicine.

Dr. Croda emphasized that the findings from their study indicate that BCG vaccine protects against pulmonary tuberculosis and that those results differ from results of some previous studies.

“Every physician believes the BCG vaccine protects against serious forms of tuberculosis up to age 5. That fact is not surprising at all,” Dr. Croda remarked. “However, the fact that it protects against pulmonary tuberculosis, especially in children younger than 3, was surprising. In medical practice, we did not believe in this protection.”

Currently, 1.2% of new tuberculosis cases in Brazil occur among those younger than 5. Nevertheless, these cases represent 40.1% of new diagnoses recorded among those younger than 15, highlighting the importance of protection for this age group. An increase in extrapulmonary tuberculosis cases was recently observed in patients younger than 5.

Isabella Ballalai, MD, PhD, is deputy chair of the Brazilian Society of Immunizations. Although she did not participate in this study, she commented on its findings. “All publications are welcome; they help us think,” she explained. She emphasized that the BCG vaccine is not optimal. “There are studies indicating 80% efficacy and others indicating 0%. So, what we can look at is decades of effectiveness in practice.”

Dr. Ballalai explained that the BCG vaccine could keep severe forms of tuberculosis, meningitis, and miliary tuberculosis at bay. She shared her experience of caring for several patients with tuberculous meningitis shortly after she had graduated. “Today, thanks to the BCG vaccine, we don’t see it anymore.” However, she pointed out that the vaccine›s efficacy and effectiveness against pulmonary tuberculosis are low and that pulmonary tuberculosis remains the most significant problem among adults.

Dr. Ballalai also emphasized a few shortcomings of the study. “One is the definition of ‘vaccinated’ and ‘unvaccinated,’ which was based on the presence or absence of a mark on the arm. Today, we know that the absence of a mark does not indicate that the child has not been vaccinated, nor that the vaccine has not been effective. Therefore, several vaccinated participants may have been included amongst the unvaccinated participants.”

The authors emphasized that the definition of “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” was based on a scar and on vaccination records, and they recognized that participants who did not have a scar on their arm could have been misclassified. Regardless, it is still considered a sensitive indicator. “Few vaccinated children from various settings do not show a scar years after vaccine administration,” they stated in their article.
 

Adults unprotected

Dr. Ballalai also shared her concerns regarding the lack of protection for older individuals. “We know those older than 60 are at greater risk for complications of tuberculosis. Individuals in this age group naturally have a lower immunity, and they usually have comorbidities. From this study, I can only conclude what was already expected: that adults who received a BCG vaccine as infants are not clear of pulmonary tuberculosis.”

Dr. Croda agreed that it was already evident that the BCG vaccine administered at birth did not provide protection for adults. “In the past, even with 80%-90% vaccine coverage, there were numerous tuberculosis cases in adults in Brazil.”
 

Are boosters needed?

The authors concluded that immunoprotection needs to be boosted in older populations, as vaccination at birth is ineffective for adolescents and adults. They have also discussed whether children older than 10 years and adults could benefit from a booster shot.

Dr. Croda emphasized that there is no indication for this, because there are no data regarding protection with a booster dose during adulthood. However, he cited a study conducted in South Africa in which the BCG vaccine was compared with another vaccine, and another study, which is being conducted in India, is assessing whether a BCG booster offers protection against pulmonary tuberculosis. “There are few studies. Perhaps the revaccination of more vulnerable groups could be of interest, but additional studies are needed first.”

Dr. Croda intends to assess revaccination in those deprived of liberty, in which the incidence of tuberculosis is very high. From 2015 to 2021, many new cases were recorded in this population in Brazil. The number rose from 5,860 to 6,773 during that period.

“However, BCG revaccination carries a significant risk of patients presenting with serious adverse events,” Dr. Ballalai pointed out. He noted that several years ago, to extend protection, Brazil adopted a booster program for persons aged 10 years or older, but the program was discontinued owing to the numerous adverse events reported and the absence of evidence of benefit from increased protection against tuberculosis.

“The adult groups at greater risk for severe tuberculosis manifestations normally presented with an underlying disease, particularly in immunocompromised patient groups. The [administration of the] BCG [vaccine] is contraindicated for those who are immunocompromised. And, for the older population, we do not have data on [vaccine] safety,” she emphasized.
 

Nonspecific immune protection

One of the study’s secondary outcomes regarded mortality. Four studies in the meta-analysis followed up tuberculosis contacts for death. In these studies, which evaluated 20,000 participants, BCG vaccination was shown to be significantly protective against death for participants younger than 15 years.

However, the authors urged caution in interpreting these data. They emphasized that they were unable to identify specific mechanisms by which BCG vaccination might have reduced mortality, and there are possible study biases that could have led to an overestimation of mortality benefit. Moreover, given the observational nature of the included studies, vaccinated children might have had higher socioeconomic status and greater access to health care, and they may have been more likely to have received other vaccinations, compared with children who did not receive BCG vaccines.

Nevertheless, previous experimental and observational studies have found that BCG vaccination might provide nonspecific or off-target immune protection against an array of other pathogens.

“In small studies conducted in Africa, those younger than 5 were protected not only against tuberculosis but also against other respiratory diseases,” Dr. Croda affirmed. “However, these are small studies, and for now, there is no recommendation for using BCG vaccination to prevent other respiratory infections.”

A long-awaited, critical study on the impact of the BCG vaccine on COVID-19, in which Brazilian researchers participated, will be published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New vaccines needed

The BCG vaccine is one of the oldest vaccines, but there are still several crucial unanswered questions about its use.

Previously published studies that examined the protective effect of BCG vaccination only considered low-burden settings and the historical literature before 1950. These studies need updating, but doing so has not been a simple task. To answer their questions, individual-level participant data for a prespecified list of variables, including the characteristics of the exposed participant (contact), the index case, and the environment, were requested from authors of all eligible studies.

Much of the data used in the published research were found through discussions with authors and experts in the field, as well as through data deposited in data storage repositories, conference abstracts, dissertations, and even direct requests to the authors. “The Pan-American Health Organization helped with this data collection and contacting some authors,” said Dr. Croda.

With the new data, the authors confirmed that infant BCG vaccination, although important to young children who are at high risk for tuberculosis, does not prevent adult-type cavitary tuberculosis and is therefore insufficient to impede the tuberculosis epidemic. “Novel vaccines are urgently needed,” they concluded.

“We need to develop novel, more effective vaccines, which, when administered during infancy, would ensure lifelong protection,” Dr. Croda added.

Dr. Croda and Dr. Ballalai reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 vaccines retained the ability to prevent deaths from COVID-19 in children and adolescents regardless of the dominant circulating variant, in a new study.

The vaccine’s effectiveness against infection in the short term has been established, as has the waning effectiveness of the vaccine over time, wrote Juan Manuel Castelli, MD, of the Ministry of Health of Argentina, Buenos Aires, and colleagues, in the British Medical Journal.

However, data on the impact of vaccine effectiveness on mortality in children and adolescents are limited, especially during periods of omicron variant dominance, the researchers said.

In their new study, the researchers reviewed data from 844,460 children and adolescents aged 3-17 years from the National Surveillance System and the Nominalized Federal Vaccination Registry of Argentina, during a time that included a period of omicron dominance.

Argentina began vaccinating adolescents aged 12-17 years against COVID-19 in August 2021 and added children aged 3-11 years in October 2021. Those aged 12-17 years who were considered fully vaccinated received two doses of either Pfizer-BioNTech and/or Moderna vaccines, and fully-vaccinated 3- to 11-year-olds received two doses of Sinopharm vaccine.

The average time from the second vaccine dose to a COVID-19 test was 66 days for those aged 12-17 years and 54 days for 3- to 11-year-olds. The researchers matched COVID-19 cases with uninfected controls, and a total of 139,321 cases were included in the analysis.

Overall, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 was 64.2% during a period of delta dominance (61.2% in children aged 3-11 years and 66.8% in adolescents aged 12-17 years).

During a period of omicron dominance, estimated vaccine effectiveness was 19.9% across all ages (15.9% and 26.0% for younger and older age groups, respectively).

Effectiveness of the vaccine decreased over time, regardless of the dominant variant, but the decline was greater during the omicron dominant period, the researchers noted. During the omicron period, effectiveness in children aged 3-11 years decreased from 37.6% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 2.0% at 60 days or longer after vaccination. In adolescents aged 12-17 years, vaccine effectiveness during the omicron period decreased from 55.8% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 12.4% at 60 days or longer after vaccination.

Despite the waning protection against infection, the vaccine’s effectiveness against death from COVID-19 was 66.9% in children aged 3-11 years and 97.6% in adolescents aged 12-17 during the period of omicron dominance, the researchers noted.

The results are consistent with similar studies showing a decreased vaccine effectiveness against infection but a persistent effectiveness against deaths over time, the researchers wrote in the discussion section of their paper.

“Our results suggest that the primary vaccination schedule is effective in preventing mortality in children and adolescents with COVID-19 regardless of the circulating SARS-CoV-2 variant,” the researchers said.
 

Study limitations and strengths

The study was limited by several factors including the incomplete data on symptoms and hospital admissions, the possible impact of unmeasured confounding variables, and the observational design that prevents conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and access to detailed vaccination records, they said.

Both heterologous and homologous mRNA vaccine schedules showed similar effectiveness in preventing short-term infection and mortality from COVID-19 during periods of differing dominant variants, they noted.

The study findings support the vaccination of children against COVID-19 as an important public health measure to prevent mortality in children and adolescents, they concluded.
 

Data support value of vaccination, outside experts say

“COVID vaccines may not be as effective over time as the gene variants in the SARS-CoV-2 virus change,” Adrienne G. Randolph, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. “Therefore, it is essential to assess vaccine effectiveness over time to look at effectiveness against variants and duration of effectiveness.” Dr. Randolph, who was not involved in the study, said she was not surprised by the findings, which she described as consistent with data from the United States. “COVID vaccines are very effective against preventing life-threatening disease, but the effectiveness against less severe illness for COVID vaccines is not as effective against Omicron,” she noted. 

The take-home message for clinicians is that it’s important to get children vaccinated against COVID to prevent severe and life-threatening illness, said Dr. Randolph. “Although these cases are uncommon in children, it is not possible to predict which children will be the most severely affected by COVID,” she emphasized.

However, “we need more data on the new COVID booster vaccines in children that are designed to be more effective against Omicron’s newer variants,” Dr. Randolph said in an interview. “We also need more data on COVID vaccine effectiveness in the youngest children, under 5 years of age, and data on vaccinating mothers to prevent COVID in infants,” she said.

Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician who practices a combination of internal medicine and pediatrics, agreed that future research should continue to assess how the new COVID boosters are faring against new variants, noting that the current study did not include data from children who received the new bivalent vaccine.

“The methodology of this study uses a test negative case control design which is common for estimating vaccine effectiveness post-release of a vaccine, but is subject to biases,” Dr. Joos explained. “These are not the clean effectiveness numbers of the prospective randomized control trials that we are used to hearing about when a vaccine is first being approved.”

“Nevertheless, the study reinforces the initial manufacturers’ studies that the vaccines are effective at preventing infection in the pediatric population,” Dr. Joos said in an interview. The current study also reinforces the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing “the rare but devastating mortality from COVID-19 in the pediatric population.”

Commenting on other research showing an increasing ratio of COVID deaths among vaccinated individuals compared to total COVID deaths, he noted that this finding is “likely reflecting a denominator effect of rapidly declining COVID deaths overall,” partly from the vaccines and partly from immunity after previous natural infection.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers, Dr. Randolph, and Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

COVID-19 vaccines retained the ability to prevent deaths from COVID-19 in children and adolescents regardless of the dominant circulating variant, in a new study.

The vaccine’s effectiveness against infection in the short term has been established, as has the waning effectiveness of the vaccine over time, wrote Juan Manuel Castelli, MD, of the Ministry of Health of Argentina, Buenos Aires, and colleagues, in the British Medical Journal.

However, data on the impact of vaccine effectiveness on mortality in children and adolescents are limited, especially during periods of omicron variant dominance, the researchers said.

In their new study, the researchers reviewed data from 844,460 children and adolescents aged 3-17 years from the National Surveillance System and the Nominalized Federal Vaccination Registry of Argentina, during a time that included a period of omicron dominance.

Argentina began vaccinating adolescents aged 12-17 years against COVID-19 in August 2021 and added children aged 3-11 years in October 2021. Those aged 12-17 years who were considered fully vaccinated received two doses of either Pfizer-BioNTech and/or Moderna vaccines, and fully-vaccinated 3- to 11-year-olds received two doses of Sinopharm vaccine.

The average time from the second vaccine dose to a COVID-19 test was 66 days for those aged 12-17 years and 54 days for 3- to 11-year-olds. The researchers matched COVID-19 cases with uninfected controls, and a total of 139,321 cases were included in the analysis.

Overall, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 was 64.2% during a period of delta dominance (61.2% in children aged 3-11 years and 66.8% in adolescents aged 12-17 years).

During a period of omicron dominance, estimated vaccine effectiveness was 19.9% across all ages (15.9% and 26.0% for younger and older age groups, respectively).

Effectiveness of the vaccine decreased over time, regardless of the dominant variant, but the decline was greater during the omicron dominant period, the researchers noted. During the omicron period, effectiveness in children aged 3-11 years decreased from 37.6% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 2.0% at 60 days or longer after vaccination. In adolescents aged 12-17 years, vaccine effectiveness during the omicron period decreased from 55.8% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 12.4% at 60 days or longer after vaccination.

Despite the waning protection against infection, the vaccine’s effectiveness against death from COVID-19 was 66.9% in children aged 3-11 years and 97.6% in adolescents aged 12-17 during the period of omicron dominance, the researchers noted.

The results are consistent with similar studies showing a decreased vaccine effectiveness against infection but a persistent effectiveness against deaths over time, the researchers wrote in the discussion section of their paper.

“Our results suggest that the primary vaccination schedule is effective in preventing mortality in children and adolescents with COVID-19 regardless of the circulating SARS-CoV-2 variant,” the researchers said.
 

Study limitations and strengths

The study was limited by several factors including the incomplete data on symptoms and hospital admissions, the possible impact of unmeasured confounding variables, and the observational design that prevents conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and access to detailed vaccination records, they said.

Both heterologous and homologous mRNA vaccine schedules showed similar effectiveness in preventing short-term infection and mortality from COVID-19 during periods of differing dominant variants, they noted.

The study findings support the vaccination of children against COVID-19 as an important public health measure to prevent mortality in children and adolescents, they concluded.
 

Data support value of vaccination, outside experts say

“COVID vaccines may not be as effective over time as the gene variants in the SARS-CoV-2 virus change,” Adrienne G. Randolph, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. “Therefore, it is essential to assess vaccine effectiveness over time to look at effectiveness against variants and duration of effectiveness.” Dr. Randolph, who was not involved in the study, said she was not surprised by the findings, which she described as consistent with data from the United States. “COVID vaccines are very effective against preventing life-threatening disease, but the effectiveness against less severe illness for COVID vaccines is not as effective against Omicron,” she noted. 

The take-home message for clinicians is that it’s important to get children vaccinated against COVID to prevent severe and life-threatening illness, said Dr. Randolph. “Although these cases are uncommon in children, it is not possible to predict which children will be the most severely affected by COVID,” she emphasized.

However, “we need more data on the new COVID booster vaccines in children that are designed to be more effective against Omicron’s newer variants,” Dr. Randolph said in an interview. “We also need more data on COVID vaccine effectiveness in the youngest children, under 5 years of age, and data on vaccinating mothers to prevent COVID in infants,” she said.

Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician who practices a combination of internal medicine and pediatrics, agreed that future research should continue to assess how the new COVID boosters are faring against new variants, noting that the current study did not include data from children who received the new bivalent vaccine.

“The methodology of this study uses a test negative case control design which is common for estimating vaccine effectiveness post-release of a vaccine, but is subject to biases,” Dr. Joos explained. “These are not the clean effectiveness numbers of the prospective randomized control trials that we are used to hearing about when a vaccine is first being approved.”

“Nevertheless, the study reinforces the initial manufacturers’ studies that the vaccines are effective at preventing infection in the pediatric population,” Dr. Joos said in an interview. The current study also reinforces the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing “the rare but devastating mortality from COVID-19 in the pediatric population.”

Commenting on other research showing an increasing ratio of COVID deaths among vaccinated individuals compared to total COVID deaths, he noted that this finding is “likely reflecting a denominator effect of rapidly declining COVID deaths overall,” partly from the vaccines and partly from immunity after previous natural infection.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers, Dr. Randolph, and Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

COVID-19 vaccines retained the ability to prevent deaths from COVID-19 in children and adolescents regardless of the dominant circulating variant, in a new study.

The vaccine’s effectiveness against infection in the short term has been established, as has the waning effectiveness of the vaccine over time, wrote Juan Manuel Castelli, MD, of the Ministry of Health of Argentina, Buenos Aires, and colleagues, in the British Medical Journal.

However, data on the impact of vaccine effectiveness on mortality in children and adolescents are limited, especially during periods of omicron variant dominance, the researchers said.

In their new study, the researchers reviewed data from 844,460 children and adolescents aged 3-17 years from the National Surveillance System and the Nominalized Federal Vaccination Registry of Argentina, during a time that included a period of omicron dominance.

Argentina began vaccinating adolescents aged 12-17 years against COVID-19 in August 2021 and added children aged 3-11 years in October 2021. Those aged 12-17 years who were considered fully vaccinated received two doses of either Pfizer-BioNTech and/or Moderna vaccines, and fully-vaccinated 3- to 11-year-olds received two doses of Sinopharm vaccine.

