Vaccines

References

1. Markowitz L. Overview and background (HPV). CDC Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2019-02/HPV-2-Markowitz-508.pdf. Presented February 27, 2019. Accessed August 1, 2019.
2. Brisson M, Laprise J-F. Cost-effectiveness of extending HPV vaccination above age 26 years in the U.S. CDC Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2019-02/HPV-3-Brisson-508.pdf. Presented February 2019. Accessed August 1, 2019.
3. Markowitz L. Recommendations for mid-adult HPV vaccination work group considerations. CDC Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2019-02/HPV-7-Markowitz-508.pdf, Presented February 27, 2019. Accessed August 1, 2019.
4. Meites E, Szilagyi PG, Chesson HW, et al. Human papillomavirus vaccination for adults: updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68:698-702.

References

1. Markowitz L. Overview and background (HPV). CDC Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2019-02/HPV-2-Markowitz-508.pdf. Presented February 27, 2019. Accessed August 1, 2019.
2. Brisson M, Laprise J-F. Cost-effectiveness of extending HPV vaccination above age 26 years in the U.S. CDC Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2019-02/HPV-3-Brisson-508.pdf. Presented February 2019. Accessed August 1, 2019.
3. Markowitz L. Recommendations for mid-adult HPV vaccination work group considerations. CDC Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2019-02/HPV-7-Markowitz-508.pdf, Presented February 27, 2019. Accessed August 1, 2019.
4. Meites E, Szilagyi PG, Chesson HW, et al. Human papillomavirus vaccination for adults: updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68:698-702.

References

1. Markowitz L. Overview and background (HPV). CDC Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2019-02/HPV-2-Markowitz-508.pdf. Presented February 27, 2019. Accessed August 1, 2019.
2. Brisson M, Laprise J-F. Cost-effectiveness of extending HPV vaccination above age 26 years in the U.S. CDC Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2019-02/HPV-3-Brisson-508.pdf. Presented February 2019. Accessed August 1, 2019.
3. Markowitz L. Recommendations for mid-adult HPV vaccination work group considerations. CDC Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2019-02/HPV-7-Markowitz-508.pdf, Presented February 27, 2019. Accessed August 1, 2019.
4. Meites E, Szilagyi PG, Chesson HW, et al. Human papillomavirus vaccination for adults: updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68:698-702.

Parents who accepted, denied, or partially accepted participation in the Dutch National Immunization Program reached their decisions through different methods, according to Kim A.G.J. Romijnders of the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in Bilthoven, the Netherlands, and associates.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

For the study published in Vaccine, the investigators conducted a series of 12 focus groups: 3 with accepters (n = 19), 3 with deniers (n =12), and 6 with partial accepters (n =24); in the partial accepters groups, there were three groups with parents delaying vaccination and three with parents refusing some vaccinations. Three-quarters of participants were women, the average age was 39 years, and 96% had at least university education. Parents were asked about their knowledge, attitudes, deliberation, and information needs regarding childhood vaccination.

Vaccine accepters regarded the decision to vaccinate their children as self-evident, but deniers and partial accepters reported conducting extensive deliberation on the pros and cons of vaccination. Deniers and partial accepters, in general, perceived fewer risks of vaccine-preventable diseases, more risks of vaccine side effects, less social support from their environment, less trust in child welfare centers, and provided less information than accepters.

The investigators noted that vaccine deniers tended to rely on anecdotal evidence, while the deliberation that partial accepters undertook was both time consuming and difficult. This process alienated them from their child vaccine provider, with trust being lost when the provider either refused or was unable to answer questions. Partial accepters also reported a lack of social support from friends, family, and providers regarding partial vaccine acceptance.

“The findings can facilitate informed decision making among parents by promoting an open dialogue at the [child welfare center], and improving the type and form of information presented. An open dialogue between parents and [child vaccine providers] may increase deliberation among parents, strengthen positive attitudes, prevent misperceptions, and resolve decisional conflict,” the investigators concluded.

The study was supported by the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment; the authors reported no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Romijnders KAGJ et al. Vaccine. 2019 Aug 2. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.07.060.

Parents who accepted, denied, or partially accepted participation in the Dutch National Immunization Program reached their decisions through different methods, according to Kim A.G.J. Romijnders of the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in Bilthoven, the Netherlands, and associates.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

For the study published in Vaccine, the investigators conducted a series of 12 focus groups: 3 with accepters (n = 19), 3 with deniers (n =12), and 6 with partial accepters (n =24); in the partial accepters groups, there were three groups with parents delaying vaccination and three with parents refusing some vaccinations. Three-quarters of participants were women, the average age was 39 years, and 96% had at least university education. Parents were asked about their knowledge, attitudes, deliberation, and information needs regarding childhood vaccination.

Vaccine accepters regarded the decision to vaccinate their children as self-evident, but deniers and partial accepters reported conducting extensive deliberation on the pros and cons of vaccination. Deniers and partial accepters, in general, perceived fewer risks of vaccine-preventable diseases, more risks of vaccine side effects, less social support from their environment, less trust in child welfare centers, and provided less information than accepters.

The investigators noted that vaccine deniers tended to rely on anecdotal evidence, while the deliberation that partial accepters undertook was both time consuming and difficult. This process alienated them from their child vaccine provider, with trust being lost when the provider either refused or was unable to answer questions. Partial accepters also reported a lack of social support from friends, family, and providers regarding partial vaccine acceptance.

“The findings can facilitate informed decision making among parents by promoting an open dialogue at the [child welfare center], and improving the type and form of information presented. An open dialogue between parents and [child vaccine providers] may increase deliberation among parents, strengthen positive attitudes, prevent misperceptions, and resolve decisional conflict,” the investigators concluded.

The study was supported by the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment; the authors reported no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Romijnders KAGJ et al. Vaccine. 2019 Aug 2. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.07.060.

Parents who accepted, denied, or partially accepted participation in the Dutch National Immunization Program reached their decisions through different methods, according to Kim A.G.J. Romijnders of the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in Bilthoven, the Netherlands, and associates.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

For the study published in Vaccine, the investigators conducted a series of 12 focus groups: 3 with accepters (n = 19), 3 with deniers (n =12), and 6 with partial accepters (n =24); in the partial accepters groups, there were three groups with parents delaying vaccination and three with parents refusing some vaccinations. Three-quarters of participants were women, the average age was 39 years, and 96% had at least university education. Parents were asked about their knowledge, attitudes, deliberation, and information needs regarding childhood vaccination.

Vaccine accepters regarded the decision to vaccinate their children as self-evident, but deniers and partial accepters reported conducting extensive deliberation on the pros and cons of vaccination. Deniers and partial accepters, in general, perceived fewer risks of vaccine-preventable diseases, more risks of vaccine side effects, less social support from their environment, less trust in child welfare centers, and provided less information than accepters.

The investigators noted that vaccine deniers tended to rely on anecdotal evidence, while the deliberation that partial accepters undertook was both time consuming and difficult. This process alienated them from their child vaccine provider, with trust being lost when the provider either refused or was unable to answer questions. Partial accepters also reported a lack of social support from friends, family, and providers regarding partial vaccine acceptance.

“The findings can facilitate informed decision making among parents by promoting an open dialogue at the [child welfare center], and improving the type and form of information presented. An open dialogue between parents and [child vaccine providers] may increase deliberation among parents, strengthen positive attitudes, prevent misperceptions, and resolve decisional conflict,” the investigators concluded.

The study was supported by the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment; the authors reported no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Romijnders KAGJ et al. Vaccine. 2019 Aug 2. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.07.060.

While meningococcal group B (MenB) vaccination remains suboptimal in the United States, completion was significantly higher for the MenB-4C (Bexsero) vaccine, compared with the other vaccine option, MenB-FHbp (Trumenba), according to Elizabeth Packnett of IBM Watson Health in Bethesda, Md., and associates.

Steve Mann/Thinkstock

In a study published in Vaccine, the investigators retrospectively analyzed 65,205 (36,118 received MenB-4C; 29,087 received MenB-FHbp) commercially insured individuals from the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database during Jan. 1, 2015–Feb. 28, 2018, as well as 13,535 (10,153 received MenB-4C; 3,382 received MenB-FHbp) Medicaid-covered individuals from the Medicaid Multi-State Database during Jan. 1, 2015–Dec. 31, 2017.

The rate of vaccine completion in the MarketScan database within 15 months of initiation was 63% for MenB-4C and 52% for MenB-FHbp, and dosing schedule adherence was 62% for MenB-4C and 18% for MenB-FHbp. The median time to completion among those who finished vaccination was 68 days for MenB-4C versus 258 days for MenB-FHbp.

In the Medicaid database, the rate of vaccine completion within 15 months of initiation was 49% for MenB-4C and 31% for MenB-FHbp; dosing schedule adherence was 48% and 8%, respectively. Median time to vaccine completion was 88 days for MenB-4C versus 309 days for MenB-FHbp.

“The observations of improved completion and schedule adherence rates for MenB-4C, compared with MenB-FHbp, were consistent across both the commercial and Medicaid populations, and persisted after adjusting for individual factors in multivariable analyses, suggesting that the results were not skewed by population differences in demographic or other characteristics,” the investigators noted, adding that the significant difference in completion and schedule adherence between vaccines likely reflects the MenB-4C flexible dosing schedule.

The study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of MenB-4C, and four coauthors reported being employed by the company. Five coauthors were employed by IBM Watson Health, which conducted the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Packnett E et al. Vaccine. 2019 Aug 20. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.06.065.

While meningococcal group B (MenB) vaccination remains suboptimal in the United States, completion was significantly higher for the MenB-4C (Bexsero) vaccine, compared with the other vaccine option, MenB-FHbp (Trumenba), according to Elizabeth Packnett of IBM Watson Health in Bethesda, Md., and associates.

Steve Mann/Thinkstock

In a study published in Vaccine, the investigators retrospectively analyzed 65,205 (36,118 received MenB-4C; 29,087 received MenB-FHbp) commercially insured individuals from the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database during Jan. 1, 2015–Feb. 28, 2018, as well as 13,535 (10,153 received MenB-4C; 3,382 received MenB-FHbp) Medicaid-covered individuals from the Medicaid Multi-State Database during Jan. 1, 2015–Dec. 31, 2017.

The rate of vaccine completion in the MarketScan database within 15 months of initiation was 63% for MenB-4C and 52% for MenB-FHbp, and dosing schedule adherence was 62% for MenB-4C and 18% for MenB-FHbp. The median time to completion among those who finished vaccination was 68 days for MenB-4C versus 258 days for MenB-FHbp.

In the Medicaid database, the rate of vaccine completion within 15 months of initiation was 49% for MenB-4C and 31% for MenB-FHbp; dosing schedule adherence was 48% and 8%, respectively. Median time to vaccine completion was 88 days for MenB-4C versus 309 days for MenB-FHbp.

“The observations of improved completion and schedule adherence rates for MenB-4C, compared with MenB-FHbp, were consistent across both the commercial and Medicaid populations, and persisted after adjusting for individual factors in multivariable analyses, suggesting that the results were not skewed by population differences in demographic or other characteristics,” the investigators noted, adding that the significant difference in completion and schedule adherence between vaccines likely reflects the MenB-4C flexible dosing schedule.

The study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of MenB-4C, and four coauthors reported being employed by the company. Five coauthors were employed by IBM Watson Health, which conducted the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Packnett E et al. Vaccine. 2019 Aug 20. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.06.065.

