User login
Study shows evidence of herd immunity with HPV vaccine
Introduction of the quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was associated with significant declines in the incidence of vaccine-type virus both in vaccinated and unvaccinated young women, according to a study published in Pediatrics.
Four surveillance studies, conducted between 2006 and 2017, examined the rate of positive tests for vaccine-type HPV among 1,580 vaccinated and unvaccinated women aged 13-26 years. The majority of participants identified as African American or multiracial.
Overall, 97% of study participants received the quadrivalent vaccine, with vaccination rates increasing from 0% to 84% over the four waves of vaccination. Vaccine effectiveness – representing the relative risk of infection in vaccinated individuals, compared with unvaccinated risk before introduction of the vaccine – increased by 72% from wave 1 to wave 2, 91% from wave 1 to wave 3, and 80% from wave 1 to wave 4.
Among women who were vaccinated, rates of the quadrivalent vaccine–type HPV decreased by 81%, from 35% to 7%. But even among women who were unvaccinated, detection of the vaccine-targeted strains of HPV decreased by 40%, from 32% to 19%.
Chelse Spinner of the University of Cincinnati and her coauthors wrote that the decline in the quadrivalent vaccine–type HPV provided evidence of direct protection and high vaccine effectiveness in this real-world setting.
“This degree of effectiveness is remarkable given the fact that vaccination was defined as having received one or more doses (i.e., was not defined as having completed the vaccination series) and that women in this study were likely at a substantially higher risk for preexisting HPV infection than [were] those in the HPV vaccine clinical trials because of their reported sexual behaviors,” they wrote. “As noted in a recent review, evidence about herd protection will be a key component of cost-effectiveness analysis evaluating cervical cancer screening strategies.”
Twelve percent of women in the studies received the nine-valent HPV vaccine, and among these women, the rate of infection with the nine-valent vaccine-type HPV decreased from 47% in the first wave of vaccination to 14% in the last wave, representing a 71% decline.
The proportion of vaccinated women in the study who were infected with one or more of the five viral subtypes included in the nine-valent but not in the quadrivalent vaccine decreased significantly by 69%, from 23% to 7%.
However, these data also suggested a nonsignificant 58% increase among unvaccinated women in infections with one of the five subtypes covered by the nine-valent vaccine but not the quadrivalent vaccine.
Ms. Spinner and her associates noted this increase was unexpected and suggested the increase may be caused by the differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated women.
“For example, if women who are unvaccinated versus women who are vaccinated are more likely to practice riskier behaviors that would increase their risk of acquiring HPV, they would be more likely to acquire non–vaccine-type HPV,” they wrote.
Ms. Spinner graduated from the University of Cincinnati and now is a graduate student at the University of South Florida, Tampa. The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Darron R. Brown declared shares of Merck, but the other coauthors declared no other relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Spinner C et al. Pediatrics. 2019, Jan 22. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-1902.
This study of the real-world effectiveness of the HPV vaccine adds to the growing body of literature, and has produced three important results.
The first is that women who had received at least one dose of the vaccine were considered vaccinated, and because of their level of sexual activity, many likely would have already been infected with some HPV subtypes. The high vaccine effectiveness seen in this study despite these factors adds weight to evidence that this HPV vaccine is highly protective.
The study also showed evidence of cross-protection, in that even women who had received only the quadrivalent vaccine still had significantly reduced rates of infection with the HPV subtypes included in the nine-valent vaccine.
It also provides significant evidence of the herd immunity effect against the subtypes included in the quadrivalent vaccine.
Amanda F. Dempsey, MD, PhD, is from the adult and child consortium for health outcomes research and delivery science at the University of Colorado, Denver. These comments are taken from an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2019 Jan 22. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-3427). Dr. Dempsey declared advisory board roles for Merck, Sanofi, and Pfizer and a consultancy for Pfizer. She received no external funding.
This study of the real-world effectiveness of the HPV vaccine adds to the growing body of literature, and has produced three important results.
The first is that women who had received at least one dose of the vaccine were considered vaccinated, and because of their level of sexual activity, many likely would have already been infected with some HPV subtypes. The high vaccine effectiveness seen in this study despite these factors adds weight to evidence that this HPV vaccine is highly protective.