The average time from the second vaccine dose to a COVID-19 test was 66 days for those aged 12-17 years and 54 days for 3- to 11-year-olds. The researchers matched COVID-19 cases with uninfected controls, and a total of 139,321 cases were included in the analysis.

Overall, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 was 64.2% during a period of delta dominance (61.2% in children aged 3-11 years and 66.8% in adolescents aged 12-17 years).

During a period of omicron dominance, estimated vaccine effectiveness was 19.9% across all ages (15.9% and 26.0% for younger and older age groups, respectively).

Effectiveness of the vaccine decreased over time, regardless of the dominant variant, but the decline was greater during the omicron dominant period, the researchers noted. During the omicron period, effectiveness in children aged 3-11 years decreased from 37.6% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 2.0% at 60 days or longer after vaccination. In adolescents aged 12-17 years, vaccine effectiveness during the omicron period decreased from 55.8% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 12.4% at 60 days or longer after vaccination.

Despite the waning protection against infection, the vaccine’s effectiveness against death from COVID-19 was 66.9% in children aged 3-11 years and 97.6% in adolescents aged 12-17 during the period of omicron dominance, the researchers noted.

The results are consistent with similar studies showing a decreased vaccine effectiveness against infection but a persistent effectiveness against deaths over time, the researchers wrote in the discussion section of their paper.

“Our results suggest that the primary vaccination schedule is effective in preventing mortality in children and adolescents with COVID-19 regardless of the circulating SARS-CoV-2 variant,” the researchers said.
 

Study limitations and strengths

The study was limited by several factors including the incomplete data on symptoms and hospital admissions, the possible impact of unmeasured confounding variables, and the observational design that prevents conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and access to detailed vaccination records, they said.

Both heterologous and homologous mRNA vaccine schedules showed similar effectiveness in preventing short-term infection and mortality from COVID-19 during periods of differing dominant variants, they noted.

The study findings support the vaccination of children against COVID-19 as an important public health measure to prevent mortality in children and adolescents, they concluded.
 

Data support value of vaccination, outside experts say

“COVID vaccines may not be as effective over time as the gene variants in the SARS-CoV-2 virus change,” Adrienne G. Randolph, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. “Therefore, it is essential to assess vaccine effectiveness over time to look at effectiveness against variants and duration of effectiveness.” Dr. Randolph, who was not involved in the study, said she was not surprised by the findings, which she described as consistent with data from the United States. “COVID vaccines are very effective against preventing life-threatening disease, but the effectiveness against less severe illness for COVID vaccines is not as effective against Omicron,” she noted. 

The take-home message for clinicians is that it’s important to get children vaccinated against COVID to prevent severe and life-threatening illness, said Dr. Randolph. “Although these cases are uncommon in children, it is not possible to predict which children will be the most severely affected by COVID,” she emphasized.

However, “we need more data on the new COVID booster vaccines in children that are designed to be more effective against Omicron’s newer variants,” Dr. Randolph said in an interview. “We also need more data on COVID vaccine effectiveness in the youngest children, under 5 years of age, and data on vaccinating mothers to prevent COVID in infants,” she said.

Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician who practices a combination of internal medicine and pediatrics, agreed that future research should continue to assess how the new COVID boosters are faring against new variants, noting that the current study did not include data from children who received the new bivalent vaccine.

“The methodology of this study uses a test negative case control design which is common for estimating vaccine effectiveness post-release of a vaccine, but is subject to biases,” Dr. Joos explained. “These are not the clean effectiveness numbers of the prospective randomized control trials that we are used to hearing about when a vaccine is first being approved.”

“Nevertheless, the study reinforces the initial manufacturers’ studies that the vaccines are effective at preventing infection in the pediatric population,” Dr. Joos said in an interview. The current study also reinforces the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing “the rare but devastating mortality from COVID-19 in the pediatric population.”

Commenting on other research showing an increasing ratio of COVID deaths among vaccinated individuals compared to total COVID deaths, he noted that this finding is “likely reflecting a denominator effect of rapidly declining COVID deaths overall,” partly from the vaccines and partly from immunity after previous natural infection.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers, Dr. Randolph, and Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

TAMPA – People living with HIV (PLWH) were more likely than other populations to get vaccinated for flu and COVID-19, to seek reputable sources of information, and to be connected through essential community organizations that share essential health and wellness information, according to the results of a large survey.

PLWH, therefore, would have been an ideal model population for creating and disseminating effective messaging around COVID-19 immunizations earlier in the pandemic, said Kathleen Gallagher, MPH, an epidemiologist, researcher, and health services administrator at the Patient Advocate Foundation.

The PLWH community can still offer valuable insights into effective ways to reach out to people, to disseminate correct information, and to link people with resources, Ms. Gallagher said during a poster presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC).

In addition, the PLWH response to the pandemic illustrates the importance of community. Local, community-based organizations “are the people that these individuals trust, they are people entrenched in their community, and they have existing relationships with them in terms of getting vaccinated and listening to their concerns,” Ms. Gallagher said.

“It’s a missed opportunity.”
 

A highly compliant group

The July 2021 survey of 271 PLWH was part of a larger, longitudinal survey of 1,400 people with any chronic illness asked about attitudes and barriers to vaccination. The PLWH population was important to focus on, the researchers note, because they could be potentially high risk for more serious COVID-19 outcomes.

The PLWH group was 81% White and 90% male, and 83% were age 56 or older. In addition, 86% had an annual household income below $48,000.

Ninety-three percent of the PLWH group had had flu vaccination in the prior 3 years and received at least one COVID-19 vaccination.
 

Unable vs. unwilling to vaccinate

Ms. Gallagher and colleagues found 12 people (4%) in the PLWH group did not get vaccinated against COVID-19. It’s a small number, “so you have to take this with a grain of salt,” she said. “But we asked them why they were hesitant. They either were unable or unwilling – and the unable part is not surprising.”

Those who were unable to get vaccinated were either homebound or had concerns about being in a clinic where they could be exposed to COVID while waiting to get the vaccine.

“And then there were some who were just not willing” to get vaccinated, Ms. Gallagher said. She added most cited vaccine safety concerns and “a lot of the misinformation or confusing information around efficacy.”
 

Trusted information sources

Although people reported getting COVID-19 vaccine information from multiple sources, including online and from television, 64% or nearly two-thirds sought information from their doctors or health care teams.

In fact, doctors emerged as the most trusted source, as indicated by 72% of PLWH.

“I was a little surprised that doctors scored so highly because, sometimes in other cohorts that we looked at, it wasn’t the case,” Ms. Gallagher said. However, she added, a lot of PLWH “have a very strong trust bond with their provider because this is a very personal, very sensitive diagnosis.”

How did social media score? “A whopping 1%,” she said. “So at least this was a savvy group, and they realized that that was not the place to go for vaccination information.”
 

Overcoming barriers

A lack of vaccine availability at the time of their appointment was the number one barrier to immunization. Also, a small number of people said knowing someone who had an adverse reaction to COVID-19 vaccination was a barrier for them. Ms. Gallagher explained that, by definition in the survey, an adverse reaction to vaccination had to be serious enough to drive people to seek medical care.

When asked to comment on the poster, Andrew Komensky, RN, told this news organization that he found the results “interesting, because I’m an infection preventionist, in addition to being an HIV nurse.” He is director of infection prevention and control at CharterCARE Health Partners, Providence, R.I.

Mr. Komensky said he was surprised that a high proportion of PLWH cited their doctor – and not their nurse – as the most trusted source of information. “In my experience in COVID care ... it was a nursing staff who had most of the contact with patients, who did most of the education, and provided most of the information surrounding vaccination and potential side effects.”

It made sense to Mr. Komensky that the PLWH population would be compliant with vaccinations. “People who are living with HIV do everything they possibly can just to stay healthy.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TAMPA – People living with HIV (PLWH) were more likely than other populations to get vaccinated for flu and COVID-19, to seek reputable sources of information, and to be connected through essential community organizations that share essential health and wellness information, according to the results of a large survey.

PLWH, therefore, would have been an ideal model population for creating and disseminating effective messaging around COVID-19 immunizations earlier in the pandemic, said Kathleen Gallagher, MPH, an epidemiologist, researcher, and health services administrator at the Patient Advocate Foundation.

The PLWH community can still offer valuable insights into effective ways to reach out to people, to disseminate correct information, and to link people with resources, Ms. Gallagher said during a poster presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC).

In addition, the PLWH response to the pandemic illustrates the importance of community. Local, community-based organizations “are the people that these individuals trust, they are people entrenched in their community, and they have existing relationships with them in terms of getting vaccinated and listening to their concerns,” Ms. Gallagher said.

“It’s a missed opportunity.”
 

A highly compliant group

The July 2021 survey of 271 PLWH was part of a larger, longitudinal survey of 1,400 people with any chronic illness asked about attitudes and barriers to vaccination. The PLWH population was important to focus on, the researchers note, because they could be potentially high risk for more serious COVID-19 outcomes.

The PLWH group was 81% White and 90% male, and 83% were age 56 or older. In addition, 86% had an annual household income below $48,000.

Ninety-three percent of the PLWH group had had flu vaccination in the prior 3 years and received at least one COVID-19 vaccination.
 

Unable vs. unwilling to vaccinate

Ms. Gallagher and colleagues found 12 people (4%) in the PLWH group did not get vaccinated against COVID-19. It’s a small number, “so you have to take this with a grain of salt,” she said. “But we asked them why they were hesitant. They either were unable or unwilling – and the unable part is not surprising.”

Those who were unable to get vaccinated were either homebound or had concerns about being in a clinic where they could be exposed to COVID while waiting to get the vaccine.

“And then there were some who were just not willing” to get vaccinated, Ms. Gallagher said. She added most cited vaccine safety concerns and “a lot of the misinformation or confusing information around efficacy.”
 

Trusted information sources

Although people reported getting COVID-19 vaccine information from multiple sources, including online and from television, 64% or nearly two-thirds sought information from their doctors or health care teams.

In fact, doctors emerged as the most trusted source, as indicated by 72% of PLWH.

“I was a little surprised that doctors scored so highly because, sometimes in other cohorts that we looked at, it wasn’t the case,” Ms. Gallagher said. However, she added, a lot of PLWH “have a very strong trust bond with their provider because this is a very personal, very sensitive diagnosis.”

How did social media score? “A whopping 1%,” she said. “So at least this was a savvy group, and they realized that that was not the place to go for vaccination information.”
 

Overcoming barriers

A lack of vaccine availability at the time of their appointment was the number one barrier to immunization. Also, a small number of people said knowing someone who had an adverse reaction to COVID-19 vaccination was a barrier for them. Ms. Gallagher explained that, by definition in the survey, an adverse reaction to vaccination had to be serious enough to drive people to seek medical care.

When asked to comment on the poster, Andrew Komensky, RN, told this news organization that he found the results “interesting, because I’m an infection preventionist, in addition to being an HIV nurse.” He is director of infection prevention and control at CharterCARE Health Partners, Providence, R.I.

Mr. Komensky said he was surprised that a high proportion of PLWH cited their doctor – and not their nurse – as the most trusted source of information. “In my experience in COVID care ... it was a nursing staff who had most of the contact with patients, who did most of the education, and provided most of the information surrounding vaccination and potential side effects.”

It made sense to Mr. Komensky that the PLWH population would be compliant with vaccinations. “People who are living with HIV do everything they possibly can just to stay healthy.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TAMPA – People living with HIV (PLWH) were more likely than other populations to get vaccinated for flu and COVID-19, to seek reputable sources of information, and to be connected through essential community organizations that share essential health and wellness information, according to the results of a large survey.

PLWH, therefore, would have been an ideal model population for creating and disseminating effective messaging around COVID-19 immunizations earlier in the pandemic, said Kathleen Gallagher, MPH, an epidemiologist, researcher, and health services administrator at the Patient Advocate Foundation.

The PLWH community can still offer valuable insights into effective ways to reach out to people, to disseminate correct information, and to link people with resources, Ms. Gallagher said during a poster presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC).

In addition, the PLWH response to the pandemic illustrates the importance of community. Local, community-based organizations “are the people that these individuals trust, they are people entrenched in their community, and they have existing relationships with them in terms of getting vaccinated and listening to their concerns,” Ms. Gallagher said.

“It’s a missed opportunity.”
 

A highly compliant group

The July 2021 survey of 271 PLWH was part of a larger, longitudinal survey of 1,400 people with any chronic illness asked about attitudes and barriers to vaccination. The PLWH population was important to focus on, the researchers note, because they could be potentially high risk for more serious COVID-19 outcomes.

The PLWH group was 81% White and 90% male, and 83% were age 56 or older. In addition, 86% had an annual household income below $48,000.

Ninety-three percent of the PLWH group had had flu vaccination in the prior 3 years and received at least one COVID-19 vaccination.
 

Unable vs. unwilling to vaccinate

Ms. Gallagher and colleagues found 12 people (4%) in the PLWH group did not get vaccinated against COVID-19. It’s a small number, “so you have to take this with a grain of salt,” she said. “But we asked them why they were hesitant. They either were unable or unwilling – and the unable part is not surprising.”

Those who were unable to get vaccinated were either homebound or had concerns about being in a clinic where they could be exposed to COVID while waiting to get the vaccine.

“And then there were some who were just not willing” to get vaccinated, Ms. Gallagher said. She added most cited vaccine safety concerns and “a lot of the misinformation or confusing information around efficacy.”
 

Trusted information sources

Although people reported getting COVID-19 vaccine information from multiple sources, including online and from television, 64% or nearly two-thirds sought information from their doctors or health care teams.

In fact, doctors emerged as the most trusted source, as indicated by 72% of PLWH.

“I was a little surprised that doctors scored so highly because, sometimes in other cohorts that we looked at, it wasn’t the case,” Ms. Gallagher said. However, she added, a lot of PLWH “have a very strong trust bond with their provider because this is a very personal, very sensitive diagnosis.”

How did social media score? “A whopping 1%,” she said. “So at least this was a savvy group, and they realized that that was not the place to go for vaccination information.”
 

Overcoming barriers

A lack of vaccine availability at the time of their appointment was the number one barrier to immunization. Also, a small number of people said knowing someone who had an adverse reaction to COVID-19 vaccination was a barrier for them. Ms. Gallagher explained that, by definition in the survey, an adverse reaction to vaccination had to be serious enough to drive people to seek medical care.

When asked to comment on the poster, Andrew Komensky, RN, told this news organization that he found the results “interesting, because I’m an infection preventionist, in addition to being an HIV nurse.” He is director of infection prevention and control at CharterCARE Health Partners, Providence, R.I.

Mr. Komensky said he was surprised that a high proportion of PLWH cited their doctor – and not their nurse – as the most trusted source of information. “In my experience in COVID care ... it was a nursing staff who had most of the contact with patients, who did most of the education, and provided most of the information surrounding vaccination and potential side effects.”

It made sense to Mr. Komensky that the PLWH population would be compliant with vaccinations. “People who are living with HIV do everything they possibly can just to stay healthy.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For the first time, the majority of people dying from COVID-19 in America have been vaccinated.

“We can no longer say this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” Kaiser Family Foundation Vice President Cynthia Cox, who conducted the analysis, told The Washington Post.

People who had been vaccinated or boosted made up 58% of COVID-19 deaths in August, the analysis showed. The rate has been on the rise: 23% of coronavirus deaths were among vaccinated people in September 2021, and the vaccinated made up 42% of deaths in January and February 2022, the Post reported.

Research continues to show that people who are vaccinated or boosted have a lower risk of death. The rise in deaths among the vaccinated is the result of three factors, Ms. Cox said.

• A large majority of people in the United States have been vaccinated (267 million people, the  said).
• People who are at the greatest risk of dying from COVID-19 are more likely to be vaccinated and boosted, such as the elderly.
• Vaccines lose their effectiveness over time; the virus changes to avoid vaccines; and people need to choose to get boosters to continue to be protected.

The case for the effectiveness of vaccines and boosters versus skipping the shots remains strong. People age 6 months and older who are unvaccinated are six times more likely to die of COVID-19, compared to those who got the primary series of shots, the Post reported. Survival rates were even better with additional booster shots, particularly among older people.

“I feel very confident that if people continue to get vaccinated at good numbers, if people get boosted, we can absolutely have a very safe and healthy holiday season,” Ashish Jha, White House coronavirus czar, said on Nov. 22.

The number of Americans who have gotten the most recent booster has been increasing ahead of the holidays. CDC data show that 12% of the U.S. population age 5 and older has received a booster.

A new study by a team of researchers from Harvard University and Yale University estimates that 94% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19 at least once, leaving just 1 in 20 people who have never had the virus.

“Despite these high exposure numbers, there is still substantial population susceptibility to infection with an Omicron variant,” the authors wrote.

They said that if all states achieved the vaccination levels of Vermont, where 55% of people had at least one booster and 22% got a second one, there would be “an appreciable improvement in population immunity, with greater relative impact for protection against infection versus severe disease. This additional protection results from both the recovery of immunity lost due to waning and the increased effectiveness of the bivalent booster against Omicron infections.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

For the first time, the majority of people dying from COVID-19 in America have been vaccinated.

“We can no longer say this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” Kaiser Family Foundation Vice President Cynthia Cox, who conducted the analysis, told The Washington Post.

People who had been vaccinated or boosted made up 58% of COVID-19 deaths in August, the analysis showed. The rate has been on the rise: 23% of coronavirus deaths were among vaccinated people in September 2021, and the vaccinated made up 42% of deaths in January and February 2022, the Post reported.

Research continues to show that people who are vaccinated or boosted have a lower risk of death. The rise in deaths among the vaccinated is the result of three factors, Ms. Cox said.

