Vaccines

Two pneumococcal vaccines are licensed for use in the United States: the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13 [Prevnar 13, Wyeth]) and the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23 [Pneumovax, Merck]). The recommendations for using these vaccines in adults ages ≥ 19 years are arguably among the most complicated and confusing of all vaccine recommendations made by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

In June 2019, things got even more complicated with ACIP’s unusual decision to change the previous recommendation on the routine use of PCV13 in adults ≥ 65 years. The new recommendation states that PCV13 should be used in immunocompetent older adults only after individual clinical decision making. The recommendation for routine use of PPSV23 remains unchanged. This Practice Alert explains the reasoning behind this change and its practical implications.

How we got to where we are now

Nearly 20 years ago, PCV was introduced into the child immunization schedule in the United States as a 7-valent vaccine (PCV7). In 2010, it was modified to include 13 antigens. And in 2012, the use of PCV13 was expanded to include adults with immunocompromising conditions.¹ In 2014, PCV13 was recommended as an addition to PPSV23 for adults ≥ 65 years.² However, with this recommendation, ACIP noted that the incidence of invasive pneumococcal disease in the elderly had been declining since the introduction of PCV7 use in children in the year 2000 (FIGURE 1³), presumably due to the decreased transmission of pneumococcal infections from children to older adults.

Because it was unclear in 2014 how much added benefit PCV13 would offer older adults, ACIP voted to restudy the issue after 4 years. At the June 2019 ACIP meeting, the results of an interim analysis were presented. ACIP concluded that routine use of PCV13 in immunocompetent adults ≥ 65 years adds little population-wide public health benefit given the vaccine’s routine use among children and immunocompromised adults (FIGURE 2³).

ACIP had 3 options in formulating its recommendations.

• Recommend the vaccine for routine use universally or among designated high-risk groups.
• Do not recommend the vaccine.
• Recommend the vaccine only for specific patients after individualized clinical decision making.

The last option—the one ACIP decided on—applies when a safe and immunogenic vaccine has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and may be beneficial for (or desired by) individuals even though it does not meet criteria for routine universal or targeted use.

Practical issues

ACIP recommendations for the use of PCV13 and PPSV23 in adults vary according to 3 categories of health status: immunocompetent patients with underlying medical conditions; those with functional or anatomic asplenia; and immunocompromised individuals (TABLE¹). Those in the latter 2 categories should receive both PCV13 and PPSV23 and be revaccinated once with PPSV23 before the age of 65 (given 5 years after the first dose). For immunocompetent individuals with underlying medical conditions, only those with cerebral spinal fluid leaks or cochlear implants should receive both PCV13 and PPSV23, although revaccination with PPSV23 before the age of 65 is not recommended.

Continue to: Prior to the recent change...

Prior to the recent change, ACIP recommended both PCV13 and PPSV23 for those ≥ 65 years. Now, PCV13 is not recommended routinely for immunocompetent adults ≥ 65 years; however, individuals in this age group who have chronic underlying medical conditions may receive PCV13 after consulting with their physician. PPSV23 is still recommended for all adults in this age group. Recommendations for those with immunocompromising conditions are also unchanged.

3 sentences summarize change in ­vaccine intervals. Another source of confusion is the recommended intervals in administering the 2 vaccines when both are indicated. The current guidance has been simplified and can be summarized in 3 sentences⁴:

• When both PCV13 and PPSV23 are indicated, give PCV13 before PPSV23.
• For patients ≥ 65 years, separate the vaccines by 12 months or more—­regardless of which vaccine is administered first.
• For patients who are 19 to 64 years of age, separate the vaccines by ≥ 8 weeks.

Advice on repeating the PPSV23 vaccine also can be summarized in 3 sentences¹:

• When a repeat PPSV23 dose is indicated, give it at least 5 years after the first dose.
• Administer no more than 2 doses before age 65.
• For an individual older than 65, only 1 dose should be administered and it should be done at least 5 years after a previous PPSV23 dose.

Two pneumococcal vaccines are licensed for use in the United States: the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13 [Prevnar 13, Wyeth]) and the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23 [Pneumovax, Merck]). The recommendations for using these vaccines in adults ages ≥ 19 years are arguably among the most complicated and confusing of all vaccine recommendations made by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

In June 2019, things got even more complicated with ACIP’s unusual decision to change the previous recommendation on the routine use of PCV13 in adults ≥ 65 years. The new recommendation states that PCV13 should be used in immunocompetent older adults only after individual clinical decision making. The recommendation for routine use of PPSV23 remains unchanged. This Practice Alert explains the reasoning behind this change and its practical implications.

How we got to where we are now

Nearly 20 years ago, PCV was introduced into the child immunization schedule in the United States as a 7-valent vaccine (PCV7). In 2010, it was modified to include 13 antigens. And in 2012, the use of PCV13 was expanded to include adults with immunocompromising conditions.¹ In 2014, PCV13 was recommended as an addition to PPSV23 for adults ≥ 65 years.² However, with this recommendation, ACIP noted that the incidence of invasive pneumococcal disease in the elderly had been declining since the introduction of PCV7 use in children in the year 2000 (FIGURE 1³), presumably due to the decreased transmission of pneumococcal infections from children to older adults.

Because it was unclear in 2014 how much added benefit PCV13 would offer older adults, ACIP voted to restudy the issue after 4 years. At the June 2019 ACIP meeting, the results of an interim analysis were presented. ACIP concluded that routine use of PCV13 in immunocompetent adults ≥ 65 years adds little population-wide public health benefit given the vaccine’s routine use among children and immunocompromised adults (FIGURE 2³).

ACIP had 3 options in formulating its recommendations.

• Recommend the vaccine for routine use universally or among designated high-risk groups.
• Do not recommend the vaccine.
• Recommend the vaccine only for specific patients after individualized clinical decision making.

The last option—the one ACIP decided on—applies when a safe and immunogenic vaccine has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and may be beneficial for (or desired by) individuals even though it does not meet criteria for routine universal or targeted use.

Practical issues

ACIP recommendations for the use of PCV13 and PPSV23 in adults vary according to 3 categories of health status: immunocompetent patients with underlying medical conditions; those with functional or anatomic asplenia; and immunocompromised individuals (TABLE¹). Those in the latter 2 categories should receive both PCV13 and PPSV23 and be revaccinated once with PPSV23 before the age of 65 (given 5 years after the first dose). For immunocompetent individuals with underlying medical conditions, only those with cerebral spinal fluid leaks or cochlear implants should receive both PCV13 and PPSV23, although revaccination with PPSV23 before the age of 65 is not recommended.

Continue to: Prior to the recent change...

Prior to the recent change, ACIP recommended both PCV13 and PPSV23 for those ≥ 65 years. Now, PCV13 is not recommended routinely for immunocompetent adults ≥ 65 years; however, individuals in this age group who have chronic underlying medical conditions may receive PCV13 after consulting with their physician. PPSV23 is still recommended for all adults in this age group. Recommendations for those with immunocompromising conditions are also unchanged.

3 sentences summarize change in ­vaccine intervals. Another source of confusion is the recommended intervals in administering the 2 vaccines when both are indicated. The current guidance has been simplified and can be summarized in 3 sentences⁴:

• When both PCV13 and PPSV23 are indicated, give PCV13 before PPSV23.
• For patients ≥ 65 years, separate the vaccines by 12 months or more—­regardless of which vaccine is administered first.
• For patients who are 19 to 64 years of age, separate the vaccines by ≥ 8 weeks.

Advice on repeating the PPSV23 vaccine also can be summarized in 3 sentences¹:

• When a repeat PPSV23 dose is indicated, give it at least 5 years after the first dose.
• Administer no more than 2 doses before age 65.
• For an individual older than 65, only 1 dose should be administered and it should be done at least 5 years after a previous PPSV23 dose.

Two pneumococcal vaccines are licensed for use in the United States: the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13 [Prevnar 13, Wyeth]) and the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23 [Pneumovax, Merck]). The recommendations for using these vaccines in adults ages ≥ 19 years are arguably among the most complicated and confusing of all vaccine recommendations made by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

In June 2019, things got even more complicated with ACIP’s unusual decision to change the previous recommendation on the routine use of PCV13 in adults ≥ 65 years. The new recommendation states that PCV13 should be used in immunocompetent older adults only after individual clinical decision making. The recommendation for routine use of PPSV23 remains unchanged. This Practice Alert explains the reasoning behind this change and its practical implications.

How we got to where we are now

Nearly 20 years ago, PCV was introduced into the child immunization schedule in the United States as a 7-valent vaccine (PCV7). In 2010, it was modified to include 13 antigens. And in 2012, the use of PCV13 was expanded to include adults with immunocompromising conditions.¹ In 2014, PCV13 was recommended as an addition to PPSV23 for adults ≥ 65 years.² However, with this recommendation, ACIP noted that the incidence of invasive pneumococcal disease in the elderly had been declining since the introduction of PCV7 use in children in the year 2000 (FIGURE 1³), presumably due to the decreased transmission of pneumococcal infections from children to older adults.

Because it was unclear in 2014 how much added benefit PCV13 would offer older adults, ACIP voted to restudy the issue after 4 years. At the June 2019 ACIP meeting, the results of an interim analysis were presented. ACIP concluded that routine use of PCV13 in immunocompetent adults ≥ 65 years adds little population-wide public health benefit given the vaccine’s routine use among children and immunocompromised adults (FIGURE 2³).

ACIP had 3 options in formulating its recommendations.

• Recommend the vaccine for routine use universally or among designated high-risk groups.
• Do not recommend the vaccine.
• Recommend the vaccine only for specific patients after individualized clinical decision making.

The last option—the one ACIP decided on—applies when a safe and immunogenic vaccine has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and may be beneficial for (or desired by) individuals even though it does not meet criteria for routine universal or targeted use.

Practical issues

ACIP recommendations for the use of PCV13 and PPSV23 in adults vary according to 3 categories of health status: immunocompetent patients with underlying medical conditions; those with functional or anatomic asplenia; and immunocompromised individuals (TABLE¹). Those in the latter 2 categories should receive both PCV13 and PPSV23 and be revaccinated once with PPSV23 before the age of 65 (given 5 years after the first dose). For immunocompetent individuals with underlying medical conditions, only those with cerebral spinal fluid leaks or cochlear implants should receive both PCV13 and PPSV23, although revaccination with PPSV23 before the age of 65 is not recommended.

Continue to: Prior to the recent change...

Prior to the recent change, ACIP recommended both PCV13 and PPSV23 for those ≥ 65 years. Now, PCV13 is not recommended routinely for immunocompetent adults ≥ 65 years; however, individuals in this age group who have chronic underlying medical conditions may receive PCV13 after consulting with their physician. PPSV23 is still recommended for all adults in this age group. Recommendations for those with immunocompromising conditions are also unchanged.

3 sentences summarize change in ­vaccine intervals. Another source of confusion is the recommended intervals in administering the 2 vaccines when both are indicated. The current guidance has been simplified and can be summarized in 3 sentences⁴:

• When both PCV13 and PPSV23 are indicated, give PCV13 before PPSV23.
• For patients ≥ 65 years, separate the vaccines by 12 months or more—­regardless of which vaccine is administered first.
• For patients who are 19 to 64 years of age, separate the vaccines by ≥ 8 weeks.

Advice on repeating the PPSV23 vaccine also can be summarized in 3 sentences¹:

• When a repeat PPSV23 dose is indicated, give it at least 5 years after the first dose.
• Administer no more than 2 doses before age 65.
• For an individual older than 65, only 1 dose should be administered and it should be done at least 5 years after a previous PPSV23 dose.

The benefits of influenza vaccination are clear to those in the medical community. Yet misinformation and unfounded fears continue to discourage some people from getting a flu shot. During the 2018–2019 influenza season, only 45% of US adults and 63% of children were vaccinated.¹

‘IT DOESN’T WORK FOR MANY PEOPLE’

Multiple studies have shown that the flu vaccine prevents millions of flu cases and flu-related doctor’s visits each year. During the 2016–2017 flu season, flu vaccine prevented an estimated 5.3 million influenza cases, 2.6 million influenza-associated medical visits, and 85,000 influenza-associated hospitalizations.²

Several viral and host factors affect vaccine effectiveness. In seasons when the vaccine viruses have matched circulating strains, flu vaccine has been shown to reduce the following:

• The risk of having to go to the doctor with flu by 40% to 60%
• Children’s risk of flu-related death and intensive care unit (ICU) admission by 74%
• The risk in adults of flu-associated hospitalizations by 40% and ICU admission by 82%
• The rate of cardiac events in people with heart disease
• Hospitalizations in people with diabetes or underlying chronic lung disease.³

In people hospitalized with influenza despite receiving the flu vaccine for the season, studies have shown that receiving the flu vaccine shortens the average duration of hospitalization, reduces the chance of ICU admission by 59%, shortens the duration of ICU stay by 4 days, and reduces deaths.³

‘IT TARGETS THE WRONG VIRUS’

Selecting an effective influenza vaccine is a challenge. Every year, the World Health Organization and the CDC decide on the influenza strains expected to circulate in the upcoming flu season in the Northern Hemisphere, based on data for circulating strains in the Southern Hemisphere. This decision takes place about 7 months before the expected onset of the flu season. Flu viruses may mutate between the time the decision is made and the time the vaccine is administered (as well as after the flu season starts). Also, vaccine production in eggs needs time, which is why this decision must be made several months ahead of the flu season.

Vaccine effectiveness varies by virus serotype. Vaccines are typically less effective against influenza A H3N2 viruses than against influenza A H1N1 and influenza B viruses. Effectiveness also varies from season to season depending on how close the vaccine serotypes match the circulating serotypes, but some effectiveness is retained even in seasons when some of the serotypes don’t match circulating viruses. For example, in the 2017–2018 season, when the influenza A H3N2 vaccine serotype did not match the circulating serotype, the overall effectiveness in preventing medically attended, laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection was 36%.⁵

A universal flu vaccine that does not need to be updated annually is the ultimate solution, but according to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, such a vaccine is likely several years away.⁶

‘IT MAKES PEOPLE SICK’

Pain at the injection site of a flu shot occurs in 10% to 65% of people, lasts less than 2 days, and does not usually interfere with daily activities.⁷

Systemic symptoms such as fever, malaise, and myalgia may occur in people who have had no previous exposure to the influenza virus antigens in the vaccine, particularly in children. In adults, the frequency of systemic symptoms after the flu shot is similar to that with placebo.

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which has been capturing data since 1990, shows that the influenza vaccine accounted for 5.7% of people who developed malaise after receiving any vaccine.⁸

The injectable inactivated influenza vaccine cannot biologically cause an influenza virus-related illness, since the inactivated vaccine viruses can elicit a protective immune response but cannot replicate. The nasal live-attenuated flu vaccine can in theory cause acute illness in the person receiving it, but because it is cold-adapted, it multiplies only in the colder environment of the nasal epithelium, not in the lower airways where the temperature is higher. Consequently, the vaccine virus triggers immunity by multiplying in the nose, but doesn’t infect the lungs.

From 10% to 50% of people who receive the nasal live-attenuated vaccine develop runny nose, wheezing, headache, vomiting, muscle aches, fever, sore throat, or cough shortly after receiving the vaccine, but these symptoms are usually mild and short-lived.

The most common reactions people have to flu vaccines are considerably less severe than the symptoms caused by actual flu illness.

While influenza illness results in natural immunity to the specific viral serotype causing it, this illness results in hospitalization in 2% and is fatal in 0.16% of people. Influenza vaccine results in immunity to the serotypes included in the vaccine, and multiple studies have not found a causal relationship between vaccination and death.⁹

In the United States, 3,000 to 6,000 people per year develop Guillain-Barré syndrome, or 1 to 2 of every 100,000, which translates to 80 to 160 cases per week.¹⁰ While the exact cause of Guillain-Barré syndrome is unknown, about two-thirds of people have an acute diarrheal or respiratory illness within 3 months before the onset of symptoms. In 1976, the estimated attributable risk of influenza vaccine-related Guillain-Barré syndrome in the US adult population was 1 case per 100,000 in the 6 weeks after vaccination.¹¹ Studies in subsequent influenza seasons have not shown similar findings.¹² In fact, one study showed that the risk of developing Guillain-Barré syndrome was 15 times higher after influenza illness than after influenza vaccination.¹³

Since 5% to 15% of the US population develop symptomatic influenza annually,¹⁴ the decision to vaccinate with respect to the risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome should be obvious: vaccinate. The correct question to ask before influenza vaccination should be, “Have you previously developed Guillain-Barré syndrome within 6 weeks after receiving the flu vaccine?” If the answer is yes, the CDC considers this a caution, not a contraindication against receiving the influenza vaccine, since the benefit may still outweigh the risk.

‘I GOT THE FLU SHOT AND STILL GOT SICK’

The flu vaccine does not prevent illnesses caused by other viruses or bacteria that can make people sick during flu season. Influenza, the common cold, and streptococcal pharyngitis can have similar symptoms that make it difficult for patients—and, frequently, even healthcare providers—to distinguish between these illnesses with certainty.

One study suggested that influenza vaccine recipients had an increased risk of virologically confirmed noninfluenza respiratory viral infections,¹⁵ citing the phenomenon of virus interference that was described in the 1940s¹⁶ as a potential explanation. In essence, people protected against influenza by the vaccine may lack temporary nonspecific immunity against other respiratory viruses. However, these findings have not been replicated in subsequent studies.¹⁷

Viral gastroenteritis, mistakenly called “stomach flu,” is also not prevented by influenza vaccination.

‘I’M ALLERGIC TO EGGS’

The prevalence of egg allergy in US children is 0.5% to 2.5%.¹⁸ Most outgrow it by school age, but in one-third, the allergy persists into adulthood.

In general, people who can eat lightly cooked eggs (eg, scrambled eggs) without a reaction are unlikely to be allergic. On the other hand, the fact that egg-allergic people may tolerate egg included in baked products does not exclude the possibility of egg allergy. Egg allergy can be confirmed by a consistent medical history of adverse reaction to eggs and egg-containing foods, in addition to skin or blood testing for immunoglobulin E directed against egg proteins.¹⁹

Most currently available influenza vaccines are prepared by propagation of virus in embryonated eggs and so may contain trace amounts of egg proteins such as ovalbumin, with the exception of the inactivated quadri­valent recombinant influenza vaccine (Flublok) and the inactivated quadrivalent cell culture-based vaccine (Flucelvax).