While meningococcal group B (MenB) vaccination remains suboptimal in the United States, completion was significantly higher for the MenB-4C (Bexsero) vaccine, compared with the other vaccine option, MenB-FHbp (Trumenba), according to Elizabeth Packnett of IBM Watson Health in Bethesda, Md., and associates.

Steve Mann/Thinkstock

In a study published in Vaccine, the investigators retrospectively analyzed 65,205 (36,118 received MenB-4C; 29,087 received MenB-FHbp) commercially insured individuals from the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database during Jan. 1, 2015–Feb. 28, 2018, as well as 13,535 (10,153 received MenB-4C; 3,382 received MenB-FHbp) Medicaid-covered individuals from the Medicaid Multi-State Database during Jan. 1, 2015–Dec. 31, 2017.

The rate of vaccine completion in the MarketScan database within 15 months of initiation was 63% for MenB-4C and 52% for MenB-FHbp, and dosing schedule adherence was 62% for MenB-4C and 18% for MenB-FHbp. The median time to completion among those who finished vaccination was 68 days for MenB-4C versus 258 days for MenB-FHbp.

In the Medicaid database, the rate of vaccine completion within 15 months of initiation was 49% for MenB-4C and 31% for MenB-FHbp; dosing schedule adherence was 48% and 8%, respectively. Median time to vaccine completion was 88 days for MenB-4C versus 309 days for MenB-FHbp.

“The observations of improved completion and schedule adherence rates for MenB-4C, compared with MenB-FHbp, were consistent across both the commercial and Medicaid populations, and persisted after adjusting for individual factors in multivariable analyses, suggesting that the results were not skewed by population differences in demographic or other characteristics,” the investigators noted, adding that the significant difference in completion and schedule adherence between vaccines likely reflects the MenB-4C flexible dosing schedule.

The study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of MenB-4C, and four coauthors reported being employed by the company. Five coauthors were employed by IBM Watson Health, which conducted the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Packnett E et al. Vaccine. 2019 Aug 20. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.06.065.

Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) should follow local vaccine standards and receive the yearly influenza vaccine, unless there are specific contraindications, such as active treatment with immunosuppressive or immunomodulating agents, according to an American Academy of Neurology practice guideline.

itsmejust/Thinkstock

A summary of the guideline on vaccine-preventable infections and immunization in MS was published online Aug. 28 in Neurology. The new effort updates a 2002 guideline on this topic and incorporates new evidence, vaccines, and disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). The guideline was endorsed by the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers and by the Multiple Sclerosis Association of America.

To create the guideline, lead author Mauricio F. Farez, MD, of the Raúl Carrea Institute for Neurological Research (FLENI) in Buenos Aires and colleagues on the 17-member guideline panel performed a systematic review of the evidence and reached consensus on recommendations using a modified Delphi voting process. The review included randomized, controlled trials; cohort studies; and case-control studies published between 1990 and March 2018.

“Immunosuppressive or immunomodulating agents used to treat MS may suppress or modulate normal immune function. These drugs may increase susceptibility to infections and may reduce vaccine effectiveness because of a decreased ability to mount an immune response,” the authors said.

Based on its review of the evidence, principles of care, and inferences, the authors made the following eight recommendations:

• Clinicians should discuss with patients the evidence regarding immunization in MS (Level B). In addition, clinicians should examine patients’ opinions, preferences, and questions regarding immunizations (Level B).
• Clinicians should recommend that patients with MS follow all local vaccine standards in the absence of specific contraindications (Level B).
• Clinicians should consider local risks of vaccine-preventable diseases when counseling patients (Level B).
• Clinicians should recommend that patients with MS receive the influenza vaccination if there is no specific contraindication, such as a previous severe reaction (Level B).
• When treatment with an immunosuppressive or immunomodulating agent is considered, clinicians should counsel patients about infection risks associated with the specific medication and the treatment-specific vaccination guidance in the medication’s prescribing instructions (Level B). In addition, physicians should assess patients’ vaccination status before prescribing immunosuppressive or immunomodulating therapy and vaccinate patients according to local regulatory standards and treatment-specific infectious risks at least 4-6 weeks before initiating therapy, as advised by the prescribing information (Level B). Furthermore, clinicians may discuss the advantages of vaccination soon after MS diagnosis, regardless of initial therapeutic plans, to prevent delays should immunosuppressive or immunomodulating therapies be initiated in the future (Level C, based on variation in patient preferences).
• Clinicians must screen for certain infections (such as hepatitis, tuberculosis, and varicella zoster virus) according to a medication’s prescribing information before starting immunosuppressive or immunomodulating treatment (Level A) and should treat patients who have latent infections before MS treatment according to the medication prescribing information (Level B, based on feasibility and cost relative to benefit). Further, in high-risk populations or in countries with a high burden of infectious disease, clinicians must screen for latent infections before starting immunosuppressive or immunomodulating medications, even when such screening is not specifically mentioned in the prescribing information (Level A). Clinicians should consult infectious disease or other specialists about treating patients with latent infection before starting immunosuppressive or immunomodulating medications (Level B).
• Clinicians should recommend against live-attenuated vaccines in people with MS who receive immunosuppressive or immunomodulating therapies or have recently discontinued these therapies (Level B, based on importance of outcomes). When the risk of infection is high, clinicians may recommend live-attenuated vaccines if killed vaccines are unavailable (Level C, based on variation in patient preferences, benefit relative to harm, and importance of outcomes).
• If a patient with MS is experiencing a relapse, clinicians should delay vaccination until the relapse has clinically resolved or is no longer active, often many weeks after relapse onset (Level B).

Personal and population-level benefits

“There is no evidence that vaccination increases the risk of MS exacerbation, although the literature is sparse,” the authors said. “In addition to conferring personal benefits, vaccination of the MS patient population contributes to the well-established phenomenon of herd immunity for the communities in which patients with MS live,” the authors wrote.

Because influenza infection has known risks of exacerbation and morbidity, whereas influenza vaccine has no identified risks of exacerbation, “benefits of influenza vaccination outweigh the risks in most scenarios, although patients with MS receiving some [immunosuppressive or immunomodulating] treatments (fingolimod [Gilenya], glatiramer acetate [Copaxone], and mitoxantrone) may have a reduced response to influenza vaccination,” the authors said. Studies in patients with diseases other than MS suggest that rituximab (Rituxan) also may be associated with reduced influenza vaccine responsiveness.

Immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory medications including alemtuzumab (Lemtrada), dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera), fingolimod, mitoxantrone, natalizumab (Tysabri), ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), rituximab, and teriflunomide (Aubagio) have been associated with severe occurrences or recurrences of vaccine-preventable infections, and many package inserts approved by the Food and Drug Administration provide guidance regarding immunization with live vaccines and treatment.

Prescribing information for alemtuzumab, fingolimod, ocrelizumab, and teriflunomide recommends against the use of live vaccines during and immediately preceding treatment. Furthermore, the prescribing information recommends waiting 2-6 months after treatment to immunize with live vaccines, depending on the half-life of the specific therapy.

“The guideline panel identified no evidence that vaccines increase the risk of relapse or worsen relapse severity, but studies are limited,” Dr. Farez and colleagues wrote. “Experts remain concerned that vaccines may worsen relapse severity if given to patients who are actively experiencing an MS relapse.” In addition, use of glucocorticoids may raise concerns about the safety of live-virus vaccines. “Immunization is not typically an urgent need and, in most cases, can be temporarily delayed without a marked increase in infection risk,” the guideline says.
 

Few high-quality studies

Data were lacking or insufficient to assess whether most vaccine-preventable diseases increase the risk of MS exacerbations. “It is probable that individuals with active MS exacerbations have higher odds of varicella zoster virus viral DNA present in peripheral blood mononuclear cells than individuals with MS in remission,” the guideline says.

Human papillomavirus, pertussis, and tetanus toxoid vaccinations probably are associated with a lower likelihood of a subsequent MS diagnosis, and smallpox vaccination is possibly associated with a lower likelihood of a subsequent MS diagnosis, the review found.

Studies included in the systematic review did not address whether live-attenuated vaccines are as effective in patients with MS as they are in the general population. With regard to the effectiveness of inactivated vaccines, patients with MS possibly are less likely to have a sufficient response to influenza vaccination, compared with controls.

The systematic review “found few high-quality studies to inform recommendations,” the authors said. “As more [immunosuppressive or immunomodulating] agents are developed to manage chronic diseases such as MS, long-term prospective cohort studies are required to evaluate both the safety and effectiveness of immunizations in MS.”

Dr. Farez has received funding for travel from Teva Argentina, Novartis Argentina, and Merck Serono Argentina and has received research support from Biogen. Coauthors’ disclosures included financial ties to pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Farez M et al. Neurology. 2019 Aug 28. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008157.

Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) should follow local vaccine standards and receive the yearly influenza vaccine, unless there are specific contraindications, such as active treatment with immunosuppressive or immunomodulating agents, according to an American Academy of Neurology practice guideline.

itsmejust/Thinkstock

A summary of the guideline on vaccine-preventable infections and immunization in MS was published online Aug. 28 in Neurology. The new effort updates a 2002 guideline on this topic and incorporates new evidence, vaccines, and disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). The guideline was endorsed by the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers and by the Multiple Sclerosis Association of America.

To create the guideline, lead author Mauricio F. Farez, MD, of the Raúl Carrea Institute for Neurological Research (FLENI) in Buenos Aires and colleagues on the 17-member guideline panel performed a systematic review of the evidence and reached consensus on recommendations using a modified Delphi voting process. The review included randomized, controlled trials; cohort studies; and case-control studies published between 1990 and March 2018.

“Immunosuppressive or immunomodulating agents used to treat MS may suppress or modulate normal immune function. These drugs may increase susceptibility to infections and may reduce vaccine effectiveness because of a decreased ability to mount an immune response,” the authors said.

Based on its review of the evidence, principles of care, and inferences, the authors made the following eight recommendations:

• Clinicians should discuss with patients the evidence regarding immunization in MS (Level B). In addition, clinicians should examine patients’ opinions, preferences, and questions regarding immunizations (Level B).
• Clinicians should recommend that patients with MS follow all local vaccine standards in the absence of specific contraindications (Level B).
• Clinicians should consider local risks of vaccine-preventable diseases when counseling patients (Level B).
• Clinicians should recommend that patients with MS receive the influenza vaccination if there is no specific contraindication, such as a previous severe reaction (Level B).
• When treatment with an immunosuppressive or immunomodulating agent is considered, clinicians should counsel patients about infection risks associated with the specific medication and the treatment-specific vaccination guidance in the medication’s prescribing instructions (Level B). In addition, physicians should assess patients’ vaccination status before prescribing immunosuppressive or immunomodulating therapy and vaccinate patients according to local regulatory standards and treatment-specific infectious risks at least 4-6 weeks before initiating therapy, as advised by the prescribing information (Level B). Furthermore, clinicians may discuss the advantages of vaccination soon after MS diagnosis, regardless of initial therapeutic plans, to prevent delays should immunosuppressive or immunomodulating therapies be initiated in the future (Level C, based on variation in patient preferences).
• Clinicians must screen for certain infections (such as hepatitis, tuberculosis, and varicella zoster virus) according to a medication’s prescribing information before starting immunosuppressive or immunomodulating treatment (Level A) and should treat patients who have latent infections before MS treatment according to the medication prescribing information (Level B, based on feasibility and cost relative to benefit). Further, in high-risk populations or in countries with a high burden of infectious disease, clinicians must screen for latent infections before starting immunosuppressive or immunomodulating medications, even when such screening is not specifically mentioned in the prescribing information (Level A). Clinicians should consult infectious disease or other specialists about treating patients with latent infection before starting immunosuppressive or immunomodulating medications (Level B).
• Clinicians should recommend against live-attenuated vaccines in people with MS who receive immunosuppressive or immunomodulating therapies or have recently discontinued these therapies (Level B, based on importance of outcomes). When the risk of infection is high, clinicians may recommend live-attenuated vaccines if killed vaccines are unavailable (Level C, based on variation in patient preferences, benefit relative to harm, and importance of outcomes).
• If a patient with MS is experiencing a relapse, clinicians should delay vaccination until the relapse has clinically resolved or is no longer active, often many weeks after relapse onset (Level B).

