Vaccines

WASHINGTON – Influenza vaccine continues to cut not just the incidence of flu but also mitigates infection severity in both children and adults, according to recent U.S. experience collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

During recent U.S. flu seasons, children and adults who contracted influenza despite vaccination had significantly fewer severe infections and infection complications, compared with unimmunized people, according to two separate reports from CDC researchers presented at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

One of the reports tracked the impact of flu vaccine in children using data that the CDC collected at seven medical centers that participated in the agency’s New Vaccine Surveillance Network, which provided information on children aged 6 months to 17 years who were hospitalized for an acute respiratory illness, including more than 1,700 children during the 2016-2017 flu season and more than 1,900 during the 2017-2018 season. Roughly 10% of these children tested positive for influenza, and the subsequent analysis focused on these cases and compared incidence rates among children who had been vaccinated during the index season and those who had remained unvaccinated.

Combined data from both seasons showed that vaccinated children were 50% less likely to have been hospitalized for an acute influenza infection, compared with unvaccinated kids, a pattern consistently seen both in children aged 6 months to 8 years and in those aged 9-17 years. The pattern of vaccine effectiveness also held regardless of which flu strain caused the infections, reported Angela P. Campbell, MD, a CDC medical officer.

“We saw a nice benefit from vaccination, both in previously healthy children and in those with an underlying medical condition,” a finding that adds to existing evidence of vaccine effectiveness, Dr. Campbell said in a video interview. The results confirmed that flu vaccination does not just prevent infections but also cuts the rate of more severe infections that lead to hospitalization, she explained.

Another CDC study looked at data collected by the agency’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network from adults at least 18 years old who were hospitalized for a laboratory-confirmed influenza infection during five flu seasons, 2013-2014 through 2017-18. The data, which came from more than 250 acute-care hospitals in 13 states, included more than 43,000 people hospitalized for an identified influenza strain and with a known vaccination history who were not institutionalized and had not received any antiviral treatment.

After propensity-weighted adjustment to create better parity between the vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, the results showed that people 18-64 years old with vaccination had statistically significant decreases in mortality of a relative 36%, need for mechanical ventilation of 34%, pneumonia of 20%, and need for ICU admission of a relative 19%, as well as an 18% drop in average ICU length of stay, Shikha Garg, MD, said at the meeting. The propensity-weighted analysis of data from people at least 65 years old showed statistically significant relative reductions linked with vaccination: 46% reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation, 28% reduction in ICU admissions, and 9% reduction in hospitalized length of stay.

Further analysis of these outcomes by the strains that caused these influenza infections showed that the statistically significant benefits from vaccination were seen only in patients infected with an H1N1 strain. Statistically significant effects on these severe outcomes were not apparent among people infected with the H3N2 or B strains, said Dr. Garg, a medical epidemiologist at the CDC.

“All adults should receive an annual flu vaccination as it can improve outcomes among those who develop influenza despite vaccination,” she concluded.

Results from a third CDC study reported at the meeting examined the importance of two vaccine doses (administered at least 4 weeks apart) given to children aged 6 months to 8 years for the first season they receive flu vaccination, which is the immunization approach for flu recommended by the CDC. The findings from a total of more than 7,500 children immunized during the 2014-2018 seasons showed a clear increment in vaccine protection among kids who received two doses during their first season vaccinated, especially in children who were 2 years old or younger. In that age group, administration of two doses produced vaccine effectiveness of 53% versus a 23% vaccine effectiveness after a single vaccine dose, reported Jessie Chung, a CDC epidemiologist.

[email protected]

WASHINGTON – Influenza vaccine continues to cut not just the incidence of flu but also mitigates infection severity in both children and adults, according to recent U.S. experience collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

During recent U.S. flu seasons, children and adults who contracted influenza despite vaccination had significantly fewer severe infections and infection complications, compared with unimmunized people, according to two separate reports from CDC researchers presented at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

One of the reports tracked the impact of flu vaccine in children using data that the CDC collected at seven medical centers that participated in the agency’s New Vaccine Surveillance Network, which provided information on children aged 6 months to 17 years who were hospitalized for an acute respiratory illness, including more than 1,700 children during the 2016-2017 flu season and more than 1,900 during the 2017-2018 season. Roughly 10% of these children tested positive for influenza, and the subsequent analysis focused on these cases and compared incidence rates among children who had been vaccinated during the index season and those who had remained unvaccinated.

Combined data from both seasons showed that vaccinated children were 50% less likely to have been hospitalized for an acute influenza infection, compared with unvaccinated kids, a pattern consistently seen both in children aged 6 months to 8 years and in those aged 9-17 years. The pattern of vaccine effectiveness also held regardless of which flu strain caused the infections, reported Angela P. Campbell, MD, a CDC medical officer.

“We saw a nice benefit from vaccination, both in previously healthy children and in those with an underlying medical condition,” a finding that adds to existing evidence of vaccine effectiveness, Dr. Campbell said in a video interview. The results confirmed that flu vaccination does not just prevent infections but also cuts the rate of more severe infections that lead to hospitalization, she explained.

Another CDC study looked at data collected by the agency’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network from adults at least 18 years old who were hospitalized for a laboratory-confirmed influenza infection during five flu seasons, 2013-2014 through 2017-18. The data, which came from more than 250 acute-care hospitals in 13 states, included more than 43,000 people hospitalized for an identified influenza strain and with a known vaccination history who were not institutionalized and had not received any antiviral treatment.

After propensity-weighted adjustment to create better parity between the vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, the results showed that people 18-64 years old with vaccination had statistically significant decreases in mortality of a relative 36%, need for mechanical ventilation of 34%, pneumonia of 20%, and need for ICU admission of a relative 19%, as well as an 18% drop in average ICU length of stay, Shikha Garg, MD, said at the meeting. The propensity-weighted analysis of data from people at least 65 years old showed statistically significant relative reductions linked with vaccination: 46% reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation, 28% reduction in ICU admissions, and 9% reduction in hospitalized length of stay.

Further analysis of these outcomes by the strains that caused these influenza infections showed that the statistically significant benefits from vaccination were seen only in patients infected with an H1N1 strain. Statistically significant effects on these severe outcomes were not apparent among people infected with the H3N2 or B strains, said Dr. Garg, a medical epidemiologist at the CDC.

“All adults should receive an annual flu vaccination as it can improve outcomes among those who develop influenza despite vaccination,” she concluded.

Results from a third CDC study reported at the meeting examined the importance of two vaccine doses (administered at least 4 weeks apart) given to children aged 6 months to 8 years for the first season they receive flu vaccination, which is the immunization approach for flu recommended by the CDC. The findings from a total of more than 7,500 children immunized during the 2014-2018 seasons showed a clear increment in vaccine protection among kids who received two doses during their first season vaccinated, especially in children who were 2 years old or younger. In that age group, administration of two doses produced vaccine effectiveness of 53% versus a 23% vaccine effectiveness after a single vaccine dose, reported Jessie Chung, a CDC epidemiologist.

[email protected]

WASHINGTON – Influenza vaccine continues to cut not just the incidence of flu but also mitigates infection severity in both children and adults, according to recent U.S. experience collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

During recent U.S. flu seasons, children and adults who contracted influenza despite vaccination had significantly fewer severe infections and infection complications, compared with unimmunized people, according to two separate reports from CDC researchers presented at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

One of the reports tracked the impact of flu vaccine in children using data that the CDC collected at seven medical centers that participated in the agency’s New Vaccine Surveillance Network, which provided information on children aged 6 months to 17 years who were hospitalized for an acute respiratory illness, including more than 1,700 children during the 2016-2017 flu season and more than 1,900 during the 2017-2018 season. Roughly 10% of these children tested positive for influenza, and the subsequent analysis focused on these cases and compared incidence rates among children who had been vaccinated during the index season and those who had remained unvaccinated.

Combined data from both seasons showed that vaccinated children were 50% less likely to have been hospitalized for an acute influenza infection, compared with unvaccinated kids, a pattern consistently seen both in children aged 6 months to 8 years and in those aged 9-17 years. The pattern of vaccine effectiveness also held regardless of which flu strain caused the infections, reported Angela P. Campbell, MD, a CDC medical officer.

“We saw a nice benefit from vaccination, both in previously healthy children and in those with an underlying medical condition,” a finding that adds to existing evidence of vaccine effectiveness, Dr. Campbell said in a video interview. The results confirmed that flu vaccination does not just prevent infections but also cuts the rate of more severe infections that lead to hospitalization, she explained.

Another CDC study looked at data collected by the agency’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network from adults at least 18 years old who were hospitalized for a laboratory-confirmed influenza infection during five flu seasons, 2013-2014 through 2017-18. The data, which came from more than 250 acute-care hospitals in 13 states, included more than 43,000 people hospitalized for an identified influenza strain and with a known vaccination history who were not institutionalized and had not received any antiviral treatment.

After propensity-weighted adjustment to create better parity between the vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, the results showed that people 18-64 years old with vaccination had statistically significant decreases in mortality of a relative 36%, need for mechanical ventilation of 34%, pneumonia of 20%, and need for ICU admission of a relative 19%, as well as an 18% drop in average ICU length of stay, Shikha Garg, MD, said at the meeting. The propensity-weighted analysis of data from people at least 65 years old showed statistically significant relative reductions linked with vaccination: 46% reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation, 28% reduction in ICU admissions, and 9% reduction in hospitalized length of stay.

Further analysis of these outcomes by the strains that caused these influenza infections showed that the statistically significant benefits from vaccination were seen only in patients infected with an H1N1 strain. Statistically significant effects on these severe outcomes were not apparent among people infected with the H3N2 or B strains, said Dr. Garg, a medical epidemiologist at the CDC.

“All adults should receive an annual flu vaccination as it can improve outcomes among those who develop influenza despite vaccination,” she concluded.

Results from a third CDC study reported at the meeting examined the importance of two vaccine doses (administered at least 4 weeks apart) given to children aged 6 months to 8 years for the first season they receive flu vaccination, which is the immunization approach for flu recommended by the CDC. The findings from a total of more than 7,500 children immunized during the 2014-2018 seasons showed a clear increment in vaccine protection among kids who received two doses during their first season vaccinated, especially in children who were 2 years old or younger. In that age group, administration of two doses produced vaccine effectiveness of 53% versus a 23% vaccine effectiveness after a single vaccine dose, reported Jessie Chung, a CDC epidemiologist.

[email protected]

Let’s suppose your first patient of the morning is a 2-month-old you have never seen before. The family arrives 10 minutes late because they are still getting the dressing-undressing-diaper change-car seat–adjusting thing worked out. Father is a computer programmer. Mother lists her occupation as nutrition counselor. The child is gaining. Breastfeeding seems to come naturally to the dyad.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

As the visit draws to a close, you take the matter-of-fact approach and say, “The nurse will be in shortly with the vaccines do you have any questions.” Well ... it turns out the parents don’t feel comfortable with vaccines. They claim to understand the science and feel that vaccines make sense for some families. But they feel that for themselves, with a healthy lifestyle and God’s benevolence their son will be protected without having to introduce a host of foreign substances into his body.

What word best describes your reaction? Anger? Frustration? Disappointment (in our education system)? Maybe you’re angry at yourself for failing to make it clear in your office pamphlet and social media feeds that to protect your other patients, you no longer accept families who refuse immunizations for the common childhood diseases.