The ACIP recommends that persons with a history of urticaria (hives) after exposure to eggs should receive any licensed, recommended influenza vaccine that is otherwise appropriate for their age and health status. Persons who report having angioedema, respiratory distress, lightheadedness, or recurrent vomiting, or who required epinephrine or another emergency medical intervention after exposure to eggs, should receive the influenza vaccine in an inpatient or outpatient medical setting under the supervision of a healthcare provider who is able to recognize and manage severe allergic reactions.

A history of severe allergic reaction such as anaphylaxis to a previous dose of any influenza vaccine, regardless of the vaccine component (including eggs) suspected of being responsible for the reaction, is a contraindication to influenza vaccination. The ACIP recommends that vaccine providers consider observing patients for 15 minutes after administration of any vaccine (regardless of history of egg allergy) to decrease the risk of injury should syncope occur.²⁰

‘I DON’T WANT TO PUT POISONOUS MERCURY IN MY BODY’

A process of biomagnification of methylmercury occurs when humans eat large fish that have eaten smaller fish. Thus, larger fish such as shark can be hazardous for women who are or may become pregnant, for nursing mothers, and for young children, while smaller fish such as herring are relatively safe.

As a precautionary measure, thimerosal was taken out of childhood vaccines in the United States in 2001. Thimerosal-free influenza vaccine formulations include the nasal live-attenuated flu vaccine, the inactivated quadrivalent recombinant influenza vaccine, and the inactivated quadrivalent cell culture-based vaccine.

‘I DON’T LIKE NEEDLES’

At least 10% of US adults have aichmophobia, the fear of sharp objects including needles.²² Vasovagal syncope is the most common manifestation. Behavioral therapy, topical anesthetics, and systemic anxiolytics have variable efficacy in treating needle phobia. For those who are absolutely averse to needles, the nasal flu vaccine is an appropriate alternative.

‘I DON’T WANT TO TAKE ANYTHING THAT CAN MESS WITH MY OTHER MEDICATIONS’

Some immunosuppressive medications may decrease influenza vaccine immunogenicity. Concomitant administration of the inactivated influenza vaccine with other vaccines is safe and does not alter immunogenicity of other vaccines.¹ The live-attenuated influenza vaccine is contraindicated in children and adolescents taking aspirin or other salicylates due to the risk of Reye syndrome.

A recent systematic review and meta-analysis showed that the inactivated influenza vaccine is not associated with asthma exacerbation.²³ However, the nasal live-attenuated influenza vaccine is contraindicated in children 2 to 4 years old who have asthma and should be used with caution in persons with asthma 5 years old and older. In the systematic review, influenza vaccine prevented 59% to 78% of asthma attacks leading to emergency visits or hospitalization.²³ In other immune-mediated diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, influenza vaccine does not precipitate exacerbations.²⁴

‘I HAD AN ORGAN TRANSPLANT, AND I’M AFRAID THE FLU SHOT WILL CAUSE ORGAN REJECTION’

A study of 51,730 kidney transplant recipients found that receipt of the inactivated influenza vaccine in the first year after transplant was associated with a lower risk of subsequent allograft loss (adjusted hazard ratio 0.77; 95% confidence interval 0.69–0.85; P < .001) and death (adjusted hazard ratio 0.82; 95% confidence interval 0.76–0.89; P < .001).²⁵ In the same study, although acute rejection in the first year was not associated with influenza vaccination, influenza infection in the first year was associated with rejection (odds ratio 1.58; 95% confidence interval 1.10–2.26; P < 0.001), but not with graft loss or death. Solid organ transplant recipients should receive the inactivated influenza vaccine starting 3 months after transplant.²⁶

Influenza vaccination has not been shown to precipitate graft-vs-host disease in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. These patients should also receive the inactivated influenza vaccine starting 3 to 6 months after transplant.²⁷

The nasal live-attenuated influenza vaccine is contraindicated in these immunocompromised patients.

‘I’M PREGNANT, AND I DON’T WANT TO EXPOSE MY UNBORN BABY TO ANYTHING POTENTIALLY HARMFUL’

The morbidity and mortality risk from influenza is high in children under 2 years old because of low immunogenicity to flu vaccine. This is particularly true in children younger than 6 months, but the vaccine is not recommended in this population. The best way to protect infants is for all household members to be vaccinated against the flu.

Equally important, morbidity and mortality risk from influenza is much higher in pregnant women than in the general population. Many studies have shown the value of influenza vaccination during pregnancy for both mothers and their infants. A recently published study showed that 18% of infants who developed influenza required hospitalization.²⁸ In that study, prenatal and postpartum maternal influenza vaccination decreased the odds of influenza in infants by 61% and 53%, respectively. Another study showed that vaccine effectiveness did not vary by gestational age at vaccination.²⁹ A post hoc analysis of an influenza vaccination study in pregnant women suggested that the vaccine was also associated with decreased rates of pertussis in these women.³⁰

Healthcare providers should try to understand the public’s misconceptions³¹ about seasonal influenza and influenza vaccines in order to best address them.

The benefits of influenza vaccination are clear to those in the medical community. Yet misinformation and unfounded fears continue to discourage some people from getting a flu shot. During the 2018–2019 influenza season, only 45% of US adults and 63% of children were vaccinated.¹

‘IT DOESN’T WORK FOR MANY PEOPLE’

Multiple studies have shown that the flu vaccine prevents millions of flu cases and flu-related doctor’s visits each year. During the 2016–2017 flu season, flu vaccine prevented an estimated 5.3 million influenza cases, 2.6 million influenza-associated medical visits, and 85,000 influenza-associated hospitalizations.²

Several viral and host factors affect vaccine effectiveness. In seasons when the vaccine viruses have matched circulating strains, flu vaccine has been shown to reduce the following:

• The risk of having to go to the doctor with flu by 40% to 60%
• Children’s risk of flu-related death and intensive care unit (ICU) admission by 74%
• The risk in adults of flu-associated hospitalizations by 40% and ICU admission by 82%
• The rate of cardiac events in people with heart disease
• Hospitalizations in people with diabetes or underlying chronic lung disease.³

In people hospitalized with influenza despite receiving the flu vaccine for the season, studies have shown that receiving the flu vaccine shortens the average duration of hospitalization, reduces the chance of ICU admission by 59%, shortens the duration of ICU stay by 4 days, and reduces deaths.³

‘IT TARGETS THE WRONG VIRUS’

Selecting an effective influenza vaccine is a challenge. Every year, the World Health Organization and the CDC decide on the influenza strains expected to circulate in the upcoming flu season in the Northern Hemisphere, based on data for circulating strains in the Southern Hemisphere. This decision takes place about 7 months before the expected onset of the flu season. Flu viruses may mutate between the time the decision is made and the time the vaccine is administered (as well as after the flu season starts). Also, vaccine production in eggs needs time, which is why this decision must be made several months ahead of the flu season.

Vaccine effectiveness varies by virus serotype. Vaccines are typically less effective against influenza A H3N2 viruses than against influenza A H1N1 and influenza B viruses. Effectiveness also varies from season to season depending on how close the vaccine serotypes match the circulating serotypes, but some effectiveness is retained even in seasons when some of the serotypes don’t match circulating viruses. For example, in the 2017–2018 season, when the influenza A H3N2 vaccine serotype did not match the circulating serotype, the overall effectiveness in preventing medically attended, laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection was 36%.⁵

A universal flu vaccine that does not need to be updated annually is the ultimate solution, but according to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, such a vaccine is likely several years away.⁶

‘IT MAKES PEOPLE SICK’

Pain at the injection site of a flu shot occurs in 10% to 65% of people, lasts less than 2 days, and does not usually interfere with daily activities.⁷

Systemic symptoms such as fever, malaise, and myalgia may occur in people who have had no previous exposure to the influenza virus antigens in the vaccine, particularly in children. In adults, the frequency of systemic symptoms after the flu shot is similar to that with placebo.

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which has been capturing data since 1990, shows that the influenza vaccine accounted for 5.7% of people who developed malaise after receiving any vaccine.⁸

The injectable inactivated influenza vaccine cannot biologically cause an influenza virus-related illness, since the inactivated vaccine viruses can elicit a protective immune response but cannot replicate. The nasal live-attenuated flu vaccine can in theory cause acute illness in the person receiving it, but because it is cold-adapted, it multiplies only in the colder environment of the nasal epithelium, not in the lower airways where the temperature is higher. Consequently, the vaccine virus triggers immunity by multiplying in the nose, but doesn’t infect the lungs.

From 10% to 50% of people who receive the nasal live-attenuated vaccine develop runny nose, wheezing, headache, vomiting, muscle aches, fever, sore throat, or cough shortly after receiving the vaccine, but these symptoms are usually mild and short-lived.

The most common reactions people have to flu vaccines are considerably less severe than the symptoms caused by actual flu illness.

While influenza illness results in natural immunity to the specific viral serotype causing it, this illness results in hospitalization in 2% and is fatal in 0.16% of people. Influenza vaccine results in immunity to the serotypes included in the vaccine, and multiple studies have not found a causal relationship between vaccination and death.⁹

In the United States, 3,000 to 6,000 people per year develop Guillain-Barré syndrome, or 1 to 2 of every 100,000, which translates to 80 to 160 cases per week.¹⁰ While the exact cause of Guillain-Barré syndrome is unknown, about two-thirds of people have an acute diarrheal or respiratory illness within 3 months before the onset of symptoms. In 1976, the estimated attributable risk of influenza vaccine-related Guillain-Barré syndrome in the US adult population was 1 case per 100,000 in the 6 weeks after vaccination.¹¹ Studies in subsequent influenza seasons have not shown similar findings.¹² In fact, one study showed that the risk of developing Guillain-Barré syndrome was 15 times higher after influenza illness than after influenza vaccination.¹³

Since 5% to 15% of the US population develop symptomatic influenza annually,¹⁴ the decision to vaccinate with respect to the risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome should be obvious: vaccinate. The correct question to ask before influenza vaccination should be, “Have you previously developed Guillain-Barré syndrome within 6 weeks after receiving the flu vaccine?” If the answer is yes, the CDC considers this a caution, not a contraindication against receiving the influenza vaccine, since the benefit may still outweigh the risk.

‘I GOT THE FLU SHOT AND STILL GOT SICK’

The flu vaccine does not prevent illnesses caused by other viruses or bacteria that can make people sick during flu season. Influenza, the common cold, and streptococcal pharyngitis can have similar symptoms that make it difficult for patients—and, frequently, even healthcare providers—to distinguish between these illnesses with certainty.

One study suggested that influenza vaccine recipients had an increased risk of virologically confirmed noninfluenza respiratory viral infections,¹⁵ citing the phenomenon of virus interference that was described in the 1940s¹⁶ as a potential explanation. In essence, people protected against influenza by the vaccine may lack temporary nonspecific immunity against other respiratory viruses. However, these findings have not been replicated in subsequent studies.¹⁷

Viral gastroenteritis, mistakenly called “stomach flu,” is also not prevented by influenza vaccination.

‘I’M ALLERGIC TO EGGS’

The prevalence of egg allergy in US children is 0.5% to 2.5%.¹⁸ Most outgrow it by school age, but in one-third, the allergy persists into adulthood.

In general, people who can eat lightly cooked eggs (eg, scrambled eggs) without a reaction are unlikely to be allergic. On the other hand, the fact that egg-allergic people may tolerate egg included in baked products does not exclude the possibility of egg allergy. Egg allergy can be confirmed by a consistent medical history of adverse reaction to eggs and egg-containing foods, in addition to skin or blood testing for immunoglobulin E directed against egg proteins.¹⁹

Most currently available influenza vaccines are prepared by propagation of virus in embryonated eggs and so may contain trace amounts of egg proteins such as ovalbumin, with the exception of the inactivated quadri­valent recombinant influenza vaccine (Flublok) and the inactivated quadrivalent cell culture-based vaccine (Flucelvax).

The ACIP recommends that persons with a history of urticaria (hives) after exposure to eggs should receive any licensed, recommended influenza vaccine that is otherwise appropriate for their age and health status. Persons who report having angioedema, respiratory distress, lightheadedness, or recurrent vomiting, or who required epinephrine or another emergency medical intervention after exposure to eggs, should receive the influenza vaccine in an inpatient or outpatient medical setting under the supervision of a healthcare provider who is able to recognize and manage severe allergic reactions.

A history of severe allergic reaction such as anaphylaxis to a previous dose of any influenza vaccine, regardless of the vaccine component (including eggs) suspected of being responsible for the reaction, is a contraindication to influenza vaccination. The ACIP recommends that vaccine providers consider observing patients for 15 minutes after administration of any vaccine (regardless of history of egg allergy) to decrease the risk of injury should syncope occur.²⁰

‘I DON’T WANT TO PUT POISONOUS MERCURY IN MY BODY’

A process of biomagnification of methylmercury occurs when humans eat large fish that have eaten smaller fish. Thus, larger fish such as shark can be hazardous for women who are or may become pregnant, for nursing mothers, and for young children, while smaller fish such as herring are relatively safe.

As a precautionary measure, thimerosal was taken out of childhood vaccines in the United States in 2001. Thimerosal-free influenza vaccine formulations include the nasal live-attenuated flu vaccine, the inactivated quadrivalent recombinant influenza vaccine, and the inactivated quadrivalent cell culture-based vaccine.

‘I DON’T LIKE NEEDLES’

At least 10% of US adults have aichmophobia, the fear of sharp objects including needles.²² Vasovagal syncope is the most common manifestation. Behavioral therapy, topical anesthetics, and systemic anxiolytics have variable efficacy in treating needle phobia. For those who are absolutely averse to needles, the nasal flu vaccine is an appropriate alternative.

‘I DON’T WANT TO TAKE ANYTHING THAT CAN MESS WITH MY OTHER MEDICATIONS’

Some immunosuppressive medications may decrease influenza vaccine immunogenicity. Concomitant administration of the inactivated influenza vaccine with other vaccines is safe and does not alter immunogenicity of other vaccines.¹ The live-attenuated influenza vaccine is contraindicated in children and adolescents taking aspirin or other salicylates due to the risk of Reye syndrome.

A recent systematic review and meta-analysis showed that the inactivated influenza vaccine is not associated with asthma exacerbation.²³ However, the nasal live-attenuated influenza vaccine is contraindicated in children 2 to 4 years old who have asthma and should be used with caution in persons with asthma 5 years old and older. In the systematic review, influenza vaccine prevented 59% to 78% of asthma attacks leading to emergency visits or hospitalization.²³ In other immune-mediated diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, influenza vaccine does not precipitate exacerbations.²⁴

‘I HAD AN ORGAN TRANSPLANT, AND I’M AFRAID THE FLU SHOT WILL CAUSE ORGAN REJECTION’

A study of 51,730 kidney transplant recipients found that receipt of the inactivated influenza vaccine in the first year after transplant was associated with a lower risk of subsequent allograft loss (adjusted hazard ratio 0.77; 95% confidence interval 0.69–0.85; P < .001) and death (adjusted hazard ratio 0.82; 95% confidence interval 0.76–0.89; P < .001).²⁵ In the same study, although acute rejection in the first year was not associated with influenza vaccination, influenza infection in the first year was associated with rejection (odds ratio 1.58; 95% confidence interval 1.10–2.26; P < 0.001), but not with graft loss or death. Solid organ transplant recipients should receive the inactivated influenza vaccine starting 3 months after transplant.²⁶

Influenza vaccination has not been shown to precipitate graft-vs-host disease in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. These patients should also receive the inactivated influenza vaccine starting 3 to 6 months after transplant.²⁷

The nasal live-attenuated influenza vaccine is contraindicated in these immunocompromised patients.

‘I’M PREGNANT, AND I DON’T WANT TO EXPOSE MY UNBORN BABY TO ANYTHING POTENTIALLY HARMFUL’

The morbidity and mortality risk from influenza is high in children under 2 years old because of low immunogenicity to flu vaccine. This is particularly true in children younger than 6 months, but the vaccine is not recommended in this population. The best way to protect infants is for all household members to be vaccinated against the flu.

Equally important, morbidity and mortality risk from influenza is much higher in pregnant women than in the general population. Many studies have shown the value of influenza vaccination during pregnancy for both mothers and their infants. A recently published study showed that 18% of infants who developed influenza required hospitalization.²⁸ In that study, prenatal and postpartum maternal influenza vaccination decreased the odds of influenza in infants by 61% and 53%, respectively. Another study showed that vaccine effectiveness did not vary by gestational age at vaccination.²⁹ A post hoc analysis of an influenza vaccination study in pregnant women suggested that the vaccine was also associated with decreased rates of pertussis in these women.³⁰

Healthcare providers should try to understand the public’s misconceptions³¹ about seasonal influenza and influenza vaccines in order to best address them.

The benefits of influenza vaccination are clear to those in the medical community. Yet misinformation and unfounded fears continue to discourage some people from getting a flu shot. During the 2018–2019 influenza season, only 45% of US adults and 63% of children were vaccinated.¹

‘IT DOESN’T WORK FOR MANY PEOPLE’

Multiple studies have shown that the flu vaccine prevents millions of flu cases and flu-related doctor’s visits each year. During the 2016–2017 flu season, flu vaccine prevented an estimated 5.3 million influenza cases, 2.6 million influenza-associated medical visits, and 85,000 influenza-associated hospitalizations.²

Several viral and host factors affect vaccine effectiveness. In seasons when the vaccine viruses have matched circulating strains, flu vaccine has been shown to reduce the following:

• The risk of having to go to the doctor with flu by 40% to 60%
• Children’s risk of flu-related death and intensive care unit (ICU) admission by 74%
• The risk in adults of flu-associated hospitalizations by 40% and ICU admission by 82%
• The rate of cardiac events in people with heart disease
• Hospitalizations in people with diabetes or underlying chronic lung disease.³

In people hospitalized with influenza despite receiving the flu vaccine for the season, studies have shown that receiving the flu vaccine shortens the average duration of hospitalization, reduces the chance of ICU admission by 59%, shortens the duration of ICU stay by 4 days, and reduces deaths.³

‘IT TARGETS THE WRONG VIRUS’

Selecting an effective influenza vaccine is a challenge. Every year, the World Health Organization and the CDC decide on the influenza strains expected to circulate in the upcoming flu season in the Northern Hemisphere, based on data for circulating strains in the Southern Hemisphere. This decision takes place about 7 months before the expected onset of the flu season. Flu viruses may mutate between the time the decision is made and the time the vaccine is administered (as well as after the flu season starts). Also, vaccine production in eggs needs time, which is why this decision must be made several months ahead of the flu season.