Personal and population-level benefits

“There is no evidence that vaccination increases the risk of MS exacerbation, although the literature is sparse,” the authors said. “In addition to conferring personal benefits, vaccination of the MS patient population contributes to the well-established phenomenon of herd immunity for the communities in which patients with MS live,” the authors wrote.

Because influenza infection has known risks of exacerbation and morbidity, whereas influenza vaccine has no identified risks of exacerbation, “benefits of influenza vaccination outweigh the risks in most scenarios, although patients with MS receiving some [immunosuppressive or immunomodulating] treatments (fingolimod [Gilenya], glatiramer acetate [Copaxone], and mitoxantrone) may have a reduced response to influenza vaccination,” the authors said. Studies in patients with diseases other than MS suggest that rituximab (Rituxan) also may be associated with reduced influenza vaccine responsiveness.

Immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory medications including alemtuzumab (Lemtrada), dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera), fingolimod, mitoxantrone, natalizumab (Tysabri), ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), rituximab, and teriflunomide (Aubagio) have been associated with severe occurrences or recurrences of vaccine-preventable infections, and many package inserts approved by the Food and Drug Administration provide guidance regarding immunization with live vaccines and treatment.

Prescribing information for alemtuzumab, fingolimod, ocrelizumab, and teriflunomide recommends against the use of live vaccines during and immediately preceding treatment. Furthermore, the prescribing information recommends waiting 2-6 months after treatment to immunize with live vaccines, depending on the half-life of the specific therapy.

“The guideline panel identified no evidence that vaccines increase the risk of relapse or worsen relapse severity, but studies are limited,” Dr. Farez and colleagues wrote. “Experts remain concerned that vaccines may worsen relapse severity if given to patients who are actively experiencing an MS relapse.” In addition, use of glucocorticoids may raise concerns about the safety of live-virus vaccines. “Immunization is not typically an urgent need and, in most cases, can be temporarily delayed without a marked increase in infection risk,” the guideline says.
 

Few high-quality studies

Data were lacking or insufficient to assess whether most vaccine-preventable diseases increase the risk of MS exacerbations. “It is probable that individuals with active MS exacerbations have higher odds of varicella zoster virus viral DNA present in peripheral blood mononuclear cells than individuals with MS in remission,” the guideline says.

Human papillomavirus, pertussis, and tetanus toxoid vaccinations probably are associated with a lower likelihood of a subsequent MS diagnosis, and smallpox vaccination is possibly associated with a lower likelihood of a subsequent MS diagnosis, the review found.

Studies included in the systematic review did not address whether live-attenuated vaccines are as effective in patients with MS as they are in the general population. With regard to the effectiveness of inactivated vaccines, patients with MS possibly are less likely to have a sufficient response to influenza vaccination, compared with controls.

The systematic review “found few high-quality studies to inform recommendations,” the authors said. “As more [immunosuppressive or immunomodulating] agents are developed to manage chronic diseases such as MS, long-term prospective cohort studies are required to evaluate both the safety and effectiveness of immunizations in MS.”

Dr. Farez has received funding for travel from Teva Argentina, Novartis Argentina, and Merck Serono Argentina and has received research support from Biogen. Coauthors’ disclosures included financial ties to pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Farez M et al. Neurology. 2019 Aug 28. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008157.

Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) should follow local vaccine standards and receive the yearly influenza vaccine, unless there are specific contraindications, such as active treatment with immunosuppressive or immunomodulating agents, according to an American Academy of Neurology practice guideline.

itsmejust/Thinkstock

A summary of the guideline on vaccine-preventable infections and immunization in MS was published online Aug. 28 in Neurology. The new effort updates a 2002 guideline on this topic and incorporates new evidence, vaccines, and disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). The guideline was endorsed by the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers and by the Multiple Sclerosis Association of America.

To create the guideline, lead author Mauricio F. Farez, MD, of the Raúl Carrea Institute for Neurological Research (FLENI) in Buenos Aires and colleagues on the 17-member guideline panel performed a systematic review of the evidence and reached consensus on recommendations using a modified Delphi voting process. The review included randomized, controlled trials; cohort studies; and case-control studies published between 1990 and March 2018.

“Immunosuppressive or immunomodulating agents used to treat MS may suppress or modulate normal immune function. These drugs may increase susceptibility to infections and may reduce vaccine effectiveness because of a decreased ability to mount an immune response,” the authors said.

Based on its review of the evidence, principles of care, and inferences, the authors made the following eight recommendations:

• Clinicians should discuss with patients the evidence regarding immunization in MS (Level B). In addition, clinicians should examine patients’ opinions, preferences, and questions regarding immunizations (Level B).
• Clinicians should recommend that patients with MS follow all local vaccine standards in the absence of specific contraindications (Level B).
• Clinicians should consider local risks of vaccine-preventable diseases when counseling patients (Level B).
• Clinicians should recommend that patients with MS receive the influenza vaccination if there is no specific contraindication, such as a previous severe reaction (Level B).
• When treatment with an immunosuppressive or immunomodulating agent is considered, clinicians should counsel patients about infection risks associated with the specific medication and the treatment-specific vaccination guidance in the medication’s prescribing instructions (Level B). In addition, physicians should assess patients’ vaccination status before prescribing immunosuppressive or immunomodulating therapy and vaccinate patients according to local regulatory standards and treatment-specific infectious risks at least 4-6 weeks before initiating therapy, as advised by the prescribing information (Level B). Furthermore, clinicians may discuss the advantages of vaccination soon after MS diagnosis, regardless of initial therapeutic plans, to prevent delays should immunosuppressive or immunomodulating therapies be initiated in the future (Level C, based on variation in patient preferences).
• Clinicians must screen for certain infections (such as hepatitis, tuberculosis, and varicella zoster virus) according to a medication’s prescribing information before starting immunosuppressive or immunomodulating treatment (Level A) and should treat patients who have latent infections before MS treatment according to the medication prescribing information (Level B, based on feasibility and cost relative to benefit). Further, in high-risk populations or in countries with a high burden of infectious disease, clinicians must screen for latent infections before starting immunosuppressive or immunomodulating medications, even when such screening is not specifically mentioned in the prescribing information (Level A). Clinicians should consult infectious disease or other specialists about treating patients with latent infection before starting immunosuppressive or immunomodulating medications (Level B).
• Clinicians should recommend against live-attenuated vaccines in people with MS who receive immunosuppressive or immunomodulating therapies or have recently discontinued these therapies (Level B, based on importance of outcomes). When the risk of infection is high, clinicians may recommend live-attenuated vaccines if killed vaccines are unavailable (Level C, based on variation in patient preferences, benefit relative to harm, and importance of outcomes).
• If a patient with MS is experiencing a relapse, clinicians should delay vaccination until the relapse has clinically resolved or is no longer active, often many weeks after relapse onset (Level B).

Personal and population-level benefits

“There is no evidence that vaccination increases the risk of MS exacerbation, although the literature is sparse,” the authors said. “In addition to conferring personal benefits, vaccination of the MS patient population contributes to the well-established phenomenon of herd immunity for the communities in which patients with MS live,” the authors wrote.

Because influenza infection has known risks of exacerbation and morbidity, whereas influenza vaccine has no identified risks of exacerbation, “benefits of influenza vaccination outweigh the risks in most scenarios, although patients with MS receiving some [immunosuppressive or immunomodulating] treatments (fingolimod [Gilenya], glatiramer acetate [Copaxone], and mitoxantrone) may have a reduced response to influenza vaccination,” the authors said. Studies in patients with diseases other than MS suggest that rituximab (Rituxan) also may be associated with reduced influenza vaccine responsiveness.

Immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory medications including alemtuzumab (Lemtrada), dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera), fingolimod, mitoxantrone, natalizumab (Tysabri), ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), rituximab, and teriflunomide (Aubagio) have been associated with severe occurrences or recurrences of vaccine-preventable infections, and many package inserts approved by the Food and Drug Administration provide guidance regarding immunization with live vaccines and treatment.

Prescribing information for alemtuzumab, fingolimod, ocrelizumab, and teriflunomide recommends against the use of live vaccines during and immediately preceding treatment. Furthermore, the prescribing information recommends waiting 2-6 months after treatment to immunize with live vaccines, depending on the half-life of the specific therapy.

“The guideline panel identified no evidence that vaccines increase the risk of relapse or worsen relapse severity, but studies are limited,” Dr. Farez and colleagues wrote. “Experts remain concerned that vaccines may worsen relapse severity if given to patients who are actively experiencing an MS relapse.” In addition, use of glucocorticoids may raise concerns about the safety of live-virus vaccines. “Immunization is not typically an urgent need and, in most cases, can be temporarily delayed without a marked increase in infection risk,” the guideline says.
 

Few high-quality studies

Data were lacking or insufficient to assess whether most vaccine-preventable diseases increase the risk of MS exacerbations. “It is probable that individuals with active MS exacerbations have higher odds of varicella zoster virus viral DNA present in peripheral blood mononuclear cells than individuals with MS in remission,” the guideline says.

Human papillomavirus, pertussis, and tetanus toxoid vaccinations probably are associated with a lower likelihood of a subsequent MS diagnosis, and smallpox vaccination is possibly associated with a lower likelihood of a subsequent MS diagnosis, the review found.

Studies included in the systematic review did not address whether live-attenuated vaccines are as effective in patients with MS as they are in the general population. With regard to the effectiveness of inactivated vaccines, patients with MS possibly are less likely to have a sufficient response to influenza vaccination, compared with controls.

The systematic review “found few high-quality studies to inform recommendations,” the authors said. “As more [immunosuppressive or immunomodulating] agents are developed to manage chronic diseases such as MS, long-term prospective cohort studies are required to evaluate both the safety and effectiveness of immunizations in MS.”

Dr. Farez has received funding for travel from Teva Argentina, Novartis Argentina, and Merck Serono Argentina and has received research support from Biogen. Coauthors’ disclosures included financial ties to pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Farez M et al. Neurology. 2019 Aug 28. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008157.

Slightly more than half of adolescents in the United States have been fully vaccinated against the human papillomavirus, according to a report published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Joseph Abbott/Thinkstock

Researchers analyzed data from 18,700 adolescents aged 13-17 years – 48% of whom were female – in the 2018 National Immunization Survey–Teen to discover that 51% of adolescents were up to date with the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, and 68% had received at least one dose of the vaccine.

There was an increase in HPV vaccination coverage from 2017 to 2018, but this was attributable to a 4.4 percentage point increase in males who were up to date, compared with a 0.6 percentage point increase in females.

“Although HPV vaccina­tion coverage improved, increases among all adolescents were modest compared with increases in previous years and were observed only among males,” wrote Tanja Y. Walker of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and coauthors.

The number of adolescents who had at least one dose of the quadrivalent meningococ­cal conjugate (4MenB) vaccine increased by 1.5 percentage points to 86.6%, while among individuals aged 17 years, coverage with two or more doses of 4MenB vaccine increased by 6.5 percentage points to 50.8%. Tdap coverage remained the same at 89% (MMWR 2019;68(33):718-23).