The American Academy of Pediatrics says it feels your pain, and its Annual Leadership Forum made eliminating nonmedical vaccine exemption laws its top priority in 2019. As part of its effort to help, the AAP Board of Directors was asked to advocate for the creation of a toolkit of strategies for Academy chapters facing the challenge of nonmedical exemptions. As an initial step to this process, three physicians in the department of pediatrics at the Denver Health Medical Center have begun interviewing religious leaders in hopes of developing “clergy-specific vaccine educational materials and deriv[ing] best practices for engaging them as vaccination advocates.” The investigators describe their plan and initial findings in Pediatrics (2019 Oct. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-0933). Although they acknowledged that their efforts may not provide a quick solution to the nonmedical exemption problem, they hope that including more stakeholders and engendering trust will help future discussions.

Fourteen pages deeper into that issue of Pediatrics is the runner-up submission of this year’s Section on Pediatric Trainees essay competition titled “What I Learned From the Antivaccine Movement” (2019 Oct. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2384). Alana C. Ju, MD, describes the 2-hour ordeal she endured to testify at the California State Capitol in support of a state Senate bill aimed at tightening the regulations for vaccine medical exemptions. Totally unprepared for the “level of vitriol” aimed at her and other supporters of the bill, she was “accused of violating her duty as” a pediatrician because she was failing to protect children. The supporters were called “greedy, ignorant, and negligent.”

To her credit, Dr. Ju was able to step back from this assault and began looking at the faces of her accusers and learned that, “they too, felt strongly about children’s health.” She realized that “focusing on perceived ignorance is counterproductive.” She now hopes that by focusing on the shared goal of what is best for children, “we can all be better advocates.”

Both of these articles have a warm sort of kumbaya feel about them. It never is a bad idea to learn more about those with whom we disagree. But before huddling up too close to the campfire, we must realize that there is good evidence that sharing the scientific data with vaccine-hesitant parents doesn’t convert them into vaccine acceptors. In fact, it may strengthen their resolve to resist (Nyhan et al. “Effective Messages in Vaccine Promotion: A Randomized Trial,” Pediatrics. 2014 Apr;133[4] e835-42).

We are unlikely to convert many anti-vaxxers by sitting down together. Our target audience needs to be legislators and the majority of people who do vaccinate their children. These are the voters who will support legislation to eliminate nonmedical vaccine exemptions. To characterize anti-vaxxers as despicable ignorants is untrue and serves no purpose. We all do care about the health of children. However, the evidence is clear that nonmedical exemptions are threatening the population at large and need to be curtailed.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

*This article has been updated 1/22/2020.

Let’s suppose your first patient of the morning is a 2-month-old you have never seen before. The family arrives 10 minutes late because they are still getting the dressing-undressing-diaper change-car seat–adjusting thing worked out. Father is a computer programmer. Mother lists her occupation as nutrition counselor. The child is gaining. Breastfeeding seems to come naturally to the dyad.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

As the visit draws to a close, you take the matter-of-fact approach and say, “The nurse will be in shortly with the vaccines do you have any questions.” Well ... it turns out the parents don’t feel comfortable with vaccines. They claim to understand the science and feel that vaccines make sense for some families. But they feel that for themselves, with a healthy lifestyle and God’s benevolence their son will be protected without having to introduce a host of foreign substances into his body.

What word best describes your reaction? Anger? Frustration? Disappointment (in our education system)? Maybe you’re angry at yourself for failing to make it clear in your office pamphlet and social media feeds that to protect your other patients, you no longer accept families who refuse immunizations for the common childhood diseases.

The American Academy of Pediatrics says it feels your pain, and its Annual Leadership Forum made eliminating nonmedical vaccine exemption laws its top priority in 2019. As part of its effort to help, the AAP Board of Directors was asked to advocate for the creation of a toolkit of strategies for Academy chapters facing the challenge of nonmedical exemptions. As an initial step to this process, three physicians in the department of pediatrics at the Denver Health Medical Center have begun interviewing religious leaders in hopes of developing “clergy-specific vaccine educational materials and deriv[ing] best practices for engaging them as vaccination advocates.” The investigators describe their plan and initial findings in Pediatrics (2019 Oct. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-0933). Although they acknowledged that their efforts may not provide a quick solution to the nonmedical exemption problem, they hope that including more stakeholders and engendering trust will help future discussions.

Fourteen pages deeper into that issue of Pediatrics is the runner-up submission of this year’s Section on Pediatric Trainees essay competition titled “What I Learned From the Antivaccine Movement” (2019 Oct. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2384). Alana C. Ju, MD, describes the 2-hour ordeal she endured to testify at the California State Capitol in support of a state Senate bill aimed at tightening the regulations for vaccine medical exemptions. Totally unprepared for the “level of vitriol” aimed at her and other supporters of the bill, she was “accused of violating her duty as” a pediatrician because she was failing to protect children. The supporters were called “greedy, ignorant, and negligent.”

To her credit, Dr. Ju was able to step back from this assault and began looking at the faces of her accusers and learned that, “they too, felt strongly about children’s health.” She realized that “focusing on perceived ignorance is counterproductive.” She now hopes that by focusing on the shared goal of what is best for children, “we can all be better advocates.”

Both of these articles have a warm sort of kumbaya feel about them. It never is a bad idea to learn more about those with whom we disagree. But before huddling up too close to the campfire, we must realize that there is good evidence that sharing the scientific data with vaccine-hesitant parents doesn’t convert them into vaccine acceptors. In fact, it may strengthen their resolve to resist (Nyhan et al. “Effective Messages in Vaccine Promotion: A Randomized Trial,” Pediatrics. 2014 Apr;133[4] e835-42).

We are unlikely to convert many anti-vaxxers by sitting down together. Our target audience needs to be legislators and the majority of people who do vaccinate their children. These are the voters who will support legislation to eliminate nonmedical vaccine exemptions. To characterize anti-vaxxers as despicable ignorants is untrue and serves no purpose. We all do care about the health of children. However, the evidence is clear that nonmedical exemptions are threatening the population at large and need to be curtailed.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

*This article has been updated 1/22/2020.

Let’s suppose your first patient of the morning is a 2-month-old you have never seen before. The family arrives 10 minutes late because they are still getting the dressing-undressing-diaper change-car seat–adjusting thing worked out. Father is a computer programmer. Mother lists her occupation as nutrition counselor. The child is gaining. Breastfeeding seems to come naturally to the dyad.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

As the visit draws to a close, you take the matter-of-fact approach and say, “The nurse will be in shortly with the vaccines do you have any questions.” Well ... it turns out the parents don’t feel comfortable with vaccines. They claim to understand the science and feel that vaccines make sense for some families. But they feel that for themselves, with a healthy lifestyle and God’s benevolence their son will be protected without having to introduce a host of foreign substances into his body.

What word best describes your reaction? Anger? Frustration? Disappointment (in our education system)? Maybe you’re angry at yourself for failing to make it clear in your office pamphlet and social media feeds that to protect your other patients, you no longer accept families who refuse immunizations for the common childhood diseases.

The American Academy of Pediatrics says it feels your pain, and its Annual Leadership Forum made eliminating nonmedical vaccine exemption laws its top priority in 2019. As part of its effort to help, the AAP Board of Directors was asked to advocate for the creation of a toolkit of strategies for Academy chapters facing the challenge of nonmedical exemptions. As an initial step to this process, three physicians in the department of pediatrics at the Denver Health Medical Center have begun interviewing religious leaders in hopes of developing “clergy-specific vaccine educational materials and deriv[ing] best practices for engaging them as vaccination advocates.” The investigators describe their plan and initial findings in Pediatrics (2019 Oct. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-0933). Although they acknowledged that their efforts may not provide a quick solution to the nonmedical exemption problem, they hope that including more stakeholders and engendering trust will help future discussions.

Fourteen pages deeper into that issue of Pediatrics is the runner-up submission of this year’s Section on Pediatric Trainees essay competition titled “What I Learned From the Antivaccine Movement” (2019 Oct. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2384). Alana C. Ju, MD, describes the 2-hour ordeal she endured to testify at the California State Capitol in support of a state Senate bill aimed at tightening the regulations for vaccine medical exemptions. Totally unprepared for the “level of vitriol” aimed at her and other supporters of the bill, she was “accused of violating her duty as” a pediatrician because she was failing to protect children. The supporters were called “greedy, ignorant, and negligent.”

To her credit, Dr. Ju was able to step back from this assault and began looking at the faces of her accusers and learned that, “they too, felt strongly about children’s health.” She realized that “focusing on perceived ignorance is counterproductive.” She now hopes that by focusing on the shared goal of what is best for children, “we can all be better advocates.”

Both of these articles have a warm sort of kumbaya feel about them. It never is a bad idea to learn more about those with whom we disagree. But before huddling up too close to the campfire, we must realize that there is good evidence that sharing the scientific data with vaccine-hesitant parents doesn’t convert them into vaccine acceptors. In fact, it may strengthen their resolve to resist (Nyhan et al. “Effective Messages in Vaccine Promotion: A Randomized Trial,” Pediatrics. 2014 Apr;133[4] e835-42).

We are unlikely to convert many anti-vaxxers by sitting down together. Our target audience needs to be legislators and the majority of people who do vaccinate their children. These are the voters who will support legislation to eliminate nonmedical vaccine exemptions. To characterize anti-vaxxers as despicable ignorants is untrue and serves no purpose. We all do care about the health of children. However, the evidence is clear that nonmedical exemptions are threatening the population at large and need to be curtailed.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

*This article has been updated 1/22/2020.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted unanimously to approve the child and adolescent immunization schedule for 2020.

Yarinca/istockphoto

The changes to the child and adolescent immunization schedule for 2020 “incorporate recommendations that have occurred and are easy to use at point of care by busy providers,” Candice Robinson, MD, MPH, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said at the CDC’s October meeting of ACIP. Updates reflect changes in language in the adult vaccination schedule, notably the change in the definition of “contraindication.” The updated wording in the Notes substitutes “not recommended or contraindicated” instead of the word “contraindicated” only.

Another notable change was the addition of information on adolescent vaccination of children who received the meningococcal ACWY vaccine before 10 years of age. For “children in whom boosters are not recommended due to an ongoing or increased risk of meningococcal disease” (such as a healthy child traveling to an endemic area), they should receive MenACWY according to the recommended adolescent schedule. But those children for whom boosters are recommended because of increased disease risk from conditions including complement deficiency, HIV, or asplenia should “follow the booster schedule for persons at increased risk.”

Other changes include restructuring of the notes for the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) in special situations. The schedule now uses a bulleted list to show that LAIV should not be used in the following circumstances:

• Having history of severe allergic reaction to a previous vaccine or vaccine component.
• Using aspirin or a salicylate-containing medication.
• Being aged 2-4 years with a history of asthma or wheezing.
• Having immunocompromised conditions.
• Having anatomic or functional asplenia.
• Having cochlear implants.
• Experiencing cerebrospinal fluid–oropharyngeal communication.
• Having immunocompromised close contacts or caregivers.
• Being pregnant.
• Having received flu antivirals within the previous 48 hours.

In addition, language on shared clinical decision-making was added to the notes on the meningococcal B vaccine for adolescents and young adults aged 18-23 years not at increased risk. Based on shared clinical decision making, the recommendation is a “two-dose series of Bexsero at least 1 month apart” or “two-dose series of Trumenba at least 6 months apart; if dose two is administered earlier than 6 months, administer a third dose at least 4 months after dose two.”

Several vaccines’ Notes sections, including hepatitis B and meningococcal disease, added links to detailed recommendations in the corresponding issues of the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, to allow clinicians easy access to additional information.

View the current Child & Adolescent Vaccination Schedule here.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted unanimously to approve the child and adolescent immunization schedule for 2020.