• A large majority of people in the United States have been vaccinated (267 million people, the  said).
• People who are at the greatest risk of dying from COVID-19 are more likely to be vaccinated and boosted, such as the elderly.
• Vaccines lose their effectiveness over time; the virus changes to avoid vaccines; and people need to choose to get boosters to continue to be protected.

The case for the effectiveness of vaccines and boosters versus skipping the shots remains strong. People age 6 months and older who are unvaccinated are six times more likely to die of COVID-19, compared to those who got the primary series of shots, the Post reported. Survival rates were even better with additional booster shots, particularly among older people.

“I feel very confident that if people continue to get vaccinated at good numbers, if people get boosted, we can absolutely have a very safe and healthy holiday season,” Ashish Jha, White House coronavirus czar, said on Nov. 22.

The number of Americans who have gotten the most recent booster has been increasing ahead of the holidays. CDC data show that 12% of the U.S. population age 5 and older has received a booster.

A new study by a team of researchers from Harvard University and Yale University estimates that 94% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19 at least once, leaving just 1 in 20 people who have never had the virus.

“Despite these high exposure numbers, there is still substantial population susceptibility to infection with an Omicron variant,” the authors wrote.

They said that if all states achieved the vaccination levels of Vermont, where 55% of people had at least one booster and 22% got a second one, there would be “an appreciable improvement in population immunity, with greater relative impact for protection against infection versus severe disease. This additional protection results from both the recovery of immunity lost due to waning and the increased effectiveness of the bivalent booster against Omicron infections.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

For the first time, the majority of people dying from COVID-19 in America have been vaccinated.

“We can no longer say this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” Kaiser Family Foundation Vice President Cynthia Cox, who conducted the analysis, told The Washington Post.

People who had been vaccinated or boosted made up 58% of COVID-19 deaths in August, the analysis showed. The rate has been on the rise: 23% of coronavirus deaths were among vaccinated people in September 2021, and the vaccinated made up 42% of deaths in January and February 2022, the Post reported.

Research continues to show that people who are vaccinated or boosted have a lower risk of death. The rise in deaths among the vaccinated is the result of three factors, Ms. Cox said.

• A large majority of people in the United States have been vaccinated (267 million people, the  said).
• People who are at the greatest risk of dying from COVID-19 are more likely to be vaccinated and boosted, such as the elderly.
• Vaccines lose their effectiveness over time; the virus changes to avoid vaccines; and people need to choose to get boosters to continue to be protected.

The case for the effectiveness of vaccines and boosters versus skipping the shots remains strong. People age 6 months and older who are unvaccinated are six times more likely to die of COVID-19, compared to those who got the primary series of shots, the Post reported. Survival rates were even better with additional booster shots, particularly among older people.

“I feel very confident that if people continue to get vaccinated at good numbers, if people get boosted, we can absolutely have a very safe and healthy holiday season,” Ashish Jha, White House coronavirus czar, said on Nov. 22.

The number of Americans who have gotten the most recent booster has been increasing ahead of the holidays. CDC data show that 12% of the U.S. population age 5 and older has received a booster.

A new study by a team of researchers from Harvard University and Yale University estimates that 94% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19 at least once, leaving just 1 in 20 people who have never had the virus.

“Despite these high exposure numbers, there is still substantial population susceptibility to infection with an Omicron variant,” the authors wrote.

They said that if all states achieved the vaccination levels of Vermont, where 55% of people had at least one booster and 22% got a second one, there would be “an appreciable improvement in population immunity, with greater relative impact for protection against infection versus severe disease. This additional protection results from both the recovery of immunity lost due to waning and the increased effectiveness of the bivalent booster against Omicron infections.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The American Academy of Pediatrics is urging physicians and hospitals to take steps to mitigate the wave of pediatric respiratory illnesses following its unsuccessful bid to have the government declare a national emergency.

Updated guidance from the group outlines measures to optimize resources to manage a surge of patients filling hospital beds, emergency departments, and physicians’ practices.

A separate document from the AAP endorses giving extra doses of palivizumab, a monoclonal antibody used to prevent severe infection in infants at high risk of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), as long as the illness is prevalent in the community.

Upticks in rates of RSV and influenza, along with a crisis in children’s mental health, prompted the AAP and the Children’s Hospital Association to petition the Biden administration on Nov. 14 to declare an emergency. Such a move would free up extra funding and waivers to allow physicians and hospitals to pool resources, the organizations said.

Despite those challenges, the AAP stressed in its new guidance that routine care, such as immunizations and chronic disease management, “cannot be neglected.”
 

Shifting resources

Officials at some children’s hospitals said that they have already implemented many of the AAP’s recommended measures for providing care during a surge, such as cross-training staff who usually treat adults, expanding telehealth and urgent care, and optimizing the use of ancillary care spaces.

“A lot of this is just reinforcing the things that I think children’s hospitals have been doing,” Lindsay Ragsdale, MD, chief medical officer for Kentucky Children’s Hospital, Lexington, said. “Can we shift adults around? Can we use an adult unit? Can we use an occupied space creatively? We’re really thinking outside the box.”

Andrew Pavia, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, said large children’s hospitals have been actively sharing practices for handling a surge through various channels, but the new guidance could be a useful “checklist” for small hospitals and physician practices that lack well-developed plans.

The AAP’s suggestions for pediatricians in outpatient settings include stocking up on personal protective equipment, using social media and office staff to increase communication with families, and keeping abreast of wait times at local emergency departments.
 

Addressing a subset of kids

In updated guidance for palivizumab, the AAP noted that earlier-than-usual circulation of RSV prompted pediatricians in some areas to begin administering the drug in the summer and early fall.

Palivizumab is typically given in five consecutive monthly intramuscular injections during RSV season, starting in November. Eligible infants and young children include those born prematurely or who have conditions such as chronic lung disease, hemodynamically significant congenital heart disease, or a suppressed immune system.

The AAP said it supports giving extra doses if RSV activity “persists at high levels in a given region through the fall and winter.” Published studies are sparse but contain “no evidence of increased frequency or severity of adverse events with later doses in a five-dose series nor with doses beyond five doses,” the group added.

The guidance may encourage payers to pick up the tab for extra doses, which are priced at more than $1,800 for cash customers, Dr. Pavia said. However, that recommendation addresses “a pretty small part of the problem overall because the injections are used for a very small subset of kids who are at the highest risk, and more than 80% of hospitalizations for RSV are among healthy kids,” he added.

Dr. Ragsdale and Dr. Pavia have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Academy of Pediatrics is urging physicians and hospitals to take steps to mitigate the wave of pediatric respiratory illnesses following its unsuccessful bid to have the government declare a national emergency.

Updated guidance from the group outlines measures to optimize resources to manage a surge of patients filling hospital beds, emergency departments, and physicians’ practices.

A separate document from the AAP endorses giving extra doses of palivizumab, a monoclonal antibody used to prevent severe infection in infants at high risk of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), as long as the illness is prevalent in the community.

Upticks in rates of RSV and influenza, along with a crisis in children’s mental health, prompted the AAP and the Children’s Hospital Association to petition the Biden administration on Nov. 14 to declare an emergency. Such a move would free up extra funding and waivers to allow physicians and hospitals to pool resources, the organizations said.

Despite those challenges, the AAP stressed in its new guidance that routine care, such as immunizations and chronic disease management, “cannot be neglected.”
 

Shifting resources

Officials at some children’s hospitals said that they have already implemented many of the AAP’s recommended measures for providing care during a surge, such as cross-training staff who usually treat adults, expanding telehealth and urgent care, and optimizing the use of ancillary care spaces.

“A lot of this is just reinforcing the things that I think children’s hospitals have been doing,” Lindsay Ragsdale, MD, chief medical officer for Kentucky Children’s Hospital, Lexington, said. “Can we shift adults around? Can we use an adult unit? Can we use an occupied space creatively? We’re really thinking outside the box.”

Andrew Pavia, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, said large children’s hospitals have been actively sharing practices for handling a surge through various channels, but the new guidance could be a useful “checklist” for small hospitals and physician practices that lack well-developed plans.

The AAP’s suggestions for pediatricians in outpatient settings include stocking up on personal protective equipment, using social media and office staff to increase communication with families, and keeping abreast of wait times at local emergency departments.
 

Addressing a subset of kids

In updated guidance for palivizumab, the AAP noted that earlier-than-usual circulation of RSV prompted pediatricians in some areas to begin administering the drug in the summer and early fall.

Palivizumab is typically given in five consecutive monthly intramuscular injections during RSV season, starting in November. Eligible infants and young children include those born prematurely or who have conditions such as chronic lung disease, hemodynamically significant congenital heart disease, or a suppressed immune system.

The AAP said it supports giving extra doses if RSV activity “persists at high levels in a given region through the fall and winter.” Published studies are sparse but contain “no evidence of increased frequency or severity of adverse events with later doses in a five-dose series nor with doses beyond five doses,” the group added.

The guidance may encourage payers to pick up the tab for extra doses, which are priced at more than $1,800 for cash customers, Dr. Pavia said. However, that recommendation addresses “a pretty small part of the problem overall because the injections are used for a very small subset of kids who are at the highest risk, and more than 80% of hospitalizations for RSV are among healthy kids,” he added.

Dr. Ragsdale and Dr. Pavia have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Academy of Pediatrics is urging physicians and hospitals to take steps to mitigate the wave of pediatric respiratory illnesses following its unsuccessful bid to have the government declare a national emergency.

Updated guidance from the group outlines measures to optimize resources to manage a surge of patients filling hospital beds, emergency departments, and physicians’ practices.

A separate document from the AAP endorses giving extra doses of palivizumab, a monoclonal antibody used to prevent severe infection in infants at high risk of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), as long as the illness is prevalent in the community.

Upticks in rates of RSV and influenza, along with a crisis in children’s mental health, prompted the AAP and the Children’s Hospital Association to petition the Biden administration on Nov. 14 to declare an emergency. Such a move would free up extra funding and waivers to allow physicians and hospitals to pool resources, the organizations said.

Despite those challenges, the AAP stressed in its new guidance that routine care, such as immunizations and chronic disease management, “cannot be neglected.”
 

Shifting resources

Officials at some children’s hospitals said that they have already implemented many of the AAP’s recommended measures for providing care during a surge, such as cross-training staff who usually treat adults, expanding telehealth and urgent care, and optimizing the use of ancillary care spaces.

“A lot of this is just reinforcing the things that I think children’s hospitals have been doing,” Lindsay Ragsdale, MD, chief medical officer for Kentucky Children’s Hospital, Lexington, said. “Can we shift adults around? Can we use an adult unit? Can we use an occupied space creatively? We’re really thinking outside the box.”

Andrew Pavia, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, said large children’s hospitals have been actively sharing practices for handling a surge through various channels, but the new guidance could be a useful “checklist” for small hospitals and physician practices that lack well-developed plans.

The AAP’s suggestions for pediatricians in outpatient settings include stocking up on personal protective equipment, using social media and office staff to increase communication with families, and keeping abreast of wait times at local emergency departments.
 

Addressing a subset of kids

In updated guidance for palivizumab, the AAP noted that earlier-than-usual circulation of RSV prompted pediatricians in some areas to begin administering the drug in the summer and early fall.

Palivizumab is typically given in five consecutive monthly intramuscular injections during RSV season, starting in November. Eligible infants and young children include those born prematurely or who have conditions such as chronic lung disease, hemodynamically significant congenital heart disease, or a suppressed immune system.

The AAP said it supports giving extra doses if RSV activity “persists at high levels in a given region through the fall and winter.” Published studies are sparse but contain “no evidence of increased frequency or severity of adverse events with later doses in a five-dose series nor with doses beyond five doses,” the group added.

The guidance may encourage payers to pick up the tab for extra doses, which are priced at more than $1,800 for cash customers, Dr. Pavia said. However, that recommendation addresses “a pretty small part of the problem overall because the injections are used for a very small subset of kids who are at the highest risk, and more than 80% of hospitalizations for RSV are among healthy kids,” he added.

Dr. Ragsdale and Dr. Pavia have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA – The new American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Vaccinations in Patients with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMDs) emphasizes that both adult and pediatric patients should receive recommended vaccinations whenever possible.

But the guideline, currently in press, also offers recommendations about whether and when to withhold vaccines from patients with RMDs, such as avoiding the use of live attenuated virus vaccines in patients who are on immunosuppressive drug regimens, such as conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic DMARDs, or targeted synthetic DMARDs.

The new consensus guideline was formulated with the understanding that patients with RMDs are at increased risk for vaccine-preventable infections and more serious complications from infections, compared with the general population.

However, the guideline also acknowledges that the immunogenicity and safety of vaccines may differ among patients with RMDs, and that, depending on the patient age and disease state, individuals may benefit from modified vaccine indications, schedules, or modified medication schedules, said guideline panel member Anne Bass, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, who presented the guideline with other panel members in a session outlining the recommendations at the annual meeting of the ACR.

“In addition, vaccination recommendations – since much of it relates to medications – really applies across diseases, and so the ACR felt that, rather than having vaccine recommendations tacked onto the end of treatment guidelines for each individual disease, that the topic should be discussed or tackled as a whole,” she said.

The guideline does not cover vaccinations in patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs because this class of agents has minimal or no impact on antibody responses to vaccines. The guideline also does not address vaccinations against COVID-19 infections since the rapidly changing formulations would make the recommendations obsolete before they were even published, and because the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides up-to-date guidance on COVID-19 vaccinations in patients with compromised immunity, she said.
 

Guiding principles

The overarching principles of the guideline are to give indicated vaccines to patients with RMD whenever possible and that any decision to hold medications before or after vaccination consider the dosage used, RMD disease activity, and the patient’s risk for vaccine-preventable infection.

The guideline also states that “shared decision-making with patients is a key component of any vaccination strategy.”

Panel member Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, outlined expanded indications for vaccinations against influenza, pneumococcal infections, varicella zoster virus (VZV) and human papillomavirus (HPV).
 

Influenza

The guideline conditionally recommends that patients with RMD aged 65 years and older and adults older than age 18 years who are on immunosuppressive medications should receive either high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccination rather than regular-dose vaccines.

“It’s recognized that the high-dose or adjuvanted vaccinations may be unavailable for patients when they’re seen in your practice,” Dr. Bingham said,” and we came out with two additional statements within the guidelines that said that any flu vaccine is recommended over no flu vaccinations, because we do know that responses are elicited, and a flu vaccination today is preferred over a flu vaccination delay.”
 

Pneumococcal vaccination

The panelists strongly recommended that patients with RMD younger than age 65 years who are on immunosuppressive medication receive pneumococcal vaccinations.

The ACR guideline is in sync with those issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Dr. Bingham said. He urged audience members to visit a CDC-ACIP web page for more information on who should receive pneumococcal vaccination and when.
 

Recombinant varicella zoster

The recommendations strongly support that patients aged 18 years and over who are on immunosuppressive therapies should receive the recombinant VZV vaccine (Shingrix).

HPV

A less robust, conditional recommendation is for patients with RMDs who are between the ages of 26 and 45 years and on immunosuppressive medications to receive the HPV vaccine (if they have not already received the vaccine).

Non-live attenuated vaccines

Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious diseases and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, summarized the recommendations for managing immunosuppressive therapies in patients scheduled to receive vaccinations using killed or nonactive antigens.

“In influenza season, don’t pass up the opportunity to vaccinate,” he said, adding, “if you can wait on rituximab dosing, do it, and if you can’t, go ahead and vaccinate.”

The guidelines also recommend a 2-week methotrexate hold at the time of influenza vaccination; other DMARD dosing changes are likely not necessary at the time of vaccination, “but this is an area of fervent study, and I think in a year or two we’ll have more experimental hold data with regard to other DMARDs,” Dr. Winthrop said.

For other nonlive attenuated vaccinations, recommendations are similar to those for influenza, except with more flexible timing because these vaccinations are not seasonal. When and how to hold methotrexate is still up in the air, he said.

Additionally, it’s recommended that vaccinations be delayed in patients on high-dose prednisone until the drug is tapered to below 20 mg per day, and ideally to less than 10 mg per day, he said.
 

Live-attenuated vaccines

The guideline conditionally recommends deferring live-attenuated vaccines in patients on immunosuppressive drugs. It also recommends holding these medications “for an appropriate period before” vaccination and for 4 weeks afterward.

“Although the evidence around conventional synthetic DMARDs and TNF inhibitors is reassuring in terms of their safety at the time of live attenuated vaccines, as you can see the number of studies is quite small, and so the voting panel conditionally recommend against administering live-attenuated virus vaccines to patients who are on conventional synthetics, biologic, or targeted DMARDs,” Dr. Bass said.
 

In utero exposures

Most women with RMD who have recently given birth will consult their general pediatricians rather than rheumatologists for infant vaccinations, but pediatricians may not be aware of the affect that in utero exposures to biologic DMARDs can have on vaccine safety and immunogenicity in infants, Dr, Bass said.

“It’s important that you, as a provider, give your recommendations regarding infant rotavirus vaccination after in utero exposure to the pregnant rheumatic disease patient prior to delivery, and let that patient know that this is something that they should share with their pediatrician to be,” she advised audience members.
 

Getting the message out

In an interview, session moderator and guidelines panelist Lisa F. Imundo, MD, director of the center for adolescent rheumatology at Columbia University in New York, noted that rheumatologists don’t usually have the full schedule of pediatric vaccinations in stock and often leave the decisions about what to give – and when – to general practitioners.

“Pediatric rheumatologists sometimes will give patients flu vaccinations because they’re a high-risk population of patients, and we want to make sure that they’re getting it in a timely manner,” she said.