Vaccine effectiveness varies by virus serotype. Vaccines are typically less effective against influenza A H3N2 viruses than against influenza A H1N1 and influenza B viruses. Effectiveness also varies from season to season depending on how close the vaccine serotypes match the circulating serotypes, but some effectiveness is retained even in seasons when some of the serotypes don’t match circulating viruses. For example, in the 2017–2018 season, when the influenza A H3N2 vaccine serotype did not match the circulating serotype, the overall effectiveness in preventing medically attended, laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection was 36%.⁵

A universal flu vaccine that does not need to be updated annually is the ultimate solution, but according to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, such a vaccine is likely several years away.⁶

‘IT MAKES PEOPLE SICK’

Pain at the injection site of a flu shot occurs in 10% to 65% of people, lasts less than 2 days, and does not usually interfere with daily activities.⁷

Systemic symptoms such as fever, malaise, and myalgia may occur in people who have had no previous exposure to the influenza virus antigens in the vaccine, particularly in children. In adults, the frequency of systemic symptoms after the flu shot is similar to that with placebo.

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which has been capturing data since 1990, shows that the influenza vaccine accounted for 5.7% of people who developed malaise after receiving any vaccine.⁸

The injectable inactivated influenza vaccine cannot biologically cause an influenza virus-related illness, since the inactivated vaccine viruses can elicit a protective immune response but cannot replicate. The nasal live-attenuated flu vaccine can in theory cause acute illness in the person receiving it, but because it is cold-adapted, it multiplies only in the colder environment of the nasal epithelium, not in the lower airways where the temperature is higher. Consequently, the vaccine virus triggers immunity by multiplying in the nose, but doesn’t infect the lungs.

From 10% to 50% of people who receive the nasal live-attenuated vaccine develop runny nose, wheezing, headache, vomiting, muscle aches, fever, sore throat, or cough shortly after receiving the vaccine, but these symptoms are usually mild and short-lived.

The most common reactions people have to flu vaccines are considerably less severe than the symptoms caused by actual flu illness.

While influenza illness results in natural immunity to the specific viral serotype causing it, this illness results in hospitalization in 2% and is fatal in 0.16% of people. Influenza vaccine results in immunity to the serotypes included in the vaccine, and multiple studies have not found a causal relationship between vaccination and death.⁹

In the United States, 3,000 to 6,000 people per year develop Guillain-Barré syndrome, or 1 to 2 of every 100,000, which translates to 80 to 160 cases per week.¹⁰ While the exact cause of Guillain-Barré syndrome is unknown, about two-thirds of people have an acute diarrheal or respiratory illness within 3 months before the onset of symptoms. In 1976, the estimated attributable risk of influenza vaccine-related Guillain-Barré syndrome in the US adult population was 1 case per 100,000 in the 6 weeks after vaccination.¹¹ Studies in subsequent influenza seasons have not shown similar findings.¹² In fact, one study showed that the risk of developing Guillain-Barré syndrome was 15 times higher after influenza illness than after influenza vaccination.¹³

Since 5% to 15% of the US population develop symptomatic influenza annually,¹⁴ the decision to vaccinate with respect to the risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome should be obvious: vaccinate. The correct question to ask before influenza vaccination should be, “Have you previously developed Guillain-Barré syndrome within 6 weeks after receiving the flu vaccine?” If the answer is yes, the CDC considers this a caution, not a contraindication against receiving the influenza vaccine, since the benefit may still outweigh the risk.

‘I GOT THE FLU SHOT AND STILL GOT SICK’

The flu vaccine does not prevent illnesses caused by other viruses or bacteria that can make people sick during flu season. Influenza, the common cold, and streptococcal pharyngitis can have similar symptoms that make it difficult for patients—and, frequently, even healthcare providers—to distinguish between these illnesses with certainty.

One study suggested that influenza vaccine recipients had an increased risk of virologically confirmed noninfluenza respiratory viral infections,¹⁵ citing the phenomenon of virus interference that was described in the 1940s¹⁶ as a potential explanation. In essence, people protected against influenza by the vaccine may lack temporary nonspecific immunity against other respiratory viruses. However, these findings have not been replicated in subsequent studies.¹⁷

Viral gastroenteritis, mistakenly called “stomach flu,” is also not prevented by influenza vaccination.

‘I’M ALLERGIC TO EGGS’

The prevalence of egg allergy in US children is 0.5% to 2.5%.¹⁸ Most outgrow it by school age, but in one-third, the allergy persists into adulthood.

In general, people who can eat lightly cooked eggs (eg, scrambled eggs) without a reaction are unlikely to be allergic. On the other hand, the fact that egg-allergic people may tolerate egg included in baked products does not exclude the possibility of egg allergy. Egg allergy can be confirmed by a consistent medical history of adverse reaction to eggs and egg-containing foods, in addition to skin or blood testing for immunoglobulin E directed against egg proteins.¹⁹

Most currently available influenza vaccines are prepared by propagation of virus in embryonated eggs and so may contain trace amounts of egg proteins such as ovalbumin, with the exception of the inactivated quadri­valent recombinant influenza vaccine (Flublok) and the inactivated quadrivalent cell culture-based vaccine (Flucelvax).

The ACIP recommends that persons with a history of urticaria (hives) after exposure to eggs should receive any licensed, recommended influenza vaccine that is otherwise appropriate for their age and health status. Persons who report having angioedema, respiratory distress, lightheadedness, or recurrent vomiting, or who required epinephrine or another emergency medical intervention after exposure to eggs, should receive the influenza vaccine in an inpatient or outpatient medical setting under the supervision of a healthcare provider who is able to recognize and manage severe allergic reactions.

A history of severe allergic reaction such as anaphylaxis to a previous dose of any influenza vaccine, regardless of the vaccine component (including eggs) suspected of being responsible for the reaction, is a contraindication to influenza vaccination. The ACIP recommends that vaccine providers consider observing patients for 15 minutes after administration of any vaccine (regardless of history of egg allergy) to decrease the risk of injury should syncope occur.²⁰

‘I DON’T WANT TO PUT POISONOUS MERCURY IN MY BODY’

A process of biomagnification of methylmercury occurs when humans eat large fish that have eaten smaller fish. Thus, larger fish such as shark can be hazardous for women who are or may become pregnant, for nursing mothers, and for young children, while smaller fish such as herring are relatively safe.

As a precautionary measure, thimerosal was taken out of childhood vaccines in the United States in 2001. Thimerosal-free influenza vaccine formulations include the nasal live-attenuated flu vaccine, the inactivated quadrivalent recombinant influenza vaccine, and the inactivated quadrivalent cell culture-based vaccine.

‘I DON’T LIKE NEEDLES’

At least 10% of US adults have aichmophobia, the fear of sharp objects including needles.²² Vasovagal syncope is the most common manifestation. Behavioral therapy, topical anesthetics, and systemic anxiolytics have variable efficacy in treating needle phobia. For those who are absolutely averse to needles, the nasal flu vaccine is an appropriate alternative.

‘I DON’T WANT TO TAKE ANYTHING THAT CAN MESS WITH MY OTHER MEDICATIONS’

Some immunosuppressive medications may decrease influenza vaccine immunogenicity. Concomitant administration of the inactivated influenza vaccine with other vaccines is safe and does not alter immunogenicity of other vaccines.¹ The live-attenuated influenza vaccine is contraindicated in children and adolescents taking aspirin or other salicylates due to the risk of Reye syndrome.

A recent systematic review and meta-analysis showed that the inactivated influenza vaccine is not associated with asthma exacerbation.²³ However, the nasal live-attenuated influenza vaccine is contraindicated in children 2 to 4 years old who have asthma and should be used with caution in persons with asthma 5 years old and older. In the systematic review, influenza vaccine prevented 59% to 78% of asthma attacks leading to emergency visits or hospitalization.²³ In other immune-mediated diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, influenza vaccine does not precipitate exacerbations.²⁴

‘I HAD AN ORGAN TRANSPLANT, AND I’M AFRAID THE FLU SHOT WILL CAUSE ORGAN REJECTION’

A study of 51,730 kidney transplant recipients found that receipt of the inactivated influenza vaccine in the first year after transplant was associated with a lower risk of subsequent allograft loss (adjusted hazard ratio 0.77; 95% confidence interval 0.69–0.85; P < .001) and death (adjusted hazard ratio 0.82; 95% confidence interval 0.76–0.89; P < .001).²⁵ In the same study, although acute rejection in the first year was not associated with influenza vaccination, influenza infection in the first year was associated with rejection (odds ratio 1.58; 95% confidence interval 1.10–2.26; P < 0.001), but not with graft loss or death. Solid organ transplant recipients should receive the inactivated influenza vaccine starting 3 months after transplant.²⁶

Influenza vaccination has not been shown to precipitate graft-vs-host disease in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. These patients should also receive the inactivated influenza vaccine starting 3 to 6 months after transplant.²⁷

The nasal live-attenuated influenza vaccine is contraindicated in these immunocompromised patients.

‘I’M PREGNANT, AND I DON’T WANT TO EXPOSE MY UNBORN BABY TO ANYTHING POTENTIALLY HARMFUL’

The morbidity and mortality risk from influenza is high in children under 2 years old because of low immunogenicity to flu vaccine. This is particularly true in children younger than 6 months, but the vaccine is not recommended in this population. The best way to protect infants is for all household members to be vaccinated against the flu.

Equally important, morbidity and mortality risk from influenza is much higher in pregnant women than in the general population. Many studies have shown the value of influenza vaccination during pregnancy for both mothers and their infants. A recently published study showed that 18% of infants who developed influenza required hospitalization.²⁸ In that study, prenatal and postpartum maternal influenza vaccination decreased the odds of influenza in infants by 61% and 53%, respectively. Another study showed that vaccine effectiveness did not vary by gestational age at vaccination.²⁹ A post hoc analysis of an influenza vaccination study in pregnant women suggested that the vaccine was also associated with decreased rates of pertussis in these women.³⁰

Healthcare providers should try to understand the public’s misconceptions³¹ about seasonal influenza and influenza vaccines in order to best address them.

The 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine (9vHPV) vaccine carries an extremely low rate of adverse events, most of which cannot be definitively tied to the vaccine, according to two large studies published simultaneously in Pediatrics.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

“The body of evidence on the safety of 9vHPV now includes prelicensure clinical trial data on 15,000 study subjects, reassuring results from postlicensure near real-time sequential monitoring by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Safety Datalink, on approximately 839 000 doses administered, and our review of VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] reports over a 3-year period, during which time approximately 28 million doses were distributed in the United States,” Tom T. Shimabukuro, MD, and colleagues reported in Pediatrics.

James G. Donahue, PhD, and colleagues, authors of the Vaccine Safety Datalink study published in the same issue, concluded much the same thing.

The new numbers bolster extant safety data on the vaccine, which was approved in 2015, wrote Dr. Donahue, an epidemiologist at the Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Research Institute, and coauthors. “With this large observational study, we contribute reassuring postlicensure data that will help bolster the safety profile of 9vHPV. Although we detected several unexpected potential safety signals, none were confirmed after further evaluation.”

The Vaccine Safety Datalink study of 838,991 doses looked for safety signals in a prespecified group of potential events, including anaphylaxis, appendicitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, pancreatitis, seizures, stroke, and venous thromboembolism.

Dr. Donahue and coauthors used real-time vaccination data and time-matched historical controls to evaluate any changes in expected disease rates, compared with those occurring in vaccine recipients.

Most doses in the study (76%) were given to children aged 9-17 years, with 48% going to girls. The remaining 24% of doses were given to persons aged 18-26 years, with 64% going to women.

The analysis found potential safety signals in allergic reactions (43 cases), appendicitis (30 cases), pancreatitis (8 cases), and syncope (67). None of these were confirmed after further investigation.

“The safety profile of 9vHPV is favorable and comparable to that of its predecessor, 4vHPV,” Dr. Donahue and associates concluded.

The VAERS analysis was similarly reassuring. It examined all reported adverse events, not predetermined events.

Among 28 million doses, there were 7,244 adverse event reports – a rate of about 1 event per 7 million doses. Of these, 97% were nonserious, wrote Dr. Shimabukuro, deputy director of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office, and colleagues.

The vaccine manufacturer submitted 64% of these to VAERS; health care providers submitted 27%. Adverse events were reported from postvaccine day 0 to 2 years afterward. 9vHPV was the only vaccine given in 75% of reports. Coadministered vaccines included meningococcal conjugate (1,028); tetanus and diphtheria (Td) or Tdap (673); and hepatitis A (434).

There were nine reports of anaphylaxis (five males, four females); 9vHPV was the only vaccine administered in five cases. Three reports involved coadministration of meningococcal vaccine, two with hepatitis A, one with TDaP, and one with varicella.

There were eight reports of Guillain-Barré.

There were 17 reports of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, most of which (71%) did not meet diagnostic criteria. Five cases, however, did.

One possible case of complex regional pain syndrome was reported in a 13-year-old girl with comorbid anxiety.

There were two reports of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, both in boys. There were no reports of transverse myelitis or chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy.

Seven vaccine recipients died after vaccination. Five of these reports did not contain medical information or any proof-of-death confirmation. The other two were verified by autopsy. A 14-year-old girl who received a flu vaccination with 9vHPV died of a thoracic aorta dissection 7 days postvaccination. The other death was a 16-year-old boy who received a concurrent hepatitis A vaccine. Four days later, he died of a cerebellar hemorrhage.

“We did not identify any unusual or unexpected safety concerns in our review of 9vHPV reports to the VAERS; most (97%) reports were nonserious, and adverse events were analogous to those observed in the prelicensure clinical trials,” Dr. Shimabukuro and associates concluded.

Neither Dr. Shimabukuro nor Dr. Donahue had financial disclosures. Dr. Donahue’s study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One coauthor had ties to several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Shimabukuro’s study had no external funding. One coauthor is employed by Merck, but was not at the time of the study.

[email protected]

SOURCES: Shimabukuro T et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Nov 1. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1791; Donahue J et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Nov 1. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1808.

The 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine (9vHPV) vaccine carries an extremely low rate of adverse events, most of which cannot be definitively tied to the vaccine, according to two large studies published simultaneously in Pediatrics.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

“The body of evidence on the safety of 9vHPV now includes prelicensure clinical trial data on 15,000 study subjects, reassuring results from postlicensure near real-time sequential monitoring by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Safety Datalink, on approximately 839 000 doses administered, and our review of VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] reports over a 3-year period, during which time approximately 28 million doses were distributed in the United States,” Tom T. Shimabukuro, MD, and colleagues reported in Pediatrics.

James G. Donahue, PhD, and colleagues, authors of the Vaccine Safety Datalink study published in the same issue, concluded much the same thing.

The new numbers bolster extant safety data on the vaccine, which was approved in 2015, wrote Dr. Donahue, an epidemiologist at the Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Research Institute, and coauthors. “With this large observational study, we contribute reassuring postlicensure data that will help bolster the safety profile of 9vHPV. Although we detected several unexpected potential safety signals, none were confirmed after further evaluation.”

The Vaccine Safety Datalink study of 838,991 doses looked for safety signals in a prespecified group of potential events, including anaphylaxis, appendicitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, pancreatitis, seizures, stroke, and venous thromboembolism.

Dr. Donahue and coauthors used real-time vaccination data and time-matched historical controls to evaluate any changes in expected disease rates, compared with those occurring in vaccine recipients.

Most doses in the study (76%) were given to children aged 9-17 years, with 48% going to girls. The remaining 24% of doses were given to persons aged 18-26 years, with 64% going to women.

The analysis found potential safety signals in allergic reactions (43 cases), appendicitis (30 cases), pancreatitis (8 cases), and syncope (67). None of these were confirmed after further investigation.

“The safety profile of 9vHPV is favorable and comparable to that of its predecessor, 4vHPV,” Dr. Donahue and associates concluded.

The VAERS analysis was similarly reassuring. It examined all reported adverse events, not predetermined events.

Among 28 million doses, there were 7,244 adverse event reports – a rate of about 1 event per 7 million doses. Of these, 97% were nonserious, wrote Dr. Shimabukuro, deputy director of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office, and colleagues.

The vaccine manufacturer submitted 64% of these to VAERS; health care providers submitted 27%. Adverse events were reported from postvaccine day 0 to 2 years afterward. 9vHPV was the only vaccine given in 75% of reports. Coadministered vaccines included meningococcal conjugate (1,028); tetanus and diphtheria (Td) or Tdap (673); and hepatitis A (434).

There were nine reports of anaphylaxis (five males, four females); 9vHPV was the only vaccine administered in five cases. Three reports involved coadministration of meningococcal vaccine, two with hepatitis A, one with TDaP, and one with varicella.

There were eight reports of Guillain-Barré.

There were 17 reports of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, most of which (71%) did not meet diagnostic criteria. Five cases, however, did.

One possible case of complex regional pain syndrome was reported in a 13-year-old girl with comorbid anxiety.

There were two reports of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, both in boys. There were no reports of transverse myelitis or chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy.

Seven vaccine recipients died after vaccination. Five of these reports did not contain medical information or any proof-of-death confirmation. The other two were verified by autopsy. A 14-year-old girl who received a flu vaccination with 9vHPV died of a thoracic aorta dissection 7 days postvaccination. The other death was a 16-year-old boy who received a concurrent hepatitis A vaccine. Four days later, he died of a cerebellar hemorrhage.

“We did not identify any unusual or unexpected safety concerns in our review of 9vHPV reports to the VAERS; most (97%) reports were nonserious, and adverse events were analogous to those observed in the prelicensure clinical trials,” Dr. Shimabukuro and associates concluded.