Slightly more than half of adolescents in the United States have been fully vaccinated against the human papillomavirus, according to a report published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Joseph Abbott/Thinkstock

Researchers analyzed data from 18,700 adolescents aged 13-17 years – 48% of whom were female – in the 2018 National Immunization Survey–Teen to discover that 51% of adolescents were up to date with the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, and 68% had received at least one dose of the vaccine.

There was an increase in HPV vaccination coverage from 2017 to 2018, but this was attributable to a 4.4 percentage point increase in males who were up to date, compared with a 0.6 percentage point increase in females.

“Although HPV vaccina­tion coverage improved, increases among all adolescents were modest compared with increases in previous years and were observed only among males,” wrote Tanja Y. Walker of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and coauthors.

The number of adolescents who had at least one dose of the quadrivalent meningococ­cal conjugate (4MenB) vaccine increased by 1.5 percentage points to 86.6%, while among individuals aged 17 years, coverage with two or more doses of 4MenB vaccine increased by 6.5 percentage points to 50.8%. Tdap coverage remained the same at 89% (MMWR 2019;68(33):718-23).

Slightly more than half of adolescents in the United States have been fully vaccinated against the human papillomavirus, according to a report published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Joseph Abbott/Thinkstock

Researchers analyzed data from 18,700 adolescents aged 13-17 years – 48% of whom were female – in the 2018 National Immunization Survey–Teen to discover that 51% of adolescents were up to date with the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, and 68% had received at least one dose of the vaccine.

There was an increase in HPV vaccination coverage from 2017 to 2018, but this was attributable to a 4.4 percentage point increase in males who were up to date, compared with a 0.6 percentage point increase in females.

“Although HPV vaccina­tion coverage improved, increases among all adolescents were modest compared with increases in previous years and were observed only among males,” wrote Tanja Y. Walker of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and coauthors.

The number of adolescents who had at least one dose of the quadrivalent meningococ­cal conjugate (4MenB) vaccine increased by 1.5 percentage points to 86.6%, while among individuals aged 17 years, coverage with two or more doses of 4MenB vaccine increased by 6.5 percentage points to 50.8%. Tdap coverage remained the same at 89% (MMWR 2019;68(33):718-23).

Vaccination status should be reviewed annually for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases, according to updated recommendations from the European League Against Rheumatism.

luiscar/Thinkstock

Patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD) are at increased risk for infections, and vaccination has been shown to reduce risk by “potentially translating into a lower rate of hospital admissions due to infections, emergency room visits, and the rate of invasive infectious diseases,” wrote Victoria Furer, MD, of Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, and members of the task force that updated the recommendations, which were published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

However, AIIRD patients often go unvaccinated because of a lack of awareness or concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, they said (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215882).

The task force consisted of 21 experts, including patients, rheumatologists, immunologists, an infectious disease specialist, and health professionals in rheumatology representing eight countries. They evaluated data from four systematic literature reviews and developed nine recommendations based on six key principles.

“For each recommendation, the level of evidence for the incidence/prevalence of vaccine preventable infection in AIIRD, and efficacy/immunogenicity/safety of vaccination were stated, when available, followed by the strength of recommendation and the level of agreement,” the task force wrote.

These overarching principles start with an annual assessment of vaccination status by the AIIRD patient’s rheumatology team. Other principles include explanation of an individualized vaccination program to the patient as a foundation for joint decision-making, vaccinating patients during quiescent disease periods, vaccinating in advance of planned immunosuppression when possible, considering non-live vaccines for AIIRD patients also treated with systemic glucocorticoids and DMARDs, and considering live-attenuated vaccines with caution.

Several of the nine recommendations developed by the task force are modified from the previous recommendations issued in 2011. The task force made its recommendations with an eye toward optimizing individual risk stratification and avoiding “unnecessary” vaccination in AIIRD patients with low risk of infection as part of the update process. A notable change from the 2011 guidelines is the recommendation of both influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations for the majority of patients with AIIRD as opposed to all patients to emphasize the importance of individualized risk assessment, the task force noted.

The recommendations state that influenza vaccination and pneumococcal vaccination should be “strongly considered” for patients with AIIRD, and patients also should receive tetanus toxoid vaccination according to recommendations for the general population. However, clinicians should consider passive immunization for patients treated with B-cell depleting therapy, the task force wrote.

AIIRD patients at risk for hepatitis A and B should receive vaccinations for those diseases, with boosters or passive immunization if indicated, and high-risk patients may consider herpes zoster vaccination, according to the recommendations.

In addition, AIIRD patients – especially patients with systemic lupus erythematosus – should receive human papilloma virus vaccination according to recommendations for the general population, but AIIRD patients should avoid yellow fever vaccination, the task force stated. However, for AIIRD patients traveling to areas of yellow fever risk, “withholding immunosuppressive therapy to allow a safe vaccination or measuring serology in previously exposed patients may be considered.”

Finally, mothers treated with biologics during the second half of pregnancy should avoid live-attenuated vaccines for their newborns, and immunocompetent household members of AIIRD patients should be encouraged to follow national guidelines for routine vaccination with the exception of the oral polio vaccine, the task force concluded.

Vaccination status should be reviewed annually for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases, according to updated recommendations from the European League Against Rheumatism.

luiscar/Thinkstock

Patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD) are at increased risk for infections, and vaccination has been shown to reduce risk by “potentially translating into a lower rate of hospital admissions due to infections, emergency room visits, and the rate of invasive infectious diseases,” wrote Victoria Furer, MD, of Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, and members of the task force that updated the recommendations, which were published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

However, AIIRD patients often go unvaccinated because of a lack of awareness or concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, they said (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215882).

The task force consisted of 21 experts, including patients, rheumatologists, immunologists, an infectious disease specialist, and health professionals in rheumatology representing eight countries. They evaluated data from four systematic literature reviews and developed nine recommendations based on six key principles.

“For each recommendation, the level of evidence for the incidence/prevalence of vaccine preventable infection in AIIRD, and efficacy/immunogenicity/safety of vaccination were stated, when available, followed by the strength of recommendation and the level of agreement,” the task force wrote.

These overarching principles start with an annual assessment of vaccination status by the AIIRD patient’s rheumatology team. Other principles include explanation of an individualized vaccination program to the patient as a foundation for joint decision-making, vaccinating patients during quiescent disease periods, vaccinating in advance of planned immunosuppression when possible, considering non-live vaccines for AIIRD patients also treated with systemic glucocorticoids and DMARDs, and considering live-attenuated vaccines with caution.

Several of the nine recommendations developed by the task force are modified from the previous recommendations issued in 2011. The task force made its recommendations with an eye toward optimizing individual risk stratification and avoiding “unnecessary” vaccination in AIIRD patients with low risk of infection as part of the update process. A notable change from the 2011 guidelines is the recommendation of both influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations for the majority of patients with AIIRD as opposed to all patients to emphasize the importance of individualized risk assessment, the task force noted.

The recommendations state that influenza vaccination and pneumococcal vaccination should be “strongly considered” for patients with AIIRD, and patients also should receive tetanus toxoid vaccination according to recommendations for the general population. However, clinicians should consider passive immunization for patients treated with B-cell depleting therapy, the task force wrote.

AIIRD patients at risk for hepatitis A and B should receive vaccinations for those diseases, with boosters or passive immunization if indicated, and high-risk patients may consider herpes zoster vaccination, according to the recommendations.

In addition, AIIRD patients – especially patients with systemic lupus erythematosus – should receive human papilloma virus vaccination according to recommendations for the general population, but AIIRD patients should avoid yellow fever vaccination, the task force stated. However, for AIIRD patients traveling to areas of yellow fever risk, “withholding immunosuppressive therapy to allow a safe vaccination or measuring serology in previously exposed patients may be considered.”

Finally, mothers treated with biologics during the second half of pregnancy should avoid live-attenuated vaccines for their newborns, and immunocompetent household members of AIIRD patients should be encouraged to follow national guidelines for routine vaccination with the exception of the oral polio vaccine, the task force concluded.

Vaccination status should be reviewed annually for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases, according to updated recommendations from the European League Against Rheumatism.

luiscar/Thinkstock

Patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD) are at increased risk for infections, and vaccination has been shown to reduce risk by “potentially translating into a lower rate of hospital admissions due to infections, emergency room visits, and the rate of invasive infectious diseases,” wrote Victoria Furer, MD, of Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, and members of the task force that updated the recommendations, which were published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

However, AIIRD patients often go unvaccinated because of a lack of awareness or concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, they said (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215882).

The task force consisted of 21 experts, including patients, rheumatologists, immunologists, an infectious disease specialist, and health professionals in rheumatology representing eight countries. They evaluated data from four systematic literature reviews and developed nine recommendations based on six key principles.

“For each recommendation, the level of evidence for the incidence/prevalence of vaccine preventable infection in AIIRD, and efficacy/immunogenicity/safety of vaccination were stated, when available, followed by the strength of recommendation and the level of agreement,” the task force wrote.

These overarching principles start with an annual assessment of vaccination status by the AIIRD patient’s rheumatology team. Other principles include explanation of an individualized vaccination program to the patient as a foundation for joint decision-making, vaccinating patients during quiescent disease periods, vaccinating in advance of planned immunosuppression when possible, considering non-live vaccines for AIIRD patients also treated with systemic glucocorticoids and DMARDs, and considering live-attenuated vaccines with caution.

Several of the nine recommendations developed by the task force are modified from the previous recommendations issued in 2011. The task force made its recommendations with an eye toward optimizing individual risk stratification and avoiding “unnecessary” vaccination in AIIRD patients with low risk of infection as part of the update process. A notable change from the 2011 guidelines is the recommendation of both influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations for the majority of patients with AIIRD as opposed to all patients to emphasize the importance of individualized risk assessment, the task force noted.

The recommendations state that influenza vaccination and pneumococcal vaccination should be “strongly considered” for patients with AIIRD, and patients also should receive tetanus toxoid vaccination according to recommendations for the general population. However, clinicians should consider passive immunization for patients treated with B-cell depleting therapy, the task force wrote.

AIIRD patients at risk for hepatitis A and B should receive vaccinations for those diseases, with boosters or passive immunization if indicated, and high-risk patients may consider herpes zoster vaccination, according to the recommendations.

In addition, AIIRD patients – especially patients with systemic lupus erythematosus – should receive human papilloma virus vaccination according to recommendations for the general population, but AIIRD patients should avoid yellow fever vaccination, the task force stated. However, for AIIRD patients traveling to areas of yellow fever risk, “withholding immunosuppressive therapy to allow a safe vaccination or measuring serology in previously exposed patients may be considered.”

Finally, mothers treated with biologics during the second half of pregnancy should avoid live-attenuated vaccines for their newborns, and immunocompetent household members of AIIRD patients should be encouraged to follow national guidelines for routine vaccination with the exception of the oral polio vaccine, the task force concluded.

LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA – The 4CMenB vaccine didn’t affect carriage of disease-causing genogroups of Neisseria meningitidis in adolescents in the landmark Australian cluster-randomized trial of herd immunity known as the “B Part of It” study, Helen S. Marshall, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.

This was the largest-ever randomized trial of adolescents vaccinated against meningococcal disease, and the message, albeit somewhat disappointing, is clear: “MenB [Meningococcal serogroup B] vaccine programs should be designed to provide direct protection for those at highest risk of disease,” declared Dr. Marshall, professor of vaccinology and deputy director of the Robinson Research Institute at the University of Adelaide.