In addition, because pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines are not indicated in the general pediatric population, children on biologic DMARDs who have completed their standard series of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV13 or PVC15) are recommended to get a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, Dr. Imundo said.

She also noted that communication between pediatric rheumatologists and general practitioners about vaccine recommendations can be challenging.

“It’s a huge issue, figuring out how we’re going to communicate all of this information to our pediatric colleagues,” she said. “With individual patients, we may sometimes remind doctors, especially with our younger patients who haven’t gotten their live vaccines, that they really shouldn’t get live vaccines until they’re off medication or until we arrange holding medication for some period of time.”

She said that ACR vaccine committee members are working with infectious disease specialists and guideline developers for the American Academy of Pediatrics to ensure guidelines include the most important vaccination recommendations for pediatric patients with RMDs.

The development process for the guidelines was supported by the ACR. Dr. Bass reported no relevant disclosures, Dr. Bingham disclosed consulting activities, grant/research support, and royalties from various corporate entities. Dr. Winthrop disclosed consulting activities for and research funding from various companies. Dr. Imundo reported no relevant financial relationships.

PHILADELPHIA – The new American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Vaccinations in Patients with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMDs) emphasizes that both adult and pediatric patients should receive recommended vaccinations whenever possible.

But the guideline, currently in press, also offers recommendations about whether and when to withhold vaccines from patients with RMDs, such as avoiding the use of live attenuated virus vaccines in patients who are on immunosuppressive drug regimens, such as conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic DMARDs, or targeted synthetic DMARDs.

The new consensus guideline was formulated with the understanding that patients with RMDs are at increased risk for vaccine-preventable infections and more serious complications from infections, compared with the general population.

However, the guideline also acknowledges that the immunogenicity and safety of vaccines may differ among patients with RMDs, and that, depending on the patient age and disease state, individuals may benefit from modified vaccine indications, schedules, or modified medication schedules, said guideline panel member Anne Bass, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, who presented the guideline with other panel members in a session outlining the recommendations at the annual meeting of the ACR.

“In addition, vaccination recommendations – since much of it relates to medications – really applies across diseases, and so the ACR felt that, rather than having vaccine recommendations tacked onto the end of treatment guidelines for each individual disease, that the topic should be discussed or tackled as a whole,” she said.

The guideline does not cover vaccinations in patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs because this class of agents has minimal or no impact on antibody responses to vaccines. The guideline also does not address vaccinations against COVID-19 infections since the rapidly changing formulations would make the recommendations obsolete before they were even published, and because the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides up-to-date guidance on COVID-19 vaccinations in patients with compromised immunity, she said.
 

Guiding principles

The overarching principles of the guideline are to give indicated vaccines to patients with RMD whenever possible and that any decision to hold medications before or after vaccination consider the dosage used, RMD disease activity, and the patient’s risk for vaccine-preventable infection.

The guideline also states that “shared decision-making with patients is a key component of any vaccination strategy.”

Panel member Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, outlined expanded indications for vaccinations against influenza, pneumococcal infections, varicella zoster virus (VZV) and human papillomavirus (HPV).
 

Influenza

The guideline conditionally recommends that patients with RMD aged 65 years and older and adults older than age 18 years who are on immunosuppressive medications should receive either high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccination rather than regular-dose vaccines.

“It’s recognized that the high-dose or adjuvanted vaccinations may be unavailable for patients when they’re seen in your practice,” Dr. Bingham said,” and we came out with two additional statements within the guidelines that said that any flu vaccine is recommended over no flu vaccinations, because we do know that responses are elicited, and a flu vaccination today is preferred over a flu vaccination delay.”
 

Pneumococcal vaccination

The panelists strongly recommended that patients with RMD younger than age 65 years who are on immunosuppressive medication receive pneumococcal vaccinations.

The ACR guideline is in sync with those issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Dr. Bingham said. He urged audience members to visit a CDC-ACIP web page for more information on who should receive pneumococcal vaccination and when.
 

Recombinant varicella zoster

The recommendations strongly support that patients aged 18 years and over who are on immunosuppressive therapies should receive the recombinant VZV vaccine (Shingrix).

HPV

A less robust, conditional recommendation is for patients with RMDs who are between the ages of 26 and 45 years and on immunosuppressive medications to receive the HPV vaccine (if they have not already received the vaccine).

Non-live attenuated vaccines

Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious diseases and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, summarized the recommendations for managing immunosuppressive therapies in patients scheduled to receive vaccinations using killed or nonactive antigens.

“In influenza season, don’t pass up the opportunity to vaccinate,” he said, adding, “if you can wait on rituximab dosing, do it, and if you can’t, go ahead and vaccinate.”

The guidelines also recommend a 2-week methotrexate hold at the time of influenza vaccination; other DMARD dosing changes are likely not necessary at the time of vaccination, “but this is an area of fervent study, and I think in a year or two we’ll have more experimental hold data with regard to other DMARDs,” Dr. Winthrop said.

For other nonlive attenuated vaccinations, recommendations are similar to those for influenza, except with more flexible timing because these vaccinations are not seasonal. When and how to hold methotrexate is still up in the air, he said.

Additionally, it’s recommended that vaccinations be delayed in patients on high-dose prednisone until the drug is tapered to below 20 mg per day, and ideally to less than 10 mg per day, he said.
 

Live-attenuated vaccines

The guideline conditionally recommends deferring live-attenuated vaccines in patients on immunosuppressive drugs. It also recommends holding these medications “for an appropriate period before” vaccination and for 4 weeks afterward.

“Although the evidence around conventional synthetic DMARDs and TNF inhibitors is reassuring in terms of their safety at the time of live attenuated vaccines, as you can see the number of studies is quite small, and so the voting panel conditionally recommend against administering live-attenuated virus vaccines to patients who are on conventional synthetics, biologic, or targeted DMARDs,” Dr. Bass said.
 

In utero exposures

Most women with RMD who have recently given birth will consult their general pediatricians rather than rheumatologists for infant vaccinations, but pediatricians may not be aware of the affect that in utero exposures to biologic DMARDs can have on vaccine safety and immunogenicity in infants, Dr, Bass said.

“It’s important that you, as a provider, give your recommendations regarding infant rotavirus vaccination after in utero exposure to the pregnant rheumatic disease patient prior to delivery, and let that patient know that this is something that they should share with their pediatrician to be,” she advised audience members.
 

Getting the message out

In an interview, session moderator and guidelines panelist Lisa F. Imundo, MD, director of the center for adolescent rheumatology at Columbia University in New York, noted that rheumatologists don’t usually have the full schedule of pediatric vaccinations in stock and often leave the decisions about what to give – and when – to general practitioners.

“Pediatric rheumatologists sometimes will give patients flu vaccinations because they’re a high-risk population of patients, and we want to make sure that they’re getting it in a timely manner,” she said.

In addition, because pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines are not indicated in the general pediatric population, children on biologic DMARDs who have completed their standard series of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV13 or PVC15) are recommended to get a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, Dr. Imundo said.

She also noted that communication between pediatric rheumatologists and general practitioners about vaccine recommendations can be challenging.

“It’s a huge issue, figuring out how we’re going to communicate all of this information to our pediatric colleagues,” she said. “With individual patients, we may sometimes remind doctors, especially with our younger patients who haven’t gotten their live vaccines, that they really shouldn’t get live vaccines until they’re off medication or until we arrange holding medication for some period of time.”

She said that ACR vaccine committee members are working with infectious disease specialists and guideline developers for the American Academy of Pediatrics to ensure guidelines include the most important vaccination recommendations for pediatric patients with RMDs.

The development process for the guidelines was supported by the ACR. Dr. Bass reported no relevant disclosures, Dr. Bingham disclosed consulting activities, grant/research support, and royalties from various corporate entities. Dr. Winthrop disclosed consulting activities for and research funding from various companies. Dr. Imundo reported no relevant financial relationships.

PHILADELPHIA – The new American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Vaccinations in Patients with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMDs) emphasizes that both adult and pediatric patients should receive recommended vaccinations whenever possible.

But the guideline, currently in press, also offers recommendations about whether and when to withhold vaccines from patients with RMDs, such as avoiding the use of live attenuated virus vaccines in patients who are on immunosuppressive drug regimens, such as conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic DMARDs, or targeted synthetic DMARDs.

The new consensus guideline was formulated with the understanding that patients with RMDs are at increased risk for vaccine-preventable infections and more serious complications from infections, compared with the general population.

However, the guideline also acknowledges that the immunogenicity and safety of vaccines may differ among patients with RMDs, and that, depending on the patient age and disease state, individuals may benefit from modified vaccine indications, schedules, or modified medication schedules, said guideline panel member Anne Bass, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, who presented the guideline with other panel members in a session outlining the recommendations at the annual meeting of the ACR.

“In addition, vaccination recommendations – since much of it relates to medications – really applies across diseases, and so the ACR felt that, rather than having vaccine recommendations tacked onto the end of treatment guidelines for each individual disease, that the topic should be discussed or tackled as a whole,” she said.

The guideline does not cover vaccinations in patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs because this class of agents has minimal or no impact on antibody responses to vaccines. The guideline also does not address vaccinations against COVID-19 infections since the rapidly changing formulations would make the recommendations obsolete before they were even published, and because the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides up-to-date guidance on COVID-19 vaccinations in patients with compromised immunity, she said.
 

Guiding principles

The overarching principles of the guideline are to give indicated vaccines to patients with RMD whenever possible and that any decision to hold medications before or after vaccination consider the dosage used, RMD disease activity, and the patient’s risk for vaccine-preventable infection.

The guideline also states that “shared decision-making with patients is a key component of any vaccination strategy.”

Panel member Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, outlined expanded indications for vaccinations against influenza, pneumococcal infections, varicella zoster virus (VZV) and human papillomavirus (HPV).
 

Influenza

The guideline conditionally recommends that patients with RMD aged 65 years and older and adults older than age 18 years who are on immunosuppressive medications should receive either high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccination rather than regular-dose vaccines.

“It’s recognized that the high-dose or adjuvanted vaccinations may be unavailable for patients when they’re seen in your practice,” Dr. Bingham said,” and we came out with two additional statements within the guidelines that said that any flu vaccine is recommended over no flu vaccinations, because we do know that responses are elicited, and a flu vaccination today is preferred over a flu vaccination delay.”
 

Pneumococcal vaccination

The panelists strongly recommended that patients with RMD younger than age 65 years who are on immunosuppressive medication receive pneumococcal vaccinations.

The ACR guideline is in sync with those issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Dr. Bingham said. He urged audience members to visit a CDC-ACIP web page for more information on who should receive pneumococcal vaccination and when.
 

Recombinant varicella zoster

The recommendations strongly support that patients aged 18 years and over who are on immunosuppressive therapies should receive the recombinant VZV vaccine (Shingrix).

HPV

A less robust, conditional recommendation is for patients with RMDs who are between the ages of 26 and 45 years and on immunosuppressive medications to receive the HPV vaccine (if they have not already received the vaccine).

Non-live attenuated vaccines

Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious diseases and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, summarized the recommendations for managing immunosuppressive therapies in patients scheduled to receive vaccinations using killed or nonactive antigens.

“In influenza season, don’t pass up the opportunity to vaccinate,” he said, adding, “if you can wait on rituximab dosing, do it, and if you can’t, go ahead and vaccinate.”

The guidelines also recommend a 2-week methotrexate hold at the time of influenza vaccination; other DMARD dosing changes are likely not necessary at the time of vaccination, “but this is an area of fervent study, and I think in a year or two we’ll have more experimental hold data with regard to other DMARDs,” Dr. Winthrop said.

For other nonlive attenuated vaccinations, recommendations are similar to those for influenza, except with more flexible timing because these vaccinations are not seasonal. When and how to hold methotrexate is still up in the air, he said.

Additionally, it’s recommended that vaccinations be delayed in patients on high-dose prednisone until the drug is tapered to below 20 mg per day, and ideally to less than 10 mg per day, he said.
 

Live-attenuated vaccines

The guideline conditionally recommends deferring live-attenuated vaccines in patients on immunosuppressive drugs. It also recommends holding these medications “for an appropriate period before” vaccination and for 4 weeks afterward.

“Although the evidence around conventional synthetic DMARDs and TNF inhibitors is reassuring in terms of their safety at the time of live attenuated vaccines, as you can see the number of studies is quite small, and so the voting panel conditionally recommend against administering live-attenuated virus vaccines to patients who are on conventional synthetics, biologic, or targeted DMARDs,” Dr. Bass said.
 

In utero exposures

Most women with RMD who have recently given birth will consult their general pediatricians rather than rheumatologists for infant vaccinations, but pediatricians may not be aware of the affect that in utero exposures to biologic DMARDs can have on vaccine safety and immunogenicity in infants, Dr, Bass said.

“It’s important that you, as a provider, give your recommendations regarding infant rotavirus vaccination after in utero exposure to the pregnant rheumatic disease patient prior to delivery, and let that patient know that this is something that they should share with their pediatrician to be,” she advised audience members.
 

Getting the message out

In an interview, session moderator and guidelines panelist Lisa F. Imundo, MD, director of the center for adolescent rheumatology at Columbia University in New York, noted that rheumatologists don’t usually have the full schedule of pediatric vaccinations in stock and often leave the decisions about what to give – and when – to general practitioners.

“Pediatric rheumatologists sometimes will give patients flu vaccinations because they’re a high-risk population of patients, and we want to make sure that they’re getting it in a timely manner,” she said.

In addition, because pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines are not indicated in the general pediatric population, children on biologic DMARDs who have completed their standard series of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV13 or PVC15) are recommended to get a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, Dr. Imundo said.

She also noted that communication between pediatric rheumatologists and general practitioners about vaccine recommendations can be challenging.

“It’s a huge issue, figuring out how we’re going to communicate all of this information to our pediatric colleagues,” she said. “With individual patients, we may sometimes remind doctors, especially with our younger patients who haven’t gotten their live vaccines, that they really shouldn’t get live vaccines until they’re off medication or until we arrange holding medication for some period of time.”

She said that ACR vaccine committee members are working with infectious disease specialists and guideline developers for the American Academy of Pediatrics to ensure guidelines include the most important vaccination recommendations for pediatric patients with RMDs.

The development process for the guidelines was supported by the ACR. Dr. Bass reported no relevant disclosures, Dr. Bingham disclosed consulting activities, grant/research support, and royalties from various corporate entities. Dr. Winthrop disclosed consulting activities for and research funding from various companies. Dr. Imundo reported no relevant financial relationships.

Reminder messages sent through electronic health records (EHRs) to patient portals increased rates of scheduling and completion of well-child visits for those overdue for well care, as well as vaccination rates, according to data published today in JAMA Network Open.

Anne E. Berset, BA, with general and community pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, led a randomized clinical trial conducted at three academic primary care practices from July 30 to Oct. 4, 2021.

The practices serve a mostly non-Hispanic Black, low-income population and provide more than 60,000 visits a year to 30,000 patients.

The study population included 945 patients, 62.4% of them non-Hispanic Black and 807 (85.4%) covered by public insurance.
 

Standard message and tailored message compared

The study population was randomized to get either a standard reminder message, a tailored message, or no message (control group).

The standard messages referenced the patient’s first name and reminded parents their child was due for a well-child visit, and asked them to schedule it using the portal or by calling the number provided.

The tailored message added the date of the last well-child check-up “to address distortions of time perception experienced during the pandemic,” the authors write.

The primary outcome was whether the well-child visit was completed within 8 weeks. Other outcomes included whether a well-child visit was scheduled within 2 weeks of the first reminder message and whether the patient received a COVID-19 vaccine within 8 weeks of the reminder.
 

Reminders outperform control group

There was a significant increase in scheduling and completion of appointments after parents received the standard and tailored messages compared with controls.

The results with the COVID reminders were particularly striking. While only 3.7% of the eligible patients got a vaccine when they got no message, 17.3% got the vaccine in that time frame when they got the standard message. Interestingly, only 2.7% received the shot after the tailored message.

J. Howard Smart, MD, with Sharp HealthCare in San Diego, told this publication he was not surprised that a patient portal reminder would increase the rate of scheduling overdue well-child visits. “Parents may indeed have lost track of when their children need to have check-ups” during the pandemic, he said.

Reminders without tailored information more effective

He said he was surprised, just as the investigators were, that the reminders without the tailored information seemed to be more effective for some outcomes.

The authors explained that a focus group found “that families with patient portal accounts prefer straightforward, brief, and user-friendly messages.”

That may help explain why the standard message outperformed the tailored message, the authors write.

“Families may have been distracted by the additional information related to the child’s age and date of last WCC [well-child check-up] in the tailored message,” they write.

Dr. Smart said, “Their discussion of why this might be the case sounds reasonable. Simple, short messages may be better received.”

“Evidence like this should stimulate portal software vendors to make this kind of outgoing messaging easy to set up for providers,” he said.

Simple measure, large effect

Tim Joos, MD, a pediatrician in Seattle, told this publication he “was impressed by how such a simple measure increased rates of well-child care completion.”

Minority and low-income patients have traditionally had more access challenges to completing health care visits and vaccinations on schedule, he noted, so he was glad to see positive results from the intervention in this study population.

The authors note that research on portal messages have largely looked at use in non-Hispanic Whites and the privately insured.

Dr. Joos said the intervention also offers convenience in that once patients get into the portal, they can schedule an appointment there without having to wait on the phone or leave a message.

Funding/support was received from the Center for Clinical and Translational Science and Training at the University of Cincinnati, which is funded by the National Institutes of Health. William B. Brinkman, MD, MEd, MSc, one of the study authors, holds common stock in Pfizer, Merck, Abbott Laboratories, Viatris, and Johnson & Johnson outside the submitted work. No other author disclosures were reported. Dr. Smart and Dr. Joos declared no relevant financial relationships.