Yarinca/istockphoto

The changes to the child and adolescent immunization schedule for 2020 “incorporate recommendations that have occurred and are easy to use at point of care by busy providers,” Candice Robinson, MD, MPH, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said at the CDC’s October meeting of ACIP. Updates reflect changes in language in the adult vaccination schedule, notably the change in the definition of “contraindication.” The updated wording in the Notes substitutes “not recommended or contraindicated” instead of the word “contraindicated” only.

Another notable change was the addition of information on adolescent vaccination of children who received the meningococcal ACWY vaccine before 10 years of age. For “children in whom boosters are not recommended due to an ongoing or increased risk of meningococcal disease” (such as a healthy child traveling to an endemic area), they should receive MenACWY according to the recommended adolescent schedule. But those children for whom boosters are recommended because of increased disease risk from conditions including complement deficiency, HIV, or asplenia should “follow the booster schedule for persons at increased risk.”

Other changes include restructuring of the notes for the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) in special situations. The schedule now uses a bulleted list to show that LAIV should not be used in the following circumstances:

• Having history of severe allergic reaction to a previous vaccine or vaccine component.
• Using aspirin or a salicylate-containing medication.
• Being aged 2-4 years with a history of asthma or wheezing.
• Having immunocompromised conditions.
• Having anatomic or functional asplenia.
• Having cochlear implants.
• Experiencing cerebrospinal fluid–oropharyngeal communication.
• Having immunocompromised close contacts or caregivers.
• Being pregnant.
• Having received flu antivirals within the previous 48 hours.

In addition, language on shared clinical decision-making was added to the notes on the meningococcal B vaccine for adolescents and young adults aged 18-23 years not at increased risk. Based on shared clinical decision making, the recommendation is a “two-dose series of Bexsero at least 1 month apart” or “two-dose series of Trumenba at least 6 months apart; if dose two is administered earlier than 6 months, administer a third dose at least 4 months after dose two.”

Several vaccines’ Notes sections, including hepatitis B and meningococcal disease, added links to detailed recommendations in the corresponding issues of the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, to allow clinicians easy access to additional information.

View the current Child & Adolescent Vaccination Schedule here.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted unanimously to approve the child and adolescent immunization schedule for 2020.

Yarinca/istockphoto

The changes to the child and adolescent immunization schedule for 2020 “incorporate recommendations that have occurred and are easy to use at point of care by busy providers,” Candice Robinson, MD, MPH, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said at the CDC’s October meeting of ACIP. Updates reflect changes in language in the adult vaccination schedule, notably the change in the definition of “contraindication.” The updated wording in the Notes substitutes “not recommended or contraindicated” instead of the word “contraindicated” only.

Another notable change was the addition of information on adolescent vaccination of children who received the meningococcal ACWY vaccine before 10 years of age. For “children in whom boosters are not recommended due to an ongoing or increased risk of meningococcal disease” (such as a healthy child traveling to an endemic area), they should receive MenACWY according to the recommended adolescent schedule. But those children for whom boosters are recommended because of increased disease risk from conditions including complement deficiency, HIV, or asplenia should “follow the booster schedule for persons at increased risk.”

Other changes include restructuring of the notes for the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) in special situations. The schedule now uses a bulleted list to show that LAIV should not be used in the following circumstances:

• Having history of severe allergic reaction to a previous vaccine or vaccine component.
• Using aspirin or a salicylate-containing medication.
• Being aged 2-4 years with a history of asthma or wheezing.
• Having immunocompromised conditions.
• Having anatomic or functional asplenia.
• Having cochlear implants.
• Experiencing cerebrospinal fluid–oropharyngeal communication.
• Having immunocompromised close contacts or caregivers.
• Being pregnant.
• Having received flu antivirals within the previous 48 hours.

In addition, language on shared clinical decision-making was added to the notes on the meningococcal B vaccine for adolescents and young adults aged 18-23 years not at increased risk. Based on shared clinical decision making, the recommendation is a “two-dose series of Bexsero at least 1 month apart” or “two-dose series of Trumenba at least 6 months apart; if dose two is administered earlier than 6 months, administer a third dose at least 4 months after dose two.”

Several vaccines’ Notes sections, including hepatitis B and meningococcal disease, added links to detailed recommendations in the corresponding issues of the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, to allow clinicians easy access to additional information.

View the current Child & Adolescent Vaccination Schedule here.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted unanimously to approve the adult immunization schedule for 2020, although some fine-tuning may occur before publication.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

“Some of the wordsmithing may be done later,” ACIP executive secretary Amanda Cohn, MD, said at the ACIP October meeting.

These small changes revolved mainly around how much wording to include in the current color block tables versus including the information in the notes section.

Key updates to the schedule included a change in wording for the definition of the red bars on the table to include “not recommended or contraindicated” instead of only the word “contraindicated.” Committee members were especially interested in changing this wording to guide clinicians in use of the live attenuated influenza vaccine because of its potential value in vaccinating health care personnel.

Other updates include language that vaccination of adolescents and young adults aged 16-23 years who are not at increased risk for meningococcal disease should be vaccinated as follows: “Based on shared clinical decision making, 2-dose series MenB-4C at least 1 month apart or 2-dose series MenB-FHbp at 0, 6 months.”

Similarly, clinical decision-making language was added to the notes for the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) and the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13).

The routine vaccination calls for only one dose of PPSV23 given on or after the individual’s 65th birthday. Then, based on shared clinical decision making, a dose of PCV13 is recommended for immunocompetent individuals aged 65 years and older. The notes also state that, based on shared clinical decision making, PCV13 and PPSV23 should not be given in the same visit and, if both will be given, PCV13 should be first and should be given 1 year before PPSV23. In addition, “PPSV23 should be given at least 5 years after any previous PPSV23 dose.”

The schedule also adds shared clinical decision making to the notes on human papillomavirus vaccination for adults aged 27-45 years.

The committee members acknowledged the increasing complexity of the adult vaccination schedule, but several members agreed that it is accessible to many clinicians.

“We can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” said Jason Goldman, MD, liaison representing the American College of Physicians. “Those who want to learn the schedule will learn it; the health system will learn it,” even if not every specialist does.

The table “is something to draw you in,” said Sandra Fryhofer, MD, an internist who is liaison for the American Medical Association. The notes provide more details.

More specific information about contraindications for patients with cochlear implants, which also came up in the discussion, may be added to the schedule at a later date.

View the current adult vaccination schedule here.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted unanimously to approve the adult immunization schedule for 2020, although some fine-tuning may occur before publication.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

“Some of the wordsmithing may be done later,” ACIP executive secretary Amanda Cohn, MD, said at the ACIP October meeting.

These small changes revolved mainly around how much wording to include in the current color block tables versus including the information in the notes section.

Key updates to the schedule included a change in wording for the definition of the red bars on the table to include “not recommended or contraindicated” instead of only the word “contraindicated.” Committee members were especially interested in changing this wording to guide clinicians in use of the live attenuated influenza vaccine because of its potential value in vaccinating health care personnel.

Other updates include language that vaccination of adolescents and young adults aged 16-23 years who are not at increased risk for meningococcal disease should be vaccinated as follows: “Based on shared clinical decision making, 2-dose series MenB-4C at least 1 month apart or 2-dose series MenB-FHbp at 0, 6 months.”

Similarly, clinical decision-making language was added to the notes for the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) and the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13).

The routine vaccination calls for only one dose of PPSV23 given on or after the individual’s 65th birthday. Then, based on shared clinical decision making, a dose of PCV13 is recommended for immunocompetent individuals aged 65 years and older. The notes also state that, based on shared clinical decision making, PCV13 and PPSV23 should not be given in the same visit and, if both will be given, PCV13 should be first and should be given 1 year before PPSV23. In addition, “PPSV23 should be given at least 5 years after any previous PPSV23 dose.”

The schedule also adds shared clinical decision making to the notes on human papillomavirus vaccination for adults aged 27-45 years.

The committee members acknowledged the increasing complexity of the adult vaccination schedule, but several members agreed that it is accessible to many clinicians.

“We can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” said Jason Goldman, MD, liaison representing the American College of Physicians. “Those who want to learn the schedule will learn it; the health system will learn it,” even if not every specialist does.

The table “is something to draw you in,” said Sandra Fryhofer, MD, an internist who is liaison for the American Medical Association. The notes provide more details.

More specific information about contraindications for patients with cochlear implants, which also came up in the discussion, may be added to the schedule at a later date.

View the current adult vaccination schedule here.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted unanimously to approve the adult immunization schedule for 2020, although some fine-tuning may occur before publication.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

“Some of the wordsmithing may be done later,” ACIP executive secretary Amanda Cohn, MD, said at the ACIP October meeting.

These small changes revolved mainly around how much wording to include in the current color block tables versus including the information in the notes section.

Key updates to the schedule included a change in wording for the definition of the red bars on the table to include “not recommended or contraindicated” instead of only the word “contraindicated.” Committee members were especially interested in changing this wording to guide clinicians in use of the live attenuated influenza vaccine because of its potential value in vaccinating health care personnel.

Other updates include language that vaccination of adolescents and young adults aged 16-23 years who are not at increased risk for meningococcal disease should be vaccinated as follows: “Based on shared clinical decision making, 2-dose series MenB-4C at least 1 month apart or 2-dose series MenB-FHbp at 0, 6 months.”

Similarly, clinical decision-making language was added to the notes for the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) and the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13).

The routine vaccination calls for only one dose of PPSV23 given on or after the individual’s 65th birthday. Then, based on shared clinical decision making, a dose of PCV13 is recommended for immunocompetent individuals aged 65 years and older. The notes also state that, based on shared clinical decision making, PCV13 and PPSV23 should not be given in the same visit and, if both will be given, PCV13 should be first and should be given 1 year before PPSV23. In addition, “PPSV23 should be given at least 5 years after any previous PPSV23 dose.”

The schedule also adds shared clinical decision making to the notes on human papillomavirus vaccination for adults aged 27-45 years.

The committee members acknowledged the increasing complexity of the adult vaccination schedule, but several members agreed that it is accessible to many clinicians.

“We can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” said Jason Goldman, MD, liaison representing the American College of Physicians. “Those who want to learn the schedule will learn it; the health system will learn it,” even if not every specialist does.

The table “is something to draw you in,” said Sandra Fryhofer, MD, an internist who is liaison for the American Medical Association. The notes provide more details.

More specific information about contraindications for patients with cochlear implants, which also came up in the discussion, may be added to the schedule at a later date.

View the current adult vaccination schedule here.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

The flu season is underway in the United States, and an Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ work group is set to assess vaccines for older adults, according to data presented at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s ACIP.

copyright Wavebreakmedia/Thinkstock

Lynette Brammer of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD) presented a surveillance update of the flu season in the United States so far. Overall, the influenza A(H3N2) viruses are predominant, although dominance varies in different regions of the country, and it is too soon to predict what strain will dominate later in the season.

“While two of the four vaccine components were updated for the Southern Hemisphere, the components selected for the 2019-2020 Northern Hemisphere vaccine, at this time, look appropriate for the season,” she said.

In other flu news, Lisa Groskopf, MD, of the NCIRD discussed the influenza work group’s plans for a meta-analysis to assess the relative benefit of different vaccines for older adults, in light of the growing variety of products available.

Currently, no preferential recommendations have been made for a specific vaccine for a particular age group. “There’s a dearth of data comparing these vaccines to one another,” said Dr. Groskopf. She added that, because vaccine effectiveness varies by season, the generalizability of effectiveness data is another challenge.