In other words, a protein antigen–based MenB vaccine doesn’t provide indirect protection to unvaccinated adolescents through herd immunity. Youths in the age groups at highest risk of disease – infants and adolescents – need to routinely receive the vaccine.

The B Part of It study, whose sheer scope and rigor drew the attention of infectious disease clinical trialists the world over, randomized nearly 35,000 students at all high schools in the state of South Australia – whether urban, rural, or remote – to two doses of the 4CMenB vaccine known as Bexsero or to a nonvaccinated control group. This massive trial entailed training more than 250 nurses in the study procedures and involved 3,100 miles of travel to transport oropharyngeal swab samples obtained from students in outlying areas for centralized laboratory analysis using real-time polymerase chain reaction with meningococcal genotyping, culture for N. meningitidis, and whole-genome sequencing. Samples were obtained on day 1 of the study and 12 months later.

The investigators created widespread regional enthusiasm for this project through adept use of social media and other methods. As a result, 99.5% of students randomized to the intervention arm received one dose, while 97% got two doses. A gratifying unintended consequence of the study was that parents who’d never previously vaccinated their children enrolled them in B Part of It, Dr. Marshall noted.

The impetus for B Part of It was that, while the Australian national health insurance program covers a single dose of meningococcal conjugate MenACWY vaccine given at age 12 months and 14-19 years, MenB vaccine isn’t covered because of uncertainties about cost effectiveness and the vaccine’s impact on meningococcal carriage and herd immunity. B Part of It was designed to resolve those uncertainties.

South Australia has the highest rate of invasive meningococcal disease in the country, and more than 80% of cases there are caused by meningococcal serogroup B. Moreover, 75% of group B cases in South Australia involve the nasty hypervirulent New Zealand strain known as CC 41/44.

The primary outcome in B Part of It was the difference in carriage of the major disease-causing serotypes – groups A, B, C, W, X, and Y – between vaccinated and unvaccinated students at the 1-year follow-up mark. The carriage prevalence of all N. meningitidis in the vaccinated students went from 2.8% at baseline to 4.0% at 12 months, and similarly from 2.6% to 4.7% in unvaccinated controls. More importantly, the prevalence of disease-causing genotypes rose from 1.3% at baseline to 2.4% at follow-up in the vaccinated subjects, with a near-identical pattern seen in controls, where the prevalence rose from 1.4% to 2.4%. In an as-treated analysis, the rate of acquisition of carriage of disease-causing genotypes was identical at 2.0% in both study arms.

The 4CMenB vaccine proved reassuringly safe and effective in preventing meningococcal disease in vaccinated teens. With more than 58,000 doses of the vaccine given in the study, no new safety concerns or signals emerged. And the observed number of cases of invasive meningococcal disease in South Australian adolescent vaccine recipients to date has been significantly lower than expected.

Secondary and exploratory outcomes

Independent risk factors associated with N. meningitidis carriage in the study participants at the 1-year mark included smoking cigarettes or hookah, intimate kissing within the last week, and being in grades 11-12, as opposed to grade 10.

The vaccine had no significant impact on the carriage rate of the hypervirulent New Zealand serogroup B strain. Nor was there a vaccine impact on carriage density, as Mark McMillan, MD, reported elsewhere at ESPID 2019. But while the 4CMenB vaccine had minimal impact upon N. meningitidis carriage density, it was associated with a significant 41% increase in the likelihood of cleared carriage of disease-causing strains at 12 months, added Dr. McMillan, Dr. Marshall’s coinvestigator at University of Adelaide.

What’s next

The ongoing B Part of It School Leaver study is assessing carriage prevalence in vaccinated versus unvaccinated high schoolers in their first year after graduating.

In addition, the B Part of It investigators plan to prospectively study the impact of the 4CMen B vaccine on N. gonorrhoeae disease in an effort to confirm the intriguing findings of an earlier large, retrospective New Zealand case-control study. The Kiwis found that recipients of an outer membrane vesicle MenB vaccine had an adjusted 31% reduction in the risk of gonorrhea. This was the first-ever report of any vaccine effectiveness against this major global public health problem, in which antibiotic resistance is a growing concern (Lancet. 2017 Sep 30;390[10102]:1603-10). Dr. Marshall reported receiving research funding from GlaxoSmithKline, which markets Bexsero and was the major financial supporter of the B Part of It study.

But wait a minute...

Following Dr. Marshall’s report on the B Part of It study, outgoing ESPID president Adam Finn, MD, PhD, presented longitudinal data that he believes raise the possibility that protein-antigen vaccines such as Bexsero, which promote naturally acquired mucosal immunity, may impact on transmission population wide without reliably preventing acquisition. This would stand in stark contrast to conjugate meningococcus vaccines, which have a well-established massive impact on carriage and acquisition of N. meningitidis.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

It may be that in studying throat carriage rates once in individuals immunized 12 months earlier, as in the B Part of It study, investigators are not asking the right question, proposed Dr. Finn, professor of pediatrics at the University of Bristol (England).

His research team has been obtaining throat swabs at monthly intervals in a population of 917 high schoolers aged 16-17 years. In 416 of the students, they also have collected saliva samples weekly both before and after immunization with 4CMenB vaccine, analyzing the samples for N. meningitidis by polymerase chain reaction. This is a novel method of studying meningococcal carriage they have found to be both reliable and far more acceptable to patients than oropharyngeal swabbing, which adolescents balk at if asked to do with any frequency (PLoS One. 2019 Feb 11;14[2]:e0209905).

Dr. Finn said that their findings, which need confirmation, suggest that N. meningitidis carriage is usually brief and dynamic. They also have found that carriage density varies markedly from month to month.

“We see much higher-density carriage in the adolescent population in the early months of the year in conjunction, we think, with viral infection with influenza and so forth,” he said, adding that this could have clinical implications. “It feels sort of intuitive that someone walking around with 1,000 or 10,000 times as many meningococci in their throat is more likely to be more infectious to people around them with a very small number, although this hasn’t been formally proven.”

He hopes that the Be on the TEAM (Teenagers Against Meningitis) study will help provide answers. The study is randomizing 24,000 U.K. high school students to vaccination with the meningococcal B protein–antigen vaccines Bexsero or Trumenba or to no vaccine in order to learn if there are significant herd immunity effects.

Dr. Finn’s meningococcal carriage research is funded by the Meningitis Research Foundation and the National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Marshall reported receiving research funding from GlaxoSmithKline, the major sponsor of the B Part of It study.

[email protected]

LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA – The 4CMenB vaccine didn’t affect carriage of disease-causing genogroups of Neisseria meningitidis in adolescents in the landmark Australian cluster-randomized trial of herd immunity known as the “B Part of It” study, Helen S. Marshall, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.

This was the largest-ever randomized trial of adolescents vaccinated against meningococcal disease, and the message, albeit somewhat disappointing, is clear: “MenB [Meningococcal serogroup B] vaccine programs should be designed to provide direct protection for those at highest risk of disease,” declared Dr. Marshall, professor of vaccinology and deputy director of the Robinson Research Institute at the University of Adelaide.

In other words, a protein antigen–based MenB vaccine doesn’t provide indirect protection to unvaccinated adolescents through herd immunity. Youths in the age groups at highest risk of disease – infants and adolescents – need to routinely receive the vaccine.

The B Part of It study, whose sheer scope and rigor drew the attention of infectious disease clinical trialists the world over, randomized nearly 35,000 students at all high schools in the state of South Australia – whether urban, rural, or remote – to two doses of the 4CMenB vaccine known as Bexsero or to a nonvaccinated control group. This massive trial entailed training more than 250 nurses in the study procedures and involved 3,100 miles of travel to transport oropharyngeal swab samples obtained from students in outlying areas for centralized laboratory analysis using real-time polymerase chain reaction with meningococcal genotyping, culture for N. meningitidis, and whole-genome sequencing. Samples were obtained on day 1 of the study and 12 months later.

The investigators created widespread regional enthusiasm for this project through adept use of social media and other methods. As a result, 99.5% of students randomized to the intervention arm received one dose, while 97% got two doses. A gratifying unintended consequence of the study was that parents who’d never previously vaccinated their children enrolled them in B Part of It, Dr. Marshall noted.

The impetus for B Part of It was that, while the Australian national health insurance program covers a single dose of meningococcal conjugate MenACWY vaccine given at age 12 months and 14-19 years, MenB vaccine isn’t covered because of uncertainties about cost effectiveness and the vaccine’s impact on meningococcal carriage and herd immunity. B Part of It was designed to resolve those uncertainties.

South Australia has the highest rate of invasive meningococcal disease in the country, and more than 80% of cases there are caused by meningococcal serogroup B. Moreover, 75% of group B cases in South Australia involve the nasty hypervirulent New Zealand strain known as CC 41/44.

The primary outcome in B Part of It was the difference in carriage of the major disease-causing serotypes – groups A, B, C, W, X, and Y – between vaccinated and unvaccinated students at the 1-year follow-up mark. The carriage prevalence of all N. meningitidis in the vaccinated students went from 2.8% at baseline to 4.0% at 12 months, and similarly from 2.6% to 4.7% in unvaccinated controls. More importantly, the prevalence of disease-causing genotypes rose from 1.3% at baseline to 2.4% at follow-up in the vaccinated subjects, with a near-identical pattern seen in controls, where the prevalence rose from 1.4% to 2.4%. In an as-treated analysis, the rate of acquisition of carriage of disease-causing genotypes was identical at 2.0% in both study arms.

The 4CMenB vaccine proved reassuringly safe and effective in preventing meningococcal disease in vaccinated teens. With more than 58,000 doses of the vaccine given in the study, no new safety concerns or signals emerged. And the observed number of cases of invasive meningococcal disease in South Australian adolescent vaccine recipients to date has been significantly lower than expected.

Secondary and exploratory outcomes

Independent risk factors associated with N. meningitidis carriage in the study participants at the 1-year mark included smoking cigarettes or hookah, intimate kissing within the last week, and being in grades 11-12, as opposed to grade 10.

The vaccine had no significant impact on the carriage rate of the hypervirulent New Zealand serogroup B strain. Nor was there a vaccine impact on carriage density, as Mark McMillan, MD, reported elsewhere at ESPID 2019. But while the 4CMenB vaccine had minimal impact upon N. meningitidis carriage density, it was associated with a significant 41% increase in the likelihood of cleared carriage of disease-causing strains at 12 months, added Dr. McMillan, Dr. Marshall’s coinvestigator at University of Adelaide.

What’s next

The ongoing B Part of It School Leaver study is assessing carriage prevalence in vaccinated versus unvaccinated high schoolers in their first year after graduating.

In addition, the B Part of It investigators plan to prospectively study the impact of the 4CMen B vaccine on N. gonorrhoeae disease in an effort to confirm the intriguing findings of an earlier large, retrospective New Zealand case-control study. The Kiwis found that recipients of an outer membrane vesicle MenB vaccine had an adjusted 31% reduction in the risk of gonorrhea. This was the first-ever report of any vaccine effectiveness against this major global public health problem, in which antibiotic resistance is a growing concern (Lancet. 2017 Sep 30;390[10102]:1603-10). Dr. Marshall reported receiving research funding from GlaxoSmithKline, which markets Bexsero and was the major financial supporter of the B Part of It study.

But wait a minute...