Reminder messages sent through electronic health records (EHRs) to patient portals increased rates of scheduling and completion of well-child visits for those overdue for well care, as well as vaccination rates, according to data published today in JAMA Network Open.

Anne E. Berset, BA, with general and community pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, led a randomized clinical trial conducted at three academic primary care practices from July 30 to Oct. 4, 2021.

The practices serve a mostly non-Hispanic Black, low-income population and provide more than 60,000 visits a year to 30,000 patients.

The study population included 945 patients, 62.4% of them non-Hispanic Black and 807 (85.4%) covered by public insurance.
 

Standard message and tailored message compared

The study population was randomized to get either a standard reminder message, a tailored message, or no message (control group).

The standard messages referenced the patient’s first name and reminded parents their child was due for a well-child visit, and asked them to schedule it using the portal or by calling the number provided.

The tailored message added the date of the last well-child check-up “to address distortions of time perception experienced during the pandemic,” the authors write.

The primary outcome was whether the well-child visit was completed within 8 weeks. Other outcomes included whether a well-child visit was scheduled within 2 weeks of the first reminder message and whether the patient received a COVID-19 vaccine within 8 weeks of the reminder.
 

Reminders outperform control group

There was a significant increase in scheduling and completion of appointments after parents received the standard and tailored messages compared with controls.

The results with the COVID reminders were particularly striking. While only 3.7% of the eligible patients got a vaccine when they got no message, 17.3% got the vaccine in that time frame when they got the standard message. Interestingly, only 2.7% received the shot after the tailored message.

J. Howard Smart, MD, with Sharp HealthCare in San Diego, told this publication he was not surprised that a patient portal reminder would increase the rate of scheduling overdue well-child visits. “Parents may indeed have lost track of when their children need to have check-ups” during the pandemic, he said.

Reminders without tailored information more effective

He said he was surprised, just as the investigators were, that the reminders without the tailored information seemed to be more effective for some outcomes.

The authors explained that a focus group found “that families with patient portal accounts prefer straightforward, brief, and user-friendly messages.”

That may help explain why the standard message outperformed the tailored message, the authors write.

“Families may have been distracted by the additional information related to the child’s age and date of last WCC [well-child check-up] in the tailored message,” they write.

Dr. Smart said, “Their discussion of why this might be the case sounds reasonable. Simple, short messages may be better received.”

“Evidence like this should stimulate portal software vendors to make this kind of outgoing messaging easy to set up for providers,” he said.

Simple measure, large effect

Tim Joos, MD, a pediatrician in Seattle, told this publication he “was impressed by how such a simple measure increased rates of well-child care completion.”

Minority and low-income patients have traditionally had more access challenges to completing health care visits and vaccinations on schedule, he noted, so he was glad to see positive results from the intervention in this study population.

The authors note that research on portal messages have largely looked at use in non-Hispanic Whites and the privately insured.

Dr. Joos said the intervention also offers convenience in that once patients get into the portal, they can schedule an appointment there without having to wait on the phone or leave a message.

Funding/support was received from the Center for Clinical and Translational Science and Training at the University of Cincinnati, which is funded by the National Institutes of Health. William B. Brinkman, MD, MEd, MSc, one of the study authors, holds common stock in Pfizer, Merck, Abbott Laboratories, Viatris, and Johnson & Johnson outside the submitted work. No other author disclosures were reported. Dr. Smart and Dr. Joos declared no relevant financial relationships.

Reminder messages sent through electronic health records (EHRs) to patient portals increased rates of scheduling and completion of well-child visits for those overdue for well care, as well as vaccination rates, according to data published today in JAMA Network Open.

Anne E. Berset, BA, with general and community pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, led a randomized clinical trial conducted at three academic primary care practices from July 30 to Oct. 4, 2021.

The practices serve a mostly non-Hispanic Black, low-income population and provide more than 60,000 visits a year to 30,000 patients.

The study population included 945 patients, 62.4% of them non-Hispanic Black and 807 (85.4%) covered by public insurance.
 

Standard message and tailored message compared

The study population was randomized to get either a standard reminder message, a tailored message, or no message (control group).

The standard messages referenced the patient’s first name and reminded parents their child was due for a well-child visit, and asked them to schedule it using the portal or by calling the number provided.

The tailored message added the date of the last well-child check-up “to address distortions of time perception experienced during the pandemic,” the authors write.

The primary outcome was whether the well-child visit was completed within 8 weeks. Other outcomes included whether a well-child visit was scheduled within 2 weeks of the first reminder message and whether the patient received a COVID-19 vaccine within 8 weeks of the reminder.
 

Reminders outperform control group

There was a significant increase in scheduling and completion of appointments after parents received the standard and tailored messages compared with controls.

The results with the COVID reminders were particularly striking. While only 3.7% of the eligible patients got a vaccine when they got no message, 17.3% got the vaccine in that time frame when they got the standard message. Interestingly, only 2.7% received the shot after the tailored message.

J. Howard Smart, MD, with Sharp HealthCare in San Diego, told this publication he was not surprised that a patient portal reminder would increase the rate of scheduling overdue well-child visits. “Parents may indeed have lost track of when their children need to have check-ups” during the pandemic, he said.

Reminders without tailored information more effective

He said he was surprised, just as the investigators were, that the reminders without the tailored information seemed to be more effective for some outcomes.

The authors explained that a focus group found “that families with patient portal accounts prefer straightforward, brief, and user-friendly messages.”

That may help explain why the standard message outperformed the tailored message, the authors write.

“Families may have been distracted by the additional information related to the child’s age and date of last WCC [well-child check-up] in the tailored message,” they write.

Dr. Smart said, “Their discussion of why this might be the case sounds reasonable. Simple, short messages may be better received.”

“Evidence like this should stimulate portal software vendors to make this kind of outgoing messaging easy to set up for providers,” he said.

Simple measure, large effect

Tim Joos, MD, a pediatrician in Seattle, told this publication he “was impressed by how such a simple measure increased rates of well-child care completion.”

Minority and low-income patients have traditionally had more access challenges to completing health care visits and vaccinations on schedule, he noted, so he was glad to see positive results from the intervention in this study population.

The authors note that research on portal messages have largely looked at use in non-Hispanic Whites and the privately insured.

Dr. Joos said the intervention also offers convenience in that once patients get into the portal, they can schedule an appointment there without having to wait on the phone or leave a message.

Funding/support was received from the Center for Clinical and Translational Science and Training at the University of Cincinnati, which is funded by the National Institutes of Health. William B. Brinkman, MD, MEd, MSc, one of the study authors, holds common stock in Pfizer, Merck, Abbott Laboratories, Viatris, and Johnson & Johnson outside the submitted work. No other author disclosures were reported. Dr. Smart and Dr. Joos declared no relevant financial relationships.

Babies born vaginally have a different microbiome to those born by Caesarean section and have heightened responses to childhood vaccinations, according to a new study heralded as “interesting and important” by experts.

The microbiome is known to play a role in immune responses to vaccination. However, the relationship between early-life effects on intestinal microbiota composition and subsequent childhood vaccine responses had remained poorly understood. In the new study, “the findings suggest that vaginal birthing resulted in a microbiota composition associated with an increase in a specific type of antibody response to two routine childhood vaccines in healthy babies, compared with Caesarean section,” the authors said.

Researchers from the University of Edinburgh, with colleagues at Spaarne Hospital and University Medical Centre in Utrecht, and the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in The Netherlands, tracked the development of the gut microbiome in a cohort of 120 healthy, full-term infants and assessed their antibody levels following two common childhood vaccinations.

The study, published in Nature Communications, found “a clear relationship between microbes in the gut of those babies and levels of antibodies.” Not only was vaginal birth associated with increased levels of Bifidobacterium and Escherichia coli in the gut microbiome in the first months of life but also with higher IgG antibody responses against both pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccines.
 

Antibody responses doubled after vaginal birth

The babies were given pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccinations at 8 and 12 weeks, and saliva was collected at follow-up visits at ages 12 and 18 months for antibody measurement. In the 101 babies tested for pneumococcal antibodies, the researchers found that antibody levels were twice as high among babies delivered naturally, compared with those delivered by C-section. High levels of two gut bacteria in particular – Bifidobacterium and E. coli – were associated with high antibody responses to the pneumococcal vaccine, showing that the microbiome mediated the link between mode of delivery and pneumococcal vaccine responses.

In 66 babies tested for anti-meningococcal antibodies, antibodies were 1.7 times higher for vaginally-born babies than those delivered via C-section, and high antibody levels were particularly associated with high levels of E. coli in the babies’ microbiome.

The results were also influenced by breast-feeding, which even among children born vaginally was linked with 3.5 times higher pneumococcal antibody levels, compared with those of formula-fed children. In contrast, levels of antibodies against meningococcus were unaffected by breast-feeding status.
 

Microbiome ‘sets level of infection protection’

The team said: “The baby acquires Bifidobacterium and E. coli bacteria through natural birth, and human milk is needed to provide the sugars for these bacteria to thrive on.” They explained: “The gut microbiome is seeded at birth, developing rapidly over the first few months of life, and is influenced mostly by delivery mode, breast-feeding, and antibiotic use.” The babies’ microbiome in early life contributes the immune system’s response to vaccines, they said, “and sets the level of protection against certain infections in childhood.”

Study lead Professor Debby Bogaert, chair of pediatric medicine at the University of Edinburgh, said: “I think it is especially interesting that we identified several beneficial microbes to be the link between mode of delivery and vaccine responses. In the future, we may be able to supplement those bacteria to children born by C-section shortly after birth through – for example, mother-to-baby ‘fecal transplants’ or the use of specifically designed probiotics.”

First author Dr. Emma de Koff, a microbiology trainee at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, said: “We expected to find a link between the gut microbiome and the babies’ vaccine responses, however we never thought to find the strongest effects in the first weeks of life.”

The findings “could help to inform conversations about C-sections between expectant mothers and their doctors,” commented the researchers, who said that they could also “shape the design of more tailored vaccination programs.” For example, in the future, vaccination schedules could be adjusted based on the method of delivery or analysis of the baby’s microbiome.
 

Potential to rectify immune system after Caesarean

Responding to the study, Professor Neil Mabbott, personal chair in immunopathology at the Roslin Institute of the University of Edinburgh, told the Science Media Centre: “This is a very interesting and important study. The authors show that infants delivered by a vaginal birth had higher responses to the two different types of vaccines against bacterial diseases, and this was associated with higher abundances of the potentially beneficial bacteria known as Bifidobacterium and E. coli in their intestines.”

He added: “This study raises the possibility that it may be possible to treat infants, especially Caesarean-delivered infants, with a bacterial supplement, or even a product produced by these beneficial bacteria, to help improve their immune systems, enhance their responses to certain vaccines and reduce their susceptibility to infections.”

The study raises important questions, he said, including whether the increased antibody levels from pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccinations following vaginal birth also leads to increased protection of the infants against infection or serious disease. 

Sheena Cruickshank, immunologist and professor in biomedical sciences at the University of Manchester, England, commented: “It is now well established that the microbiome is important in immune development. In turn the mode of delivery and initial method of feeding is important in how the microbiome is first seeded in the baby.”

“However, other factors such as exposure to antibiotics and subsequent diet also play a role in how it then develops, making understanding the way the microbiome develops and changes quite complex. Microbes works as communities, and it can be difficult to determine whether changes in single species are important functionally. Breast milk also plays an important role in protecting the baby via transfer of maternal immunoglobulins, which will wane over a period of 6-12 months in the baby – thus ascertaining whether it’s the baby’s Ig is challenging.

“Given the complexity of the multitude of interactions, it is important that this is accounted for, and group sizes are large enough to ensure data is robust. Whilst this is an interesting study that adds to our knowledge of how the microbiome develops and the possible implications for immune development, it is still very preliminary, and the small group sizes warrant a need for further studies to verify this in larger groups.”

She added: “We will need to understand whether possible impacts of maternal delivery and feeding on immune development or vaccine responses can be restored by, for example, manipulating the microbiome.”

Professor Kim Barrett, vice dean for research at the University of California, Davis School of Medicine, said that, while further research was needed to uncover if and how manipulation of the human microbiome following C-section births might improve vaccine efficacy, “the work should at least lead to prompt additional consideration about an unintended consequence of the ever-increasing use of C-sections that may not be medically-necessary.”

Dr. Marie Lewis, researcher in gut microbiota at the University of Reading, England, said: “We have known for quite some time that the mode of delivery is incredibly important when it comes to the type of bacteria which colonize our guts. We also know that our gut bacteria in early life drive the development of our immune system, and natural births are linked with reduced risks of developing inflammatory conditions, such as asthma. It is therefore perhaps not really surprising that mode of delivery is also linked to responses to vaccinations.”

“The really interesting part here is the extent to which our gut microbiotas are accessible and changeable, and this important work could pave the way for administration of probiotics and prebiotics to improve vaccine responses in Caesarean-born children.”
 

‘Tantalizing data’

Dr. Chrissie Jones, associate professor of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Southampton, and Southampton UK and education lead for the British Paediatric Allergy, Immunity, and Infection Group, said: “The link between method of delivery of the infant and the bacteria that live in the gut of the young infant has previously been shown. What is really interesting about this study is that, for the first time, the link between method of delivery (vaginal delivery vs. C-section), differences in bacterial communities of the gut, and differences in responses to vaccines is shown.”

“This study may give us fresh insights into the differences that we see in the amount of protective antibodies made after infant vaccination. It also gives us clues as to ways that we might be able to level the playing field for infants in the future – for instance, giving babies a safe cocktail of ‘friendly bacteria’ as a probiotic, or an additional dose of vaccine.”

“This study is the first step – it shows us a link or association but does not prove cause and effect that differences in the way babies are born alters how the immune system responds to vaccines. To prove this link we will need larger studies, but it is tantalizing data.”

The research was funded by Scotland’s Chief Scientist Office and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. DB received funding from OM pharma and Sanofi. All of the authors declared no other conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Babies born vaginally have a different microbiome to those born by Caesarean section and have heightened responses to childhood vaccinations, according to a new study heralded as “interesting and important” by experts.

The microbiome is known to play a role in immune responses to vaccination. However, the relationship between early-life effects on intestinal microbiota composition and subsequent childhood vaccine responses had remained poorly understood. In the new study, “the findings suggest that vaginal birthing resulted in a microbiota composition associated with an increase in a specific type of antibody response to two routine childhood vaccines in healthy babies, compared with Caesarean section,” the authors said.

Researchers from the University of Edinburgh, with colleagues at Spaarne Hospital and University Medical Centre in Utrecht, and the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in The Netherlands, tracked the development of the gut microbiome in a cohort of 120 healthy, full-term infants and assessed their antibody levels following two common childhood vaccinations.

The study, published in Nature Communications, found “a clear relationship between microbes in the gut of those babies and levels of antibodies.” Not only was vaginal birth associated with increased levels of Bifidobacterium and Escherichia coli in the gut microbiome in the first months of life but also with higher IgG antibody responses against both pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccines.
 

Antibody responses doubled after vaginal birth

The babies were given pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccinations at 8 and 12 weeks, and saliva was collected at follow-up visits at ages 12 and 18 months for antibody measurement. In the 101 babies tested for pneumococcal antibodies, the researchers found that antibody levels were twice as high among babies delivered naturally, compared with those delivered by C-section. High levels of two gut bacteria in particular – Bifidobacterium and E. coli – were associated with high antibody responses to the pneumococcal vaccine, showing that the microbiome mediated the link between mode of delivery and pneumococcal vaccine responses.

In 66 babies tested for anti-meningococcal antibodies, antibodies were 1.7 times higher for vaginally-born babies than those delivered via C-section, and high antibody levels were particularly associated with high levels of E. coli in the babies’ microbiome.

The results were also influenced by breast-feeding, which even among children born vaginally was linked with 3.5 times higher pneumococcal antibody levels, compared with those of formula-fed children. In contrast, levels of antibodies against meningococcus were unaffected by breast-feeding status.
 

Microbiome ‘sets level of infection protection’

The team said: “The baby acquires Bifidobacterium and E. coli bacteria through natural birth, and human milk is needed to provide the sugars for these bacteria to thrive on.” They explained: “The gut microbiome is seeded at birth, developing rapidly over the first few months of life, and is influenced mostly by delivery mode, breast-feeding, and antibiotic use.” The babies’ microbiome in early life contributes the immune system’s response to vaccines, they said, “and sets the level of protection against certain infections in childhood.”

Study lead Professor Debby Bogaert, chair of pediatric medicine at the University of Edinburgh, said: “I think it is especially interesting that we identified several beneficial microbes to be the link between mode of delivery and vaccine responses. In the future, we may be able to supplement those bacteria to children born by C-section shortly after birth through – for example, mother-to-baby ‘fecal transplants’ or the use of specifically designed probiotics.”

First author Dr. Emma de Koff, a microbiology trainee at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, said: “We expected to find a link between the gut microbiome and the babies’ vaccine responses, however we never thought to find the strongest effects in the first weeks of life.”

The findings “could help to inform conversations about C-sections between expectant mothers and their doctors,” commented the researchers, who said that they could also “shape the design of more tailored vaccination programs.” For example, in the future, vaccination schedules could be adjusted based on the method of delivery or analysis of the baby’s microbiome.
 

Potential to rectify immune system after Caesarean

Responding to the study, Professor Neil Mabbott, personal chair in immunopathology at the Roslin Institute of the University of Edinburgh, told the Science Media Centre: “This is a very interesting and important study. The authors show that infants delivered by a vaginal birth had higher responses to the two different types of vaccines against bacterial diseases, and this was associated with higher abundances of the potentially beneficial bacteria known as Bifidobacterium and E. coli in their intestines.”