The study also showed evidence of cross-protection, in that even women who had received only the quadrivalent vaccine still had significantly reduced rates of infection with the HPV subtypes included in the nine-valent vaccine.
It also provides significant evidence of the herd immunity effect against the subtypes included in the quadrivalent vaccine.
Amanda F. Dempsey, MD, PhD, is from the adult and child consortium for health outcomes research and delivery science at the University of Colorado, Denver. These comments are taken from an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2019 Jan 22. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-3427). Dr. Dempsey declared advisory board roles for Merck, Sanofi, and Pfizer and a consultancy for Pfizer. She received no external funding.
This study of the real-world effectiveness of the HPV vaccine adds to the growing body of literature, and has produced three important results.
The first is that women who had received at least one dose of the vaccine were considered vaccinated, and because of their level of sexual activity, many likely would have already been infected with some HPV subtypes. The high vaccine effectiveness seen in this study despite these factors adds weight to evidence that this HPV vaccine is highly protective.
The study also showed evidence of cross-protection, in that even women who had received only the quadrivalent vaccine still had significantly reduced rates of infection with the HPV subtypes included in the nine-valent vaccine.
It also provides significant evidence of the herd immunity effect against the subtypes included in the quadrivalent vaccine.
Amanda F. Dempsey, MD, PhD, is from the adult and child consortium for health outcomes research and delivery science at the University of Colorado, Denver. These comments are taken from an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2019 Jan 22. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-3427). Dr. Dempsey declared advisory board roles for Merck, Sanofi, and Pfizer and a consultancy for Pfizer. She received no external funding.
Introduction of the quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was associated with significant declines in the incidence of vaccine-type virus both in vaccinated and unvaccinated young women, according to a study published in Pediatrics.
Four surveillance studies, conducted between 2006 and 2017, examined the rate of positive tests for vaccine-type HPV among 1,580 vaccinated and unvaccinated women aged 13-26 years. The majority of participants identified as African American or multiracial.
Overall, 97% of study participants received the quadrivalent vaccine, with vaccination rates increasing from 0% to 84% over the four waves of vaccination. Vaccine effectiveness – representing the relative risk of infection in vaccinated individuals, compared with unvaccinated risk before introduction of the vaccine – increased by 72% from wave 1 to wave 2, 91% from wave 1 to wave 3, and 80% from wave 1 to wave 4.
Among women who were vaccinated, rates of the quadrivalent vaccine–type HPV decreased by 81%, from 35% to 7%. But even among women who were unvaccinated, detection of the vaccine-targeted strains of HPV decreased by 40%, from 32% to 19%.
Chelse Spinner of the University of Cincinnati and her coauthors wrote that the decline in the quadrivalent vaccine–type HPV provided evidence of direct protection and high vaccine effectiveness in this real-world setting.
“This degree of effectiveness is remarkable given the fact that vaccination was defined as having received one or more doses (i.e., was not defined as having completed the vaccination series) and that women in this study were likely at a substantially higher risk for preexisting HPV infection than [were] those in the HPV vaccine clinical trials because of their reported sexual behaviors,” they wrote. “As noted in a recent review, evidence about herd protection will be a key component of cost-effectiveness analysis evaluating cervical cancer screening strategies.”
Twelve percent of women in the studies received the nine-valent HPV vaccine, and among these women, the rate of infection with the nine-valent vaccine-type HPV decreased from 47% in the first wave of vaccination to 14% in the last wave, representing a 71% decline.
The proportion of vaccinated women in the study who were infected with one or more of the five viral subtypes included in the nine-valent but not in the quadrivalent vaccine decreased significantly by 69%, from 23% to 7%.
However, these data also suggested a nonsignificant 58% increase among unvaccinated women in infections with one of the five subtypes covered by the nine-valent vaccine but not the quadrivalent vaccine.
Ms. Spinner and her associates noted this increase was unexpected and suggested the increase may be caused by the differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated women.