Following Dr. Marshall’s report on the B Part of It study, outgoing ESPID president Adam Finn, MD, PhD, presented longitudinal data that he believes raise the possibility that protein-antigen vaccines such as Bexsero, which promote naturally acquired mucosal immunity, may impact on transmission population wide without reliably preventing acquisition. This would stand in stark contrast to conjugate meningococcus vaccines, which have a well-established massive impact on carriage and acquisition of N. meningitidis.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

It may be that in studying throat carriage rates once in individuals immunized 12 months earlier, as in the B Part of It study, investigators are not asking the right question, proposed Dr. Finn, professor of pediatrics at the University of Bristol (England).

His research team has been obtaining throat swabs at monthly intervals in a population of 917 high schoolers aged 16-17 years. In 416 of the students, they also have collected saliva samples weekly both before and after immunization with 4CMenB vaccine, analyzing the samples for N. meningitidis by polymerase chain reaction. This is a novel method of studying meningococcal carriage they have found to be both reliable and far more acceptable to patients than oropharyngeal swabbing, which adolescents balk at if asked to do with any frequency (PLoS One. 2019 Feb 11;14[2]:e0209905).

Dr. Finn said that their findings, which need confirmation, suggest that N. meningitidis carriage is usually brief and dynamic. They also have found that carriage density varies markedly from month to month.

“We see much higher-density carriage in the adolescent population in the early months of the year in conjunction, we think, with viral infection with influenza and so forth,” he said, adding that this could have clinical implications. “It feels sort of intuitive that someone walking around with 1,000 or 10,000 times as many meningococci in their throat is more likely to be more infectious to people around them with a very small number, although this hasn’t been formally proven.”

He hopes that the Be on the TEAM (Teenagers Against Meningitis) study will help provide answers. The study is randomizing 24,000 U.K. high school students to vaccination with the meningococcal B protein–antigen vaccines Bexsero or Trumenba or to no vaccine in order to learn if there are significant herd immunity effects.

Dr. Finn’s meningococcal carriage research is funded by the Meningitis Research Foundation and the National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Marshall reported receiving research funding from GlaxoSmithKline, the major sponsor of the B Part of It study.

[email protected]

LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA – The 4CMenB vaccine didn’t affect carriage of disease-causing genogroups of Neisseria meningitidis in adolescents in the landmark Australian cluster-randomized trial of herd immunity known as the “B Part of It” study, Helen S. Marshall, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.

This was the largest-ever randomized trial of adolescents vaccinated against meningococcal disease, and the message, albeit somewhat disappointing, is clear: “MenB [Meningococcal serogroup B] vaccine programs should be designed to provide direct protection for those at highest risk of disease,” declared Dr. Marshall, professor of vaccinology and deputy director of the Robinson Research Institute at the University of Adelaide.

In other words, a protein antigen–based MenB vaccine doesn’t provide indirect protection to unvaccinated adolescents through herd immunity. Youths in the age groups at highest risk of disease – infants and adolescents – need to routinely receive the vaccine.

The B Part of It study, whose sheer scope and rigor drew the attention of infectious disease clinical trialists the world over, randomized nearly 35,000 students at all high schools in the state of South Australia – whether urban, rural, or remote – to two doses of the 4CMenB vaccine known as Bexsero or to a nonvaccinated control group. This massive trial entailed training more than 250 nurses in the study procedures and involved 3,100 miles of travel to transport oropharyngeal swab samples obtained from students in outlying areas for centralized laboratory analysis using real-time polymerase chain reaction with meningococcal genotyping, culture for N. meningitidis, and whole-genome sequencing. Samples were obtained on day 1 of the study and 12 months later.

The investigators created widespread regional enthusiasm for this project through adept use of social media and other methods. As a result, 99.5% of students randomized to the intervention arm received one dose, while 97% got two doses. A gratifying unintended consequence of the study was that parents who’d never previously vaccinated their children enrolled them in B Part of It, Dr. Marshall noted.

The impetus for B Part of It was that, while the Australian national health insurance program covers a single dose of meningococcal conjugate MenACWY vaccine given at age 12 months and 14-19 years, MenB vaccine isn’t covered because of uncertainties about cost effectiveness and the vaccine’s impact on meningococcal carriage and herd immunity. B Part of It was designed to resolve those uncertainties.

South Australia has the highest rate of invasive meningococcal disease in the country, and more than 80% of cases there are caused by meningococcal serogroup B. Moreover, 75% of group B cases in South Australia involve the nasty hypervirulent New Zealand strain known as CC 41/44.

The primary outcome in B Part of It was the difference in carriage of the major disease-causing serotypes – groups A, B, C, W, X, and Y – between vaccinated and unvaccinated students at the 1-year follow-up mark. The carriage prevalence of all N. meningitidis in the vaccinated students went from 2.8% at baseline to 4.0% at 12 months, and similarly from 2.6% to 4.7% in unvaccinated controls. More importantly, the prevalence of disease-causing genotypes rose from 1.3% at baseline to 2.4% at follow-up in the vaccinated subjects, with a near-identical pattern seen in controls, where the prevalence rose from 1.4% to 2.4%. In an as-treated analysis, the rate of acquisition of carriage of disease-causing genotypes was identical at 2.0% in both study arms.

The 4CMenB vaccine proved reassuringly safe and effective in preventing meningococcal disease in vaccinated teens. With more than 58,000 doses of the vaccine given in the study, no new safety concerns or signals emerged. And the observed number of cases of invasive meningococcal disease in South Australian adolescent vaccine recipients to date has been significantly lower than expected.

Secondary and exploratory outcomes

Independent risk factors associated with N. meningitidis carriage in the study participants at the 1-year mark included smoking cigarettes or hookah, intimate kissing within the last week, and being in grades 11-12, as opposed to grade 10.

The vaccine had no significant impact on the carriage rate of the hypervirulent New Zealand serogroup B strain. Nor was there a vaccine impact on carriage density, as Mark McMillan, MD, reported elsewhere at ESPID 2019. But while the 4CMenB vaccine had minimal impact upon N. meningitidis carriage density, it was associated with a significant 41% increase in the likelihood of cleared carriage of disease-causing strains at 12 months, added Dr. McMillan, Dr. Marshall’s coinvestigator at University of Adelaide.

What’s next

The ongoing B Part of It School Leaver study is assessing carriage prevalence in vaccinated versus unvaccinated high schoolers in their first year after graduating.

In addition, the B Part of It investigators plan to prospectively study the impact of the 4CMen B vaccine on N. gonorrhoeae disease in an effort to confirm the intriguing findings of an earlier large, retrospective New Zealand case-control study. The Kiwis found that recipients of an outer membrane vesicle MenB vaccine had an adjusted 31% reduction in the risk of gonorrhea. This was the first-ever report of any vaccine effectiveness against this major global public health problem, in which antibiotic resistance is a growing concern (Lancet. 2017 Sep 30;390[10102]:1603-10). Dr. Marshall reported receiving research funding from GlaxoSmithKline, which markets Bexsero and was the major financial supporter of the B Part of It study.

But wait a minute...

Following Dr. Marshall’s report on the B Part of It study, outgoing ESPID president Adam Finn, MD, PhD, presented longitudinal data that he believes raise the possibility that protein-antigen vaccines such as Bexsero, which promote naturally acquired mucosal immunity, may impact on transmission population wide without reliably preventing acquisition. This would stand in stark contrast to conjugate meningococcus vaccines, which have a well-established massive impact on carriage and acquisition of N. meningitidis.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

It may be that in studying throat carriage rates once in individuals immunized 12 months earlier, as in the B Part of It study, investigators are not asking the right question, proposed Dr. Finn, professor of pediatrics at the University of Bristol (England).

His research team has been obtaining throat swabs at monthly intervals in a population of 917 high schoolers aged 16-17 years. In 416 of the students, they also have collected saliva samples weekly both before and after immunization with 4CMenB vaccine, analyzing the samples for N. meningitidis by polymerase chain reaction. This is a novel method of studying meningococcal carriage they have found to be both reliable and far more acceptable to patients than oropharyngeal swabbing, which adolescents balk at if asked to do with any frequency (PLoS One. 2019 Feb 11;14[2]:e0209905).

Dr. Finn said that their findings, which need confirmation, suggest that N. meningitidis carriage is usually brief and dynamic. They also have found that carriage density varies markedly from month to month.

“We see much higher-density carriage in the adolescent population in the early months of the year in conjunction, we think, with viral infection with influenza and so forth,” he said, adding that this could have clinical implications. “It feels sort of intuitive that someone walking around with 1,000 or 10,000 times as many meningococci in their throat is more likely to be more infectious to people around them with a very small number, although this hasn’t been formally proven.”

He hopes that the Be on the TEAM (Teenagers Against Meningitis) study will help provide answers. The study is randomizing 24,000 U.K. high school students to vaccination with the meningococcal B protein–antigen vaccines Bexsero or Trumenba or to no vaccine in order to learn if there are significant herd immunity effects.

Dr. Finn’s meningococcal carriage research is funded by the Meningitis Research Foundation and the National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Marshall reported receiving research funding from GlaxoSmithKline, the major sponsor of the B Part of It study.

[email protected]

A new measles outbreak in western New York has affected five people within a Mennonite community, according to the New York State Department of Health.

The five cases in Wyoming County, located east of Buffalo, were reported Aug. 8 and no further cases have been confirmed as of Aug. 16, the county health department said on its website.

Those five cases, along with six new cases in Rockland County, N.Y., and 10 more around the country, brought the total for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s latest reporting week to 21 and the total for the year to 1,203, the CDC said Aug. 19. Measles cases have been confirmed in 30 states so far this year, according to the CDC.

Along with Wyoming County and Rockland County (296 cases since Sept. 2018), the CDC currently is tracking outbreaks in New York City (653 cases since Sept. 2018), Washington state (85 cases in 2019; 13 in the current outbreak), California (65 cases in 2019; 5 in the current outbreak), and Texas (21 cases in 2019; 6 in the current outbreak).

“More than 75% of the cases this year are linked to outbreaks in New York and New York City,” the CDC said on its website, while also noting that “124 of the people who got measles this year were hospitalized, and 64 reported having complications, including pneumonia and encephalitis.”

[email protected]

A new measles outbreak in western New York has affected five people within a Mennonite community, according to the New York State Department of Health.

The five cases in Wyoming County, located east of Buffalo, were reported Aug. 8 and no further cases have been confirmed as of Aug. 16, the county health department said on its website.

Those five cases, along with six new cases in Rockland County, N.Y., and 10 more around the country, brought the total for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s latest reporting week to 21 and the total for the year to 1,203, the CDC said Aug. 19. Measles cases have been confirmed in 30 states so far this year, according to the CDC.

Along with Wyoming County and Rockland County (296 cases since Sept. 2018), the CDC currently is tracking outbreaks in New York City (653 cases since Sept. 2018), Washington state (85 cases in 2019; 13 in the current outbreak), California (65 cases in 2019; 5 in the current outbreak), and Texas (21 cases in 2019; 6 in the current outbreak).

“More than 75% of the cases this year are linked to outbreaks in New York and New York City,” the CDC said on its website, while also noting that “124 of the people who got measles this year were hospitalized, and 64 reported having complications, including pneumonia and encephalitis.”

[email protected]

A new measles outbreak in western New York has affected five people within a Mennonite community, according to the New York State Department of Health.

The five cases in Wyoming County, located east of Buffalo, were reported Aug. 8 and no further cases have been confirmed as of Aug. 16, the county health department said on its website.

Those five cases, along with six new cases in Rockland County, N.Y., and 10 more around the country, brought the total for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s latest reporting week to 21 and the total for the year to 1,203, the CDC said Aug. 19. Measles cases have been confirmed in 30 states so far this year, according to the CDC.