The work group’s systematic review and meta-analysis is designed to compare the high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV), the adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV), and the recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV). The study will include adults aged 65 years and older who receive trivalent or quadrivalent HD-IIV, aIIV, or RIV, compared with those who receive another influenza vaccine, a noninfluenza control vaccine, placebo, or no vaccine. The outcomes will include data on safety and effectiveness of the vaccines, Dr. Groskopf said.

In addition to safety and effectiveness, manufacturers such as Sanofi Pasteur continue to collect data on the success of available vaccines and develop new ones. Lee-Jah Chang, MD, of Sanofi Pasteur presented results of a noninferiority study of the company’s investigational high-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV-HD; including two prevailing B viruses) versus the high-dose trivalent influenza vaccine (TID-HD). The study was conducted at 35 sites in the United States and included 2,670 adults aged 65 years and older.

Overall, the reactogenicity profile for patients given QIV-HD was similar to that of TID-HD, and approximately 5% of patients in the QIV group reported an immediate adverse event, Dr. Chang said. However, no related deaths or related adverse events of special interest occurred in any of the study groups.

Sanofi plans to pursue licensure of the QIV-HD vaccine, with a Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research action date of Nov. 4, 2019, said Dr. Chang. If the vaccine is licensed, it should be available for purchase by health care providers in the first quarter of 2020.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The flu season is underway in the United States, and an Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ work group is set to assess vaccines for older adults, according to data presented at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s ACIP.

copyright Wavebreakmedia/Thinkstock

Lynette Brammer of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD) presented a surveillance update of the flu season in the United States so far. Overall, the influenza A(H3N2) viruses are predominant, although dominance varies in different regions of the country, and it is too soon to predict what strain will dominate later in the season.

“While two of the four vaccine components were updated for the Southern Hemisphere, the components selected for the 2019-2020 Northern Hemisphere vaccine, at this time, look appropriate for the season,” she said.

In other flu news, Lisa Groskopf, MD, of the NCIRD discussed the influenza work group’s plans for a meta-analysis to assess the relative benefit of different vaccines for older adults, in light of the growing variety of products available.

Currently, no preferential recommendations have been made for a specific vaccine for a particular age group. “There’s a dearth of data comparing these vaccines to one another,” said Dr. Groskopf. She added that, because vaccine effectiveness varies by season, the generalizability of effectiveness data is another challenge.

The work group’s systematic review and meta-analysis is designed to compare the high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV), the adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV), and the recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV). The study will include adults aged 65 years and older who receive trivalent or quadrivalent HD-IIV, aIIV, or RIV, compared with those who receive another influenza vaccine, a noninfluenza control vaccine, placebo, or no vaccine. The outcomes will include data on safety and effectiveness of the vaccines, Dr. Groskopf said.

In addition to safety and effectiveness, manufacturers such as Sanofi Pasteur continue to collect data on the success of available vaccines and develop new ones. Lee-Jah Chang, MD, of Sanofi Pasteur presented results of a noninferiority study of the company’s investigational high-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV-HD; including two prevailing B viruses) versus the high-dose trivalent influenza vaccine (TID-HD). The study was conducted at 35 sites in the United States and included 2,670 adults aged 65 years and older.

Overall, the reactogenicity profile for patients given QIV-HD was similar to that of TID-HD, and approximately 5% of patients in the QIV group reported an immediate adverse event, Dr. Chang said. However, no related deaths or related adverse events of special interest occurred in any of the study groups.

Sanofi plans to pursue licensure of the QIV-HD vaccine, with a Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research action date of Nov. 4, 2019, said Dr. Chang. If the vaccine is licensed, it should be available for purchase by health care providers in the first quarter of 2020.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The flu season is underway in the United States, and an Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ work group is set to assess vaccines for older adults, according to data presented at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s ACIP.

copyright Wavebreakmedia/Thinkstock

Lynette Brammer of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD) presented a surveillance update of the flu season in the United States so far. Overall, the influenza A(H3N2) viruses are predominant, although dominance varies in different regions of the country, and it is too soon to predict what strain will dominate later in the season.

“While two of the four vaccine components were updated for the Southern Hemisphere, the components selected for the 2019-2020 Northern Hemisphere vaccine, at this time, look appropriate for the season,” she said.

In other flu news, Lisa Groskopf, MD, of the NCIRD discussed the influenza work group’s plans for a meta-analysis to assess the relative benefit of different vaccines for older adults, in light of the growing variety of products available.

Currently, no preferential recommendations have been made for a specific vaccine for a particular age group. “There’s a dearth of data comparing these vaccines to one another,” said Dr. Groskopf. She added that, because vaccine effectiveness varies by season, the generalizability of effectiveness data is another challenge.

The work group’s systematic review and meta-analysis is designed to compare the high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV), the adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV), and the recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV). The study will include adults aged 65 years and older who receive trivalent or quadrivalent HD-IIV, aIIV, or RIV, compared with those who receive another influenza vaccine, a noninfluenza control vaccine, placebo, or no vaccine. The outcomes will include data on safety and effectiveness of the vaccines, Dr. Groskopf said.

In addition to safety and effectiveness, manufacturers such as Sanofi Pasteur continue to collect data on the success of available vaccines and develop new ones. Lee-Jah Chang, MD, of Sanofi Pasteur presented results of a noninferiority study of the company’s investigational high-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV-HD; including two prevailing B viruses) versus the high-dose trivalent influenza vaccine (TID-HD). The study was conducted at 35 sites in the United States and included 2,670 adults aged 65 years and older.

Overall, the reactogenicity profile for patients given QIV-HD was similar to that of TID-HD, and approximately 5% of patients in the QIV group reported an immediate adverse event, Dr. Chang said. However, no related deaths or related adverse events of special interest occurred in any of the study groups.

Sanofi plans to pursue licensure of the QIV-HD vaccine, with a Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research action date of Nov. 4, 2019, said Dr. Chang. If the vaccine is licensed, it should be available for purchase by health care providers in the first quarter of 2020.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Either the Tdap or Td vaccine is an acceptable option for pertussis vaccination in most situations, recommended the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

copyright Jacopo Werther/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons Attribution 2.0

In a unanimous 14-0 vote at the October meeting, ACIP members agreed that current data support the use of either the Tdap or Td pertussis vaccine in three areas: as a decennial booster, for tetanus prophylaxis and in the setting of wound management, and for additional catch-up doses based on the immunization schedule for persons aged 7 years and older.

Safety data showed no differences in safety concerns between Tdap and Td, including data from pregnant women, said Fiona Havers, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), Atlanta.

Several of the ACIP members noted that the revised language to include both Tdap and Td reflects the increased use of Tdap and allows for maximum flexibility in clinical settings.

The revised language advises that booster doses of “either Td or Tdap” every 10 years throughout life are recommended for continued protection against tetanus and diphtheria. In addition, either Td or Tdap should be used if a tetanus toxoid–containing vaccine is indicated for prophylaxis in nonpregnant individuals.

For catch-up recommendations, which also apply to pregnant women, the committee approved the following wording for a series of three doses for individuals aged 7-18 years and 19 years and older who have never been vaccinated, that “the preferred schedule is a dose of Tdap (preferably the first dose), followed by either Tdap or Td at least 4 weeks afterward and another dose of either Td or Tdap 6-12 months later.” Individuals in these same age groups who are not fully vaccinated should receive one dose of Tdap, and a dose of either Td or Tdap if additional doses are needed.

The committee also voted unanimously 14-0 to accept the updated wording for pertussis vaccination in the Vaccines for Children program.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Either the Tdap or Td vaccine is an acceptable option for pertussis vaccination in most situations, recommended the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

copyright Jacopo Werther/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons Attribution 2.0

In a unanimous 14-0 vote at the October meeting, ACIP members agreed that current data support the use of either the Tdap or Td pertussis vaccine in three areas: as a decennial booster, for tetanus prophylaxis and in the setting of wound management, and for additional catch-up doses based on the immunization schedule for persons aged 7 years and older.

Safety data showed no differences in safety concerns between Tdap and Td, including data from pregnant women, said Fiona Havers, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), Atlanta.

Several of the ACIP members noted that the revised language to include both Tdap and Td reflects the increased use of Tdap and allows for maximum flexibility in clinical settings.

The revised language advises that booster doses of “either Td or Tdap” every 10 years throughout life are recommended for continued protection against tetanus and diphtheria. In addition, either Td or Tdap should be used if a tetanus toxoid–containing vaccine is indicated for prophylaxis in nonpregnant individuals.

For catch-up recommendations, which also apply to pregnant women, the committee approved the following wording for a series of three doses for individuals aged 7-18 years and 19 years and older who have never been vaccinated, that “the preferred schedule is a dose of Tdap (preferably the first dose), followed by either Tdap or Td at least 4 weeks afterward and another dose of either Td or Tdap 6-12 months later.” Individuals in these same age groups who are not fully vaccinated should receive one dose of Tdap, and a dose of either Td or Tdap if additional doses are needed.

The committee also voted unanimously 14-0 to accept the updated wording for pertussis vaccination in the Vaccines for Children program.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Either the Tdap or Td vaccine is an acceptable option for pertussis vaccination in most situations, recommended the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

copyright Jacopo Werther/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons Attribution 2.0

In a unanimous 14-0 vote at the October meeting, ACIP members agreed that current data support the use of either the Tdap or Td pertussis vaccine in three areas: as a decennial booster, for tetanus prophylaxis and in the setting of wound management, and for additional catch-up doses based on the immunization schedule for persons aged 7 years and older.

Safety data showed no differences in safety concerns between Tdap and Td, including data from pregnant women, said Fiona Havers, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), Atlanta.

Several of the ACIP members noted that the revised language to include both Tdap and Td reflects the increased use of Tdap and allows for maximum flexibility in clinical settings.

The revised language advises that booster doses of “either Td or Tdap” every 10 years throughout life are recommended for continued protection against tetanus and diphtheria. In addition, either Td or Tdap should be used if a tetanus toxoid–containing vaccine is indicated for prophylaxis in nonpregnant individuals.

For catch-up recommendations, which also apply to pregnant women, the committee approved the following wording for a series of three doses for individuals aged 7-18 years and 19 years and older who have never been vaccinated, that “the preferred schedule is a dose of Tdap (preferably the first dose), followed by either Tdap or Td at least 4 weeks afterward and another dose of either Td or Tdap 6-12 months later.” Individuals in these same age groups who are not fully vaccinated should receive one dose of Tdap, and a dose of either Td or Tdap if additional doses are needed.

The committee also voted unanimously 14-0 to accept the updated wording for pertussis vaccination in the Vaccines for Children program.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

ID Week, the annual meeting of the Infectious Disease Society of America, provided valuable insights into past season’s endemic influenza burden and the effectiveness of prevention strategies. Each year, there are from 9million to 49 million influenza cases in the United States, 140,000-960,000 hospitalized cases, and 12,000-70,000 deaths directly attributable to influenza infection. The burden disproportionately falls on infants and adults 65 years of age and older; 11,000-48,000 children are hospitalized, and as many as several hundred children may die from influenza and related complications. School age children (aged 5-19 years) and adults (aged 30-39 years) are a major part of the transmission cycle. Influenza vaccine underlies the prevention strategy for limiting the burden of disease in U.S. populations. ID Week provided new insights into critical questions about influenza vaccines.

spukkato/Getty Images

1. What is the effectiveness of influenza vaccine against severe disease (hospitalization) in children? Does it vary by age? By type or subtype?