“For example, if women who are unvaccinated versus women who are vaccinated are more likely to practice riskier behaviors that would increase their risk of acquiring HPV, they would be more likely to acquire non–vaccine-type HPV,” they wrote.
Ms. Spinner graduated from the University of Cincinnati and now is a graduate student at the University of South Florida, Tampa. The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Darron R. Brown declared shares of Merck, but the other coauthors declared no other relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Spinner C et al. Pediatrics. 2019, Jan 22. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-1902.
Introduction of the quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was associated with significant declines in the incidence of vaccine-type virus both in vaccinated and unvaccinated young women, according to a study published in Pediatrics.
Four surveillance studies, conducted between 2006 and 2017, examined the rate of positive tests for vaccine-type HPV among 1,580 vaccinated and unvaccinated women aged 13-26 years. The majority of participants identified as African American or multiracial.
Overall, 97% of study participants received the quadrivalent vaccine, with vaccination rates increasing from 0% to 84% over the four waves of vaccination. Vaccine effectiveness – representing the relative risk of infection in vaccinated individuals, compared with unvaccinated risk before introduction of the vaccine – increased by 72% from wave 1 to wave 2, 91% from wave 1 to wave 3, and 80% from wave 1 to wave 4.
Among women who were vaccinated, rates of the quadrivalent vaccine–type HPV decreased by 81%, from 35% to 7%. But even among women who were unvaccinated, detection of the vaccine-targeted strains of HPV decreased by 40%, from 32% to 19%.
Chelse Spinner of the University of Cincinnati and her coauthors wrote that the decline in the quadrivalent vaccine–type HPV provided evidence of direct protection and high vaccine effectiveness in this real-world setting.
“This degree of effectiveness is remarkable given the fact that vaccination was defined as having received one or more doses (i.e., was not defined as having completed the vaccination series) and that women in this study were likely at a substantially higher risk for preexisting HPV infection than [were] those in the HPV vaccine clinical trials because of their reported sexual behaviors,” they wrote. “As noted in a recent review, evidence about herd protection will be a key component of cost-effectiveness analysis evaluating cervical cancer screening strategies.”
Twelve percent of women in the studies received the nine-valent HPV vaccine, and among these women, the rate of infection with the nine-valent vaccine-type HPV decreased from 47% in the first wave of vaccination to 14% in the last wave, representing a 71% decline.
The proportion of vaccinated women in the study who were infected with one or more of the five viral subtypes included in the nine-valent but not in the quadrivalent vaccine decreased significantly by 69%, from 23% to 7%.
However, these data also suggested a nonsignificant 58% increase among unvaccinated women in infections with one of the five subtypes covered by the nine-valent vaccine but not the quadrivalent vaccine.
Ms. Spinner and her associates noted this increase was unexpected and suggested the increase may be caused by the differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated women.
“For example, if women who are unvaccinated versus women who are vaccinated are more likely to practice riskier behaviors that would increase their risk of acquiring HPV, they would be more likely to acquire non–vaccine-type HPV,” they wrote.
Ms. Spinner graduated from the University of Cincinnati and now is a graduate student at the University of South Florida, Tampa. The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Darron R. Brown declared shares of Merck, but the other coauthors declared no other relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Spinner C et al. Pediatrics. 2019, Jan 22. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-1902.
FROM PEDIATRICS
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Infection rates for quadrivalent vaccine-covered HPV strains declined by 81% among vaccinated women.
Study details: Surveillance studies in 1,580 vaccinated and unvaccinated young women.
Disclosures: The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. One author declared shares of Merck, but no other conflicts of interest were declared.
Source: Spinner C et al. Pediatrics. 2019, Jan 22. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-1902.
Emphasize disease prevention in communications about HPV vaccine
Parents were much more confident about vaccinating their children against the human papillomavirus (HPV) when they were told about the diseases that the vaccine prevents rather than about safety, new research found.
In Pediatrics, researchers reported the outcomes of an online video-messaging study that attempted to address the most common parental questions and concerns about the HPV vaccine. They surveyed a national sample of 1,196 parents of children (aged 9-17 years) who watched four brief videos of a pediatrician talking about one of seven common concerns regarding HPV vaccination. The parents then were asked how each video affected them.