Along with Wyoming County and Rockland County (296 cases since Sept. 2018), the CDC currently is tracking outbreaks in New York City (653 cases since Sept. 2018), Washington state (85 cases in 2019; 13 in the current outbreak), California (65 cases in 2019; 5 in the current outbreak), and Texas (21 cases in 2019; 6 in the current outbreak).

“More than 75% of the cases this year are linked to outbreaks in New York and New York City,” the CDC said on its website, while also noting that “124 of the people who got measles this year were hospitalized, and 64 reported having complications, including pneumonia and encephalitis.”

[email protected]

It’s a typically busy Friday and the doctor is running 20 minutes behind schedule. He enters the next exam room and the sight of the patient makes him forget the apology he had prepared.

C5Media/Getty Images

The 10 month old looks miserable. Red eyes. Snot dripping from his nose. A red rash that extends from his face and involves most of the chest, arms, and upper thighs.

“When did this start?” he asks the mother as he searches for a surgical mask in the cabinet next to the exam table.

“Two days after we returned from our vacation in France,” the worried young woman replies. “Do you think it could be measles?”

Between Jan. 1 and Aug. 8, 2019, 1,182 cases of measles had been confirmed in the United States. That’s more than three times the number of cases reported in all of 2018, and the highest number of cases reported in a single year in more than a quarter century. While 75% of the cases this year have been linked to outbreaks in New York, individuals from 30 states have been affected.

Given the widespread nature of the outbreak, it makes sense for every ambulatory office to have a plan for managing exposures to infectious diseases including measles. With measles in particular, time is limited to deliver effective postexposure prophylaxis and prevent the spread of measles in the community, making it difficult to develop a plan on the fly.

Schedule strategically. You don’t want a patient with measles hanging out in your waiting room. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, measures to prevent the transmission of contagious infectious agents in ambulatory facilities begin at the time the visit is scheduled. When there is measles transmission in the community, consider using a standardized script when scheduling patients that includes questions about fever, rash, other symptoms typical for measles, and possible exposures. Some offices will have procedures in place that can be adapted to care for patients with suspected measles. When a patient presents for suspected chicken pox, do you advise them to come at the end of the day to minimize exposures? Enter through a side door? Perform a car visit?

Triage promptly. Mask patients with fever and rash, move to a private room, and close the door.

Once measles is suspected, only health care personnel who are immune to measles should enter the exam room. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, presumptive evidence of measles immunity in health care providers is written documentation of vaccination with two doses of live measles or MMR vaccine administered at least 28 days apart, laboratory evidence of immunity (that is, positive measles IgG), laboratory confirmation of disease, or birth before 1957.

Even though health care providers born before 1957 are presumed to have had the disease at some point and have traditionally been considered immune, the CDC suggests that health care facilities consider giving these individuals two doses of MMR vaccine unless they have prior laboratory confirmation of disease immunity. Do you know who in your office is immune or would you need to scramble if you had an exposure?

When measles is suspected, health care personnel should wear an N-95 if they have been fit tested and the appropriate mask is available. Practically, most ambulatory offices do not stock N-95 masks and the next best choice is a regular surgical mask.

Order the recommended tests to confirm the diagnosis, but do not wait for the results to confirm the diagnosis. The CDC recommends testing serum for IgM antibodies and sending a throat or nasopharyngeal swab to look for the virus by polymerase chain reaction testing. Measles virus also is shed in the urine so collecting a urine specimen for testing may increase the chances of finding the virus. Depending on where you practice, the tests may take 3 days or more to result. Contact your local health department as soon as you consider a measles diagnosis.

Discharge patients home or transferred to a higher level of care if this is necessary as quickly as possible. Fortunately, most patients with measles do not require hospitalization. Do not send patients to the hospital simply for the purpose of laboratory testing if this can be accomplished quickly in your office or for evaluation by other providers. This just creates the potential for more exposures. If a patient does require higher-level care, provider-to-provider communication about the suspected diagnosis and the need for airborne isolation should take place.

Keep the door closed. Once a patient with suspected measles is discharged from a regular exam room, the door should remain closed, and it should not be used for at least 1 hour. Remember that infectious virus can remain in the air for 1-2 hours after a patient leaves an area. The same is true for the waiting room.

Develop the exposure list. In general, patients and family members who were in the waiting room at the same time as the index patient and up to 1-2 hours after the index patient left are considered exposed. Measles is highly contagious and 9 out of 10 susceptible people who are exposed will develop disease. How many infants aged less than 1 year might be in your waiting room at any given time? How many immunocompromised patients or family members? Public health authorities can help determine who needs prophylaxis.

Don’t get anxious and start testing everyone for measles, especially patients who lack typical signs and symptoms or exposures. Ordering a test in a patient who has a low likelihood of measles is more likely to result in a false-positive test than a true-positive test. False-positive measles IgM tests can be seen with some viral infections, including parvovirus and Epstein-Barr. Some rheumatologic disorders also can contribute to false-positive tests.

Review your office procedure for vaccine counseling. The 10 month old with measles in the opening vignette should have been given an MMR vaccine before travel. The vaccine is recommended for infants aged 6-11 months who are traveling outside the United States, but it doesn’t count toward the vaccine series. Reimmunize young travelers at 12-15 months and again at 4-6 years. The CDC has developed a toolkit that contains resources for taking to parents about vaccines. It is available at https://www.cdc.gov/measles/toolkit/healthcare-providers.html.

It’s a typically busy Friday and the doctor is running 20 minutes behind schedule. He enters the next exam room and the sight of the patient makes him forget the apology he had prepared.

C5Media/Getty Images

The 10 month old looks miserable. Red eyes. Snot dripping from his nose. A red rash that extends from his face and involves most of the chest, arms, and upper thighs.

“When did this start?” he asks the mother as he searches for a surgical mask in the cabinet next to the exam table.

“Two days after we returned from our vacation in France,” the worried young woman replies. “Do you think it could be measles?”

Between Jan. 1 and Aug. 8, 2019, 1,182 cases of measles had been confirmed in the United States. That’s more than three times the number of cases reported in all of 2018, and the highest number of cases reported in a single year in more than a quarter century. While 75% of the cases this year have been linked to outbreaks in New York, individuals from 30 states have been affected.

Given the widespread nature of the outbreak, it makes sense for every ambulatory office to have a plan for managing exposures to infectious diseases including measles. With measles in particular, time is limited to deliver effective postexposure prophylaxis and prevent the spread of measles in the community, making it difficult to develop a plan on the fly.

Schedule strategically. You don’t want a patient with measles hanging out in your waiting room. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, measures to prevent the transmission of contagious infectious agents in ambulatory facilities begin at the time the visit is scheduled. When there is measles transmission in the community, consider using a standardized script when scheduling patients that includes questions about fever, rash, other symptoms typical for measles, and possible exposures. Some offices will have procedures in place that can be adapted to care for patients with suspected measles. When a patient presents for suspected chicken pox, do you advise them to come at the end of the day to minimize exposures? Enter through a side door? Perform a car visit?

Triage promptly. Mask patients with fever and rash, move to a private room, and close the door.

Once measles is suspected, only health care personnel who are immune to measles should enter the exam room. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, presumptive evidence of measles immunity in health care providers is written documentation of vaccination with two doses of live measles or MMR vaccine administered at least 28 days apart, laboratory evidence of immunity (that is, positive measles IgG), laboratory confirmation of disease, or birth before 1957.

Even though health care providers born before 1957 are presumed to have had the disease at some point and have traditionally been considered immune, the CDC suggests that health care facilities consider giving these individuals two doses of MMR vaccine unless they have prior laboratory confirmation of disease immunity. Do you know who in your office is immune or would you need to scramble if you had an exposure?

When measles is suspected, health care personnel should wear an N-95 if they have been fit tested and the appropriate mask is available. Practically, most ambulatory offices do not stock N-95 masks and the next best choice is a regular surgical mask.

Order the recommended tests to confirm the diagnosis, but do not wait for the results to confirm the diagnosis. The CDC recommends testing serum for IgM antibodies and sending a throat or nasopharyngeal swab to look for the virus by polymerase chain reaction testing. Measles virus also is shed in the urine so collecting a urine specimen for testing may increase the chances of finding the virus. Depending on where you practice, the tests may take 3 days or more to result. Contact your local health department as soon as you consider a measles diagnosis.

Discharge patients home or transferred to a higher level of care if this is necessary as quickly as possible. Fortunately, most patients with measles do not require hospitalization. Do not send patients to the hospital simply for the purpose of laboratory testing if this can be accomplished quickly in your office or for evaluation by other providers. This just creates the potential for more exposures. If a patient does require higher-level care, provider-to-provider communication about the suspected diagnosis and the need for airborne isolation should take place.

Keep the door closed. Once a patient with suspected measles is discharged from a regular exam room, the door should remain closed, and it should not be used for at least 1 hour. Remember that infectious virus can remain in the air for 1-2 hours after a patient leaves an area. The same is true for the waiting room.

Develop the exposure list. In general, patients and family members who were in the waiting room at the same time as the index patient and up to 1-2 hours after the index patient left are considered exposed. Measles is highly contagious and 9 out of 10 susceptible people who are exposed will develop disease. How many infants aged less than 1 year might be in your waiting room at any given time? How many immunocompromised patients or family members? Public health authorities can help determine who needs prophylaxis.

Don’t get anxious and start testing everyone for measles, especially patients who lack typical signs and symptoms or exposures. Ordering a test in a patient who has a low likelihood of measles is more likely to result in a false-positive test than a true-positive test. False-positive measles IgM tests can be seen with some viral infections, including parvovirus and Epstein-Barr. Some rheumatologic disorders also can contribute to false-positive tests.

Review your office procedure for vaccine counseling. The 10 month old with measles in the opening vignette should have been given an MMR vaccine before travel. The vaccine is recommended for infants aged 6-11 months who are traveling outside the United States, but it doesn’t count toward the vaccine series. Reimmunize young travelers at 12-15 months and again at 4-6 years. The CDC has developed a toolkit that contains resources for taking to parents about vaccines. It is available at https://www.cdc.gov/measles/toolkit/healthcare-providers.html.

It’s a typically busy Friday and the doctor is running 20 minutes behind schedule. He enters the next exam room and the sight of the patient makes him forget the apology he had prepared.

C5Media/Getty Images

The 10 month old looks miserable. Red eyes. Snot dripping from his nose. A red rash that extends from his face and involves most of the chest, arms, and upper thighs.

“When did this start?” he asks the mother as he searches for a surgical mask in the cabinet next to the exam table.

“Two days after we returned from our vacation in France,” the worried young woman replies. “Do you think it could be measles?”

Between Jan. 1 and Aug. 8, 2019, 1,182 cases of measles had been confirmed in the United States. That’s more than three times the number of cases reported in all of 2018, and the highest number of cases reported in a single year in more than a quarter century. While 75% of the cases this year have been linked to outbreaks in New York, individuals from 30 states have been affected.

Given the widespread nature of the outbreak, it makes sense for every ambulatory office to have a plan for managing exposures to infectious diseases including measles. With measles in particular, time is limited to deliver effective postexposure prophylaxis and prevent the spread of measles in the community, making it difficult to develop a plan on the fly.

Schedule strategically. You don’t want a patient with measles hanging out in your waiting room. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, measures to prevent the transmission of contagious infectious agents in ambulatory facilities begin at the time the visit is scheduled. When there is measles transmission in the community, consider using a standardized script when scheduling patients that includes questions about fever, rash, other symptoms typical for measles, and possible exposures. Some offices will have procedures in place that can be adapted to care for patients with suspected measles. When a patient presents for suspected chicken pox, do you advise them to come at the end of the day to minimize exposures? Enter through a side door? Perform a car visit?