Neither Dr. Shimabukuro nor Dr. Donahue had financial disclosures. Dr. Donahue’s study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One coauthor had ties to several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Shimabukuro’s study had no external funding. One coauthor is employed by Merck, but was not at the time of the study.

[email protected]

SOURCES: Shimabukuro T et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Nov 1. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1791; Donahue J et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Nov 1. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1808.

The 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine (9vHPV) vaccine carries an extremely low rate of adverse events, most of which cannot be definitively tied to the vaccine, according to two large studies published simultaneously in Pediatrics.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

“The body of evidence on the safety of 9vHPV now includes prelicensure clinical trial data on 15,000 study subjects, reassuring results from postlicensure near real-time sequential monitoring by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Safety Datalink, on approximately 839 000 doses administered, and our review of VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] reports over a 3-year period, during which time approximately 28 million doses were distributed in the United States,” Tom T. Shimabukuro, MD, and colleagues reported in Pediatrics.

James G. Donahue, PhD, and colleagues, authors of the Vaccine Safety Datalink study published in the same issue, concluded much the same thing.

The new numbers bolster extant safety data on the vaccine, which was approved in 2015, wrote Dr. Donahue, an epidemiologist at the Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Research Institute, and coauthors. “With this large observational study, we contribute reassuring postlicensure data that will help bolster the safety profile of 9vHPV. Although we detected several unexpected potential safety signals, none were confirmed after further evaluation.”

The Vaccine Safety Datalink study of 838,991 doses looked for safety signals in a prespecified group of potential events, including anaphylaxis, appendicitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, pancreatitis, seizures, stroke, and venous thromboembolism.

Dr. Donahue and coauthors used real-time vaccination data and time-matched historical controls to evaluate any changes in expected disease rates, compared with those occurring in vaccine recipients.

Most doses in the study (76%) were given to children aged 9-17 years, with 48% going to girls. The remaining 24% of doses were given to persons aged 18-26 years, with 64% going to women.

The analysis found potential safety signals in allergic reactions (43 cases), appendicitis (30 cases), pancreatitis (8 cases), and syncope (67). None of these were confirmed after further investigation.

“The safety profile of 9vHPV is favorable and comparable to that of its predecessor, 4vHPV,” Dr. Donahue and associates concluded.

The VAERS analysis was similarly reassuring. It examined all reported adverse events, not predetermined events.

Among 28 million doses, there were 7,244 adverse event reports – a rate of about 1 event per 7 million doses. Of these, 97% were nonserious, wrote Dr. Shimabukuro, deputy director of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office, and colleagues.

The vaccine manufacturer submitted 64% of these to VAERS; health care providers submitted 27%. Adverse events were reported from postvaccine day 0 to 2 years afterward. 9vHPV was the only vaccine given in 75% of reports. Coadministered vaccines included meningococcal conjugate (1,028); tetanus and diphtheria (Td) or Tdap (673); and hepatitis A (434).

There were nine reports of anaphylaxis (five males, four females); 9vHPV was the only vaccine administered in five cases. Three reports involved coadministration of meningococcal vaccine, two with hepatitis A, one with TDaP, and one with varicella.

There were eight reports of Guillain-Barré.

There were 17 reports of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, most of which (71%) did not meet diagnostic criteria. Five cases, however, did.

One possible case of complex regional pain syndrome was reported in a 13-year-old girl with comorbid anxiety.

There were two reports of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, both in boys. There were no reports of transverse myelitis or chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy.

Seven vaccine recipients died after vaccination. Five of these reports did not contain medical information or any proof-of-death confirmation. The other two were verified by autopsy. A 14-year-old girl who received a flu vaccination with 9vHPV died of a thoracic aorta dissection 7 days postvaccination. The other death was a 16-year-old boy who received a concurrent hepatitis A vaccine. Four days later, he died of a cerebellar hemorrhage.

“We did not identify any unusual or unexpected safety concerns in our review of 9vHPV reports to the VAERS; most (97%) reports were nonserious, and adverse events were analogous to those observed in the prelicensure clinical trials,” Dr. Shimabukuro and associates concluded.

Neither Dr. Shimabukuro nor Dr. Donahue had financial disclosures. Dr. Donahue’s study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One coauthor had ties to several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Shimabukuro’s study had no external funding. One coauthor is employed by Merck, but was not at the time of the study.

[email protected]

SOURCES: Shimabukuro T et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Nov 1. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1791; Donahue J et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Nov 1. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1808.

Infants born in a country with no endemic measles no longer received adequate protection against the disease from maternal antibodies when they were aged 6 months, according to new research.

FatCamera/E+/Getty Images

In fact, most of the 196 infants’ maternal measles antibodies had dropped below the protective threshold by 3 months of age – well before the recommended age of 12-15 months for the first dose of MMR vaccine.

The odds of inadequate protection doubled for each additional month of age, Michelle Science, MD, of the University of Toronto and associates reported in Pediatrics.

“The widening gap between loss of maternal antibodies and measles vaccination described in our study leaves infants vulnerable to measles for much of their infancy and highlights the need for further research to support public health policy,” Dr. Science and colleagues wrote.

The findings are not surprising for a setting in which measles has been eliminated and align with results from past research, Huong Q. McLean, PhD, MPH, of the Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Research Institute and Walter A. Orenstein, MD, of Emory University in Atlanta wrote in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2019 Nov 21. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2541).

However, this susceptibility prior to receiving the MMR has taken on a new significance more recently, Dr. McLean and Dr. Orenstein suggested.

“In light of increasing measles outbreaks during the past year reaching levels not recorded in the United States since 1992 and increased measles elsewhere, coupled with the risk of severe illness in infants, there is increased concern regarding the protection of infants against measles,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Science and colleagues tested serum samples from 196 term infants, all under 12 months old, for antibodies against measles. The sera had been previously collected at a single tertiary care center in Ontario for clinical testing and then stored. Measles has been eliminated in Canada since 1998.

The researchers randomly selected 25 samples for each of eight different age groups: up to 30 days old; 1 month (31-60 days); 2 months (61-89 days); 3 months (90-119 days); 4 months; 5 months; 6-9 months; and 9-11 months.

Just over half the babies (56%) were male, and 35% had an underlying condition, but none had conditions that might affect antibody levels. The conditions were primarily a developmental delay or otherwise affecting the central nervous system, liver, or gastrointestinal function. Mean maternal age was 32 years.

To ensure high test sensitivity, the researchers used the plaque-reduction neutralization test (PRNT) to test for measles-neutralizing antibodies instead of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) because “ELISA sensitivity decreases as antibody titers decrease,” Dr. Science and colleagues wrote. They used a neutralization titer of less than 192 mIU/mL as the threshold for protection against measles.

When the researchers calculated the predicted standardized mean antibody titer for infants with a mother aged 32 years, they determined their mean to be 541 mIU/mL at 1 month, 142 mIU/mL at 3 months (below the measles threshold of susceptibility of 192 mIU/mL) , and 64 mIU/mL at 6 months. None of the infants had measles antibodies above the protective threshold at 6 months old, the authors noted.

Children’s odds of susceptibility to measles doubled for each additional month of age, after adjustment for infant sex and maternal age (odds ratio, 2.13). Children’s likelihood of susceptibility to measles modestly increased as maternal age increased in 5-year increments from 25 to 40 years.

Children with an underlying conditions had greater susceptibility to measles (83%), compared with those without a comorbidity (68%, P = .03). No difference in susceptibility existed between males and females or based on gestational age at birth (ranging from 37 to 41 weeks).

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices permits measles vaccination “as early as 6 months for infants who plan to travel internationally, infants with ongoing risk for exposure during measles outbreaks and as postexposure prophylaxis,” Dr. McLean and Dr. Orenstein noted in their editorial.

They discussed the rationale for various changes in the recommended schedule for measles immunization, based on changes in epidemiology of the disease and improved understanding of the immune response to vaccination since the vaccine became available in 1963. Then they posed the question of whether the recommendation should be revised again.

“Ideally, the schedule should minimize the risk of measles and its complications and optimize vaccine-induced protection,” Dr. McLean and Dr. Orenstein wrote.

They argued that the evidence cannot currently support changing the first MMR dose to a younger age because measles incidence in the United States remains extremely low outside of the extraordinary outbreaks in 2014 and 2019. Further, infants under 12 months of age make up less than 15% of measles cases during outbreaks, and unvaccinated people make up more than 70% of cases.

Rather, they stated, this new study emphasizes the importance of following the current schedule, with consideration of an earlier schedule only warranted during outbreaks.

“Health care providers must work to maintain high levels of coverage with 2 doses of MMR among vaccine-eligible populations and minimize pockets of susceptibility to prevent transmission to infants and prevent reestablishment of endemic transmission,” they concluded.

The research was funded by the Public Health Ontario Project Initiation Fund. The authors had no relevant financial disclosures. The editorialists had no external funding and no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Science M et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Nov 21. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-0630.

Infants born in a country with no endemic measles no longer received adequate protection against the disease from maternal antibodies when they were aged 6 months, according to new research.

FatCamera/E+/Getty Images

In fact, most of the 196 infants’ maternal measles antibodies had dropped below the protective threshold by 3 months of age – well before the recommended age of 12-15 months for the first dose of MMR vaccine.

The odds of inadequate protection doubled for each additional month of age, Michelle Science, MD, of the University of Toronto and associates reported in Pediatrics.

“The widening gap between loss of maternal antibodies and measles vaccination described in our study leaves infants vulnerable to measles for much of their infancy and highlights the need for further research to support public health policy,” Dr. Science and colleagues wrote.

The findings are not surprising for a setting in which measles has been eliminated and align with results from past research, Huong Q. McLean, PhD, MPH, of the Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Research Institute and Walter A. Orenstein, MD, of Emory University in Atlanta wrote in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2019 Nov 21. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2541).

However, this susceptibility prior to receiving the MMR has taken on a new significance more recently, Dr. McLean and Dr. Orenstein suggested.

“In light of increasing measles outbreaks during the past year reaching levels not recorded in the United States since 1992 and increased measles elsewhere, coupled with the risk of severe illness in infants, there is increased concern regarding the protection of infants against measles,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Science and colleagues tested serum samples from 196 term infants, all under 12 months old, for antibodies against measles. The sera had been previously collected at a single tertiary care center in Ontario for clinical testing and then stored. Measles has been eliminated in Canada since 1998.

The researchers randomly selected 25 samples for each of eight different age groups: up to 30 days old; 1 month (31-60 days); 2 months (61-89 days); 3 months (90-119 days); 4 months; 5 months; 6-9 months; and 9-11 months.

Just over half the babies (56%) were male, and 35% had an underlying condition, but none had conditions that might affect antibody levels. The conditions were primarily a developmental delay or otherwise affecting the central nervous system, liver, or gastrointestinal function. Mean maternal age was 32 years.

To ensure high test sensitivity, the researchers used the plaque-reduction neutralization test (PRNT) to test for measles-neutralizing antibodies instead of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) because “ELISA sensitivity decreases as antibody titers decrease,” Dr. Science and colleagues wrote. They used a neutralization titer of less than 192 mIU/mL as the threshold for protection against measles.

When the researchers calculated the predicted standardized mean antibody titer for infants with a mother aged 32 years, they determined their mean to be 541 mIU/mL at 1 month, 142 mIU/mL at 3 months (below the measles threshold of susceptibility of 192 mIU/mL) , and 64 mIU/mL at 6 months. None of the infants had measles antibodies above the protective threshold at 6 months old, the authors noted.

Children’s odds of susceptibility to measles doubled for each additional month of age, after adjustment for infant sex and maternal age (odds ratio, 2.13). Children’s likelihood of susceptibility to measles modestly increased as maternal age increased in 5-year increments from 25 to 40 years.

Children with an underlying conditions had greater susceptibility to measles (83%), compared with those without a comorbidity (68%, P = .03). No difference in susceptibility existed between males and females or based on gestational age at birth (ranging from 37 to 41 weeks).

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices permits measles vaccination “as early as 6 months for infants who plan to travel internationally, infants with ongoing risk for exposure during measles outbreaks and as postexposure prophylaxis,” Dr. McLean and Dr. Orenstein noted in their editorial.

They discussed the rationale for various changes in the recommended schedule for measles immunization, based on changes in epidemiology of the disease and improved understanding of the immune response to vaccination since the vaccine became available in 1963. Then they posed the question of whether the recommendation should be revised again.

“Ideally, the schedule should minimize the risk of measles and its complications and optimize vaccine-induced protection,” Dr. McLean and Dr. Orenstein wrote.

They argued that the evidence cannot currently support changing the first MMR dose to a younger age because measles incidence in the United States remains extremely low outside of the extraordinary outbreaks in 2014 and 2019. Further, infants under 12 months of age make up less than 15% of measles cases during outbreaks, and unvaccinated people make up more than 70% of cases.

Rather, they stated, this new study emphasizes the importance of following the current schedule, with consideration of an earlier schedule only warranted during outbreaks.

“Health care providers must work to maintain high levels of coverage with 2 doses of MMR among vaccine-eligible populations and minimize pockets of susceptibility to prevent transmission to infants and prevent reestablishment of endemic transmission,” they concluded.

The research was funded by the Public Health Ontario Project Initiation Fund. The authors had no relevant financial disclosures. The editorialists had no external funding and no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Science M et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Nov 21. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-0630.

Infants born in a country with no endemic measles no longer received adequate protection against the disease from maternal antibodies when they were aged 6 months, according to new research.

FatCamera/E+/Getty Images

In fact, most of the 196 infants’ maternal measles antibodies had dropped below the protective threshold by 3 months of age – well before the recommended age of 12-15 months for the first dose of MMR vaccine.

The odds of inadequate protection doubled for each additional month of age, Michelle Science, MD, of the University of Toronto and associates reported in Pediatrics.

“The widening gap between loss of maternal antibodies and measles vaccination described in our study leaves infants vulnerable to measles for much of their infancy and highlights the need for further research to support public health policy,” Dr. Science and colleagues wrote.

The findings are not surprising for a setting in which measles has been eliminated and align with results from past research, Huong Q. McLean, PhD, MPH, of the Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Research Institute and Walter A. Orenstein, MD, of Emory University in Atlanta wrote in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2019 Nov 21. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2541).

However, this susceptibility prior to receiving the MMR has taken on a new significance more recently, Dr. McLean and Dr. Orenstein suggested.

“In light of increasing measles outbreaks during the past year reaching levels not recorded in the United States since 1992 and increased measles elsewhere, coupled with the risk of severe illness in infants, there is increased concern regarding the protection of infants against measles,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Science and colleagues tested serum samples from 196 term infants, all under 12 months old, for antibodies against measles. The sera had been previously collected at a single tertiary care center in Ontario for clinical testing and then stored. Measles has been eliminated in Canada since 1998.

The researchers randomly selected 25 samples for each of eight different age groups: up to 30 days old; 1 month (31-60 days); 2 months (61-89 days); 3 months (90-119 days); 4 months; 5 months; 6-9 months; and 9-11 months.

Just over half the babies (56%) were male, and 35% had an underlying condition, but none had conditions that might affect antibody levels. The conditions were primarily a developmental delay or otherwise affecting the central nervous system, liver, or gastrointestinal function. Mean maternal age was 32 years.

To ensure high test sensitivity, the researchers used the plaque-reduction neutralization test (PRNT) to test for measles-neutralizing antibodies instead of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) because “ELISA sensitivity decreases as antibody titers decrease,” Dr. Science and colleagues wrote. They used a neutralization titer of less than 192 mIU/mL as the threshold for protection against measles.

When the researchers calculated the predicted standardized mean antibody titer for infants with a mother aged 32 years, they determined their mean to be 541 mIU/mL at 1 month, 142 mIU/mL at 3 months (below the measles threshold of susceptibility of 192 mIU/mL) , and 64 mIU/mL at 6 months. None of the infants had measles antibodies above the protective threshold at 6 months old, the authors noted.

Children’s odds of susceptibility to measles doubled for each additional month of age, after adjustment for infant sex and maternal age (odds ratio, 2.13). Children’s likelihood of susceptibility to measles modestly increased as maternal age increased in 5-year increments from 25 to 40 years.

Children with an underlying conditions had greater susceptibility to measles (83%), compared with those without a comorbidity (68%, P = .03). No difference in susceptibility existed between males and females or based on gestational age at birth (ranging from 37 to 41 weeks).

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices permits measles vaccination “as early as 6 months for infants who plan to travel internationally, infants with ongoing risk for exposure during measles outbreaks and as postexposure prophylaxis,” Dr. McLean and Dr. Orenstein noted in their editorial.

They discussed the rationale for various changes in the recommended schedule for measles immunization, based on changes in epidemiology of the disease and improved understanding of the immune response to vaccination since the vaccine became available in 1963. Then they posed the question of whether the recommendation should be revised again.

“Ideally, the schedule should minimize the risk of measles and its complications and optimize vaccine-induced protection,” Dr. McLean and Dr. Orenstein wrote.

They argued that the evidence cannot currently support changing the first MMR dose to a younger age because measles incidence in the United States remains extremely low outside of the extraordinary outbreaks in 2014 and 2019. Further, infants under 12 months of age make up less than 15% of measles cases during outbreaks, and unvaccinated people make up more than 70% of cases.

Rather, they stated, this new study emphasizes the importance of following the current schedule, with consideration of an earlier schedule only warranted during outbreaks.

“Health care providers must work to maintain high levels of coverage with 2 doses of MMR among vaccine-eligible populations and minimize pockets of susceptibility to prevent transmission to infants and prevent reestablishment of endemic transmission,” they concluded.

The research was funded by the Public Health Ontario Project Initiation Fund. The authors had no relevant financial disclosures. The editorialists had no external funding and no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Science M et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Nov 21. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-0630.

NEW ORLEANS – The incidence of acute otitis media has decreased by 25% to 35% in the past decade, thanks largely to the widespread and near universal use of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, according to Ellen R. Wald, MD.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Mar10029/Creative Commons License

“To a smaller degree, it is also attributable to the use of influenza vaccine, and to the use of more stringent diagnostic criteria,” Dr. Wald, who chairs the department of pediatrics at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “The fact that we are decreasing the number of episodes of otitis media in children in the first year of life means that we’re going to have fewer otitis-prone children and therefore less of a need for tympanostomy tubes, either as a solution to the problem of recurrence of acute otitis media (AOM) or for the problem of persistent effusion.”