He added: “This study raises the possibility that it may be possible to treat infants, especially Caesarean-delivered infants, with a bacterial supplement, or even a product produced by these beneficial bacteria, to help improve their immune systems, enhance their responses to certain vaccines and reduce their susceptibility to infections.”

The study raises important questions, he said, including whether the increased antibody levels from pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccinations following vaginal birth also leads to increased protection of the infants against infection or serious disease. 

Sheena Cruickshank, immunologist and professor in biomedical sciences at the University of Manchester, England, commented: “It is now well established that the microbiome is important in immune development. In turn the mode of delivery and initial method of feeding is important in how the microbiome is first seeded in the baby.”

“However, other factors such as exposure to antibiotics and subsequent diet also play a role in how it then develops, making understanding the way the microbiome develops and changes quite complex. Microbes works as communities, and it can be difficult to determine whether changes in single species are important functionally. Breast milk also plays an important role in protecting the baby via transfer of maternal immunoglobulins, which will wane over a period of 6-12 months in the baby – thus ascertaining whether it’s the baby’s Ig is challenging.

“Given the complexity of the multitude of interactions, it is important that this is accounted for, and group sizes are large enough to ensure data is robust. Whilst this is an interesting study that adds to our knowledge of how the microbiome develops and the possible implications for immune development, it is still very preliminary, and the small group sizes warrant a need for further studies to verify this in larger groups.”

She added: “We will need to understand whether possible impacts of maternal delivery and feeding on immune development or vaccine responses can be restored by, for example, manipulating the microbiome.”

Professor Kim Barrett, vice dean for research at the University of California, Davis School of Medicine, said that, while further research was needed to uncover if and how manipulation of the human microbiome following C-section births might improve vaccine efficacy, “the work should at least lead to prompt additional consideration about an unintended consequence of the ever-increasing use of C-sections that may not be medically-necessary.”

Dr. Marie Lewis, researcher in gut microbiota at the University of Reading, England, said: “We have known for quite some time that the mode of delivery is incredibly important when it comes to the type of bacteria which colonize our guts. We also know that our gut bacteria in early life drive the development of our immune system, and natural births are linked with reduced risks of developing inflammatory conditions, such as asthma. It is therefore perhaps not really surprising that mode of delivery is also linked to responses to vaccinations.”

“The really interesting part here is the extent to which our gut microbiotas are accessible and changeable, and this important work could pave the way for administration of probiotics and prebiotics to improve vaccine responses in Caesarean-born children.”
 

‘Tantalizing data’

Dr. Chrissie Jones, associate professor of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Southampton, and Southampton UK and education lead for the British Paediatric Allergy, Immunity, and Infection Group, said: “The link between method of delivery of the infant and the bacteria that live in the gut of the young infant has previously been shown. What is really interesting about this study is that, for the first time, the link between method of delivery (vaginal delivery vs. C-section), differences in bacterial communities of the gut, and differences in responses to vaccines is shown.”

“This study may give us fresh insights into the differences that we see in the amount of protective antibodies made after infant vaccination. It also gives us clues as to ways that we might be able to level the playing field for infants in the future – for instance, giving babies a safe cocktail of ‘friendly bacteria’ as a probiotic, or an additional dose of vaccine.”

“This study is the first step – it shows us a link or association but does not prove cause and effect that differences in the way babies are born alters how the immune system responds to vaccines. To prove this link we will need larger studies, but it is tantalizing data.”

The research was funded by Scotland’s Chief Scientist Office and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. DB received funding from OM pharma and Sanofi. All of the authors declared no other conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Babies born vaginally have a different microbiome to those born by Caesarean section and have heightened responses to childhood vaccinations, according to a new study heralded as “interesting and important” by experts.

The microbiome is known to play a role in immune responses to vaccination. However, the relationship between early-life effects on intestinal microbiota composition and subsequent childhood vaccine responses had remained poorly understood. In the new study, “the findings suggest that vaginal birthing resulted in a microbiota composition associated with an increase in a specific type of antibody response to two routine childhood vaccines in healthy babies, compared with Caesarean section,” the authors said.

Researchers from the University of Edinburgh, with colleagues at Spaarne Hospital and University Medical Centre in Utrecht, and the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in The Netherlands, tracked the development of the gut microbiome in a cohort of 120 healthy, full-term infants and assessed their antibody levels following two common childhood vaccinations.

The study, published in Nature Communications, found “a clear relationship between microbes in the gut of those babies and levels of antibodies.” Not only was vaginal birth associated with increased levels of Bifidobacterium and Escherichia coli in the gut microbiome in the first months of life but also with higher IgG antibody responses against both pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccines.
 

Antibody responses doubled after vaginal birth

The babies were given pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccinations at 8 and 12 weeks, and saliva was collected at follow-up visits at ages 12 and 18 months for antibody measurement. In the 101 babies tested for pneumococcal antibodies, the researchers found that antibody levels were twice as high among babies delivered naturally, compared with those delivered by C-section. High levels of two gut bacteria in particular – Bifidobacterium and E. coli – were associated with high antibody responses to the pneumococcal vaccine, showing that the microbiome mediated the link between mode of delivery and pneumococcal vaccine responses.

In 66 babies tested for anti-meningococcal antibodies, antibodies were 1.7 times higher for vaginally-born babies than those delivered via C-section, and high antibody levels were particularly associated with high levels of E. coli in the babies’ microbiome.

The results were also influenced by breast-feeding, which even among children born vaginally was linked with 3.5 times higher pneumococcal antibody levels, compared with those of formula-fed children. In contrast, levels of antibodies against meningococcus were unaffected by breast-feeding status.
 

Microbiome ‘sets level of infection protection’

The team said: “The baby acquires Bifidobacterium and E. coli bacteria through natural birth, and human milk is needed to provide the sugars for these bacteria to thrive on.” They explained: “The gut microbiome is seeded at birth, developing rapidly over the first few months of life, and is influenced mostly by delivery mode, breast-feeding, and antibiotic use.” The babies’ microbiome in early life contributes the immune system’s response to vaccines, they said, “and sets the level of protection against certain infections in childhood.”

Study lead Professor Debby Bogaert, chair of pediatric medicine at the University of Edinburgh, said: “I think it is especially interesting that we identified several beneficial microbes to be the link between mode of delivery and vaccine responses. In the future, we may be able to supplement those bacteria to children born by C-section shortly after birth through – for example, mother-to-baby ‘fecal transplants’ or the use of specifically designed probiotics.”

First author Dr. Emma de Koff, a microbiology trainee at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, said: “We expected to find a link between the gut microbiome and the babies’ vaccine responses, however we never thought to find the strongest effects in the first weeks of life.”

The findings “could help to inform conversations about C-sections between expectant mothers and their doctors,” commented the researchers, who said that they could also “shape the design of more tailored vaccination programs.” For example, in the future, vaccination schedules could be adjusted based on the method of delivery or analysis of the baby’s microbiome.
 

Potential to rectify immune system after Caesarean

Responding to the study, Professor Neil Mabbott, personal chair in immunopathology at the Roslin Institute of the University of Edinburgh, told the Science Media Centre: “This is a very interesting and important study. The authors show that infants delivered by a vaginal birth had higher responses to the two different types of vaccines against bacterial diseases, and this was associated with higher abundances of the potentially beneficial bacteria known as Bifidobacterium and E. coli in their intestines.”

He added: “This study raises the possibility that it may be possible to treat infants, especially Caesarean-delivered infants, with a bacterial supplement, or even a product produced by these beneficial bacteria, to help improve their immune systems, enhance their responses to certain vaccines and reduce their susceptibility to infections.”

The study raises important questions, he said, including whether the increased antibody levels from pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccinations following vaginal birth also leads to increased protection of the infants against infection or serious disease. 

Sheena Cruickshank, immunologist and professor in biomedical sciences at the University of Manchester, England, commented: “It is now well established that the microbiome is important in immune development. In turn the mode of delivery and initial method of feeding is important in how the microbiome is first seeded in the baby.”

“However, other factors such as exposure to antibiotics and subsequent diet also play a role in how it then develops, making understanding the way the microbiome develops and changes quite complex. Microbes works as communities, and it can be difficult to determine whether changes in single species are important functionally. Breast milk also plays an important role in protecting the baby via transfer of maternal immunoglobulins, which will wane over a period of 6-12 months in the baby – thus ascertaining whether it’s the baby’s Ig is challenging.

“Given the complexity of the multitude of interactions, it is important that this is accounted for, and group sizes are large enough to ensure data is robust. Whilst this is an interesting study that adds to our knowledge of how the microbiome develops and the possible implications for immune development, it is still very preliminary, and the small group sizes warrant a need for further studies to verify this in larger groups.”

She added: “We will need to understand whether possible impacts of maternal delivery and feeding on immune development or vaccine responses can be restored by, for example, manipulating the microbiome.”

Professor Kim Barrett, vice dean for research at the University of California, Davis School of Medicine, said that, while further research was needed to uncover if and how manipulation of the human microbiome following C-section births might improve vaccine efficacy, “the work should at least lead to prompt additional consideration about an unintended consequence of the ever-increasing use of C-sections that may not be medically-necessary.”

Dr. Marie Lewis, researcher in gut microbiota at the University of Reading, England, said: “We have known for quite some time that the mode of delivery is incredibly important when it comes to the type of bacteria which colonize our guts. We also know that our gut bacteria in early life drive the development of our immune system, and natural births are linked with reduced risks of developing inflammatory conditions, such as asthma. It is therefore perhaps not really surprising that mode of delivery is also linked to responses to vaccinations.”

“The really interesting part here is the extent to which our gut microbiotas are accessible and changeable, and this important work could pave the way for administration of probiotics and prebiotics to improve vaccine responses in Caesarean-born children.”
 

‘Tantalizing data’

Dr. Chrissie Jones, associate professor of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Southampton, and Southampton UK and education lead for the British Paediatric Allergy, Immunity, and Infection Group, said: “The link between method of delivery of the infant and the bacteria that live in the gut of the young infant has previously been shown. What is really interesting about this study is that, for the first time, the link between method of delivery (vaginal delivery vs. C-section), differences in bacterial communities of the gut, and differences in responses to vaccines is shown.”

“This study may give us fresh insights into the differences that we see in the amount of protective antibodies made after infant vaccination. It also gives us clues as to ways that we might be able to level the playing field for infants in the future – for instance, giving babies a safe cocktail of ‘friendly bacteria’ as a probiotic, or an additional dose of vaccine.”

“This study is the first step – it shows us a link or association but does not prove cause and effect that differences in the way babies are born alters how the immune system responds to vaccines. To prove this link we will need larger studies, but it is tantalizing data.”

The research was funded by Scotland’s Chief Scientist Office and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. DB received funding from OM pharma and Sanofi. All of the authors declared no other conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Influenza vaccination is associated with a reduced risk of stroke among adults, even if they aren’t at high risk for stroke, according to new research.

The risk of stroke was about 23% lower in the 6 months following a flu shot, regardless of the patient’s age, sex, or underlying health conditions.

“There is an established link between upper respiratory infection and both heart attack and stroke. This has been very salient in the past few years throughout the COVID-19 pandemic,” study author Jessalyn Holodinsky, PhD, a stroke epidemiologist and postdoctoral fellow in clinical neurosciences at the University of Calgary (Alta.) told this news organization.

“It is also known that the flu shot can reduce risk of heart attack and hospitalization for those with heart disease,” she said. “Given both of these [observations], we thought it prudent to study whether there is a link between vaccination for influenza and stroke.”

The study was published in the Lancet Public Health.
 

Large effect size

The investigators analyzed administrative data from 2009 through 2018 from the Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan, which covers all residents of Alberta. The province provides free seasonal influenza vaccines to residents under the insurance plan.

The research team looked for stroke events such as acute ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and transient ischemic attack. They then analyzed the risk of stroke events among those with or without a flu shot in the previous 6 months. They accounted for multiple factors, including age, sex, income, location, and factors related to stroke risk, such as anticoagulant use, atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, and hypertension.

Among the 4.1 million adults included in the researchers’ analysis, about 1.8 million (43%) received at least one vaccination during the study period. Nearly 97,000 people received a flu vaccine in each year they were in the study, including 29,288 who received a shot in all 10 flu seasons included in the study.

About 38,000 stroke events were recorded, including about 34,000 (90%) first stroke events. Among the 10% of strokes that were recurrent events, the maximum number of stroke events in one person was nine.

Overall, patients who received at least one influenza vaccine were more likely to be older, be women, and have higher rates of comorbidities. The vaccinated group had a slightly higher proportion of people who lived in urban areas, but the income levels were similar between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.

The crude incidence of stroke was higher among people who had ever received an influenza vaccination, at 1.25%, compared with 0.52% among those who hadn’t been vaccinated. However, after adjusting for age, sex, underlying conditions, and socioeconomic status, recent flu vaccination (that is, in the previous 6 months) was associated with a 23% reduced risk of stroke.

The significant reduction in risk applied to all stroke types, particularly acute ischemic stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage. In addition, influenza vaccination was associated with a reduced risk across all ages and risk profiles, except patients without hypertension.

“What we were most surprised by was the sheer magnitude of the effect and that it existed across different adult age groups, for both sexes, and for those with and without risk factors for stroke,” said Dr. Holodinsky.

Vaccination was associated with a larger reduction in stroke risk in men than in women, perhaps because unvaccinated men had a significantly higher baseline risk for stroke than unvaccinated women, the study authors write.
 

Promoting cardiovascular health

In addition, vaccination was associated with a greater relative reduction in stroke risk in younger age groups, lower income groups, and those with diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and anticoagulant use.

Among 2.4 million people observed for the entire study period, vaccination protection increased with the number of vaccines received. People who were vaccinated serially each year had a significantly lower risk of stroke than those who received one shot.

Dr. Holodinsky and colleagues are conducting additional research into influenza vaccination, including stroke risk in children. They’re also investigating whether the reduced risk applies to other vaccinations for respiratory illnesses, such as COVID-19 and pneumonia.

“We hope that this added effect of vaccination encourages more adults to receive the flu shot,” she said. “One day, vaccinations might be considered a key pillar of cardiovascular health, along with diet, exercise, control of hypertension and high cholesterol, and smoking cessation.”

Future research should also investigate the reasons why adults – particularly people at high risk with underlying conditions – don’t receive recommended influenza vaccines, the study authors wrote.
 

‘Call to action’

Bahar Behrouzi, an MD-PhD candidate focused on clinical epidemiology at the Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, said: “There are a variety of observational studies around the world that show that flu vaccine uptake is low among the general population and high-risk persons. In studying these questions, our hope is that we can continue to build confidence in viral respiratory vaccines like the influenza vaccine by continuing to generate rigorous evidence with the latest data.”

Ms. Behrouzi, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched influenza vaccination and cardiovascular risk. She and her colleagues have found that flu vaccines were associated with a 34% lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, including a 45% reduced risk among patients with recent acute coronary syndrome.

“The broader public health message is for people to advocate for themselves and get the seasonal flu vaccine, especially if they are part of an at-risk group,” she said. “In our studies, we have positioned this message as a call to action not only for the public, but also for health care professionals – particularly specialists such as cardiologists or neurologists – to encourage or remind them to engage in conversation about the broad benefits of vaccination beyond just preventing or reducing the severity of flu infection.”

The study was conducted without outside funding. Dr. Holodinsky and Ms. Behrouzi have reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Influenza vaccination is associated with a reduced risk of stroke among adults, even if they aren’t at high risk for stroke, according to new research.

The risk of stroke was about 23% lower in the 6 months following a flu shot, regardless of the patient’s age, sex, or underlying health conditions.

“There is an established link between upper respiratory infection and both heart attack and stroke. This has been very salient in the past few years throughout the COVID-19 pandemic,” study author Jessalyn Holodinsky, PhD, a stroke epidemiologist and postdoctoral fellow in clinical neurosciences at the University of Calgary (Alta.) told this news organization.

“It is also known that the flu shot can reduce risk of heart attack and hospitalization for those with heart disease,” she said. “Given both of these [observations], we thought it prudent to study whether there is a link between vaccination for influenza and stroke.”

The study was published in the Lancet Public Health.
 

Large effect size

The investigators analyzed administrative data from 2009 through 2018 from the Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan, which covers all residents of Alberta. The province provides free seasonal influenza vaccines to residents under the insurance plan.

The research team looked for stroke events such as acute ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and transient ischemic attack. They then analyzed the risk of stroke events among those with or without a flu shot in the previous 6 months. They accounted for multiple factors, including age, sex, income, location, and factors related to stroke risk, such as anticoagulant use, atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, and hypertension.

Among the 4.1 million adults included in the researchers’ analysis, about 1.8 million (43%) received at least one vaccination during the study period. Nearly 97,000 people received a flu vaccine in each year they were in the study, including 29,288 who received a shot in all 10 flu seasons included in the study.

About 38,000 stroke events were recorded, including about 34,000 (90%) first stroke events. Among the 10% of strokes that were recurrent events, the maximum number of stroke events in one person was nine.

Overall, patients who received at least one influenza vaccine were more likely to be older, be women, and have higher rates of comorbidities. The vaccinated group had a slightly higher proportion of people who lived in urban areas, but the income levels were similar between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.

The crude incidence of stroke was higher among people who had ever received an influenza vaccination, at 1.25%, compared with 0.52% among those who hadn’t been vaccinated. However, after adjusting for age, sex, underlying conditions, and socioeconomic status, recent flu vaccination (that is, in the previous 6 months) was associated with a 23% reduced risk of stroke.