Angela P. Campbell, MD, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and associates presented data on influenza vaccine effectiveness from the New Vaccine Surveillance Network in children for the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 season (ID Week session 99; Abstract 899). During both 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, H3N2 was the dominant virus and influenza B represented about one-third of cases, and H1N1 was a greater percentage of cases in 2017-2018. Influenza positivity among children younger than 18 years of age admitted to hospital with respiratory disease was 14% among unvaccinated and 8% among vaccinated children; effectiveness again hospitalization was 50%. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) was not statistically different between children younger than 8 years of age and those older that 8 years but did differ by vaccine type. VE was 76% against H1N1 disease, 59% again B disease, and only 33% against H3N2 disease.

Clearly, vaccination with influenza vaccine prevents serious respiratory disease. However, the impact of vaccine will vary by season and by which influenza stains are circulating in the community. The authors concluded that further understanding of the lower VE against H3N2 disease is needed.

2. Does the priming dose of influenza vaccine improve vaccine effectiveness?

Current recommendations call for a two-dose series for influenza vaccine in children aged 6 months through 8 years who have not had prior influenza vaccine. The recommendation is based on evidence demonstrating higher antibody responses in children receiving two doses, compared with a single dose. Using data from the U.S. Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network, Jessie R. Chung, MPH, of the CDC, and associates compared VE in children younger than 2 years receiving two doses in the first year of flu immunization (fully immunized), compared with those who received only one dose (partially immunized) (ID Week session 99; Abstract 900). VE was 53% for fully immunized and 23% for partially immunized children. Receipt of a single dose did not provide statistically significant protection against influenza. Surprisingly (to me), of 5,355 children aged 6 months to less than 2 years with no prior influenza vaccine, 1,870 (35%) received only one dose in the season.

The data strongly support the current recommendations for a priming dose, especially in young children, in the first season of influenza vaccine and warrants increased efforts to increase the update of second doses during the season. Hopefully we can do better in 2019!

3. Should we wait to vaccinate with influenza vaccine?

Some evidence suggests that waning immunity to influenza vaccine, primarily in those aged 65 years and older, may explain increased disease activity toward the end of influenza season. Other explanations include increasing viral diversity throughout the season, resulting in reduced effectiveness. Do such concerns warrant delaying immunization? The onset and peak of influenza season varies by year; in October 2019, 3% of tests performed on patients with respiratory illness were influenza positive. The trade-offs for delaying immunization until October are the unpredictability of onset of influenza season, the requirement for two doses in infants, the need for 2 weeks to achieve peak antibody concentrations, and the potential that fewer individuals will be vaccinated. Kathy Neuzil, MD, MPH, from the Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, reviewed recent modeling (for adults aged 65 years and older) and reported that delaying vaccine programs until October is associated with greater burden of hospitalization if 14% fewer individuals (who would be vaccinated in August/September) are vaccinated (ID Week; Session 940).

In response to these concerns, the CDC recommendations for 2019 are that, in children aged 6 months through 8 years who need two doses, start early so that you can achieve both doses before influenza season (MMWR 2019 Aug 23;68[3]:1-21).In older children and adults, who need only a single dose, early vaccination (August and early September) may lead to reduced protection late in the influenza season?

4. How can we optimize vaccine impact?

Vaccine impact refers to the affect on a population level and not at an individual level. Meagan C. Fitzpatrick, PhD, from the Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, evaluated the benefits of our moderately effective influenza vaccines (VE 40%-60%) to the population beyond those who are vaccinated. Her conclusions were that even a modestly effective vaccine prevents 21 million cases of influenza, 129,000 hospitalizations, and 62,000 deaths. And that two-thirds of the deaths prevented are from herd benefit (or indirect effects). Although both coverage and vaccine effectiveness are important, she reported that population impact was most sensitive to coverage, compared with vaccine effectiveness. Dr. Fitzpatrick found that targeting school-age children 6-19 years of age and adults 30-39 years of age maximizes the public health benefits (herd effects) of influenza vaccine. In 2018 season, influenza coverage was 63% for at least one dose in children aged 6 months through 17 years and 45% in adults aged 18 years and older; in the two target age groups 5-17 and 30-39 years, coverage was 59% and approximately 35%, respectively (ID Week; Session 939).

Clearly, even our modestly effective influenza vaccines have significant public health benefit in protecting the U.S. populations from serious disease and death. Efforts to increase vaccine uptake in school-age children, both those with and without comorbidity, and the 30- to 39-year-old adult cohort would likely further reduce the burden of serious disease from influenza.

In summary, despite a vaccine that is only moderately effective, there is clear evidence to support current recommendations of universal immunization beginning at 6 months of age. Optimizing the impact of the flu vaccine requires increasing coverage, including two doses for those less than 8 years of age being immunized for the first time. Delaying until October 1 is a good idea only if the same number of individuals will receive influenza vaccine, otherwise the hypothetical benefit is lost.
 

Dr. Pelton is professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University schools of medicine and public health and is senior attending physician, Boston Medical Center. Dr. Pelton has investigator-initiated research awards to Boston Medical Center from Pfizer and Merck Vaccines. He also received honorarium as an advisory board member, participation in symposium and consultation from Seqirus and Merck Vaccine, Pfizer, and Sanofi Pasteur. Email him at [email protected].

ID Week, the annual meeting of the Infectious Disease Society of America, provided valuable insights into past season’s endemic influenza burden and the effectiveness of prevention strategies. Each year, there are from 9million to 49 million influenza cases in the United States, 140,000-960,000 hospitalized cases, and 12,000-70,000 deaths directly attributable to influenza infection. The burden disproportionately falls on infants and adults 65 years of age and older; 11,000-48,000 children are hospitalized, and as many as several hundred children may die from influenza and related complications. School age children (aged 5-19 years) and adults (aged 30-39 years) are a major part of the transmission cycle. Influenza vaccine underlies the prevention strategy for limiting the burden of disease in U.S. populations. ID Week provided new insights into critical questions about influenza vaccines.

spukkato/Getty Images

1. What is the effectiveness of influenza vaccine against severe disease (hospitalization) in children? Does it vary by age? By type or subtype?

Angela P. Campbell, MD, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and associates presented data on influenza vaccine effectiveness from the New Vaccine Surveillance Network in children for the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 season (ID Week session 99; Abstract 899). During both 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, H3N2 was the dominant virus and influenza B represented about one-third of cases, and H1N1 was a greater percentage of cases in 2017-2018. Influenza positivity among children younger than 18 years of age admitted to hospital with respiratory disease was 14% among unvaccinated and 8% among vaccinated children; effectiveness again hospitalization was 50%. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) was not statistically different between children younger than 8 years of age and those older that 8 years but did differ by vaccine type. VE was 76% against H1N1 disease, 59% again B disease, and only 33% against H3N2 disease.

Clearly, vaccination with influenza vaccine prevents serious respiratory disease. However, the impact of vaccine will vary by season and by which influenza stains are circulating in the community. The authors concluded that further understanding of the lower VE against H3N2 disease is needed.

2. Does the priming dose of influenza vaccine improve vaccine effectiveness?

Current recommendations call for a two-dose series for influenza vaccine in children aged 6 months through 8 years who have not had prior influenza vaccine. The recommendation is based on evidence demonstrating higher antibody responses in children receiving two doses, compared with a single dose. Using data from the U.S. Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network, Jessie R. Chung, MPH, of the CDC, and associates compared VE in children younger than 2 years receiving two doses in the first year of flu immunization (fully immunized), compared with those who received only one dose (partially immunized) (ID Week session 99; Abstract 900). VE was 53% for fully immunized and 23% for partially immunized children. Receipt of a single dose did not provide statistically significant protection against influenza. Surprisingly (to me), of 5,355 children aged 6 months to less than 2 years with no prior influenza vaccine, 1,870 (35%) received only one dose in the season.

The data strongly support the current recommendations for a priming dose, especially in young children, in the first season of influenza vaccine and warrants increased efforts to increase the update of second doses during the season. Hopefully we can do better in 2019!

3. Should we wait to vaccinate with influenza vaccine?

Some evidence suggests that waning immunity to influenza vaccine, primarily in those aged 65 years and older, may explain increased disease activity toward the end of influenza season. Other explanations include increasing viral diversity throughout the season, resulting in reduced effectiveness. Do such concerns warrant delaying immunization? The onset and peak of influenza season varies by year; in October 2019, 3% of tests performed on patients with respiratory illness were influenza positive. The trade-offs for delaying immunization until October are the unpredictability of onset of influenza season, the requirement for two doses in infants, the need for 2 weeks to achieve peak antibody concentrations, and the potential that fewer individuals will be vaccinated. Kathy Neuzil, MD, MPH, from the Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, reviewed recent modeling (for adults aged 65 years and older) and reported that delaying vaccine programs until October is associated with greater burden of hospitalization if 14% fewer individuals (who would be vaccinated in August/September) are vaccinated (ID Week; Session 940).

In response to these concerns, the CDC recommendations for 2019 are that, in children aged 6 months through 8 years who need two doses, start early so that you can achieve both doses before influenza season (MMWR 2019 Aug 23;68[3]:1-21).In older children and adults, who need only a single dose, early vaccination (August and early September) may lead to reduced protection late in the influenza season?

4. How can we optimize vaccine impact?

Vaccine impact refers to the affect on a population level and not at an individual level. Meagan C. Fitzpatrick, PhD, from the Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, evaluated the benefits of our moderately effective influenza vaccines (VE 40%-60%) to the population beyond those who are vaccinated. Her conclusions were that even a modestly effective vaccine prevents 21 million cases of influenza, 129,000 hospitalizations, and 62,000 deaths. And that two-thirds of the deaths prevented are from herd benefit (or indirect effects). Although both coverage and vaccine effectiveness are important, she reported that population impact was most sensitive to coverage, compared with vaccine effectiveness. Dr. Fitzpatrick found that targeting school-age children 6-19 years of age and adults 30-39 years of age maximizes the public health benefits (herd effects) of influenza vaccine. In 2018 season, influenza coverage was 63% for at least one dose in children aged 6 months through 17 years and 45% in adults aged 18 years and older; in the two target age groups 5-17 and 30-39 years, coverage was 59% and approximately 35%, respectively (ID Week; Session 939).

Clearly, even our modestly effective influenza vaccines have significant public health benefit in protecting the U.S. populations from serious disease and death. Efforts to increase vaccine uptake in school-age children, both those with and without comorbidity, and the 30- to 39-year-old adult cohort would likely further reduce the burden of serious disease from influenza.

In summary, despite a vaccine that is only moderately effective, there is clear evidence to support current recommendations of universal immunization beginning at 6 months of age. Optimizing the impact of the flu vaccine requires increasing coverage, including two doses for those less than 8 years of age being immunized for the first time. Delaying until October 1 is a good idea only if the same number of individuals will receive influenza vaccine, otherwise the hypothetical benefit is lost.
 

Dr. Pelton is professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University schools of medicine and public health and is senior attending physician, Boston Medical Center. Dr. Pelton has investigator-initiated research awards to Boston Medical Center from Pfizer and Merck Vaccines. He also received honorarium as an advisory board member, participation in symposium and consultation from Seqirus and Merck Vaccine, Pfizer, and Sanofi Pasteur. Email him at [email protected].

ID Week, the annual meeting of the Infectious Disease Society of America, provided valuable insights into past season’s endemic influenza burden and the effectiveness of prevention strategies. Each year, there are from 9million to 49 million influenza cases in the United States, 140,000-960,000 hospitalized cases, and 12,000-70,000 deaths directly attributable to influenza infection. The burden disproportionately falls on infants and adults 65 years of age and older; 11,000-48,000 children are hospitalized, and as many as several hundred children may die from influenza and related complications. School age children (aged 5-19 years) and adults (aged 30-39 years) are a major part of the transmission cycle. Influenza vaccine underlies the prevention strategy for limiting the burden of disease in U.S. populations. ID Week provided new insights into critical questions about influenza vaccines.

spukkato/Getty Images

1. What is the effectiveness of influenza vaccine against severe disease (hospitalization) in children? Does it vary by age? By type or subtype?