The best way to limit antimicrobial use is for clinicians to increase their ability to differentiate AOM from otitis media with effusion (OME), said Dr. Wald, pediatrician-in-chief at the American Family Children’s Hospital in Madison. She noted that OME is a nonbacterial inflammatory state that usually resolves spontaneously. It tends to occur before or after AOM, and often without ever progressing to AOM. “Its principal importance is as a cause of hearing loss and as a confounder in the diagnosis AOM,” she explained. “Because it is a nonbacterial process, antibiotics are not indicated in the management of OME. In contrast, children with AOM have a bacterial infection that will benefit from the use of antimicrobials.”*

Middle ear effusion is common to both OME and AOM, she continued. To discriminate between the two conditions, clinicians must look for signs of acute inflammation of the tympanic membrane, “which we expect to see in AOM,” she said. “The most powerful sign of inflammation of the tympanic membrane is distinct fullness or bulging of the tympanic membrane on exam.”

Dr. Wald advises clinicians to be as systematic as possible when conducting the otoscopic exam, by looking at color and classifying it as pink, gray, white, yellow, red, amber, or blue, and by documenting the position as neutral, retracted, full, or bulging. “When we gauge how light passes through the tympanic membrane, we judge it as translucent, opaque, or partially opaque, and mobility as normal, decreased, or absent,” she added. “When we find decreased or absent mobility of the tympanic membrane, it tells us that we have fluid in the middle ear, but it does not discriminate between AOM and OME.”

Advances in digital otoscopy are helping pediatricians to improve their diagnostic skills. An early device, the iPhone otoscope by CellScope, uses an iOS smartphone to capture images and videos of the external ear canal and eardrum. “The image is pretty much the same as that seen through the eye of a hand-held otoscope,” Dr. Wald said. “The problem with this particular design is that the speculum is kind of large. It does still require the removal of cerumen, and the smartphone is kind of awkward to use as a handle during an otoscopic exam.”

A new digital otoscope called Wispr was unveiled at the AAP meeting. First developed at the University of Wisconsin and now marketed by WiscMed, Wispr delivers high-resolution views of the eardrum in even small or partially obstructed ear canals with one-button image and video capture. WiscMed was founded by Jim Berbee, MD, MBA, an engineer turned emergency medicine physician.

“One of the advantages of this particular model is that it handles a lot more like a usual otoscope and can be attached to the rechargeable handles that are commercially available,” Dr. Wald said. “It has an extremely tiny speculum. Within the head, there is even a smaller camera that allows the photographs to be taken. Because the speculum is so tiny, it allows the device to sometimes avoid the presence of cerumen, or sometimes go through it and still obtain an image.”

[email protected]

*This article was updated 12/13/2019

NEW ORLEANS – The incidence of acute otitis media has decreased by 25% to 35% in the past decade, thanks largely to the widespread and near universal use of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, according to Ellen R. Wald, MD.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Mar10029/Creative Commons License

“To a smaller degree, it is also attributable to the use of influenza vaccine, and to the use of more stringent diagnostic criteria,” Dr. Wald, who chairs the department of pediatrics at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “The fact that we are decreasing the number of episodes of otitis media in children in the first year of life means that we’re going to have fewer otitis-prone children and therefore less of a need for tympanostomy tubes, either as a solution to the problem of recurrence of acute otitis media (AOM) or for the problem of persistent effusion.”

The best way to limit antimicrobial use is for clinicians to increase their ability to differentiate AOM from otitis media with effusion (OME), said Dr. Wald, pediatrician-in-chief at the American Family Children’s Hospital in Madison. She noted that OME is a nonbacterial inflammatory state that usually resolves spontaneously. It tends to occur before or after AOM, and often without ever progressing to AOM. “Its principal importance is as a cause of hearing loss and as a confounder in the diagnosis AOM,” she explained. “Because it is a nonbacterial process, antibiotics are not indicated in the management of OME. In contrast, children with AOM have a bacterial infection that will benefit from the use of antimicrobials.”*

Middle ear effusion is common to both OME and AOM, she continued. To discriminate between the two conditions, clinicians must look for signs of acute inflammation of the tympanic membrane, “which we expect to see in AOM,” she said. “The most powerful sign of inflammation of the tympanic membrane is distinct fullness or bulging of the tympanic membrane on exam.”

Dr. Wald advises clinicians to be as systematic as possible when conducting the otoscopic exam, by looking at color and classifying it as pink, gray, white, yellow, red, amber, or blue, and by documenting the position as neutral, retracted, full, or bulging. “When we gauge how light passes through the tympanic membrane, we judge it as translucent, opaque, or partially opaque, and mobility as normal, decreased, or absent,” she added. “When we find decreased or absent mobility of the tympanic membrane, it tells us that we have fluid in the middle ear, but it does not discriminate between AOM and OME.”

Advances in digital otoscopy are helping pediatricians to improve their diagnostic skills. An early device, the iPhone otoscope by CellScope, uses an iOS smartphone to capture images and videos of the external ear canal and eardrum. “The image is pretty much the same as that seen through the eye of a hand-held otoscope,” Dr. Wald said. “The problem with this particular design is that the speculum is kind of large. It does still require the removal of cerumen, and the smartphone is kind of awkward to use as a handle during an otoscopic exam.”

A new digital otoscope called Wispr was unveiled at the AAP meeting. First developed at the University of Wisconsin and now marketed by WiscMed, Wispr delivers high-resolution views of the eardrum in even small or partially obstructed ear canals with one-button image and video capture. WiscMed was founded by Jim Berbee, MD, MBA, an engineer turned emergency medicine physician.

“One of the advantages of this particular model is that it handles a lot more like a usual otoscope and can be attached to the rechargeable handles that are commercially available,” Dr. Wald said. “It has an extremely tiny speculum. Within the head, there is even a smaller camera that allows the photographs to be taken. Because the speculum is so tiny, it allows the device to sometimes avoid the presence of cerumen, or sometimes go through it and still obtain an image.”

[email protected]

*This article was updated 12/13/2019

NEW ORLEANS – The incidence of acute otitis media has decreased by 25% to 35% in the past decade, thanks largely to the widespread and near universal use of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, according to Ellen R. Wald, MD.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Mar10029/Creative Commons License

“To a smaller degree, it is also attributable to the use of influenza vaccine, and to the use of more stringent diagnostic criteria,” Dr. Wald, who chairs the department of pediatrics at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “The fact that we are decreasing the number of episodes of otitis media in children in the first year of life means that we’re going to have fewer otitis-prone children and therefore less of a need for tympanostomy tubes, either as a solution to the problem of recurrence of acute otitis media (AOM) or for the problem of persistent effusion.”

The best way to limit antimicrobial use is for clinicians to increase their ability to differentiate AOM from otitis media with effusion (OME), said Dr. Wald, pediatrician-in-chief at the American Family Children’s Hospital in Madison. She noted that OME is a nonbacterial inflammatory state that usually resolves spontaneously. It tends to occur before or after AOM, and often without ever progressing to AOM. “Its principal importance is as a cause of hearing loss and as a confounder in the diagnosis AOM,” she explained. “Because it is a nonbacterial process, antibiotics are not indicated in the management of OME. In contrast, children with AOM have a bacterial infection that will benefit from the use of antimicrobials.”*

Middle ear effusion is common to both OME and AOM, she continued. To discriminate between the two conditions, clinicians must look for signs of acute inflammation of the tympanic membrane, “which we expect to see in AOM,” she said. “The most powerful sign of inflammation of the tympanic membrane is distinct fullness or bulging of the tympanic membrane on exam.”

Dr. Wald advises clinicians to be as systematic as possible when conducting the otoscopic exam, by looking at color and classifying it as pink, gray, white, yellow, red, amber, or blue, and by documenting the position as neutral, retracted, full, or bulging. “When we gauge how light passes through the tympanic membrane, we judge it as translucent, opaque, or partially opaque, and mobility as normal, decreased, or absent,” she added. “When we find decreased or absent mobility of the tympanic membrane, it tells us that we have fluid in the middle ear, but it does not discriminate between AOM and OME.”

Advances in digital otoscopy are helping pediatricians to improve their diagnostic skills. An early device, the iPhone otoscope by CellScope, uses an iOS smartphone to capture images and videos of the external ear canal and eardrum. “The image is pretty much the same as that seen through the eye of a hand-held otoscope,” Dr. Wald said. “The problem with this particular design is that the speculum is kind of large. It does still require the removal of cerumen, and the smartphone is kind of awkward to use as a handle during an otoscopic exam.”

A new digital otoscope called Wispr was unveiled at the AAP meeting. First developed at the University of Wisconsin and now marketed by WiscMed, Wispr delivers high-resolution views of the eardrum in even small or partially obstructed ear canals with one-button image and video capture. WiscMed was founded by Jim Berbee, MD, MBA, an engineer turned emergency medicine physician.

“One of the advantages of this particular model is that it handles a lot more like a usual otoscope and can be attached to the rechargeable handles that are commercially available,” Dr. Wald said. “It has an extremely tiny speculum. Within the head, there is even a smaller camera that allows the photographs to be taken. Because the speculum is so tiny, it allows the device to sometimes avoid the presence of cerumen, or sometimes go through it and still obtain an image.”

[email protected]

*This article was updated 12/13/2019

NEW ORLEANS – One way to make sure your practice providing immunizations is in the black is to calculate your “carrying costs” and apply them to the cost of your vaccines.

Another is to make sure that you join an effectively managed and effective group purchasing organization.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

Those are two tips that Chip Hart shared with attendees at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

“Your practices will fail if immunizations are not paid,” said Mr. Hart, director of the Winooski, Vt.–based the Pediatric Solutions Consulting Group at the Physicians Computer Company. “Providing immunizations is the single most valuable thing that you do, by far. Yet you get ripped off by the payers all the time.”

Two documents from the AAP – “The business case for pricing vaccines” and “The business case for pricing immunization administration” – provide clear-cut guidance on the impact of vaccine delivery to your bottom line. Based on data from his company’s client base, Mr. Hart said that vaccines have grown from 13% of an average pediatric practice’s revenue in 2003 to 22% in 2018. “The AAP’s own research shows that you need to generate 17%-28% above what you paid for the vaccine in order just to break even,” he said. That’s to cover the administrative overhead required to purchase and store the product in an office-based refrigerator, and the staff time to administer it. Such “carrying costs” often are not factored into the analysis of many managing pediatricians.

“The unfortunate reality is, you are not paid for carrying costs related to the administration of vaccines, including your refrigerator, your sharps and waste management, claim denials, and especially every time you waste a vaccine,” Mr. Hart said. “None of those things are part of any fee schedule.”

How to determine your vaccine product overhead

There are two ways to go about determining your vaccine product overhead. The first is to perform an in-depth analysis of your costs, including time studies and cost accounting. For example, he said that if your hazardous waste costs are $3,500 per year and half of the material is composed of vaccine waste, that leaves $1,750. “If you divide that by the number of vaccines you did last year, it might come out to 13 cents per vaccine,” Mr. Hart said, “but these things add up.” On the administration side, he offered the example of a nurse who makes $45,000 per year and who devotes 10% of her time to vaccines in a practice that administers 13,000 vaccinations per year. In this case, $45,000 per year divided by 13,000 vaccines equals 35 cents than can be added to the cost of every vaccine.

“You can go into each one of these elements and figure out how much you need to clear in order to do all right,” he said.

Alternatively, you can use the research from the AAP to presume that you need to have a margin of 17%-28% on your product. “Use a figure like 20% or 25% – it’s likely as accurate as any analysis a busy private practice is capable of doing, and you can immediately determine if you are in the profitability ballpark,” Mr. Hart said. On the administration side of the equation, in 2009, researchers estimated that the total documented variable cost per injection, excluding vaccine cost, was $11.51 (Pediatrics. 2009 Dec;124 [Suppl 5]:S492-8). That figure is more like $14 or $15 per vaccine in today’s dollars, Mr. Hart estimated. “You can perform a time-motion study and determine all of your immunization administration costs or you can just simply pick an evidence-based figure like $14 and see how well you are doing,” he said.

On his company’s web site, he offers a free administrative analysis tool that clinicians can use to determine how they fare. The AAP also provides information about vaccine financing here.

How to make sure you are operating in the red

Mr. Hart advises practices operating in the red to review their vaccine delivery work flow “to look for leaks,” to use proper administrative codes, and to negotiate the price of vaccine product with payers. “The only payers that don’t negotiate are state Medicaid and Tricare,” he said. “Everyone else negotiates. You want to determine the methodology they use to calculate what they pay you for the vaccine product. Different payers have different rule sets.”

Another strategy to join a group purchasing organization (GPO), which can leverage volume purchasing to negotiate discounts on vaccines. “They’re like [the] Costco or Sam’s Club of vaccine purchasing, and in most cases they can save you about $10,000 per year,” Mr. Hart said. A list of GPOs from the AAP can be found here.

Implementing effective inventory management is also key. “Practices that have the discipline to maintain their inventories are inevitably the ones who are more profitable,” Mr. Hart said. “I’ve worked with too many practices where flu shots go missing. Staff take them home or bring in their friends after hours. You need inventory control, and you should be able to generate an inventory report out of your practice management system. You also should be able to generate a report out of your EHR.”

Mr. Hart reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

NEW ORLEANS – One way to make sure your practice providing immunizations is in the black is to calculate your “carrying costs” and apply them to the cost of your vaccines.

Another is to make sure that you join an effectively managed and effective group purchasing organization.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

Those are two tips that Chip Hart shared with attendees at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

“Your practices will fail if immunizations are not paid,” said Mr. Hart, director of the Winooski, Vt.–based the Pediatric Solutions Consulting Group at the Physicians Computer Company. “Providing immunizations is the single most valuable thing that you do, by far. Yet you get ripped off by the payers all the time.”

Two documents from the AAP – “The business case for pricing vaccines” and “The business case for pricing immunization administration” – provide clear-cut guidance on the impact of vaccine delivery to your bottom line. Based on data from his company’s client base, Mr. Hart said that vaccines have grown from 13% of an average pediatric practice’s revenue in 2003 to 22% in 2018. “The AAP’s own research shows that you need to generate 17%-28% above what you paid for the vaccine in order just to break even,” he said. That’s to cover the administrative overhead required to purchase and store the product in an office-based refrigerator, and the staff time to administer it. Such “carrying costs” often are not factored into the analysis of many managing pediatricians.

“The unfortunate reality is, you are not paid for carrying costs related to the administration of vaccines, including your refrigerator, your sharps and waste management, claim denials, and especially every time you waste a vaccine,” Mr. Hart said. “None of those things are part of any fee schedule.”

How to determine your vaccine product overhead

There are two ways to go about determining your vaccine product overhead. The first is to perform an in-depth analysis of your costs, including time studies and cost accounting. For example, he said that if your hazardous waste costs are $3,500 per year and half of the material is composed of vaccine waste, that leaves $1,750. “If you divide that by the number of vaccines you did last year, it might come out to 13 cents per vaccine,” Mr. Hart said, “but these things add up.” On the administration side, he offered the example of a nurse who makes $45,000 per year and who devotes 10% of her time to vaccines in a practice that administers 13,000 vaccinations per year. In this case, $45,000 per year divided by 13,000 vaccines equals 35 cents than can be added to the cost of every vaccine.

“You can go into each one of these elements and figure out how much you need to clear in order to do all right,” he said.

Alternatively, you can use the research from the AAP to presume that you need to have a margin of 17%-28% on your product. “Use a figure like 20% or 25% – it’s likely as accurate as any analysis a busy private practice is capable of doing, and you can immediately determine if you are in the profitability ballpark,” Mr. Hart said. On the administration side of the equation, in 2009, researchers estimated that the total documented variable cost per injection, excluding vaccine cost, was $11.51 (Pediatrics. 2009 Dec;124 [Suppl 5]:S492-8). That figure is more like $14 or $15 per vaccine in today’s dollars, Mr. Hart estimated. “You can perform a time-motion study and determine all of your immunization administration costs or you can just simply pick an evidence-based figure like $14 and see how well you are doing,” he said.

On his company’s web site, he offers a free administrative analysis tool that clinicians can use to determine how they fare. The AAP also provides information about vaccine financing here.

How to make sure you are operating in the red

Mr. Hart advises practices operating in the red to review their vaccine delivery work flow “to look for leaks,” to use proper administrative codes, and to negotiate the price of vaccine product with payers. “The only payers that don’t negotiate are state Medicaid and Tricare,” he said. “Everyone else negotiates. You want to determine the methodology they use to calculate what they pay you for the vaccine product. Different payers have different rule sets.”

Another strategy to join a group purchasing organization (GPO), which can leverage volume purchasing to negotiate discounts on vaccines. “They’re like [the] Costco or Sam’s Club of vaccine purchasing, and in most cases they can save you about $10,000 per year,” Mr. Hart said. A list of GPOs from the AAP can be found here.

Implementing effective inventory management is also key. “Practices that have the discipline to maintain their inventories are inevitably the ones who are more profitable,” Mr. Hart said. “I’ve worked with too many practices where flu shots go missing. Staff take them home or bring in their friends after hours. You need inventory control, and you should be able to generate an inventory report out of your practice management system. You also should be able to generate a report out of your EHR.”

Mr. Hart reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

NEW ORLEANS – One way to make sure your practice providing immunizations is in the black is to calculate your “carrying costs” and apply them to the cost of your vaccines.

Another is to make sure that you join an effectively managed and effective group purchasing organization.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

Those are two tips that Chip Hart shared with attendees at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

“Your practices will fail if immunizations are not paid,” said Mr. Hart, director of the Winooski, Vt.–based the Pediatric Solutions Consulting Group at the Physicians Computer Company. “Providing immunizations is the single most valuable thing that you do, by far. Yet you get ripped off by the payers all the time.”

Two documents from the AAP – “The business case for pricing vaccines” and “The business case for pricing immunization administration” – provide clear-cut guidance on the impact of vaccine delivery to your bottom line. Based on data from his company’s client base, Mr. Hart said that vaccines have grown from 13% of an average pediatric practice’s revenue in 2003 to 22% in 2018. “The AAP’s own research shows that you need to generate 17%-28% above what you paid for the vaccine in order just to break even,” he said. That’s to cover the administrative overhead required to purchase and store the product in an office-based refrigerator, and the staff time to administer it. Such “carrying costs” often are not factored into the analysis of many managing pediatricians.