The significant reduction in risk applied to all stroke types, particularly acute ischemic stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage. In addition, influenza vaccination was associated with a reduced risk across all ages and risk profiles, except patients without hypertension.

“What we were most surprised by was the sheer magnitude of the effect and that it existed across different adult age groups, for both sexes, and for those with and without risk factors for stroke,” said Dr. Holodinsky.

Vaccination was associated with a larger reduction in stroke risk in men than in women, perhaps because unvaccinated men had a significantly higher baseline risk for stroke than unvaccinated women, the study authors write.
 

Promoting cardiovascular health

In addition, vaccination was associated with a greater relative reduction in stroke risk in younger age groups, lower income groups, and those with diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and anticoagulant use.

Among 2.4 million people observed for the entire study period, vaccination protection increased with the number of vaccines received. People who were vaccinated serially each year had a significantly lower risk of stroke than those who received one shot.

Dr. Holodinsky and colleagues are conducting additional research into influenza vaccination, including stroke risk in children. They’re also investigating whether the reduced risk applies to other vaccinations for respiratory illnesses, such as COVID-19 and pneumonia.

“We hope that this added effect of vaccination encourages more adults to receive the flu shot,” she said. “One day, vaccinations might be considered a key pillar of cardiovascular health, along with diet, exercise, control of hypertension and high cholesterol, and smoking cessation.”

Future research should also investigate the reasons why adults – particularly people at high risk with underlying conditions – don’t receive recommended influenza vaccines, the study authors wrote.
 

‘Call to action’

Bahar Behrouzi, an MD-PhD candidate focused on clinical epidemiology at the Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, said: “There are a variety of observational studies around the world that show that flu vaccine uptake is low among the general population and high-risk persons. In studying these questions, our hope is that we can continue to build confidence in viral respiratory vaccines like the influenza vaccine by continuing to generate rigorous evidence with the latest data.”

Ms. Behrouzi, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched influenza vaccination and cardiovascular risk. She and her colleagues have found that flu vaccines were associated with a 34% lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, including a 45% reduced risk among patients with recent acute coronary syndrome.

“The broader public health message is for people to advocate for themselves and get the seasonal flu vaccine, especially if they are part of an at-risk group,” she said. “In our studies, we have positioned this message as a call to action not only for the public, but also for health care professionals – particularly specialists such as cardiologists or neurologists – to encourage or remind them to engage in conversation about the broad benefits of vaccination beyond just preventing or reducing the severity of flu infection.”

The study was conducted without outside funding. Dr. Holodinsky and Ms. Behrouzi have reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Influenza vaccination is associated with a reduced risk of stroke among adults, even if they aren’t at high risk for stroke, according to new research.

The risk of stroke was about 23% lower in the 6 months following a flu shot, regardless of the patient’s age, sex, or underlying health conditions.

“There is an established link between upper respiratory infection and both heart attack and stroke. This has been very salient in the past few years throughout the COVID-19 pandemic,” study author Jessalyn Holodinsky, PhD, a stroke epidemiologist and postdoctoral fellow in clinical neurosciences at the University of Calgary (Alta.) told this news organization.

“It is also known that the flu shot can reduce risk of heart attack and hospitalization for those with heart disease,” she said. “Given both of these [observations], we thought it prudent to study whether there is a link between vaccination for influenza and stroke.”

The study was published in the Lancet Public Health.
 

Large effect size

The investigators analyzed administrative data from 2009 through 2018 from the Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan, which covers all residents of Alberta. The province provides free seasonal influenza vaccines to residents under the insurance plan.

The research team looked for stroke events such as acute ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and transient ischemic attack. They then analyzed the risk of stroke events among those with or without a flu shot in the previous 6 months. They accounted for multiple factors, including age, sex, income, location, and factors related to stroke risk, such as anticoagulant use, atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, and hypertension.

Among the 4.1 million adults included in the researchers’ analysis, about 1.8 million (43%) received at least one vaccination during the study period. Nearly 97,000 people received a flu vaccine in each year they were in the study, including 29,288 who received a shot in all 10 flu seasons included in the study.

About 38,000 stroke events were recorded, including about 34,000 (90%) first stroke events. Among the 10% of strokes that were recurrent events, the maximum number of stroke events in one person was nine.

Overall, patients who received at least one influenza vaccine were more likely to be older, be women, and have higher rates of comorbidities. The vaccinated group had a slightly higher proportion of people who lived in urban areas, but the income levels were similar between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.

The crude incidence of stroke was higher among people who had ever received an influenza vaccination, at 1.25%, compared with 0.52% among those who hadn’t been vaccinated. However, after adjusting for age, sex, underlying conditions, and socioeconomic status, recent flu vaccination (that is, in the previous 6 months) was associated with a 23% reduced risk of stroke.

The significant reduction in risk applied to all stroke types, particularly acute ischemic stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage. In addition, influenza vaccination was associated with a reduced risk across all ages and risk profiles, except patients without hypertension.

“What we were most surprised by was the sheer magnitude of the effect and that it existed across different adult age groups, for both sexes, and for those with and without risk factors for stroke,” said Dr. Holodinsky.

Vaccination was associated with a larger reduction in stroke risk in men than in women, perhaps because unvaccinated men had a significantly higher baseline risk for stroke than unvaccinated women, the study authors write.
 

Promoting cardiovascular health

In addition, vaccination was associated with a greater relative reduction in stroke risk in younger age groups, lower income groups, and those with diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and anticoagulant use.

Among 2.4 million people observed for the entire study period, vaccination protection increased with the number of vaccines received. People who were vaccinated serially each year had a significantly lower risk of stroke than those who received one shot.

Dr. Holodinsky and colleagues are conducting additional research into influenza vaccination, including stroke risk in children. They’re also investigating whether the reduced risk applies to other vaccinations for respiratory illnesses, such as COVID-19 and pneumonia.

“We hope that this added effect of vaccination encourages more adults to receive the flu shot,” she said. “One day, vaccinations might be considered a key pillar of cardiovascular health, along with diet, exercise, control of hypertension and high cholesterol, and smoking cessation.”

Future research should also investigate the reasons why adults – particularly people at high risk with underlying conditions – don’t receive recommended influenza vaccines, the study authors wrote.
 

‘Call to action’

Bahar Behrouzi, an MD-PhD candidate focused on clinical epidemiology at the Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, said: “There are a variety of observational studies around the world that show that flu vaccine uptake is low among the general population and high-risk persons. In studying these questions, our hope is that we can continue to build confidence in viral respiratory vaccines like the influenza vaccine by continuing to generate rigorous evidence with the latest data.”

Ms. Behrouzi, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched influenza vaccination and cardiovascular risk. She and her colleagues have found that flu vaccines were associated with a 34% lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, including a 45% reduced risk among patients with recent acute coronary syndrome.

“The broader public health message is for people to advocate for themselves and get the seasonal flu vaccine, especially if they are part of an at-risk group,” she said. “In our studies, we have positioned this message as a call to action not only for the public, but also for health care professionals – particularly specialists such as cardiologists or neurologists – to encourage or remind them to engage in conversation about the broad benefits of vaccination beyond just preventing or reducing the severity of flu infection.”

The study was conducted without outside funding. Dr. Holodinsky and Ms. Behrouzi have reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Shortly into the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Robert Califf, the commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration, warned of a coming tsunami of chronic diseases, exacerbated by missed care during the pandemic.¹ According to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) survey, more than 30% of adults reported delaying or avoiding routine medical care in the first 6 months of 2020. This rate was highest in people with comorbidities.² Multiple studies demonstrated declines in hypertension care, hemoglobin A_1c testing, mammography, and colon cancer screening.^3-5 There has been a resultant increase in colon cancer complications, wounds, and amputations.^6,7 The United Kingdom is expected to have a 7.9% to 16.6% increase in future deaths due to breast and colorectal cancer (CRC).⁸ The World Health Organization estimates an excess 14.9 million people died in 2020 and 2021, either directly from or indirectly related to COVID-19.⁹

Due to the large-scale conversion from face-to-face care to telehealth modalities, COVID-19 vaccination events offered a unique opportunity to perform preventive health care that requires in-person visits, since most US adults have sought vaccination. However, vaccine events may not reach people most at risk for COVID-19 or chronic disease. Groups of Americans with lower vaccination rates were concerned about driving times and missing work to get the vaccine.¹⁰

Distance and travel time may be a particular challenge in Hawaii. Oahu is considered rural by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); some communities are 80 minutes away from the VA Pacific Islands Health Care System (VAPIHCS) main facility. Oahu has approximately 150 veterans experiencing homelessness who may not have transportation to vaccine events. Additionally, VAPIHCS serves veterans that may be at higher risk of not receiving COVID-19 vaccination. Racial and ethnic minority residents have lower vaccination rates, yet are at a higher risk of COVID-19 infection and complications, and through the pandemic, this vaccination gap worsened.^11,12 More than 10% of the population of Hawaii is Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and this population is at elevated risk for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and COVID-19 mortality.^13-16

Health Fair Program

The VA provides clinical reminders in its electronic health record (EHR) that are specified by age, gender assigned at birth, and comorbidities. The clinical reminder program is intended to provide clinically relevant reminders for preventive care at the point of care. Veterans with overdue clinical reminders can be identified by name and address, allowing for the creation of health fair events that were directed towards communities with veterans with clinical reminders, including COVID-19 vaccination need. A team of health care professionals from VAPIHCS conceived of a health fair program to increase the reach of vaccine events and include preventive care in partnership with the VAPIHCS Vet Center Program, local communities, U.S.VETS, and the Hawaii Institute of Health Services (HIHS). We sought to determine which services could be offered in community settings; large vaccine events; and at homeless emergency, transitional, or permanent housing. We tracked veterans who received care in the different locations of the directed health fair.

This project was determined to be a quality improvement initiative by the VAPIHCS Office of Research and Development. It was jointly planned by the VAPIHCS pharmacy, infectious diseases, Vet Center Program, and homeless team to make the COVID-19 vaccines available to more rural and to veterans experiencing homelessness, and in response to a decline in facility face-to-face visits. Monthly meetings were held to select sites within zip codes with higher numbers of open clinical reminders and lower vaccination uptake. Informatics developed a list of clinical reminders by zip code for care performed at face-to-face visits.

Partners

The Vet Center Program, suicide prevention coordinator, and the homeless outreach team have a mandate to perform outreach events.^17,18 These services collaborate with community partners to locate sites for events. The team was able to leverage these contacts to set up sites for events. The Vet Center Program readjustment counselor and the suicide prevention coordinator provide mental health counseling. The Vet Center counsels on veteran benefits. They supplied a mobile van with WiFi, counseling and examination spaces, and refrigeration, which became the mobile clinic for the preventive care offered at events. The homeless program works with multiple community partners. They contract with HIHS and U.S.VETS to provide emergency and permanent housing for veterans. Each event is reviewed with HIHS and U.S.VETS staff for permission to be on site. The suicide prevention coordinator or the Vet Center readjustment counselor and the homeless team became regular attendees of events. The homeless team provided resources for housing or food insecurity.

Preventive Health Measures

The VA clinical reminder system supports caregivers for both preventive health care and chronic condition management.¹⁹ Clinical reminders appear as due in the EHR, and reminder reports can be run by clinical informatics to determine groups of patients who have not had a reminder completed. The following reminders were completed: vaccinations (including COVID-19), CRC screening, diabetic foot check and teaching of foot care, diabetic retinal consultations, laboratory studies (lipids, hemoglobin A_1c, microalbumin), mammogram and pap smear referrals, mental health reminders, homeless and food insecurity screening, HIV and hepatitis C testing, and blood pressure (BP) measurement. Health records were reviewed 3 months after each event to determine whether they were completed by the veteran. Additionally, we determined whether BP was controlled (< 130/80 mm Hg).

Settings

Large urban event. The first setting for the health fair was a large vaccination event near the VAPIHCS center in April 2021. Attendance was solicited by VEText, phone calls, and social media advertisements. At check-in, veterans with relevant open clinical reminders were invited to receive preventive health care during the 15-minute monitoring period after the COVID-19 vaccine. The Vet Center Program stationed the mobile van outside the vaccination event, where a physician and a clinical pharmacy specialist (CPS) did assessments, completed reminders, and entered follow-up requests for about 4 hours. A medical support assistant registered veterans who had never signed up for VA health care.

Community Settings. Nine events occurred at least monthly between March and September 2021 at 4 different sites in Oahu. Texts and phone calls were used to solicit attendance; there was no prior publicity on social media. Community events required scheduling resources; this required about 30 hours of medical staff assistant time. Seven sites were visited for about 3 hours each. A physician, pharmacy technician, and CPS conducted assessments, completed reminders, and entered follow-up requests. A medical support assistant registered veterans who had never signed up for VA health care.

Homeless veteran outreach. Five events occurred at 2 homeless veteran housing sites between August 2021 and January 2022. These sites were emergency housing sites (2 events) and transitional and permanent housing (2 events). U.S.VETS and HIHS contacted veterans living in those settings to promote the event. A physician, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, and CPS conducted assessments, completed reminders, and entered follow-up requests. A medical support assistant registered veterans that had never signed up for VA health care. Each event lasted approximate 3 hours.

Process Quality Improvement

After the CDC changed recommendations to allow concurrent vaccination with the COVID-19 vaccine, we added other vaccinations to the events. This occurred during the course of community events. In June of 2021, there was a health advisory concerning hepatitis A among people experiencing homelessness in Oahu, so hepatitis vaccinations were added for events for veterans.²⁰

Veterans Served

The EHR was used to determine demographics, open clinical reminders, and attendance at follow-up. Simple descriptive statistics were performed in Microsoft Excel. A total of 115 veterans were seen for preventive health visits, and 404 clinical reminders were completed. Seven hundred veterans attended the large centrally located vaccine event and 43 agreed to have a preventive health visit. Thirty-eight veterans had a preventive health visit at homeless outreach events and 34 veterans had a preventive health visit at the community events. Veterans at community

Of the 166 vaccines given, 73 were for COVID-19. Besides vaccination,

Discussion

This program provided evidence that adding preventive screenings to vaccine events may help reach veterans who may have missed important preventive care due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The involvement of clinical informatics service allowed the outreach to be targeted to communities with incomplete clinical reminders. Interventions that could not be completed at the event had high levels of follow-up by veterans with important findings. The presence of a physician or nurse and a CPS allowed for point-of-care testing, as well as entering orders for medication, laboratory tests, and consultations. The attendance by representatives from the Vet Center, suicide prevention, and homeless services allowed counseling regarding benefits, and mental health follow-up. We believe that we were able to reach communities of veterans with unmet preventive needs and had higher risk of severe COVID-19, given the high numbers with open clinical reminders, the number of vaccines provided, and the high percentage of racial and ethnic minority veterans at events in the community. Our program experience provides some evidence that mobile and pop-up vaccination clinics may be beneficial for screening and managing chronic diseases, as proposed elsewhere.^21-24

Strengths of this intervention include that we were able to show a high level of follow-up for recommended medical care as well as the results of our interventions. We have found no similar articles that provide data on completion of follow-up appointments after a health fair. A prior study showed only 23% to 63% of participants at a health fair reported having a recommended follow-up discussion with doctors, but the study reported no outcome of completed cancer screenings.²⁵

Limitations

Weaknesses include the fact that health fair events may reach only healthy people, since attendees generally report better health and better health behaviors than nonattendees.^26,27 We felt this was more problematic for the large-scale urban event and that offering rural events and events in homeless housing improved the reach. Future efforts will involve the use of social media and mailings to solicit attendance. To improve follow-up, future work will include adding to the events: phlebotomy or expanded point-of-care testing; specialty care telehealth capability; cervical cancer screen self-collection; and tele-retinal services.

Conclusions

This program provided evidence that directed, preventive screening can be performed in outreach settings paired with vaccine events. These vaccination events in rural and homeless settings reached communities with demonstrable COVID-19 vaccination and other preventive care needs. This approach could be used to help veterans catch up on needed preventive care.

Acknowledgments

Veterans Affairs Pacific Islands Health Care System: Anthony Chance, LCSW; Nicholas Chang, PharmD; Andrew Dahlburg, LCSW; Wilminia G. Ellorimo-Gil, RN; Paul Guillory, RN; Wendy D. Joy; Arthur Minor, LCSW; Avalua Smith; Jessica Spurrier, RN. Veterans Health Administration Vet Center Program: Rolly O. Alvarado; Edmond G. DeGuzman; Richard T. Teel. Hawaii Institute for Human Services. U.S.VETS.