Angela P. Campbell, MD, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and associates presented data on influenza vaccine effectiveness from the New Vaccine Surveillance Network in children for the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 season (ID Week session 99; Abstract 899). During both 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, H3N2 was the dominant virus and influenza B represented about one-third of cases, and H1N1 was a greater percentage of cases in 2017-2018. Influenza positivity among children younger than 18 years of age admitted to hospital with respiratory disease was 14% among unvaccinated and 8% among vaccinated children; effectiveness again hospitalization was 50%. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) was not statistically different between children younger than 8 years of age and those older that 8 years but did differ by vaccine type. VE was 76% against H1N1 disease, 59% again B disease, and only 33% against H3N2 disease.

Clearly, vaccination with influenza vaccine prevents serious respiratory disease. However, the impact of vaccine will vary by season and by which influenza stains are circulating in the community. The authors concluded that further understanding of the lower VE against H3N2 disease is needed.

2. Does the priming dose of influenza vaccine improve vaccine effectiveness?

Current recommendations call for a two-dose series for influenza vaccine in children aged 6 months through 8 years who have not had prior influenza vaccine. The recommendation is based on evidence demonstrating higher antibody responses in children receiving two doses, compared with a single dose. Using data from the U.S. Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network, Jessie R. Chung, MPH, of the CDC, and associates compared VE in children younger than 2 years receiving two doses in the first year of flu immunization (fully immunized), compared with those who received only one dose (partially immunized) (ID Week session 99; Abstract 900). VE was 53% for fully immunized and 23% for partially immunized children. Receipt of a single dose did not provide statistically significant protection against influenza. Surprisingly (to me), of 5,355 children aged 6 months to less than 2 years with no prior influenza vaccine, 1,870 (35%) received only one dose in the season.

The data strongly support the current recommendations for a priming dose, especially in young children, in the first season of influenza vaccine and warrants increased efforts to increase the update of second doses during the season. Hopefully we can do better in 2019!

3. Should we wait to vaccinate with influenza vaccine?

Some evidence suggests that waning immunity to influenza vaccine, primarily in those aged 65 years and older, may explain increased disease activity toward the end of influenza season. Other explanations include increasing viral diversity throughout the season, resulting in reduced effectiveness. Do such concerns warrant delaying immunization? The onset and peak of influenza season varies by year; in October 2019, 3% of tests performed on patients with respiratory illness were influenza positive. The trade-offs for delaying immunization until October are the unpredictability of onset of influenza season, the requirement for two doses in infants, the need for 2 weeks to achieve peak antibody concentrations, and the potential that fewer individuals will be vaccinated. Kathy Neuzil, MD, MPH, from the Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, reviewed recent modeling (for adults aged 65 years and older) and reported that delaying vaccine programs until October is associated with greater burden of hospitalization if 14% fewer individuals (who would be vaccinated in August/September) are vaccinated (ID Week; Session 940).

In response to these concerns, the CDC recommendations for 2019 are that, in children aged 6 months through 8 years who need two doses, start early so that you can achieve both doses before influenza season (MMWR 2019 Aug 23;68[3]:1-21).In older children and adults, who need only a single dose, early vaccination (August and early September) may lead to reduced protection late in the influenza season?

4. How can we optimize vaccine impact?

Vaccine impact refers to the affect on a population level and not at an individual level. Meagan C. Fitzpatrick, PhD, from the Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, evaluated the benefits of our moderately effective influenza vaccines (VE 40%-60%) to the population beyond those who are vaccinated. Her conclusions were that even a modestly effective vaccine prevents 21 million cases of influenza, 129,000 hospitalizations, and 62,000 deaths. And that two-thirds of the deaths prevented are from herd benefit (or indirect effects). Although both coverage and vaccine effectiveness are important, she reported that population impact was most sensitive to coverage, compared with vaccine effectiveness. Dr. Fitzpatrick found that targeting school-age children 6-19 years of age and adults 30-39 years of age maximizes the public health benefits (herd effects) of influenza vaccine. In 2018 season, influenza coverage was 63% for at least one dose in children aged 6 months through 17 years and 45% in adults aged 18 years and older; in the two target age groups 5-17 and 30-39 years, coverage was 59% and approximately 35%, respectively (ID Week; Session 939).

Clearly, even our modestly effective influenza vaccines have significant public health benefit in protecting the U.S. populations from serious disease and death. Efforts to increase vaccine uptake in school-age children, both those with and without comorbidity, and the 30- to 39-year-old adult cohort would likely further reduce the burden of serious disease from influenza.

In summary, despite a vaccine that is only moderately effective, there is clear evidence to support current recommendations of universal immunization beginning at 6 months of age. Optimizing the impact of the flu vaccine requires increasing coverage, including two doses for those less than 8 years of age being immunized for the first time. Delaying until October 1 is a good idea only if the same number of individuals will receive influenza vaccine, otherwise the hypothetical benefit is lost.
 

Dr. Pelton is professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University schools of medicine and public health and is senior attending physician, Boston Medical Center. Dr. Pelton has investigator-initiated research awards to Boston Medical Center from Pfizer and Merck Vaccines. He also received honorarium as an advisory board member, participation in symposium and consultation from Seqirus and Merck Vaccine, Pfizer, and Sanofi Pasteur. Email him at [email protected].

WASHINGTON – A single dose of a novel monoclonal antibody against a respiratory syncytial virus surface protein safely protected preterm infants against severe infections for 150 days during their first winter season in a randomized trial with more than 1,400 children.

copyright DesignPics/Thinkstock

One intramuscular injection of nirsevimab (also known as MEDI8897) administered to infants born at 29-35 weeks’ gestation at the start of the local respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) season (November in the Northern hemisphere) led to a 70% relative reduction in the rate of medically attended lower respiratory tract infections with RSV during the subsequent 150 days, compared with placebo, the study’s primary efficacy outcome, M. Pamela Griffin, MD, said at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

In a secondary efficacy measure, the rate of hospitalizations for RSV-caused lower respiratory tract infections, a single injection of nirsevimab dropped the incidence by 78%, relative to placebo. Both effects were statistically significant. The rate of total adverse events and serious adverse events was similar in the two treatment arms, reported Dr. Griffin, a clinical development lead with AstraZeneca.

These positive results for a single intramuscular injection of nirsevimab are the first findings from a series of studies aimed at getting the monoclonal antibody onto the U.S. market as a superior alternative to palivizumab (Synagis), which acts in a similar way to block RSV infection (albeit by targeting a different viral surface protein) but which requires administration every 30 days. This need for serial dosing of palivizumab in children younger than 1 year old for complete seasonal protection against RSV is probably a reason why the American Academy of Pediatrics, as well as other medical societies, have targeted using palivizumab only on certain types of high-risk infants: those born before 29 weeks’ gestational age, with chronic lung disease of prematurity, or with hemodynamically significant congenital heart disease (Pediatrics. 2014 Aug;134[2]:415-20). “It’s not feasible for most infants to come for five treatments during RSV season,” Dr. Griffin noted. A tweak in the structure of nirsevimab gives it a much longer blood half-life than palivizumab and allows a single dose to maintain efficacy for 5 months, the duration of RSV season.

“The big advantage of nirsevimab is one dose instead of five,” she said in an interview.

The study randomized 969 preterm infants to nirsevimab and 484 to placebo when the children averaged 3 months old and 4.5 kg. The incidence of the primary endpoint was 2.6% in the nirsevimab-treated infants and 9.5% in those who received placebo. The incidence of hospitalizations associated with an RSV lower respiratory tract infection was 0.8% in the nirsevimab group and 4.1% on placebo. Nirsevimab was equally effective regardless of RSV subtype, infant age, or sex. The rate of hypersensitivity reactions was low, less than 1%, and similar in the two treatment arms, as was the rate of detection of antidrug antibody, 3.8% with placebo and 5.6% with nirsevimab.

Two other large trials are underway to document the performance of nirsevimab in other types of infants. One study is examining the drug’s performance compared with placebo in term infants with a gestational age of at least 36 weeks, while another is comparing nirsevimab against a five-dose regimen of palivizumab in high-risk infants who are recommended to receive palivizumab by local medical societies. In the United States, this would be infants born at less than 29 weeks’ gestation, and those with either hemodynamically significant congenital heart disease or chronic lung disease of prematurity. In these studies, the researchers also will assess the cost effectiveness of nirsevimab relative to the costs for medical care needed by infants who receive comparator treatments, Dr. Griffin said.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca, the company developing nirsevimab. Dr. Griffin is an employee of and shareholder in AstraZeneca.

[email protected]

SOURCE: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02878330.

WASHINGTON – A single dose of a novel monoclonal antibody against a respiratory syncytial virus surface protein safely protected preterm infants against severe infections for 150 days during their first winter season in a randomized trial with more than 1,400 children.

copyright DesignPics/Thinkstock

One intramuscular injection of nirsevimab (also known as MEDI8897) administered to infants born at 29-35 weeks’ gestation at the start of the local respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) season (November in the Northern hemisphere) led to a 70% relative reduction in the rate of medically attended lower respiratory tract infections with RSV during the subsequent 150 days, compared with placebo, the study’s primary efficacy outcome, M. Pamela Griffin, MD, said at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

In a secondary efficacy measure, the rate of hospitalizations for RSV-caused lower respiratory tract infections, a single injection of nirsevimab dropped the incidence by 78%, relative to placebo. Both effects were statistically significant. The rate of total adverse events and serious adverse events was similar in the two treatment arms, reported Dr. Griffin, a clinical development lead with AstraZeneca.

These positive results for a single intramuscular injection of nirsevimab are the first findings from a series of studies aimed at getting the monoclonal antibody onto the U.S. market as a superior alternative to palivizumab (Synagis), which acts in a similar way to block RSV infection (albeit by targeting a different viral surface protein) but which requires administration every 30 days. This need for serial dosing of palivizumab in children younger than 1 year old for complete seasonal protection against RSV is probably a reason why the American Academy of Pediatrics, as well as other medical societies, have targeted using palivizumab only on certain types of high-risk infants: those born before 29 weeks’ gestational age, with chronic lung disease of prematurity, or with hemodynamically significant congenital heart disease (Pediatrics. 2014 Aug;134[2]:415-20). “It’s not feasible for most infants to come for five treatments during RSV season,” Dr. Griffin noted. A tweak in the structure of nirsevimab gives it a much longer blood half-life than palivizumab and allows a single dose to maintain efficacy for 5 months, the duration of RSV season.

“The big advantage of nirsevimab is one dose instead of five,” she said in an interview.

The study randomized 969 preterm infants to nirsevimab and 484 to placebo when the children averaged 3 months old and 4.5 kg. The incidence of the primary endpoint was 2.6% in the nirsevimab-treated infants and 9.5% in those who received placebo. The incidence of hospitalizations associated with an RSV lower respiratory tract infection was 0.8% in the nirsevimab group and 4.1% on placebo. Nirsevimab was equally effective regardless of RSV subtype, infant age, or sex. The rate of hypersensitivity reactions was low, less than 1%, and similar in the two treatment arms, as was the rate of detection of antidrug antibody, 3.8% with placebo and 5.6% with nirsevimab.