Parents who were exposed to messages about the diseases that the HPV vaccine prevented had the highest confidence in the HPV vaccine (46%). These messages included “HPV is a common virus that millions of people get every year. The HPV vaccine will protect your child from some cancers and genital warts” and “HPV infection can cause cancer in both men and women. The HPV vaccine will protect your child from many of these cancers.”
Similarly, parents exposed to messages about the need for HPV vaccination for both boys and girls also had the highest levels of confidence about HPV vaccination (44%).
Confidence was lower in parents exposed to messages about safety and side effects (30%)
“As such, reiterating vaccination benefits (including cancer prevention) when addressing concerns may also improve the impact of messages,” wrote Parth D. Shah, PhD, from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, and his coauthors.
Parents who received messages that expressed urgency about vaccination had lower confidence in the HPV vaccine.
“One reason may be that parents who are hesitant feel inappropriately rushed or that their concerns are not being treated with appropriate care,” the authors wrote.
However, messages that required a higher reading grade level and messages that were longer also seemed to inspire more confidence among parents. Parents who were exposed to messages about cancer prevention additionally were even more confident in HPV vaccine, Dr. Shah and his associates reported.
The study also found that 84% of parents wanted to talk to their children’s doctor about the diseases that the HPV vaccine prevented, while 68% wanted to talk about safety and side effects.
The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Shah was partially supported by an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality grant. Another author declared being on paid advisory boards of research grants from Merck, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Shah PD et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Feb. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-1872.
Parents were much more confident about vaccinating their children against the human papillomavirus (HPV) when they were told about the diseases that the vaccine prevents rather than about safety, new research found.
In Pediatrics, researchers reported the outcomes of an online video-messaging study that attempted to address the most common parental questions and concerns about the HPV vaccine. They surveyed a national sample of 1,196 parents of children (aged 9-17 years) who watched four brief videos of a pediatrician talking about one of seven common concerns regarding HPV vaccination. The parents then were asked how each video affected them.
Parents who were exposed to messages about the diseases that the HPV vaccine prevented had the highest confidence in the HPV vaccine (46%). These messages included “HPV is a common virus that millions of people get every year. The HPV vaccine will protect your child from some cancers and genital warts” and “HPV infection can cause cancer in both men and women. The HPV vaccine will protect your child from many of these cancers.”
Similarly, parents exposed to messages about the need for HPV vaccination for both boys and girls also had the highest levels of confidence about HPV vaccination (44%).
Confidence was lower in parents exposed to messages about safety and side effects (30%)
“As such, reiterating vaccination benefits (including cancer prevention) when addressing concerns may also improve the impact of messages,” wrote Parth D. Shah, PhD, from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, and his coauthors.
Parents who received messages that expressed urgency about vaccination had lower confidence in the HPV vaccine.
“One reason may be that parents who are hesitant feel inappropriately rushed or that their concerns are not being treated with appropriate care,” the authors wrote.
However, messages that required a higher reading grade level and messages that were longer also seemed to inspire more confidence among parents. Parents who were exposed to messages about cancer prevention additionally were even more confident in HPV vaccine, Dr. Shah and his associates reported.
The study also found that 84% of parents wanted to talk to their children’s doctor about the diseases that the HPV vaccine prevented, while 68% wanted to talk about safety and side effects.
The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Shah was partially supported by an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality grant. Another author declared being on paid advisory boards of research grants from Merck, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Shah PD et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Feb. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-1872.
Parents were much more confident about vaccinating their children against the human papillomavirus (HPV) when they were told about the diseases that the vaccine prevents rather than about safety, new research found.
In Pediatrics, researchers reported the outcomes of an online video-messaging study that attempted to address the most common parental questions and concerns about the HPV vaccine. They surveyed a national sample of 1,196 parents of children (aged 9-17 years) who watched four brief videos of a pediatrician talking about one of seven common concerns regarding HPV vaccination. The parents then were asked how each video affected them.