“The unfortunate reality is, you are not paid for carrying costs related to the administration of vaccines, including your refrigerator, your sharps and waste management, claim denials, and especially every time you waste a vaccine,” Mr. Hart said. “None of those things are part of any fee schedule.”

How to determine your vaccine product overhead

There are two ways to go about determining your vaccine product overhead. The first is to perform an in-depth analysis of your costs, including time studies and cost accounting. For example, he said that if your hazardous waste costs are $3,500 per year and half of the material is composed of vaccine waste, that leaves $1,750. “If you divide that by the number of vaccines you did last year, it might come out to 13 cents per vaccine,” Mr. Hart said, “but these things add up.” On the administration side, he offered the example of a nurse who makes $45,000 per year and who devotes 10% of her time to vaccines in a practice that administers 13,000 vaccinations per year. In this case, $45,000 per year divided by 13,000 vaccines equals 35 cents than can be added to the cost of every vaccine.

“You can go into each one of these elements and figure out how much you need to clear in order to do all right,” he said.

Alternatively, you can use the research from the AAP to presume that you need to have a margin of 17%-28% on your product. “Use a figure like 20% or 25% – it’s likely as accurate as any analysis a busy private practice is capable of doing, and you can immediately determine if you are in the profitability ballpark,” Mr. Hart said. On the administration side of the equation, in 2009, researchers estimated that the total documented variable cost per injection, excluding vaccine cost, was $11.51 (Pediatrics. 2009 Dec;124 [Suppl 5]:S492-8). That figure is more like $14 or $15 per vaccine in today’s dollars, Mr. Hart estimated. “You can perform a time-motion study and determine all of your immunization administration costs or you can just simply pick an evidence-based figure like $14 and see how well you are doing,” he said.

On his company’s web site, he offers a free administrative analysis tool that clinicians can use to determine how they fare. The AAP also provides information about vaccine financing here.

How to make sure you are operating in the red

Mr. Hart advises practices operating in the red to review their vaccine delivery work flow “to look for leaks,” to use proper administrative codes, and to negotiate the price of vaccine product with payers. “The only payers that don’t negotiate are state Medicaid and Tricare,” he said. “Everyone else negotiates. You want to determine the methodology they use to calculate what they pay you for the vaccine product. Different payers have different rule sets.”

Another strategy to join a group purchasing organization (GPO), which can leverage volume purchasing to negotiate discounts on vaccines. “They’re like [the] Costco or Sam’s Club of vaccine purchasing, and in most cases they can save you about $10,000 per year,” Mr. Hart said. A list of GPOs from the AAP can be found here.

Implementing effective inventory management is also key. “Practices that have the discipline to maintain their inventories are inevitably the ones who are more profitable,” Mr. Hart said. “I’ve worked with too many practices where flu shots go missing. Staff take them home or bring in their friends after hours. You need inventory control, and you should be able to generate an inventory report out of your practice management system. You also should be able to generate a report out of your EHR.”

Mr. Hart reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

AUSTIN, TEX. – Neuromuscular complications from immunotherapy for cancer are rare, but they occur often enough that it is helpful to know which ones can result from different immunotherapies and how to distinguish them from non–adverse event conditions, according to Christopher Trevino, MD, a neuro-oncologist at Tulane University in New Orleans.

At the annual meeting of the American Association for Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, Dr. Trevino reviewed immunotherapy types, particularly immune checkpoint inhibitors, and the most common neuromuscular complications – primarily neuropathy, myasthenia gravis (MG), myositis, and encephalitis or meningitis.

“Timing of onset is a critical component to assist in identifying immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated versus non–immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated neuromuscular disease,” Dr. Trevino told attendees. Prompt recognition can be particularly urgent for MG because crisis and death rates are higher when induced by immunotherapy and require quick treatment. “Understanding the mechanisms of action sets a foundation for treatment approach,” he added.

Any part of the nervous system can be affected by immunotherapy toxicity, he said, and syndromes often overlap, with the peripheral nervous system typically more often affected than the central nervous system. Neurologic immune-related adverse events typically occur within four cycles of therapy – about 12 weeks after therapy initiation – but should always involve a work-up to exclude effects from the cancer itself, other neuromuscular diagnoses unrelated to therapy, and other toxicities from chemotherapy.

Recommended first-line treatment is halting immunotherapy with or without corticosteroids, after which most patients improve, often with “rapid, complete resolution of symptoms,” Dr. Trevino said. Restarting immunotherapy treatment is possible in some patients, though.
 

CAR T-cell and dendritic cell vaccine therapies

Four main types of immunotherapy exist: viral therapy, vaccine therapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and adoptive cell transfer, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. Dr. Trevino focused on checkpoint inhibitors and adoptive cell transfer.

CAR T-cell therapy is a multistep treatment process that involves first removing blood from the patient to obtain their T cells. These are used to create and grow CAR T cells in the lab so that they can be infused back into the patient. The cells then bind to cancer cells and destroy them. Examples of approved CAR T-cell therapy include Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel) for some types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel) for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

Dendritic cell vaccines are similar to CAR T-cell therapy in that they also use the patient’s own immune cells to create cancer-killing cells that the patient then receives back. The only currently approved dendritic cell vaccine is Provenge (sipuleucel-T) for advanced prostate cancer.

The main toxicity to watch for from CAR T-cell therapy and dendritic cell vaccines is cytokine release syndrome (CRS). It can begin anywhere from 1-14 days after the infusion and involves T-cell expansion in the body that leads to a cytokine storm. Symptoms are wide ranging, including fatigue, fever, loss of appetite, tachycardia, hypotension, pain, rash, diarrhea, headache, confusion, seizures, muscle and joint pain, tachypnea, hypoxia and hallucinations, among others.

Specific central neurotoxicities that can result from CAR T-cell therapy include encephalopathy, cerebral edema, seizures and status epilepticus, cerebral vasospasm, and aphasia.
 

Immune checkpoint inhibitor toxicities

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are drugs that interrupt a cancer’s ability to hijack the immune system; they block the proteins that hold back T-cells from attacking the cancer, thereby releasing the immune system to go after the malignant cells.

The two most common types of immune checkpoint inhibitors are those targeting the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) pathways. The three currently approved PD-1 inhibitors are pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), and cemiplimab (Libtayo), which can treat nearly a dozen malignancies affecting different organs. Atezolizumab (Tecentriq), avelumab (Bavencio), and durvalumab (Imfinzi) are the three currently approved PD-L1 inhibitors, indicated for urothelial carcinoma and a handful of other cancers, such as small-cell and non–small cell lung cancer and triple negative breast cancer.

The only other type of approved checkpoint inhibitor is ipilimumab (Yervoy), which targets the CTLA-4 protein. A number of other checkpoint inhibitors are in trials, however, such as ones targeting pathways involving OX40, ICOS, TIM3, and LAG-3 (J Hematol Oncol. 2018. doi: 10.1186/s13045-018-0582-8).

Immune-related adverse events are less common with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors – a rate of 5%-10% – compared with adverse events from CTLA-4 inhibitors, which occur in about 15% of patients. Neurologic complications occur even more rarely – about 1%-4% of all immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies – and primarily include MG, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), and inflammatory myositis (Muscle Nerve. 2018;58[1]:10-22).

Treatment with multiple checkpoint inhibitors increases the likelihood of severe adverse events, with rates of up to 30%-50% of patients with dual treatment.
 

Distinguishing features of neuromuscular immunotherapy-related adverse events

MG is the most common neuromuscular immune-related adverse event from immune checkpoint inhibitors and tends to occur 3-12 weeks after beginning treatment, frequently comorbid with inflammatory myopathy or cardiomyopathy, Dr. Trevino said. About two-thirds of cases are de novo, while the remaining one-third involve preexisting MG; no reports of Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome have been linked to checkpoint inhibitors.

Several characteristics distinguish checkpoint inhibitor–associated MG from standard MG. Standard MG can be ocular with or without bulbar or appendicular weakness, whereas immunotherapy-related MG is rarely only ocular (about 18% of cases). Immunotherapy-related MG involves an MG crisis at diagnosis in up to 50% of cases and has high mortality, both of which are rarer with standard MG.

While standard MG can be seronegative or involve AChR, MuSK, or LRP4 antibodies, about two-thirds of immunotherapy-related MG cases are positive for AChR antibodies. LRP4 antibodies are rare with MG from checkpoint inhibitors, and no MuSK antibodies have been reported in these cases. Creatine kinase (CK) or troponin I (TnI) elevation occurs in about 87% of patients with checkpoint inhibitor-induced MG, but standard MG doesn’t typically involve increased CK levels.

Inflammatory myositis (IM), the second most common neuromuscular adverse event from immunotherapy, tends to occur 2-15 weeks after immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy and can involve polymyositis, necrotizing autoimmune myopathy, dermatomyositis, granulomatous myositis, or other nonspecific myositis and myopathies.

Though proximal weakness occurs with IM both associated with immunotherapy and not, ocular symptoms are unique to cases associated with therapy and occur in about half of them. Myalgia, dyspnea, and dysphagia can all occur with checkpoint inhibitor–associated IM but don’t generally occur with standard IM. Immunotherapy-related IM is usually seronegative for myositis antibodies and doesn’t generally cause abnormalities in electromyography, compared with increased exertional activity and early recruitment of myopathic motor units in electromyography with standard IM.

GBS and CIDP are the third most common cause of neuromuscular complications from checkpoint inhibitors. The main distinguishing feature of these conditions from those not related to immunotherapy is that they occur anywhere from 4 to 68 weeks after therapy begins. Presentation is otherwise similar whether related to checkpoint inhibitors or not.

Aside from GBS and CIDP, other neuropathies that can result from immunotherapy complications include acute cranial neuropathies, axonal or demyelinating neuropathies, motor polyradiculopathy, vasculitic neuropathy, and plexopathy.

Neuromuscular complications other than those described above can also occur from checkpoint inhibitor therapy, such as enteric neuropathy, polyradiculitis, and meningo-radiculo-neuritis, but these are much rarer.

Four organizations have developed consensus guidelines for immune checkpoint inhibitor toxicities: the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO, 2017), Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC, 2017), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO, 2018), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN, 2019).

Dr Trevino had no disclosures.

AUSTIN, TEX. – Neuromuscular complications from immunotherapy for cancer are rare, but they occur often enough that it is helpful to know which ones can result from different immunotherapies and how to distinguish them from non–adverse event conditions, according to Christopher Trevino, MD, a neuro-oncologist at Tulane University in New Orleans.

At the annual meeting of the American Association for Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, Dr. Trevino reviewed immunotherapy types, particularly immune checkpoint inhibitors, and the most common neuromuscular complications – primarily neuropathy, myasthenia gravis (MG), myositis, and encephalitis or meningitis.

“Timing of onset is a critical component to assist in identifying immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated versus non–immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated neuromuscular disease,” Dr. Trevino told attendees. Prompt recognition can be particularly urgent for MG because crisis and death rates are higher when induced by immunotherapy and require quick treatment. “Understanding the mechanisms of action sets a foundation for treatment approach,” he added.

Any part of the nervous system can be affected by immunotherapy toxicity, he said, and syndromes often overlap, with the peripheral nervous system typically more often affected than the central nervous system. Neurologic immune-related adverse events typically occur within four cycles of therapy – about 12 weeks after therapy initiation – but should always involve a work-up to exclude effects from the cancer itself, other neuromuscular diagnoses unrelated to therapy, and other toxicities from chemotherapy.

Recommended first-line treatment is halting immunotherapy with or without corticosteroids, after which most patients improve, often with “rapid, complete resolution of symptoms,” Dr. Trevino said. Restarting immunotherapy treatment is possible in some patients, though.
 

CAR T-cell and dendritic cell vaccine therapies

Four main types of immunotherapy exist: viral therapy, vaccine therapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and adoptive cell transfer, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. Dr. Trevino focused on checkpoint inhibitors and adoptive cell transfer.

CAR T-cell therapy is a multistep treatment process that involves first removing blood from the patient to obtain their T cells. These are used to create and grow CAR T cells in the lab so that they can be infused back into the patient. The cells then bind to cancer cells and destroy them. Examples of approved CAR T-cell therapy include Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel) for some types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel) for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

Dendritic cell vaccines are similar to CAR T-cell therapy in that they also use the patient’s own immune cells to create cancer-killing cells that the patient then receives back. The only currently approved dendritic cell vaccine is Provenge (sipuleucel-T) for advanced prostate cancer.

The main toxicity to watch for from CAR T-cell therapy and dendritic cell vaccines is cytokine release syndrome (CRS). It can begin anywhere from 1-14 days after the infusion and involves T-cell expansion in the body that leads to a cytokine storm. Symptoms are wide ranging, including fatigue, fever, loss of appetite, tachycardia, hypotension, pain, rash, diarrhea, headache, confusion, seizures, muscle and joint pain, tachypnea, hypoxia and hallucinations, among others.

Specific central neurotoxicities that can result from CAR T-cell therapy include encephalopathy, cerebral edema, seizures and status epilepticus, cerebral vasospasm, and aphasia.
 

Immune checkpoint inhibitor toxicities

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are drugs that interrupt a cancer’s ability to hijack the immune system; they block the proteins that hold back T-cells from attacking the cancer, thereby releasing the immune system to go after the malignant cells.

The two most common types of immune checkpoint inhibitors are those targeting the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) pathways. The three currently approved PD-1 inhibitors are pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), and cemiplimab (Libtayo), which can treat nearly a dozen malignancies affecting different organs. Atezolizumab (Tecentriq), avelumab (Bavencio), and durvalumab (Imfinzi) are the three currently approved PD-L1 inhibitors, indicated for urothelial carcinoma and a handful of other cancers, such as small-cell and non–small cell lung cancer and triple negative breast cancer.

The only other type of approved checkpoint inhibitor is ipilimumab (Yervoy), which targets the CTLA-4 protein. A number of other checkpoint inhibitors are in trials, however, such as ones targeting pathways involving OX40, ICOS, TIM3, and LAG-3 (J Hematol Oncol. 2018. doi: 10.1186/s13045-018-0582-8).

Immune-related adverse events are less common with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors – a rate of 5%-10% – compared with adverse events from CTLA-4 inhibitors, which occur in about 15% of patients. Neurologic complications occur even more rarely – about 1%-4% of all immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies – and primarily include MG, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), and inflammatory myositis (Muscle Nerve. 2018;58[1]:10-22).

Treatment with multiple checkpoint inhibitors increases the likelihood of severe adverse events, with rates of up to 30%-50% of patients with dual treatment.
 

Distinguishing features of neuromuscular immunotherapy-related adverse events

MG is the most common neuromuscular immune-related adverse event from immune checkpoint inhibitors and tends to occur 3-12 weeks after beginning treatment, frequently comorbid with inflammatory myopathy or cardiomyopathy, Dr. Trevino said. About two-thirds of cases are de novo, while the remaining one-third involve preexisting MG; no reports of Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome have been linked to checkpoint inhibitors.

Several characteristics distinguish checkpoint inhibitor–associated MG from standard MG. Standard MG can be ocular with or without bulbar or appendicular weakness, whereas immunotherapy-related MG is rarely only ocular (about 18% of cases). Immunotherapy-related MG involves an MG crisis at diagnosis in up to 50% of cases and has high mortality, both of which are rarer with standard MG.

While standard MG can be seronegative or involve AChR, MuSK, or LRP4 antibodies, about two-thirds of immunotherapy-related MG cases are positive for AChR antibodies. LRP4 antibodies are rare with MG from checkpoint inhibitors, and no MuSK antibodies have been reported in these cases. Creatine kinase (CK) or troponin I (TnI) elevation occurs in about 87% of patients with checkpoint inhibitor-induced MG, but standard MG doesn’t typically involve increased CK levels.

Inflammatory myositis (IM), the second most common neuromuscular adverse event from immunotherapy, tends to occur 2-15 weeks after immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy and can involve polymyositis, necrotizing autoimmune myopathy, dermatomyositis, granulomatous myositis, or other nonspecific myositis and myopathies.

Though proximal weakness occurs with IM both associated with immunotherapy and not, ocular symptoms are unique to cases associated with therapy and occur in about half of them. Myalgia, dyspnea, and dysphagia can all occur with checkpoint inhibitor–associated IM but don’t generally occur with standard IM. Immunotherapy-related IM is usually seronegative for myositis antibodies and doesn’t generally cause abnormalities in electromyography, compared with increased exertional activity and early recruitment of myopathic motor units in electromyography with standard IM.

GBS and CIDP are the third most common cause of neuromuscular complications from checkpoint inhibitors. The main distinguishing feature of these conditions from those not related to immunotherapy is that they occur anywhere from 4 to 68 weeks after therapy begins. Presentation is otherwise similar whether related to checkpoint inhibitors or not.

Aside from GBS and CIDP, other neuropathies that can result from immunotherapy complications include acute cranial neuropathies, axonal or demyelinating neuropathies, motor polyradiculopathy, vasculitic neuropathy, and plexopathy.

Neuromuscular complications other than those described above can also occur from checkpoint inhibitor therapy, such as enteric neuropathy, polyradiculitis, and meningo-radiculo-neuritis, but these are much rarer.

Four organizations have developed consensus guidelines for immune checkpoint inhibitor toxicities: the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO, 2017), Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC, 2017), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO, 2018), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN, 2019).

Dr Trevino had no disclosures.

AUSTIN, TEX. – Neuromuscular complications from immunotherapy for cancer are rare, but they occur often enough that it is helpful to know which ones can result from different immunotherapies and how to distinguish them from non–adverse event conditions, according to Christopher Trevino, MD, a neuro-oncologist at Tulane University in New Orleans.

At the annual meeting of the American Association for Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, Dr. Trevino reviewed immunotherapy types, particularly immune checkpoint inhibitors, and the most common neuromuscular complications – primarily neuropathy, myasthenia gravis (MG), myositis, and encephalitis or meningitis.

“Timing of onset is a critical component to assist in identifying immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated versus non–immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated neuromuscular disease,” Dr. Trevino told attendees. Prompt recognition can be particularly urgent for MG because crisis and death rates are higher when induced by immunotherapy and require quick treatment. “Understanding the mechanisms of action sets a foundation for treatment approach,” he added.