Shortly into the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Robert Califf, the commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration, warned of a coming tsunami of chronic diseases, exacerbated by missed care during the pandemic.¹ According to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) survey, more than 30% of adults reported delaying or avoiding routine medical care in the first 6 months of 2020. This rate was highest in people with comorbidities.² Multiple studies demonstrated declines in hypertension care, hemoglobin A_1c testing, mammography, and colon cancer screening.^3-5 There has been a resultant increase in colon cancer complications, wounds, and amputations.^6,7 The United Kingdom is expected to have a 7.9% to 16.6% increase in future deaths due to breast and colorectal cancer (CRC).⁸ The World Health Organization estimates an excess 14.9 million people died in 2020 and 2021, either directly from or indirectly related to COVID-19.⁹

Due to the large-scale conversion from face-to-face care to telehealth modalities, COVID-19 vaccination events offered a unique opportunity to perform preventive health care that requires in-person visits, since most US adults have sought vaccination. However, vaccine events may not reach people most at risk for COVID-19 or chronic disease. Groups of Americans with lower vaccination rates were concerned about driving times and missing work to get the vaccine.¹⁰

Distance and travel time may be a particular challenge in Hawaii. Oahu is considered rural by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); some communities are 80 minutes away from the VA Pacific Islands Health Care System (VAPIHCS) main facility. Oahu has approximately 150 veterans experiencing homelessness who may not have transportation to vaccine events. Additionally, VAPIHCS serves veterans that may be at higher risk of not receiving COVID-19 vaccination. Racial and ethnic minority residents have lower vaccination rates, yet are at a higher risk of COVID-19 infection and complications, and through the pandemic, this vaccination gap worsened.^11,12 More than 10% of the population of Hawaii is Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and this population is at elevated risk for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and COVID-19 mortality.^13-16

Health Fair Program

The VA provides clinical reminders in its electronic health record (EHR) that are specified by age, gender assigned at birth, and comorbidities. The clinical reminder program is intended to provide clinically relevant reminders for preventive care at the point of care. Veterans with overdue clinical reminders can be identified by name and address, allowing for the creation of health fair events that were directed towards communities with veterans with clinical reminders, including COVID-19 vaccination need. A team of health care professionals from VAPIHCS conceived of a health fair program to increase the reach of vaccine events and include preventive care in partnership with the VAPIHCS Vet Center Program, local communities, U.S.VETS, and the Hawaii Institute of Health Services (HIHS). We sought to determine which services could be offered in community settings; large vaccine events; and at homeless emergency, transitional, or permanent housing. We tracked veterans who received care in the different locations of the directed health fair.

This project was determined to be a quality improvement initiative by the VAPIHCS Office of Research and Development. It was jointly planned by the VAPIHCS pharmacy, infectious diseases, Vet Center Program, and homeless team to make the COVID-19 vaccines available to more rural and to veterans experiencing homelessness, and in response to a decline in facility face-to-face visits. Monthly meetings were held to select sites within zip codes with higher numbers of open clinical reminders and lower vaccination uptake. Informatics developed a list of clinical reminders by zip code for care performed at face-to-face visits.

Partners

The Vet Center Program, suicide prevention coordinator, and the homeless outreach team have a mandate to perform outreach events.^17,18 These services collaborate with community partners to locate sites for events. The team was able to leverage these contacts to set up sites for events. The Vet Center Program readjustment counselor and the suicide prevention coordinator provide mental health counseling. The Vet Center counsels on veteran benefits. They supplied a mobile van with WiFi, counseling and examination spaces, and refrigeration, which became the mobile clinic for the preventive care offered at events. The homeless program works with multiple community partners. They contract with HIHS and U.S.VETS to provide emergency and permanent housing for veterans. Each event is reviewed with HIHS and U.S.VETS staff for permission to be on site. The suicide prevention coordinator or the Vet Center readjustment counselor and the homeless team became regular attendees of events. The homeless team provided resources for housing or food insecurity.

Preventive Health Measures

The VA clinical reminder system supports caregivers for both preventive health care and chronic condition management.¹⁹ Clinical reminders appear as due in the EHR, and reminder reports can be run by clinical informatics to determine groups of patients who have not had a reminder completed. The following reminders were completed: vaccinations (including COVID-19), CRC screening, diabetic foot check and teaching of foot care, diabetic retinal consultations, laboratory studies (lipids, hemoglobin A_1c, microalbumin), mammogram and pap smear referrals, mental health reminders, homeless and food insecurity screening, HIV and hepatitis C testing, and blood pressure (BP) measurement. Health records were reviewed 3 months after each event to determine whether they were completed by the veteran. Additionally, we determined whether BP was controlled (< 130/80 mm Hg).

Settings

Large urban event. The first setting for the health fair was a large vaccination event near the VAPIHCS center in April 2021. Attendance was solicited by VEText, phone calls, and social media advertisements. At check-in, veterans with relevant open clinical reminders were invited to receive preventive health care during the 15-minute monitoring period after the COVID-19 vaccine. The Vet Center Program stationed the mobile van outside the vaccination event, where a physician and a clinical pharmacy specialist (CPS) did assessments, completed reminders, and entered follow-up requests for about 4 hours. A medical support assistant registered veterans who had never signed up for VA health care.

Community Settings. Nine events occurred at least monthly between March and September 2021 at 4 different sites in Oahu. Texts and phone calls were used to solicit attendance; there was no prior publicity on social media. Community events required scheduling resources; this required about 30 hours of medical staff assistant time. Seven sites were visited for about 3 hours each. A physician, pharmacy technician, and CPS conducted assessments, completed reminders, and entered follow-up requests. A medical support assistant registered veterans who had never signed up for VA health care.

Homeless veteran outreach. Five events occurred at 2 homeless veteran housing sites between August 2021 and January 2022. These sites were emergency housing sites (2 events) and transitional and permanent housing (2 events). U.S.VETS and HIHS contacted veterans living in those settings to promote the event. A physician, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, and CPS conducted assessments, completed reminders, and entered follow-up requests. A medical support assistant registered veterans that had never signed up for VA health care. Each event lasted approximate 3 hours.

Process Quality Improvement

After the CDC changed recommendations to allow concurrent vaccination with the COVID-19 vaccine, we added other vaccinations to the events. This occurred during the course of community events. In June of 2021, there was a health advisory concerning hepatitis A among people experiencing homelessness in Oahu, so hepatitis vaccinations were added for events for veterans.²⁰

Veterans Served

The EHR was used to determine demographics, open clinical reminders, and attendance at follow-up. Simple descriptive statistics were performed in Microsoft Excel. A total of 115 veterans were seen for preventive health visits, and 404 clinical reminders were completed. Seven hundred veterans attended the large centrally located vaccine event and 43 agreed to have a preventive health visit. Thirty-eight veterans had a preventive health visit at homeless outreach events and 34 veterans had a preventive health visit at the community events. Veterans at community

Of the 166 vaccines given, 73 were for COVID-19. Besides vaccination,

Discussion

This program provided evidence that adding preventive screenings to vaccine events may help reach veterans who may have missed important preventive care due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The involvement of clinical informatics service allowed the outreach to be targeted to communities with incomplete clinical reminders. Interventions that could not be completed at the event had high levels of follow-up by veterans with important findings. The presence of a physician or nurse and a CPS allowed for point-of-care testing, as well as entering orders for medication, laboratory tests, and consultations. The attendance by representatives from the Vet Center, suicide prevention, and homeless services allowed counseling regarding benefits, and mental health follow-up. We believe that we were able to reach communities of veterans with unmet preventive needs and had higher risk of severe COVID-19, given the high numbers with open clinical reminders, the number of vaccines provided, and the high percentage of racial and ethnic minority veterans at events in the community. Our program experience provides some evidence that mobile and pop-up vaccination clinics may be beneficial for screening and managing chronic diseases, as proposed elsewhere.^21-24

Strengths of this intervention include that we were able to show a high level of follow-up for recommended medical care as well as the results of our interventions. We have found no similar articles that provide data on completion of follow-up appointments after a health fair. A prior study showed only 23% to 63% of participants at a health fair reported having a recommended follow-up discussion with doctors, but the study reported no outcome of completed cancer screenings.²⁵

Limitations

Weaknesses include the fact that health fair events may reach only healthy people, since attendees generally report better health and better health behaviors than nonattendees.^26,27 We felt this was more problematic for the large-scale urban event and that offering rural events and events in homeless housing improved the reach. Future efforts will involve the use of social media and mailings to solicit attendance. To improve follow-up, future work will include adding to the events: phlebotomy or expanded point-of-care testing; specialty care telehealth capability; cervical cancer screen self-collection; and tele-retinal services.

Conclusions

This program provided evidence that directed, preventive screening can be performed in outreach settings paired with vaccine events. These vaccination events in rural and homeless settings reached communities with demonstrable COVID-19 vaccination and other preventive care needs. This approach could be used to help veterans catch up on needed preventive care.

Acknowledgments

Veterans Affairs Pacific Islands Health Care System: Anthony Chance, LCSW; Nicholas Chang, PharmD; Andrew Dahlburg, LCSW; Wilminia G. Ellorimo-Gil, RN; Paul Guillory, RN; Wendy D. Joy; Arthur Minor, LCSW; Avalua Smith; Jessica Spurrier, RN. Veterans Health Administration Vet Center Program: Rolly O. Alvarado; Edmond G. DeGuzman; Richard T. Teel. Hawaii Institute for Human Services. U.S.VETS.

Shortly into the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Robert Califf, the commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration, warned of a coming tsunami of chronic diseases, exacerbated by missed care during the pandemic.¹ According to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) survey, more than 30% of adults reported delaying or avoiding routine medical care in the first 6 months of 2020. This rate was highest in people with comorbidities.² Multiple studies demonstrated declines in hypertension care, hemoglobin A_1c testing, mammography, and colon cancer screening.^3-5 There has been a resultant increase in colon cancer complications, wounds, and amputations.^6,7 The United Kingdom is expected to have a 7.9% to 16.6% increase in future deaths due to breast and colorectal cancer (CRC).⁸ The World Health Organization estimates an excess 14.9 million people died in 2020 and 2021, either directly from or indirectly related to COVID-19.⁹

Due to the large-scale conversion from face-to-face care to telehealth modalities, COVID-19 vaccination events offered a unique opportunity to perform preventive health care that requires in-person visits, since most US adults have sought vaccination. However, vaccine events may not reach people most at risk for COVID-19 or chronic disease. Groups of Americans with lower vaccination rates were concerned about driving times and missing work to get the vaccine.¹⁰

Distance and travel time may be a particular challenge in Hawaii. Oahu is considered rural by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); some communities are 80 minutes away from the VA Pacific Islands Health Care System (VAPIHCS) main facility. Oahu has approximately 150 veterans experiencing homelessness who may not have transportation to vaccine events. Additionally, VAPIHCS serves veterans that may be at higher risk of not receiving COVID-19 vaccination. Racial and ethnic minority residents have lower vaccination rates, yet are at a higher risk of COVID-19 infection and complications, and through the pandemic, this vaccination gap worsened.^11,12 More than 10% of the population of Hawaii is Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and this population is at elevated risk for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and COVID-19 mortality.^13-16

Health Fair Program

The VA provides clinical reminders in its electronic health record (EHR) that are specified by age, gender assigned at birth, and comorbidities. The clinical reminder program is intended to provide clinically relevant reminders for preventive care at the point of care. Veterans with overdue clinical reminders can be identified by name and address, allowing for the creation of health fair events that were directed towards communities with veterans with clinical reminders, including COVID-19 vaccination need. A team of health care professionals from VAPIHCS conceived of a health fair program to increase the reach of vaccine events and include preventive care in partnership with the VAPIHCS Vet Center Program, local communities, U.S.VETS, and the Hawaii Institute of Health Services (HIHS). We sought to determine which services could be offered in community settings; large vaccine events; and at homeless emergency, transitional, or permanent housing. We tracked veterans who received care in the different locations of the directed health fair.

This project was determined to be a quality improvement initiative by the VAPIHCS Office of Research and Development. It was jointly planned by the VAPIHCS pharmacy, infectious diseases, Vet Center Program, and homeless team to make the COVID-19 vaccines available to more rural and to veterans experiencing homelessness, and in response to a decline in facility face-to-face visits. Monthly meetings were held to select sites within zip codes with higher numbers of open clinical reminders and lower vaccination uptake. Informatics developed a list of clinical reminders by zip code for care performed at face-to-face visits.

Partners

The Vet Center Program, suicide prevention coordinator, and the homeless outreach team have a mandate to perform outreach events.^17,18 These services collaborate with community partners to locate sites for events. The team was able to leverage these contacts to set up sites for events. The Vet Center Program readjustment counselor and the suicide prevention coordinator provide mental health counseling. The Vet Center counsels on veteran benefits. They supplied a mobile van with WiFi, counseling and examination spaces, and refrigeration, which became the mobile clinic for the preventive care offered at events. The homeless program works with multiple community partners. They contract with HIHS and U.S.VETS to provide emergency and permanent housing for veterans. Each event is reviewed with HIHS and U.S.VETS staff for permission to be on site. The suicide prevention coordinator or the Vet Center readjustment counselor and the homeless team became regular attendees of events. The homeless team provided resources for housing or food insecurity.

Preventive Health Measures

The VA clinical reminder system supports caregivers for both preventive health care and chronic condition management.¹⁹ Clinical reminders appear as due in the EHR, and reminder reports can be run by clinical informatics to determine groups of patients who have not had a reminder completed. The following reminders were completed: vaccinations (including COVID-19), CRC screening, diabetic foot check and teaching of foot care, diabetic retinal consultations, laboratory studies (lipids, hemoglobin A_1c, microalbumin), mammogram and pap smear referrals, mental health reminders, homeless and food insecurity screening, HIV and hepatitis C testing, and blood pressure (BP) measurement. Health records were reviewed 3 months after each event to determine whether they were completed by the veteran. Additionally, we determined whether BP was controlled (< 130/80 mm Hg).

Settings

Large urban event. The first setting for the health fair was a large vaccination event near the VAPIHCS center in April 2021. Attendance was solicited by VEText, phone calls, and social media advertisements. At check-in, veterans with relevant open clinical reminders were invited to receive preventive health care during the 15-minute monitoring period after the COVID-19 vaccine. The Vet Center Program stationed the mobile van outside the vaccination event, where a physician and a clinical pharmacy specialist (CPS) did assessments, completed reminders, and entered follow-up requests for about 4 hours. A medical support assistant registered veterans who had never signed up for VA health care.

Community Settings. Nine events occurred at least monthly between March and September 2021 at 4 different sites in Oahu. Texts and phone calls were used to solicit attendance; there was no prior publicity on social media. Community events required scheduling resources; this required about 30 hours of medical staff assistant time. Seven sites were visited for about 3 hours each. A physician, pharmacy technician, and CPS conducted assessments, completed reminders, and entered follow-up requests. A medical support assistant registered veterans who had never signed up for VA health care.

Homeless veteran outreach. Five events occurred at 2 homeless veteran housing sites between August 2021 and January 2022. These sites were emergency housing sites (2 events) and transitional and permanent housing (2 events). U.S.VETS and HIHS contacted veterans living in those settings to promote the event. A physician, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, and CPS conducted assessments, completed reminders, and entered follow-up requests. A medical support assistant registered veterans that had never signed up for VA health care. Each event lasted approximate 3 hours.

Process Quality Improvement

After the CDC changed recommendations to allow concurrent vaccination with the COVID-19 vaccine, we added other vaccinations to the events. This occurred during the course of community events. In June of 2021, there was a health advisory concerning hepatitis A among people experiencing homelessness in Oahu, so hepatitis vaccinations were added for events for veterans.²⁰

Veterans Served

The EHR was used to determine demographics, open clinical reminders, and attendance at follow-up. Simple descriptive statistics were performed in Microsoft Excel. A total of 115 veterans were seen for preventive health visits, and 404 clinical reminders were completed. Seven hundred veterans attended the large centrally located vaccine event and 43 agreed to have a preventive health visit. Thirty-eight veterans had a preventive health visit at homeless outreach events and 34 veterans had a preventive health visit at the community events. Veterans at community

Of the 166 vaccines given, 73 were for COVID-19. Besides vaccination,

Discussion

This program provided evidence that adding preventive screenings to vaccine events may help reach veterans who may have missed important preventive care due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The involvement of clinical informatics service allowed the outreach to be targeted to communities with incomplete clinical reminders. Interventions that could not be completed at the event had high levels of follow-up by veterans with important findings. The presence of a physician or nurse and a CPS allowed for point-of-care testing, as well as entering orders for medication, laboratory tests, and consultations. The attendance by representatives from the Vet Center, suicide prevention, and homeless services allowed counseling regarding benefits, and mental health follow-up. We believe that we were able to reach communities of veterans with unmet preventive needs and had higher risk of severe COVID-19, given the high numbers with open clinical reminders, the number of vaccines provided, and the high percentage of racial and ethnic minority veterans at events in the community. Our program experience provides some evidence that mobile and pop-up vaccination clinics may be beneficial for screening and managing chronic diseases, as proposed elsewhere.^21-24

Strengths of this intervention include that we were able to show a high level of follow-up for recommended medical care as well as the results of our interventions. We have found no similar articles that provide data on completion of follow-up appointments after a health fair. A prior study showed only 23% to 63% of participants at a health fair reported having a recommended follow-up discussion with doctors, but the study reported no outcome of completed cancer screenings.²⁵

Limitations

Weaknesses include the fact that health fair events may reach only healthy people, since attendees generally report better health and better health behaviors than nonattendees.^26,27 We felt this was more problematic for the large-scale urban event and that offering rural events and events in homeless housing improved the reach. Future efforts will involve the use of social media and mailings to solicit attendance. To improve follow-up, future work will include adding to the events: phlebotomy or expanded point-of-care testing; specialty care telehealth capability; cervical cancer screen self-collection; and tele-retinal services.

Conclusions

This program provided evidence that directed, preventive screening can be performed in outreach settings paired with vaccine events. These vaccination events in rural and homeless settings reached communities with demonstrable COVID-19 vaccination and other preventive care needs. This approach could be used to help veterans catch up on needed preventive care.

Acknowledgments

Veterans Affairs Pacific Islands Health Care System: Anthony Chance, LCSW; Nicholas Chang, PharmD; Andrew Dahlburg, LCSW; Wilminia G. Ellorimo-Gil, RN; Paul Guillory, RN; Wendy D. Joy; Arthur Minor, LCSW; Avalua Smith; Jessica Spurrier, RN. Veterans Health Administration Vet Center Program: Rolly O. Alvarado; Edmond G. DeGuzman; Richard T. Teel. Hawaii Institute for Human Services. U.S.VETS.