Two other large trials are underway to document the performance of nirsevimab in other types of infants. One study is examining the drug’s performance compared with placebo in term infants with a gestational age of at least 36 weeks, while another is comparing nirsevimab against a five-dose regimen of palivizumab in high-risk infants who are recommended to receive palivizumab by local medical societies. In the United States, this would be infants born at less than 29 weeks’ gestation, and those with either hemodynamically significant congenital heart disease or chronic lung disease of prematurity. In these studies, the researchers also will assess the cost effectiveness of nirsevimab relative to the costs for medical care needed by infants who receive comparator treatments, Dr. Griffin said.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca, the company developing nirsevimab. Dr. Griffin is an employee of and shareholder in AstraZeneca.

[email protected]

SOURCE: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02878330.

WASHINGTON – A single dose of a novel monoclonal antibody against a respiratory syncytial virus surface protein safely protected preterm infants against severe infections for 150 days during their first winter season in a randomized trial with more than 1,400 children.

copyright DesignPics/Thinkstock

One intramuscular injection of nirsevimab (also known as MEDI8897) administered to infants born at 29-35 weeks’ gestation at the start of the local respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) season (November in the Northern hemisphere) led to a 70% relative reduction in the rate of medically attended lower respiratory tract infections with RSV during the subsequent 150 days, compared with placebo, the study’s primary efficacy outcome, M. Pamela Griffin, MD, said at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

In a secondary efficacy measure, the rate of hospitalizations for RSV-caused lower respiratory tract infections, a single injection of nirsevimab dropped the incidence by 78%, relative to placebo. Both effects were statistically significant. The rate of total adverse events and serious adverse events was similar in the two treatment arms, reported Dr. Griffin, a clinical development lead with AstraZeneca.

These positive results for a single intramuscular injection of nirsevimab are the first findings from a series of studies aimed at getting the monoclonal antibody onto the U.S. market as a superior alternative to palivizumab (Synagis), which acts in a similar way to block RSV infection (albeit by targeting a different viral surface protein) but which requires administration every 30 days. This need for serial dosing of palivizumab in children younger than 1 year old for complete seasonal protection against RSV is probably a reason why the American Academy of Pediatrics, as well as other medical societies, have targeted using palivizumab only on certain types of high-risk infants: those born before 29 weeks’ gestational age, with chronic lung disease of prematurity, or with hemodynamically significant congenital heart disease (Pediatrics. 2014 Aug;134[2]:415-20). “It’s not feasible for most infants to come for five treatments during RSV season,” Dr. Griffin noted. A tweak in the structure of nirsevimab gives it a much longer blood half-life than palivizumab and allows a single dose to maintain efficacy for 5 months, the duration of RSV season.

“The big advantage of nirsevimab is one dose instead of five,” she said in an interview.

The study randomized 969 preterm infants to nirsevimab and 484 to placebo when the children averaged 3 months old and 4.5 kg. The incidence of the primary endpoint was 2.6% in the nirsevimab-treated infants and 9.5% in those who received placebo. The incidence of hospitalizations associated with an RSV lower respiratory tract infection was 0.8% in the nirsevimab group and 4.1% on placebo. Nirsevimab was equally effective regardless of RSV subtype, infant age, or sex. The rate of hypersensitivity reactions was low, less than 1%, and similar in the two treatment arms, as was the rate of detection of antidrug antibody, 3.8% with placebo and 5.6% with nirsevimab.

Two other large trials are underway to document the performance of nirsevimab in other types of infants. One study is examining the drug’s performance compared with placebo in term infants with a gestational age of at least 36 weeks, while another is comparing nirsevimab against a five-dose regimen of palivizumab in high-risk infants who are recommended to receive palivizumab by local medical societies. In the United States, this would be infants born at less than 29 weeks’ gestation, and those with either hemodynamically significant congenital heart disease or chronic lung disease of prematurity. In these studies, the researchers also will assess the cost effectiveness of nirsevimab relative to the costs for medical care needed by infants who receive comparator treatments, Dr. Griffin said.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca, the company developing nirsevimab. Dr. Griffin is an employee of and shareholder in AstraZeneca.

[email protected]

SOURCE: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02878330.

AUSTIN, TEX. – Neurologists consider influenza vaccination to be safe in most patients with autoimmune neuromuscular disorders such as myasthenia gravis and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), according to a survey presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine. They are more conservative in recommending immunization for patients with a history of Guillain-Barré syndrome, however. Temporally associated disease relapses may be a risk factor for relapse with subsequent immunization, according to the investigators.

copyright DesignPics/Thinkstock

Influenza vaccination of patients with autoimmune neuromuscular disorders such as myasthenia gravis, CIDP, or Guillain-Barré syndrome is controversial, and no clear guideline helps clinicians to decide whether vaccination for such patients is appropriate. Tess Litchman, a medical student at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues conducted a web-based survey of neurologists throughout the United States to examine current practices for recommending influenza vaccination for patients with myasthenia gravis, CIDP, and Guillain-Barré syndrome.

The researchers received 184 survey responses, with the highest proportions of responses coming from California (8.8%), Connecticut (8.8%), and Texas (8.3%). On average, respondents had been in practice for 15.5 years. Their reported practice specialties were neuromuscular medicine in 50%, general neurology in 20%, mixed specialties in 20%, and other in 10%.

Across practice settings, neurologists followed 6,448 patients with myasthenia gravis, 2,310 patients with CIDP, and 1,907 patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome. Approximately 83% of respondents reported recommending influenza vaccination for all of their patients with myasthenia gravis, 59% reported recommending vaccination for all of their patients with CIDP, and 43% of respondents reported recommending vaccination for all of their patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome. About 2%, 8%, and 15% of respondents reported that they do not recommend influenza vaccination for any of their patients with myasthenia gravis, CIDP, and Guillain-Barré syndrome, respectively.

A temporal association between disease relapse and influenza vaccination was reported in 1.5% of patients with myasthenia gravis, 3.7% of patients with CIDP, and 8.7% of patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome. Recurrent relapses occurred in 87% (26 of 30) of patients with myasthenia gravis, 92% (23 of 25) of patients with CIDP, and 74% (26 of 35) of patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome who received another influenza vaccination.

“According to existing guidelines per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, all patients with myasthenia gravis and CIDP should be vaccinated, and patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome who did not develop the syndrome due to a flu shot should be vaccinated,” said Richard J. Nowak, MD, director of the program in clinical and translational neuromuscular research at Yale and one of the senior investigators on the study. “This survey demonstrates that clearer guidelines and education from a professional academic neurology society is an unmet need and would be helpful to better inform the neurology community about the possible risks and benefits of immunization in myasthenia gravis, CIDP, and Guillain-Barré syndrome patients. We hope to utilize these initial results to stimulate a larger scale study, and identify whether this topic represents a knowledge gap in the community or an area in which we can improve on the best-practice standard.”

Dr. Nowak had no relevant disclosures. The study was supported by the department of neurology at Yale University; there was no external funding.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Litchman T et al. AANEM 2019, Abstract 16.

AUSTIN, TEX. – Neurologists consider influenza vaccination to be safe in most patients with autoimmune neuromuscular disorders such as myasthenia gravis and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), according to a survey presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine. They are more conservative in recommending immunization for patients with a history of Guillain-Barré syndrome, however. Temporally associated disease relapses may be a risk factor for relapse with subsequent immunization, according to the investigators.

copyright DesignPics/Thinkstock

Influenza vaccination of patients with autoimmune neuromuscular disorders such as myasthenia gravis, CIDP, or Guillain-Barré syndrome is controversial, and no clear guideline helps clinicians to decide whether vaccination for such patients is appropriate. Tess Litchman, a medical student at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues conducted a web-based survey of neurologists throughout the United States to examine current practices for recommending influenza vaccination for patients with myasthenia gravis, CIDP, and Guillain-Barré syndrome.

The researchers received 184 survey responses, with the highest proportions of responses coming from California (8.8%), Connecticut (8.8%), and Texas (8.3%). On average, respondents had been in practice for 15.5 years. Their reported practice specialties were neuromuscular medicine in 50%, general neurology in 20%, mixed specialties in 20%, and other in 10%.

Across practice settings, neurologists followed 6,448 patients with myasthenia gravis, 2,310 patients with CIDP, and 1,907 patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome. Approximately 83% of respondents reported recommending influenza vaccination for all of their patients with myasthenia gravis, 59% reported recommending vaccination for all of their patients with CIDP, and 43% of respondents reported recommending vaccination for all of their patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome. About 2%, 8%, and 15% of respondents reported that they do not recommend influenza vaccination for any of their patients with myasthenia gravis, CIDP, and Guillain-Barré syndrome, respectively.

A temporal association between disease relapse and influenza vaccination was reported in 1.5% of patients with myasthenia gravis, 3.7% of patients with CIDP, and 8.7% of patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome. Recurrent relapses occurred in 87% (26 of 30) of patients with myasthenia gravis, 92% (23 of 25) of patients with CIDP, and 74% (26 of 35) of patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome who received another influenza vaccination.

“According to existing guidelines per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, all patients with myasthenia gravis and CIDP should be vaccinated, and patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome who did not develop the syndrome due to a flu shot should be vaccinated,” said Richard J. Nowak, MD, director of the program in clinical and translational neuromuscular research at Yale and one of the senior investigators on the study. “This survey demonstrates that clearer guidelines and education from a professional academic neurology society is an unmet need and would be helpful to better inform the neurology community about the possible risks and benefits of immunization in myasthenia gravis, CIDP, and Guillain-Barré syndrome patients. We hope to utilize these initial results to stimulate a larger scale study, and identify whether this topic represents a knowledge gap in the community or an area in which we can improve on the best-practice standard.”

Dr. Nowak had no relevant disclosures. The study was supported by the department of neurology at Yale University; there was no external funding.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Litchman T et al. AANEM 2019, Abstract 16.

AUSTIN, TEX. – Neurologists consider influenza vaccination to be safe in most patients with autoimmune neuromuscular disorders such as myasthenia gravis and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), according to a survey presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine. They are more conservative in recommending immunization for patients with a history of Guillain-Barré syndrome, however. Temporally associated disease relapses may be a risk factor for relapse with subsequent immunization, according to the investigators.

copyright DesignPics/Thinkstock

Influenza vaccination of patients with autoimmune neuromuscular disorders such as myasthenia gravis, CIDP, or Guillain-Barré syndrome is controversial, and no clear guideline helps clinicians to decide whether vaccination for such patients is appropriate. Tess Litchman, a medical student at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues conducted a web-based survey of neurologists throughout the United States to examine current practices for recommending influenza vaccination for patients with myasthenia gravis, CIDP, and Guillain-Barré syndrome.

The researchers received 184 survey responses, with the highest proportions of responses coming from California (8.8%), Connecticut (8.8%), and Texas (8.3%). On average, respondents had been in practice for 15.5 years. Their reported practice specialties were neuromuscular medicine in 50%, general neurology in 20%, mixed specialties in 20%, and other in 10%.

Across practice settings, neurologists followed 6,448 patients with myasthenia gravis, 2,310 patients with CIDP, and 1,907 patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome. Approximately 83% of respondents reported recommending influenza vaccination for all of their patients with myasthenia gravis, 59% reported recommending vaccination for all of their patients with CIDP, and 43% of respondents reported recommending vaccination for all of their patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome. About 2%, 8%, and 15% of respondents reported that they do not recommend influenza vaccination for any of their patients with myasthenia gravis, CIDP, and Guillain-Barré syndrome, respectively.

A temporal association between disease relapse and influenza vaccination was reported in 1.5% of patients with myasthenia gravis, 3.7% of patients with CIDP, and 8.7% of patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome. Recurrent relapses occurred in 87% (26 of 30) of patients with myasthenia gravis, 92% (23 of 25) of patients with CIDP, and 74% (26 of 35) of patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome who received another influenza vaccination.