Any part of the nervous system can be affected by immunotherapy toxicity, he said, and syndromes often overlap, with the peripheral nervous system typically more often affected than the central nervous system. Neurologic immune-related adverse events typically occur within four cycles of therapy – about 12 weeks after therapy initiation – but should always involve a work-up to exclude effects from the cancer itself, other neuromuscular diagnoses unrelated to therapy, and other toxicities from chemotherapy.

Recommended first-line treatment is halting immunotherapy with or without corticosteroids, after which most patients improve, often with “rapid, complete resolution of symptoms,” Dr. Trevino said. Restarting immunotherapy treatment is possible in some patients, though.
 

CAR T-cell and dendritic cell vaccine therapies

Four main types of immunotherapy exist: viral therapy, vaccine therapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and adoptive cell transfer, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. Dr. Trevino focused on checkpoint inhibitors and adoptive cell transfer.

CAR T-cell therapy is a multistep treatment process that involves first removing blood from the patient to obtain their T cells. These are used to create and grow CAR T cells in the lab so that they can be infused back into the patient. The cells then bind to cancer cells and destroy them. Examples of approved CAR T-cell therapy include Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel) for some types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel) for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

Dendritic cell vaccines are similar to CAR T-cell therapy in that they also use the patient’s own immune cells to create cancer-killing cells that the patient then receives back. The only currently approved dendritic cell vaccine is Provenge (sipuleucel-T) for advanced prostate cancer.

The main toxicity to watch for from CAR T-cell therapy and dendritic cell vaccines is cytokine release syndrome (CRS). It can begin anywhere from 1-14 days after the infusion and involves T-cell expansion in the body that leads to a cytokine storm. Symptoms are wide ranging, including fatigue, fever, loss of appetite, tachycardia, hypotension, pain, rash, diarrhea, headache, confusion, seizures, muscle and joint pain, tachypnea, hypoxia and hallucinations, among others.

Specific central neurotoxicities that can result from CAR T-cell therapy include encephalopathy, cerebral edema, seizures and status epilepticus, cerebral vasospasm, and aphasia.
 

Immune checkpoint inhibitor toxicities

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are drugs that interrupt a cancer’s ability to hijack the immune system; they block the proteins that hold back T-cells from attacking the cancer, thereby releasing the immune system to go after the malignant cells.

The two most common types of immune checkpoint inhibitors are those targeting the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) pathways. The three currently approved PD-1 inhibitors are pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), and cemiplimab (Libtayo), which can treat nearly a dozen malignancies affecting different organs. Atezolizumab (Tecentriq), avelumab (Bavencio), and durvalumab (Imfinzi) are the three currently approved PD-L1 inhibitors, indicated for urothelial carcinoma and a handful of other cancers, such as small-cell and non–small cell lung cancer and triple negative breast cancer.

The only other type of approved checkpoint inhibitor is ipilimumab (Yervoy), which targets the CTLA-4 protein. A number of other checkpoint inhibitors are in trials, however, such as ones targeting pathways involving OX40, ICOS, TIM3, and LAG-3 (J Hematol Oncol. 2018. doi: 10.1186/s13045-018-0582-8).

Immune-related adverse events are less common with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors – a rate of 5%-10% – compared with adverse events from CTLA-4 inhibitors, which occur in about 15% of patients. Neurologic complications occur even more rarely – about 1%-4% of all immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies – and primarily include MG, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), and inflammatory myositis (Muscle Nerve. 2018;58[1]:10-22).

Treatment with multiple checkpoint inhibitors increases the likelihood of severe adverse events, with rates of up to 30%-50% of patients with dual treatment.
 

Distinguishing features of neuromuscular immunotherapy-related adverse events

MG is the most common neuromuscular immune-related adverse event from immune checkpoint inhibitors and tends to occur 3-12 weeks after beginning treatment, frequently comorbid with inflammatory myopathy or cardiomyopathy, Dr. Trevino said. About two-thirds of cases are de novo, while the remaining one-third involve preexisting MG; no reports of Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome have been linked to checkpoint inhibitors.

Several characteristics distinguish checkpoint inhibitor–associated MG from standard MG. Standard MG can be ocular with or without bulbar or appendicular weakness, whereas immunotherapy-related MG is rarely only ocular (about 18% of cases). Immunotherapy-related MG involves an MG crisis at diagnosis in up to 50% of cases and has high mortality, both of which are rarer with standard MG.

While standard MG can be seronegative or involve AChR, MuSK, or LRP4 antibodies, about two-thirds of immunotherapy-related MG cases are positive for AChR antibodies. LRP4 antibodies are rare with MG from checkpoint inhibitors, and no MuSK antibodies have been reported in these cases. Creatine kinase (CK) or troponin I (TnI) elevation occurs in about 87% of patients with checkpoint inhibitor-induced MG, but standard MG doesn’t typically involve increased CK levels.

Inflammatory myositis (IM), the second most common neuromuscular adverse event from immunotherapy, tends to occur 2-15 weeks after immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy and can involve polymyositis, necrotizing autoimmune myopathy, dermatomyositis, granulomatous myositis, or other nonspecific myositis and myopathies.

Though proximal weakness occurs with IM both associated with immunotherapy and not, ocular symptoms are unique to cases associated with therapy and occur in about half of them. Myalgia, dyspnea, and dysphagia can all occur with checkpoint inhibitor–associated IM but don’t generally occur with standard IM. Immunotherapy-related IM is usually seronegative for myositis antibodies and doesn’t generally cause abnormalities in electromyography, compared with increased exertional activity and early recruitment of myopathic motor units in electromyography with standard IM.

GBS and CIDP are the third most common cause of neuromuscular complications from checkpoint inhibitors. The main distinguishing feature of these conditions from those not related to immunotherapy is that they occur anywhere from 4 to 68 weeks after therapy begins. Presentation is otherwise similar whether related to checkpoint inhibitors or not.

Aside from GBS and CIDP, other neuropathies that can result from immunotherapy complications include acute cranial neuropathies, axonal or demyelinating neuropathies, motor polyradiculopathy, vasculitic neuropathy, and plexopathy.

Neuromuscular complications other than those described above can also occur from checkpoint inhibitor therapy, such as enteric neuropathy, polyradiculitis, and meningo-radiculo-neuritis, but these are much rarer.

Four organizations have developed consensus guidelines for immune checkpoint inhibitor toxicities: the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO, 2017), Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC, 2017), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO, 2018), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN, 2019).

Dr Trevino had no disclosures.

ATLANTA – A group of patients using a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor safely received the live-attenuated varicella vaccine Zostavax without any cases of herpes zoster in the first 6 weeks after vaccination in the blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled Varicella Zoster Vaccine (VERVE) trial .

According to guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, there is a theoretical concern that patients using a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and other biologic therapies who receive a live-attenuated version of the varicella vaccine (Zostavax) could become infected with varicella from the vaccine. Patients with RA and psoriatic arthritis as well as other autoimmune and inflammatory conditions who are likely to receive TNFi therapy are also at risk for herpes zoster reactivation, Jeffrey Curtis, MD, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in his presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. There also exists a risk for patients receiving low-dose glucocorticoids.

“The challenge, of course, is there’s not a great definition and there certainly is not a well-standardized assay for how immunocompromised someone is, and so that led to the uncertainty in this patient population for this and other live-virus vaccines,” Dr. Curtis said.

Dr. Curtis and colleagues enrolled 627 participants from 33 centers into the VERVE trial. Participants were aged at least 50 years, were taking a TNFi, and had not previously received Zostavax.

Patients in both groups had a mean age of about 63 years and about two-thirds were women. The most common indications for TNFi use in the Zostavax group and the placebo group were RA (59.2% vs. 56.0%, respectively), psoriatic arthritis (24.3% vs. 23.9%), and ankylosing spondylitis (7.2% vs. 8.5%), while the anti-TNF agents used were adalimumab (38.1% vs. 27.4%), infliximab (28.4% vs. 34.2%), etanercept (19.0% vs. 23.5%), golimumab (10.0% vs. 8.1%), and certolizumab pegol (4.5% vs. 6.8%). In addition, some patients in the Zostavax and placebo groups were also taking concomitant therapies with TNFi, such as oral glucocorticoids (9.7% vs. 11.4%).

The researchers randomized participants to receive Zostavax or placebo (saline) and then followed them for 6 weeks, and looked for signs of wild-type or vaccine-strain varicella infection. If participants were suspected to have varicella, they were assessed clinically, underwent polymerase chain reaction testing, and rashes were photographed. At baseline and at 6 weeks, the researchers collected serum and peripheral blood mononuclear cells to determine patient immunity to varicella. After 6 months, participants were unmasked to the treatment arm of the study.

Dr. Curtis and colleagues found no confirmed varicella infection cases at 6 weeks. “To the extent that 0 cases out of 317 vaccinated people is reassuring, there were no cases, so that was exceedingly heartening as a result,” he said.

Out of 20 serious adverse events total in the groups, 15 events occurred before 6 months, including 8 suspected varicella cases in the Zostavax group and 7 in the placebo group. However, there were no positive cases of varicella – either wild type or vaccine type – after polymerase chain reaction tests. Overall, there were 268 adverse events in 195 participants, with 73 events (27.2%) consisting of injection-site reactions. The researchers also found no difference in the rate of disease flares, and found no differences in adverse reactions between groups, apart from a higher rate of injection-site reactions in the varicella group (19.4% vs. 4.2%).

With regard to immunogenicity, the humoral immune response was measured through IgG, which showed an immune response in the varicella group at 6 weeks (geometric mean fold ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.51), compared with the placebo group (GMFR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91-1.14); cell-mediated immune response was measured by interferon-gamma, which also showed an immune response in the live-vaccine group (GMFR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.14-1.94), compared with participants who received placebo (GMFR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.87-1.48). In preliminary 1-year data, IgG immune response was elevated in the varicella group (GMFR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.08-1.99), but there was no elevated immune response for interferon-gamma (GMFR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.49-1.25).

“I think the trial is encouraging not only for its result with the live zoster vaccine and TNF-treated patients, but also challenge the notion that, if you need to, a live-virus vaccine may in fact be able to be safely given to people with autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, even those treated with biologics like tumor necrosis factor inhibitors,” Dr. Curtis said.

As patients in VERVE consented to long-term follow-up in health plan claims and EHR data, it will be possible to follow these patients in the future to assess herpes zoster reactivation. Dr. Curtis also noted that a new trial involving the recombinant, adjuvanted zoster vaccine (Shingrix) is currently in development and should begin next year.

The VERVE trial was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Curtis reported serving as a current member of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Herpes Zoster Work Group. He and some of the other authors reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Curtis J et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 824.

ATLANTA – A group of patients using a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor safely received the live-attenuated varicella vaccine Zostavax without any cases of herpes zoster in the first 6 weeks after vaccination in the blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled Varicella Zoster Vaccine (VERVE) trial .

According to guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, there is a theoretical concern that patients using a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and other biologic therapies who receive a live-attenuated version of the varicella vaccine (Zostavax) could become infected with varicella from the vaccine. Patients with RA and psoriatic arthritis as well as other autoimmune and inflammatory conditions who are likely to receive TNFi therapy are also at risk for herpes zoster reactivation, Jeffrey Curtis, MD, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in his presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. There also exists a risk for patients receiving low-dose glucocorticoids.

“The challenge, of course, is there’s not a great definition and there certainly is not a well-standardized assay for how immunocompromised someone is, and so that led to the uncertainty in this patient population for this and other live-virus vaccines,” Dr. Curtis said.

Dr. Curtis and colleagues enrolled 627 participants from 33 centers into the VERVE trial. Participants were aged at least 50 years, were taking a TNFi, and had not previously received Zostavax.

Patients in both groups had a mean age of about 63 years and about two-thirds were women. The most common indications for TNFi use in the Zostavax group and the placebo group were RA (59.2% vs. 56.0%, respectively), psoriatic arthritis (24.3% vs. 23.9%), and ankylosing spondylitis (7.2% vs. 8.5%), while the anti-TNF agents used were adalimumab (38.1% vs. 27.4%), infliximab (28.4% vs. 34.2%), etanercept (19.0% vs. 23.5%), golimumab (10.0% vs. 8.1%), and certolizumab pegol (4.5% vs. 6.8%). In addition, some patients in the Zostavax and placebo groups were also taking concomitant therapies with TNFi, such as oral glucocorticoids (9.7% vs. 11.4%).

The researchers randomized participants to receive Zostavax or placebo (saline) and then followed them for 6 weeks, and looked for signs of wild-type or vaccine-strain varicella infection. If participants were suspected to have varicella, they were assessed clinically, underwent polymerase chain reaction testing, and rashes were photographed. At baseline and at 6 weeks, the researchers collected serum and peripheral blood mononuclear cells to determine patient immunity to varicella. After 6 months, participants were unmasked to the treatment arm of the study.

Dr. Curtis and colleagues found no confirmed varicella infection cases at 6 weeks. “To the extent that 0 cases out of 317 vaccinated people is reassuring, there were no cases, so that was exceedingly heartening as a result,” he said.

Out of 20 serious adverse events total in the groups, 15 events occurred before 6 months, including 8 suspected varicella cases in the Zostavax group and 7 in the placebo group. However, there were no positive cases of varicella – either wild type or vaccine type – after polymerase chain reaction tests. Overall, there were 268 adverse events in 195 participants, with 73 events (27.2%) consisting of injection-site reactions. The researchers also found no difference in the rate of disease flares, and found no differences in adverse reactions between groups, apart from a higher rate of injection-site reactions in the varicella group (19.4% vs. 4.2%).

With regard to immunogenicity, the humoral immune response was measured through IgG, which showed an immune response in the varicella group at 6 weeks (geometric mean fold ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.51), compared with the placebo group (GMFR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91-1.14); cell-mediated immune response was measured by interferon-gamma, which also showed an immune response in the live-vaccine group (GMFR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.14-1.94), compared with participants who received placebo (GMFR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.87-1.48). In preliminary 1-year data, IgG immune response was elevated in the varicella group (GMFR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.08-1.99), but there was no elevated immune response for interferon-gamma (GMFR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.49-1.25).

“I think the trial is encouraging not only for its result with the live zoster vaccine and TNF-treated patients, but also challenge the notion that, if you need to, a live-virus vaccine may in fact be able to be safely given to people with autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, even those treated with biologics like tumor necrosis factor inhibitors,” Dr. Curtis said.

As patients in VERVE consented to long-term follow-up in health plan claims and EHR data, it will be possible to follow these patients in the future to assess herpes zoster reactivation. Dr. Curtis also noted that a new trial involving the recombinant, adjuvanted zoster vaccine (Shingrix) is currently in development and should begin next year.

The VERVE trial was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Curtis reported serving as a current member of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Herpes Zoster Work Group. He and some of the other authors reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Curtis J et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 824.

ATLANTA – A group of patients using a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor safely received the live-attenuated varicella vaccine Zostavax without any cases of herpes zoster in the first 6 weeks after vaccination in the blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled Varicella Zoster Vaccine (VERVE) trial .

According to guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, there is a theoretical concern that patients using a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and other biologic therapies who receive a live-attenuated version of the varicella vaccine (Zostavax) could become infected with varicella from the vaccine. Patients with RA and psoriatic arthritis as well as other autoimmune and inflammatory conditions who are likely to receive TNFi therapy are also at risk for herpes zoster reactivation, Jeffrey Curtis, MD, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in his presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. There also exists a risk for patients receiving low-dose glucocorticoids.

“The challenge, of course, is there’s not a great definition and there certainly is not a well-standardized assay for how immunocompromised someone is, and so that led to the uncertainty in this patient population for this and other live-virus vaccines,” Dr. Curtis said.

Dr. Curtis and colleagues enrolled 627 participants from 33 centers into the VERVE trial. Participants were aged at least 50 years, were taking a TNFi, and had not previously received Zostavax.

Patients in both groups had a mean age of about 63 years and about two-thirds were women. The most common indications for TNFi use in the Zostavax group and the placebo group were RA (59.2% vs. 56.0%, respectively), psoriatic arthritis (24.3% vs. 23.9%), and ankylosing spondylitis (7.2% vs. 8.5%), while the anti-TNF agents used were adalimumab (38.1% vs. 27.4%), infliximab (28.4% vs. 34.2%), etanercept (19.0% vs. 23.5%), golimumab (10.0% vs. 8.1%), and certolizumab pegol (4.5% vs. 6.8%). In addition, some patients in the Zostavax and placebo groups were also taking concomitant therapies with TNFi, such as oral glucocorticoids (9.7% vs. 11.4%).

The researchers randomized participants to receive Zostavax or placebo (saline) and then followed them for 6 weeks, and looked for signs of wild-type or vaccine-strain varicella infection. If participants were suspected to have varicella, they were assessed clinically, underwent polymerase chain reaction testing, and rashes were photographed. At baseline and at 6 weeks, the researchers collected serum and peripheral blood mononuclear cells to determine patient immunity to varicella. After 6 months, participants were unmasked to the treatment arm of the study.

Dr. Curtis and colleagues found no confirmed varicella infection cases at 6 weeks. “To the extent that 0 cases out of 317 vaccinated people is reassuring, there were no cases, so that was exceedingly heartening as a result,” he said.

Out of 20 serious adverse events total in the groups, 15 events occurred before 6 months, including 8 suspected varicella cases in the Zostavax group and 7 in the placebo group. However, there were no positive cases of varicella – either wild type or vaccine type – after polymerase chain reaction tests. Overall, there were 268 adverse events in 195 participants, with 73 events (27.2%) consisting of injection-site reactions. The researchers also found no difference in the rate of disease flares, and found no differences in adverse reactions between groups, apart from a higher rate of injection-site reactions in the varicella group (19.4% vs. 4.2%).

With regard to immunogenicity, the humoral immune response was measured through IgG, which showed an immune response in the varicella group at 6 weeks (geometric mean fold ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.51), compared with the placebo group (GMFR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91-1.14); cell-mediated immune response was measured by interferon-gamma, which also showed an immune response in the live-vaccine group (GMFR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.14-1.94), compared with participants who received placebo (GMFR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.87-1.48). In preliminary 1-year data, IgG immune response was elevated in the varicella group (GMFR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.08-1.99), but there was no elevated immune response for interferon-gamma (GMFR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.49-1.25).