Parents who were exposed to messages about the diseases that the HPV vaccine prevented had the highest confidence in the HPV vaccine (46%). These messages included “HPV is a common virus that millions of people get every year. The HPV vaccine will protect your child from some cancers and genital warts” and “HPV infection can cause cancer in both men and women. The HPV vaccine will protect your child from many of these cancers.”
Similarly, parents exposed to messages about the need for HPV vaccination for both boys and girls also had the highest levels of confidence about HPV vaccination (44%).
Confidence was lower in parents exposed to messages about safety and side effects (30%)
“As such, reiterating vaccination benefits (including cancer prevention) when addressing concerns may also improve the impact of messages,” wrote Parth D. Shah, PhD, from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, and his coauthors.
Parents who received messages that expressed urgency about vaccination had lower confidence in the HPV vaccine.
“One reason may be that parents who are hesitant feel inappropriately rushed or that their concerns are not being treated with appropriate care,” the authors wrote.
However, messages that required a higher reading grade level and messages that were longer also seemed to inspire more confidence among parents. Parents who were exposed to messages about cancer prevention additionally were even more confident in HPV vaccine, Dr. Shah and his associates reported.
The study also found that 84% of parents wanted to talk to their children’s doctor about the diseases that the HPV vaccine prevented, while 68% wanted to talk about safety and side effects.
The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Shah was partially supported by an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality grant. Another author declared being on paid advisory boards of research grants from Merck, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Shah PD et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Feb. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-1872.
FROM PEDIATRICS
Key clinical point: Information on the benefits of HPV vaccination can improve parent confidence.
Major finding: Messages about the disease and cancer prevention benefits of HPV vaccination inspired greater parent confidence.
Study details: Study in 1,196 parents of children aged 9-17 years.
Disclosures: The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Shah was partially supported by an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality grant. Another author declared being on paid advisory boards of research grants from Merck, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
Source: Shah P et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Feb. doi. 10.1542/peds.2018-1872.
Confidential, parent-free discussion should occur by age 13
Discussing confidentiality is essential to the appropriate health care of adolescents, especially prior to discussing sensitive subjects, reported John S. Santelli, MD, MPH, of Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, N.Y., and his associates.
“Previous research has shown that when adolescents and young adults (AYAs) are not assured of confidentiality, they are less willing to discuss sensitive topics with their providers,” they wrote. The report is in Pediatrics.
According to national guidelines, although discussions concerning confidentiality can begin with parents in early adolescence, over time, the goal should be to allow fully for alone time for the AYA with you without parents present in the room.
You have a unique opportunity to help parents understand confidentiality and aid them in transitioning over time, with full respect and support for the developing adolescent-provider relationship, so that it can be fully realized by the time the adolescent reaches 13 years of age.
Using a nationally representative age-, race/ethnicity-, and income-matched sample of AYAs, the authors surveyed youth aged 13-26 years concerning preventive services received and discussions held with health care providers. Of the 1,918 individuals who completed the survey, the authors’ analysis was limited to the 1,509 (79%) youth who had seen their providers in the past 2 years.
The study focused on 11 youth-provider discussion topics. For 10 of the 11 topics, less than half of the young people said they had a discussion on the topic with a health care provider on their last visit. The most commonly discussed topics overall included mental health/emotional issues (55%), drug or alcohol use (46%), tobacco use (44%), and school performance (43%); the least common were gun safety (14%), sexual orientation (20%), and sexual or physical abuse (21%). There were more discussions concerning birth control among young women (from 26% at ages 13-14 to 54% by ages 23-26) compared with young men (13% at ages 13-14 to 12% by ages 23-26).
On average, young women reported discussing just 3.7 of the 11 topics during their last preventive care visit; young men similarly reported an average of 3.6 topics. Overall, the mean number of youth-provider discussions declined over time from 4.1 at ages 13-14 and 4.4 at ages 15-18 to 2.6 by ages 23-26.
Compared with white youth, who reported 3.3 topics at their last visit, Hispanic and African American youth reported discussing 4.2 topics. Similar differences were seen when comparing rural (2.7 topics) and urban or suburban youth (3.8 topics) or incomes greater than $75,000 (3.6 topics) compared with incomes of $25,000 or less (4.2 topics).