“According to existing guidelines per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, all patients with myasthenia gravis and CIDP should be vaccinated, and patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome who did not develop the syndrome due to a flu shot should be vaccinated,” said Richard J. Nowak, MD, director of the program in clinical and translational neuromuscular research at Yale and one of the senior investigators on the study. “This survey demonstrates that clearer guidelines and education from a professional academic neurology society is an unmet need and would be helpful to better inform the neurology community about the possible risks and benefits of immunization in myasthenia gravis, CIDP, and Guillain-Barré syndrome patients. We hope to utilize these initial results to stimulate a larger scale study, and identify whether this topic represents a knowledge gap in the community or an area in which we can improve on the best-practice standard.”

Dr. Nowak had no relevant disclosures. The study was supported by the department of neurology at Yale University; there was no external funding.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Litchman T et al. AANEM 2019, Abstract 16.

WASHINGTON – Influenza vaccines that substitute flu grown in cell-culture for the standard formulation of flu grown in eggs recently came onto the U.S. market, and new evidence confirmed that cell-grown flu works at least as well as its egg-grown counterpart for triggering immune responses.

Results from a randomized study with 148 evaluable subjects that directly compared the immune response of individuals aged 4-20 years old to the 2018-2019 commercial formulation of a mostly cell-based influenza vaccine with a commercially marketed, fully egg-based vaccine from the same vintage showed “no difference” between the two vaccines for inducing serologic titers on both the hemagluttination inhibition assay and by microneutralization, Richard K. Zimmerman, MD, said at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

The question addressed by the study was whether the primarily cell culture–grown vaccine would perform differently in children than a standard, egg-grown vaccine. “We thought that we might find something different, but we didn’t,” said Dr. Zimmerman, a professor of family medicine at the University of Pittsburgh who studies vaccines. The finding gave further support to using flu vaccines made without eggs because of their advantages over egg-based vaccines, he said in an interview.

Dr. Zimmerman cited two major, potential problems with egg-grown influenza vaccines. First, they require a big supply of eggs to manufacture, which can pose logistical challenges that are absent with cell culture–grown vaccine once the bioreactor capacity exists to produce the necessary amount of cells. This means that egg-free vaccine production can ramp up faster when a pandemic starts, he noted.

Second, over time, egg-grown vaccine strains of influenza have become increasingly adapted to grow in eggs with the result that “in some years the egg-grown virus is so different as to not work as well [Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2017 Nov;114[44]:12578-83]. With cell culture you bypass” issues of glycosylation mismatch or other antigenic problems caused by egg passage, he explained.

Dr. Zimmerman feels so strongly about the superiority of the cell-culture vaccine that “I am personally going to get a vaccine that’s not egg based,” and he advised the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center to focus its 2019-2020 flu vaccine purchase primarily on formulations made by cell culture. For the 2019-2020 season, that specifically is Flucelvax, an inactivated influenza vaccine licensed for people aged at least 4 years old, and Flublok, a recombinant flu vaccine also produced entirely in cell culture and licensed for people aged at least 18 years old. The 2019-2020 season is the first one during which the quadravalent Flucelvax vaccine has all four component strains (one H1N1, one H3N2, and two B strains) grown in cell culture.

The study run by Dr. Zimmerman and associates at the start of the 2018-2019 season used that season’s formulation of Flucelvax, which had only three of its four component strains grown in cell culture plus one strain (H1N1) grown in eggs. The Pittsburgh researchers randomized 168 individuals to receive the 2018-2019 Flucelvax vaccine or Fluzone, an entirely egg-made quadravelent vaccine, and they had analyzable results from 148 of the enrolled participants, more than 85% of whom were 9-20 years old. The study’s primary endpoint was the extent of seropositivity and seroconversion 28 days after immunization measured with both a hemagglutination inhibition assay and by a microneutralization assay. The results showed similar rates in the 75 children who received Flucelvax and the 73 who received Fluzone. For example, seropositivity against B Victoria lineage strains by the hemagglutination inhibition assay 28 days after vaccination was 76% in children who received Flucelvax, and it was 79% among those who got Fluzone, with a seroconversion rate of 34% in each of the two study subgroups.

“These findings do not say that egg-free is better, but it was certainly no worse. My guess is that in some years vaccines that are egg-free will make a big difference. In other years it may not. But you don’t know ahead of time,” Dr. Zimmerman said.

The study received no commercial funding but received free Fluzone vaccine from Sanofi Pasteur. Dr. Zimmerman had no disclosures.

[email protected]

WASHINGTON – Influenza vaccines that substitute flu grown in cell-culture for the standard formulation of flu grown in eggs recently came onto the U.S. market, and new evidence confirmed that cell-grown flu works at least as well as its egg-grown counterpart for triggering immune responses.

Results from a randomized study with 148 evaluable subjects that directly compared the immune response of individuals aged 4-20 years old to the 2018-2019 commercial formulation of a mostly cell-based influenza vaccine with a commercially marketed, fully egg-based vaccine from the same vintage showed “no difference” between the two vaccines for inducing serologic titers on both the hemagluttination inhibition assay and by microneutralization, Richard K. Zimmerman, MD, said at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

The question addressed by the study was whether the primarily cell culture–grown vaccine would perform differently in children than a standard, egg-grown vaccine. “We thought that we might find something different, but we didn’t,” said Dr. Zimmerman, a professor of family medicine at the University of Pittsburgh who studies vaccines. The finding gave further support to using flu vaccines made without eggs because of their advantages over egg-based vaccines, he said in an interview.

Dr. Zimmerman cited two major, potential problems with egg-grown influenza vaccines. First, they require a big supply of eggs to manufacture, which can pose logistical challenges that are absent with cell culture–grown vaccine once the bioreactor capacity exists to produce the necessary amount of cells. This means that egg-free vaccine production can ramp up faster when a pandemic starts, he noted.

Second, over time, egg-grown vaccine strains of influenza have become increasingly adapted to grow in eggs with the result that “in some years the egg-grown virus is so different as to not work as well [Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2017 Nov;114[44]:12578-83]. With cell culture you bypass” issues of glycosylation mismatch or other antigenic problems caused by egg passage, he explained.

Dr. Zimmerman feels so strongly about the superiority of the cell-culture vaccine that “I am personally going to get a vaccine that’s not egg based,” and he advised the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center to focus its 2019-2020 flu vaccine purchase primarily on formulations made by cell culture. For the 2019-2020 season, that specifically is Flucelvax, an inactivated influenza vaccine licensed for people aged at least 4 years old, and Flublok, a recombinant flu vaccine also produced entirely in cell culture and licensed for people aged at least 18 years old. The 2019-2020 season is the first one during which the quadravalent Flucelvax vaccine has all four component strains (one H1N1, one H3N2, and two B strains) grown in cell culture.

The study run by Dr. Zimmerman and associates at the start of the 2018-2019 season used that season’s formulation of Flucelvax, which had only three of its four component strains grown in cell culture plus one strain (H1N1) grown in eggs. The Pittsburgh researchers randomized 168 individuals to receive the 2018-2019 Flucelvax vaccine or Fluzone, an entirely egg-made quadravelent vaccine, and they had analyzable results from 148 of the enrolled participants, more than 85% of whom were 9-20 years old. The study’s primary endpoint was the extent of seropositivity and seroconversion 28 days after immunization measured with both a hemagglutination inhibition assay and by a microneutralization assay. The results showed similar rates in the 75 children who received Flucelvax and the 73 who received Fluzone. For example, seropositivity against B Victoria lineage strains by the hemagglutination inhibition assay 28 days after vaccination was 76% in children who received Flucelvax, and it was 79% among those who got Fluzone, with a seroconversion rate of 34% in each of the two study subgroups.

“These findings do not say that egg-free is better, but it was certainly no worse. My guess is that in some years vaccines that are egg-free will make a big difference. In other years it may not. But you don’t know ahead of time,” Dr. Zimmerman said.

The study received no commercial funding but received free Fluzone vaccine from Sanofi Pasteur. Dr. Zimmerman had no disclosures.

[email protected]

WASHINGTON – Influenza vaccines that substitute flu grown in cell-culture for the standard formulation of flu grown in eggs recently came onto the U.S. market, and new evidence confirmed that cell-grown flu works at least as well as its egg-grown counterpart for triggering immune responses.

Results from a randomized study with 148 evaluable subjects that directly compared the immune response of individuals aged 4-20 years old to the 2018-2019 commercial formulation of a mostly cell-based influenza vaccine with a commercially marketed, fully egg-based vaccine from the same vintage showed “no difference” between the two vaccines for inducing serologic titers on both the hemagluttination inhibition assay and by microneutralization, Richard K. Zimmerman, MD, said at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

The question addressed by the study was whether the primarily cell culture–grown vaccine would perform differently in children than a standard, egg-grown vaccine. “We thought that we might find something different, but we didn’t,” said Dr. Zimmerman, a professor of family medicine at the University of Pittsburgh who studies vaccines. The finding gave further support to using flu vaccines made without eggs because of their advantages over egg-based vaccines, he said in an interview.

Dr. Zimmerman cited two major, potential problems with egg-grown influenza vaccines. First, they require a big supply of eggs to manufacture, which can pose logistical challenges that are absent with cell culture–grown vaccine once the bioreactor capacity exists to produce the necessary amount of cells. This means that egg-free vaccine production can ramp up faster when a pandemic starts, he noted.

Second, over time, egg-grown vaccine strains of influenza have become increasingly adapted to grow in eggs with the result that “in some years the egg-grown virus is so different as to not work as well [Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2017 Nov;114[44]:12578-83]. With cell culture you bypass” issues of glycosylation mismatch or other antigenic problems caused by egg passage, he explained.

Dr. Zimmerman feels so strongly about the superiority of the cell-culture vaccine that “I am personally going to get a vaccine that’s not egg based,” and he advised the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center to focus its 2019-2020 flu vaccine purchase primarily on formulations made by cell culture. For the 2019-2020 season, that specifically is Flucelvax, an inactivated influenza vaccine licensed for people aged at least 4 years old, and Flublok, a recombinant flu vaccine also produced entirely in cell culture and licensed for people aged at least 18 years old. The 2019-2020 season is the first one during which the quadravalent Flucelvax vaccine has all four component strains (one H1N1, one H3N2, and two B strains) grown in cell culture.

The study run by Dr. Zimmerman and associates at the start of the 2018-2019 season used that season’s formulation of Flucelvax, which had only three of its four component strains grown in cell culture plus one strain (H1N1) grown in eggs. The Pittsburgh researchers randomized 168 individuals to receive the 2018-2019 Flucelvax vaccine or Fluzone, an entirely egg-made quadravelent vaccine, and they had analyzable results from 148 of the enrolled participants, more than 85% of whom were 9-20 years old. The study’s primary endpoint was the extent of seropositivity and seroconversion 28 days after immunization measured with both a hemagglutination inhibition assay and by a microneutralization assay. The results showed similar rates in the 75 children who received Flucelvax and the 73 who received Fluzone. For example, seropositivity against B Victoria lineage strains by the hemagglutination inhibition assay 28 days after vaccination was 76% in children who received Flucelvax, and it was 79% among those who got Fluzone, with a seroconversion rate of 34% in each of the two study subgroups.

“These findings do not say that egg-free is better, but it was certainly no worse. My guess is that in some years vaccines that are egg-free will make a big difference. In other years it may not. But you don’t know ahead of time,” Dr. Zimmerman said.

The study received no commercial funding but received free Fluzone vaccine from Sanofi Pasteur. Dr. Zimmerman had no disclosures.

[email protected]