“I think the trial is encouraging not only for its result with the live zoster vaccine and TNF-treated patients, but also challenge the notion that, if you need to, a live-virus vaccine may in fact be able to be safely given to people with autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, even those treated with biologics like tumor necrosis factor inhibitors,” Dr. Curtis said.

As patients in VERVE consented to long-term follow-up in health plan claims and EHR data, it will be possible to follow these patients in the future to assess herpes zoster reactivation. Dr. Curtis also noted that a new trial involving the recombinant, adjuvanted zoster vaccine (Shingrix) is currently in development and should begin next year.

The VERVE trial was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Curtis reported serving as a current member of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Herpes Zoster Work Group. He and some of the other authors reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Curtis J et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 824.

NEW ORLEANS – In the opinion of Paul A. Offit, MD, pushback against antivaccination campaigns and advocates is stronger than ever.

The shift began with the measles outbreak in Southern California in late 2014, he said. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 125 measles cases with rash that occurred between Dec. 28, 2014, and Feb. 8, 2015, were confirmed in U.S. residents. Of these, 100 were California residents (MMWR. 2015 Feb 20;64[06];153-4).

“This outbreak spread ultimately to 25 states and involved 189 people,” Dr. Offit said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “It was in the news almost every day. As a consequence, there were measles outbreaks in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Oregon, and Texas, and Washington, which began to turn the public sentiment against the antivaccine movement.”

Even longstanding skeptics are changing their tune. Dr. Offit, professor of pediatrics in the division of infectious diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, cited a recent study from the Autism Science Foundation which found that 85% of parents of children with autism spectrum disorder don’t believe that vaccines cause the condition. “Although there will be parents who continue to believe that vaccines cause autism, most parents of children with autism don’t believe that,” he said. “Also, it’s a little hard to make your case that vaccines are dangerous and that you shouldn’t get them in the midst of outbreaks.”

Perhaps the greatest pushback against antivaccination efforts has been made in the legal arena. In 2019 alone, legislators in California banned parents from not vaccinating their kids because of personal beliefs, while lawmakers in New York repealed the religious exemption to vaccinate, those in Maine repealed the religious and philosophical exemption, those in New Jersey required detailed written explanation for religious exemption, and those in Washington State repealed the philosophical exemption for the MMR vaccine.

Pushback also is apparent on various social media platforms. For example, Dr. Offit said, Pinterest restricts vaccine search results to curb the spread of misinformation, YouTube removes ads from antivaccine channels, Amazon Prime has pulled antivaccination documentaries from its video service, and Facebook has taken steps to curb misinformation about vaccines. “With outbreaks and with children suffering, the media and public sentiment has largely turned against those who are vehemently against vaccines,” he said. “I’m talking about an angry, politically connected, lawyer-backed group of people who are conspiracy theorists, [those] who no matter what you say, they’re going to believe there’s a conspiracy theory to hurt their children and not believe you. When that group becomes big enough and you start to see outbreaks like we’ve seen, then it becomes an issue. That’s where it comes down to legislation. Is it your inalienable right as a U.S. citizen to allow your child to catch and transmit a potentially fatal infection? That’s what we’re struggling with now.”

When meeting with parents who are skeptical about vaccines or refuse their children to have them, Dr. Offit advises clinicians to “go down swinging” in favor of vaccination. He shared how his wife, Bonnie, a pediatrician who practices in suburban Philadelphia, counsels parents who raise such concerns. “The way she handled it initially was to do the best she could to eventually get people vaccinated,” he said. “She was successful about one-quarter of the time. Then she drew a line. She started saying to parents, ‘Look; don’t put me in a position where you are asking me to practice substandard care. I can’t send them out of this room knowing that there’s more measles out there, knowing that there’s mumps out there, knowing that there’s whooping cough out there, knowing that there’s pneumococcus and varicella out there. If this child leaves this office and is hurt by any of those viruses or bacteria and I knew I could have done something to prevent it, I couldn’t live with myself. If you’re going to let this child out without being vaccinated I can’t see you anymore because I’m responsible for the health of this child.’ With that [approach], she has been far more successful. Because at some level, if you continue to see that patient, you’re tacitly agreeing that it’s okay to [not vaccinate].”

In 2000, Dr. Offit and colleagues created the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, which provides complete, up-to-date, and reliable information about vaccines to parents and clinicians. It summarizes the purpose of each vaccine, and the relative risks and benefits in easy-to-read language. The CDC also maintains updated information about vaccines and immunizations on its web site. For his part, Dr. Offit tells parents that passing on an opportunity to vaccinate their child is not a risk-free choice. “If you choose not to get a vaccine you probably will get away with it, but you might not,” he said. “You are playing a game of Russian roulette. It may not be five empty chambers and one bullet, but maybe it’s 100,000 empty chambers and one bullet. There’s a bullet there.”

Dr. Offit reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

NEW ORLEANS – In the opinion of Paul A. Offit, MD, pushback against antivaccination campaigns and advocates is stronger than ever.

The shift began with the measles outbreak in Southern California in late 2014, he said. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 125 measles cases with rash that occurred between Dec. 28, 2014, and Feb. 8, 2015, were confirmed in U.S. residents. Of these, 100 were California residents (MMWR. 2015 Feb 20;64[06];153-4).

“This outbreak spread ultimately to 25 states and involved 189 people,” Dr. Offit said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “It was in the news almost every day. As a consequence, there were measles outbreaks in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Oregon, and Texas, and Washington, which began to turn the public sentiment against the antivaccine movement.”

Even longstanding skeptics are changing their tune. Dr. Offit, professor of pediatrics in the division of infectious diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, cited a recent study from the Autism Science Foundation which found that 85% of parents of children with autism spectrum disorder don’t believe that vaccines cause the condition. “Although there will be parents who continue to believe that vaccines cause autism, most parents of children with autism don’t believe that,” he said. “Also, it’s a little hard to make your case that vaccines are dangerous and that you shouldn’t get them in the midst of outbreaks.”

Perhaps the greatest pushback against antivaccination efforts has been made in the legal arena. In 2019 alone, legislators in California banned parents from not vaccinating their kids because of personal beliefs, while lawmakers in New York repealed the religious exemption to vaccinate, those in Maine repealed the religious and philosophical exemption, those in New Jersey required detailed written explanation for religious exemption, and those in Washington State repealed the philosophical exemption for the MMR vaccine.

Pushback also is apparent on various social media platforms. For example, Dr. Offit said, Pinterest restricts vaccine search results to curb the spread of misinformation, YouTube removes ads from antivaccine channels, Amazon Prime has pulled antivaccination documentaries from its video service, and Facebook has taken steps to curb misinformation about vaccines. “With outbreaks and with children suffering, the media and public sentiment has largely turned against those who are vehemently against vaccines,” he said. “I’m talking about an angry, politically connected, lawyer-backed group of people who are conspiracy theorists, [those] who no matter what you say, they’re going to believe there’s a conspiracy theory to hurt their children and not believe you. When that group becomes big enough and you start to see outbreaks like we’ve seen, then it becomes an issue. That’s where it comes down to legislation. Is it your inalienable right as a U.S. citizen to allow your child to catch and transmit a potentially fatal infection? That’s what we’re struggling with now.”

When meeting with parents who are skeptical about vaccines or refuse their children to have them, Dr. Offit advises clinicians to “go down swinging” in favor of vaccination. He shared how his wife, Bonnie, a pediatrician who practices in suburban Philadelphia, counsels parents who raise such concerns. “The way she handled it initially was to do the best she could to eventually get people vaccinated,” he said. “She was successful about one-quarter of the time. Then she drew a line. She started saying to parents, ‘Look; don’t put me in a position where you are asking me to practice substandard care. I can’t send them out of this room knowing that there’s more measles out there, knowing that there’s mumps out there, knowing that there’s whooping cough out there, knowing that there’s pneumococcus and varicella out there. If this child leaves this office and is hurt by any of those viruses or bacteria and I knew I could have done something to prevent it, I couldn’t live with myself. If you’re going to let this child out without being vaccinated I can’t see you anymore because I’m responsible for the health of this child.’ With that [approach], she has been far more successful. Because at some level, if you continue to see that patient, you’re tacitly agreeing that it’s okay to [not vaccinate].”

In 2000, Dr. Offit and colleagues created the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, which provides complete, up-to-date, and reliable information about vaccines to parents and clinicians. It summarizes the purpose of each vaccine, and the relative risks and benefits in easy-to-read language. The CDC also maintains updated information about vaccines and immunizations on its web site. For his part, Dr. Offit tells parents that passing on an opportunity to vaccinate their child is not a risk-free choice. “If you choose not to get a vaccine you probably will get away with it, but you might not,” he said. “You are playing a game of Russian roulette. It may not be five empty chambers and one bullet, but maybe it’s 100,000 empty chambers and one bullet. There’s a bullet there.”

Dr. Offit reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

NEW ORLEANS – In the opinion of Paul A. Offit, MD, pushback against antivaccination campaigns and advocates is stronger than ever.

The shift began with the measles outbreak in Southern California in late 2014, he said. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 125 measles cases with rash that occurred between Dec. 28, 2014, and Feb. 8, 2015, were confirmed in U.S. residents. Of these, 100 were California residents (MMWR. 2015 Feb 20;64[06];153-4).

“This outbreak spread ultimately to 25 states and involved 189 people,” Dr. Offit said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “It was in the news almost every day. As a consequence, there were measles outbreaks in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Oregon, and Texas, and Washington, which began to turn the public sentiment against the antivaccine movement.”

Even longstanding skeptics are changing their tune. Dr. Offit, professor of pediatrics in the division of infectious diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, cited a recent study from the Autism Science Foundation which found that 85% of parents of children with autism spectrum disorder don’t believe that vaccines cause the condition. “Although there will be parents who continue to believe that vaccines cause autism, most parents of children with autism don’t believe that,” he said. “Also, it’s a little hard to make your case that vaccines are dangerous and that you shouldn’t get them in the midst of outbreaks.”

Perhaps the greatest pushback against antivaccination efforts has been made in the legal arena. In 2019 alone, legislators in California banned parents from not vaccinating their kids because of personal beliefs, while lawmakers in New York repealed the religious exemption to vaccinate, those in Maine repealed the religious and philosophical exemption, those in New Jersey required detailed written explanation for religious exemption, and those in Washington State repealed the philosophical exemption for the MMR vaccine.

Pushback also is apparent on various social media platforms. For example, Dr. Offit said, Pinterest restricts vaccine search results to curb the spread of misinformation, YouTube removes ads from antivaccine channels, Amazon Prime has pulled antivaccination documentaries from its video service, and Facebook has taken steps to curb misinformation about vaccines. “With outbreaks and with children suffering, the media and public sentiment has largely turned against those who are vehemently against vaccines,” he said. “I’m talking about an angry, politically connected, lawyer-backed group of people who are conspiracy theorists, [those] who no matter what you say, they’re going to believe there’s a conspiracy theory to hurt their children and not believe you. When that group becomes big enough and you start to see outbreaks like we’ve seen, then it becomes an issue. That’s where it comes down to legislation. Is it your inalienable right as a U.S. citizen to allow your child to catch and transmit a potentially fatal infection? That’s what we’re struggling with now.”

When meeting with parents who are skeptical about vaccines or refuse their children to have them, Dr. Offit advises clinicians to “go down swinging” in favor of vaccination. He shared how his wife, Bonnie, a pediatrician who practices in suburban Philadelphia, counsels parents who raise such concerns. “The way she handled it initially was to do the best she could to eventually get people vaccinated,” he said. “She was successful about one-quarter of the time. Then she drew a line. She started saying to parents, ‘Look; don’t put me in a position where you are asking me to practice substandard care. I can’t send them out of this room knowing that there’s more measles out there, knowing that there’s mumps out there, knowing that there’s whooping cough out there, knowing that there’s pneumococcus and varicella out there. If this child leaves this office and is hurt by any of those viruses or bacteria and I knew I could have done something to prevent it, I couldn’t live with myself. If you’re going to let this child out without being vaccinated I can’t see you anymore because I’m responsible for the health of this child.’ With that [approach], she has been far more successful. Because at some level, if you continue to see that patient, you’re tacitly agreeing that it’s okay to [not vaccinate].”

In 2000, Dr. Offit and colleagues created the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, which provides complete, up-to-date, and reliable information about vaccines to parents and clinicians. It summarizes the purpose of each vaccine, and the relative risks and benefits in easy-to-read language. The CDC also maintains updated information about vaccines and immunizations on its web site. For his part, Dr. Offit tells parents that passing on an opportunity to vaccinate their child is not a risk-free choice. “If you choose not to get a vaccine you probably will get away with it, but you might not,” he said. “You are playing a game of Russian roulette. It may not be five empty chambers and one bullet, but maybe it’s 100,000 empty chambers and one bullet. There’s a bullet there.”

Dr. Offit reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

BOSTON – A prime-boost hepatitis C virus (HCV) vaccine regimen did not protect against chronic infection, but it did evoke immune responses and differences in viral trajectory, according to investigators in what is believed to be the first randomized, placebo-controlled efficacy trial in this setting.

copyright wildpixel/Thinkstock

There were no apparent safety concerns with the vaccine according to investigators, led by Kimberly Page, PhD, MPH, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

“A safe and effective vaccine to prevent chronic hepatitis C virus infection is essential to reduce transmission,” Dr. Page and coauthors said in a late-breaking abstract of the study results, which will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The phase 1/2 trial described by Dr. Page and colleagues included 455 adults at risk of HCV infection because of injection drug use. They were randomized to vaccine, which consisted of a recombinant chimpanzee adenovirus-3 vectored vaccine prime plus a recombinant Modified Vaccinia virus Ankara boost, or to two doses of placebo at days 0 and 56 of the study.

There was no difference in chronic HCV infection at 6 months, the primary endpoint of the study. There were 14 chronically infected participants in the vaccine group, as well as 14 in the placebo group, for an overall incidence of infection of 13.0/100 person-years, Dr. Page and coauthors reported in the abstract.

However, there were significant differences in HCV RNA geometric mean peak at 1 month, which was 193,795 IU/L in the vaccine group and 1,078,092 IU/L in the placebo group, according to investigators. Similarly, geometric mean fold rise after infection was 0.2 in the vaccine group and 13.5 in the placebo group.

A total of 78% of vaccinated individuals had T-cell responses to at least one vaccine antigen pool, investigators said, adding that the vaccine was safe, well tolerated, and not associated with any serious adverse events.

Dr. Page had no disclosures related to the abstract.

SOURCE: Page K et al. The Liver Meeting 2019. Abstract LP17.

BOSTON – A prime-boost hepatitis C virus (HCV) vaccine regimen did not protect against chronic infection, but it did evoke immune responses and differences in viral trajectory, according to investigators in what is believed to be the first randomized, placebo-controlled efficacy trial in this setting.

copyright wildpixel/Thinkstock

There were no apparent safety concerns with the vaccine according to investigators, led by Kimberly Page, PhD, MPH, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

“A safe and effective vaccine to prevent chronic hepatitis C virus infection is essential to reduce transmission,” Dr. Page and coauthors said in a late-breaking abstract of the study results, which will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The phase 1/2 trial described by Dr. Page and colleagues included 455 adults at risk of HCV infection because of injection drug use. They were randomized to vaccine, which consisted of a recombinant chimpanzee adenovirus-3 vectored vaccine prime plus a recombinant Modified Vaccinia virus Ankara boost, or to two doses of placebo at days 0 and 56 of the study.

There was no difference in chronic HCV infection at 6 months, the primary endpoint of the study. There were 14 chronically infected participants in the vaccine group, as well as 14 in the placebo group, for an overall incidence of infection of 13.0/100 person-years, Dr. Page and coauthors reported in the abstract.

However, there were significant differences in HCV RNA geometric mean peak at 1 month, which was 193,795 IU/L in the vaccine group and 1,078,092 IU/L in the placebo group, according to investigators. Similarly, geometric mean fold rise after infection was 0.2 in the vaccine group and 13.5 in the placebo group.

A total of 78% of vaccinated individuals had T-cell responses to at least one vaccine antigen pool, investigators said, adding that the vaccine was safe, well tolerated, and not associated with any serious adverse events.

Dr. Page had no disclosures related to the abstract.

SOURCE: Page K et al. The Liver Meeting 2019. Abstract LP17.

BOSTON – A prime-boost hepatitis C virus (HCV) vaccine regimen did not protect against chronic infection, but it did evoke immune responses and differences in viral trajectory, according to investigators in what is believed to be the first randomized, placebo-controlled efficacy trial in this setting.

copyright wildpixel/Thinkstock

There were no apparent safety concerns with the vaccine according to investigators, led by Kimberly Page, PhD, MPH, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

“A safe and effective vaccine to prevent chronic hepatitis C virus infection is essential to reduce transmission,” Dr. Page and coauthors said in a late-breaking abstract of the study results, which will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The phase 1/2 trial described by Dr. Page and colleagues included 455 adults at risk of HCV infection because of injection drug use. They were randomized to vaccine, which consisted of a recombinant chimpanzee adenovirus-3 vectored vaccine prime plus a recombinant Modified Vaccinia virus Ankara boost, or to two doses of placebo at days 0 and 56 of the study.

There was no difference in chronic HCV infection at 6 months, the primary endpoint of the study. There were 14 chronically infected participants in the vaccine group, as well as 14 in the placebo group, for an overall incidence of infection of 13.0/100 person-years, Dr. Page and coauthors reported in the abstract.

However, there were significant differences in HCV RNA geometric mean peak at 1 month, which was 193,795 IU/L in the vaccine group and 1,078,092 IU/L in the placebo group, according to investigators. Similarly, geometric mean fold rise after infection was 0.2 in the vaccine group and 13.5 in the placebo group.

A total of 78% of vaccinated individuals had T-cell responses to at least one vaccine antigen pool, investigators said, adding that the vaccine was safe, well tolerated, and not associated with any serious adverse events.

Dr. Page had no disclosures related to the abstract.

SOURCE: Page K et al. The Liver Meeting 2019. Abstract LP17.