Triage promptly. Mask patients with fever and rash, move to a private room, and close the door.

Once measles is suspected, only health care personnel who are immune to measles should enter the exam room. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, presumptive evidence of measles immunity in health care providers is written documentation of vaccination with two doses of live measles or MMR vaccine administered at least 28 days apart, laboratory evidence of immunity (that is, positive measles IgG), laboratory confirmation of disease, or birth before 1957.

Even though health care providers born before 1957 are presumed to have had the disease at some point and have traditionally been considered immune, the CDC suggests that health care facilities consider giving these individuals two doses of MMR vaccine unless they have prior laboratory confirmation of disease immunity. Do you know who in your office is immune or would you need to scramble if you had an exposure?

When measles is suspected, health care personnel should wear an N-95 if they have been fit tested and the appropriate mask is available. Practically, most ambulatory offices do not stock N-95 masks and the next best choice is a regular surgical mask.

Order the recommended tests to confirm the diagnosis, but do not wait for the results to confirm the diagnosis. The CDC recommends testing serum for IgM antibodies and sending a throat or nasopharyngeal swab to look for the virus by polymerase chain reaction testing. Measles virus also is shed in the urine so collecting a urine specimen for testing may increase the chances of finding the virus. Depending on where you practice, the tests may take 3 days or more to result. Contact your local health department as soon as you consider a measles diagnosis.

Discharge patients home or transferred to a higher level of care if this is necessary as quickly as possible. Fortunately, most patients with measles do not require hospitalization. Do not send patients to the hospital simply for the purpose of laboratory testing if this can be accomplished quickly in your office or for evaluation by other providers. This just creates the potential for more exposures. If a patient does require higher-level care, provider-to-provider communication about the suspected diagnosis and the need for airborne isolation should take place.

Keep the door closed. Once a patient with suspected measles is discharged from a regular exam room, the door should remain closed, and it should not be used for at least 1 hour. Remember that infectious virus can remain in the air for 1-2 hours after a patient leaves an area. The same is true for the waiting room.

Develop the exposure list. In general, patients and family members who were in the waiting room at the same time as the index patient and up to 1-2 hours after the index patient left are considered exposed. Measles is highly contagious and 9 out of 10 susceptible people who are exposed will develop disease. How many infants aged less than 1 year might be in your waiting room at any given time? How many immunocompromised patients or family members? Public health authorities can help determine who needs prophylaxis.

Don’t get anxious and start testing everyone for measles, especially patients who lack typical signs and symptoms or exposures. Ordering a test in a patient who has a low likelihood of measles is more likely to result in a false-positive test than a true-positive test. False-positive measles IgM tests can be seen with some viral infections, including parvovirus and Epstein-Barr. Some rheumatologic disorders also can contribute to false-positive tests.

Review your office procedure for vaccine counseling. The 10 month old with measles in the opening vignette should have been given an MMR vaccine before travel. The vaccine is recommended for infants aged 6-11 months who are traveling outside the United States, but it doesn’t count toward the vaccine series. Reimmunize young travelers at 12-15 months and again at 4-6 years. The CDC has developed a toolkit that contains resources for taking to parents about vaccines. It is available at https://www.cdc.gov/measles/toolkit/healthcare-providers.html.

LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA – A two-dose schedule of vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) with up to 8 years between doses doesn’t appear to reduce the response to dose No. 2, Vladimir Gilca, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

This novel observation from a post hoc analysis of two clinical trials conducted by the same research team has important potential implications for both clinical practice and public health, according to Dr. Gilca of the Quebec National Institute of Public Health and Laval University, Quebec City.

“A less rigid immunization schedule might facilitate the coadministration of HPV vaccine with other vaccines, such as meningococcal or Tdap, and reduce the number of vaccination visits. Also, our data support the decision to offer only one dose in cases of vaccine shortage, like we have presently in many countries around the world, with the possibility of giving the second dose several years later when the shortage is resolved,” he said.

He presented a comparison of anti-HPV geometric mean IgG antibody titers and their distribution in two clinical trials with serologic assays performed in the same lab using the same enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay procedures. In the first study, 173 boys and girls aged 9-10 years received two doses of a 9-valent HPV vaccine 6 months apart. In the second trial, 31 girls were vaccinated with one dose of a quadrivalent HPV vaccine at age 9-14 years and then received a dose of the 9-valent vaccine at a mean of 5.4 years and maximum of 8 years later. Blood samples were obtained before and 1 month after the second dose in both trials.

Despite the enormous differences in the time between the first and second doses in the two studies, 100% of subjects in both trials were seropositive to HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18, with similar geometric mean titers and titer distributions before dose number two. Moreover, 1 month after the second dose, the geometric mean titers jumped 40-91 times in study participants with a 6-month dosing interval, and similarly by 60-82 times in those with the far lengthier interval. Titer distributions after the second dose were equivalent in the two studies.

Dr. Gilca and coinvestigators looked at subgroups who received their second dose 3-4 years, 6, or 7-8 years after the first. The time difference didn’t affect the distribution of antibodies.

“We conclude that delayed administration of the second dose has no negative impact on the magnitude of the immune response,” he declared.

There are abundant precedents for this phenomenon of high immunogenicity of delayed doses of vaccine. Rabies, anthrax, hepatitis A and B, and tick-borne encephalitis vaccines have all been shown to elicit at least a similar magnitude of immune response after delayed administration of a second or third dose, compared with dosing at the guideline-recommended intervals, he noted.

Asked about the possible approach of giving just one dose of HPV vaccine, as was supported based upon retrospective data in a high-profile presentation earlier at ESPID 2019, Dr. Gilca replied, “The data we’ve seen so far show clinical noninferiority between one, two, and three doses. An approach that might be used by at least some countries is to give, for example, one dose of HPV vaccine in grade 4 and to then wait for confirmatory data about the efficacy of one dose, which we expect in the next 4-5 years. At least five or six clinical trials are ongoing on one dose versus two or three doses.”

He reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Gilca V et al. ESPID 2019, Abstract.

LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA – A two-dose schedule of vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) with up to 8 years between doses doesn’t appear to reduce the response to dose No. 2, Vladimir Gilca, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

This novel observation from a post hoc analysis of two clinical trials conducted by the same research team has important potential implications for both clinical practice and public health, according to Dr. Gilca of the Quebec National Institute of Public Health and Laval University, Quebec City.

“A less rigid immunization schedule might facilitate the coadministration of HPV vaccine with other vaccines, such as meningococcal or Tdap, and reduce the number of vaccination visits. Also, our data support the decision to offer only one dose in cases of vaccine shortage, like we have presently in many countries around the world, with the possibility of giving the second dose several years later when the shortage is resolved,” he said.

He presented a comparison of anti-HPV geometric mean IgG antibody titers and their distribution in two clinical trials with serologic assays performed in the same lab using the same enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay procedures. In the first study, 173 boys and girls aged 9-10 years received two doses of a 9-valent HPV vaccine 6 months apart. In the second trial, 31 girls were vaccinated with one dose of a quadrivalent HPV vaccine at age 9-14 years and then received a dose of the 9-valent vaccine at a mean of 5.4 years and maximum of 8 years later. Blood samples were obtained before and 1 month after the second dose in both trials.

Despite the enormous differences in the time between the first and second doses in the two studies, 100% of subjects in both trials were seropositive to HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18, with similar geometric mean titers and titer distributions before dose number two. Moreover, 1 month after the second dose, the geometric mean titers jumped 40-91 times in study participants with a 6-month dosing interval, and similarly by 60-82 times in those with the far lengthier interval. Titer distributions after the second dose were equivalent in the two studies.

Dr. Gilca and coinvestigators looked at subgroups who received their second dose 3-4 years, 6, or 7-8 years after the first. The time difference didn’t affect the distribution of antibodies.

“We conclude that delayed administration of the second dose has no negative impact on the magnitude of the immune response,” he declared.

There are abundant precedents for this phenomenon of high immunogenicity of delayed doses of vaccine. Rabies, anthrax, hepatitis A and B, and tick-borne encephalitis vaccines have all been shown to elicit at least a similar magnitude of immune response after delayed administration of a second or third dose, compared with dosing at the guideline-recommended intervals, he noted.

Asked about the possible approach of giving just one dose of HPV vaccine, as was supported based upon retrospective data in a high-profile presentation earlier at ESPID 2019, Dr. Gilca replied, “The data we’ve seen so far show clinical noninferiority between one, two, and three doses. An approach that might be used by at least some countries is to give, for example, one dose of HPV vaccine in grade 4 and to then wait for confirmatory data about the efficacy of one dose, which we expect in the next 4-5 years. At least five or six clinical trials are ongoing on one dose versus two or three doses.”

He reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Gilca V et al. ESPID 2019, Abstract.

LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA – A two-dose schedule of vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) with up to 8 years between doses doesn’t appear to reduce the response to dose No. 2, Vladimir Gilca, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

This novel observation from a post hoc analysis of two clinical trials conducted by the same research team has important potential implications for both clinical practice and public health, according to Dr. Gilca of the Quebec National Institute of Public Health and Laval University, Quebec City.

“A less rigid immunization schedule might facilitate the coadministration of HPV vaccine with other vaccines, such as meningococcal or Tdap, and reduce the number of vaccination visits. Also, our data support the decision to offer only one dose in cases of vaccine shortage, like we have presently in many countries around the world, with the possibility of giving the second dose several years later when the shortage is resolved,” he said.

He presented a comparison of anti-HPV geometric mean IgG antibody titers and their distribution in two clinical trials with serologic assays performed in the same lab using the same enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay procedures. In the first study, 173 boys and girls aged 9-10 years received two doses of a 9-valent HPV vaccine 6 months apart. In the second trial, 31 girls were vaccinated with one dose of a quadrivalent HPV vaccine at age 9-14 years and then received a dose of the 9-valent vaccine at a mean of 5.4 years and maximum of 8 years later. Blood samples were obtained before and 1 month after the second dose in both trials.

Despite the enormous differences in the time between the first and second doses in the two studies, 100% of subjects in both trials were seropositive to HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18, with similar geometric mean titers and titer distributions before dose number two. Moreover, 1 month after the second dose, the geometric mean titers jumped 40-91 times in study participants with a 6-month dosing interval, and similarly by 60-82 times in those with the far lengthier interval. Titer distributions after the second dose were equivalent in the two studies.

Dr. Gilca and coinvestigators looked at subgroups who received their second dose 3-4 years, 6, or 7-8 years after the first. The time difference didn’t affect the distribution of antibodies.

“We conclude that delayed administration of the second dose has no negative impact on the magnitude of the immune response,” he declared.

There are abundant precedents for this phenomenon of high immunogenicity of delayed doses of vaccine. Rabies, anthrax, hepatitis A and B, and tick-borne encephalitis vaccines have all been shown to elicit at least a similar magnitude of immune response after delayed administration of a second or third dose, compared with dosing at the guideline-recommended intervals, he noted.

Asked about the possible approach of giving just one dose of HPV vaccine, as was supported based upon retrospective data in a high-profile presentation earlier at ESPID 2019, Dr. Gilca replied, “The data we’ve seen so far show clinical noninferiority between one, two, and three doses. An approach that might be used by at least some countries is to give, for example, one dose of HPV vaccine in grade 4 and to then wait for confirmatory data about the efficacy of one dose, which we expect in the next 4-5 years. At least five or six clinical trials are ongoing on one dose versus two or three doses.”

He reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Gilca V et al. ESPID 2019, Abstract.