Youth who previously discussed confidentiality also reported discussing more topics (4.4), compared with those who had not talked about confidentiality (2.9).
Before the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which requires the provision of prevention services without cost sharing, less than half of adolescents visited a medical provider for annual preventive care visits, other studies have shown.
Although professional guidelines for adolescent preventive care recommend youth access to confidential services, “young people report that health care encounters often do not include an explanation of confidentiality by their health care provider.” Without the assurance of confidentiality, adolescents are more likely to not seek care or to opt not to disclose risky behaviors.
Current systems tend to rely on parent reporting regarding uses of services, and there is no mechanism in place for collection of data on discussion of sensitive health topics. The authors also noted a lack of time available for dialogue during visits as well as an absence of screening questionnaires prior to visits that might invite opportunities to disclose information on sensitive topics.
“Young people who reported ever having talked about confidentiality with their regular provider were more likely to engage in health discussions with providers,” emphasized Dr. Santelli and his associates. “The use of a health checklist and/or questionnaire and having spent more time with their provider during the visit were consistently associated with more of these discussions.”
You can build rapport with AYAs during preventive care visits that include screening and counseling. Immunizations, screening, and treatment of sexually transmitted infections, and dispensing of reproductive and sexual health services, including contraception, offer good opportunities for these discussions. Other sensitive topics are tobacco, alcohol, and drug use; depression and mental health; and obesity and physical activity.
Dr. Santelli and his associates consider the results of their research to serve as a “valuable addition to the literature.” They did, however, note several limitations. Because the data are cross-sectional, they cannot demonstrate causality. The use of self-report data may have contributed to underreporting of risk behaviors because adolescents were interviewed directly following parents on the same computer. Survey questions did account for the existence of youth-provider discussions, but the researchers were not able to measure the impact or quality of the resulting conversations.
It is important to note that because providers were not interviewed, the time pressures and other expected barriers were not fully accounted for in this research, Dr. Santelli and his colleagues cautioned. “Future research should ask specifically about provider-level barriers to providing preventive care to better understand their impact,” they advised.
Ultimately, the clinicians who are providing care to youth and their families will need support in implementing such changes, especially where education in the importance of discussion confidentiality and private time are concerned, they added.
The authors had no relevant financial disclosures. The study was funded by an unrestricted research grant from the Merck Foundation.
SOURCE: Santelli J et. al. Pediatrics. 2019. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-1403.
Passage of the Affordable Care Act “provides a rich opportunity to improve the delivery of adolescent preventive services,” by lowering the financial barriers that had impeded preventive care, Jeanne Van Cleave, MD, wrote in an editorial published with the study. The findings in Santelli et al. “provide important direction for efforts to improve the delivery of adolescent preventive care.”
Specifically, changing office culture to ensure consistent screening, private time with providers, and policies that ensure discussion of confidentiality, can be accomplished by incorporating new roles for office staff, establishing team-based care, and requiring performance measurement. “By involving the whole practice, the burden of ensuring the elements of adolescent preventive care that facilitate discussion of potentially sensitive topics is lifted from individual providers,” advised Dr. Van Cleave.
Essential to the success of such a revised model of care is the practice-wide implementation and understanding of confidentiality. Dr. Van Cleave envisions a partnership between front-desk staff, medical assistants, and providers for administering screening tools and explaining to families the role of private time as well as confidentiality policies. Also essential is routine measurement of performance; the success of such a system would depend upon identifying where the gaps in care exist and what the options are for improving those gaps, she explained.
The use of alternative providers, such as nurses, social workers, or even properly trained parents, is a concept that has been tested previously. They afford greater flexibility, both during and outside of regular office hours, and they have been shown to raise the level of comfort among some youth who might otherwise be reluctant to discuss sensitive topics with their regular providers. These providers can be contacted by families outside of office visits when there are questions, giving advice and counseling by phone and electronic communication.
Dr. Van Cleave points out that while adolescents have many resources at their disposal for researching sensitive topics, including parents, social media, and even school health programs, such sources have been known to provide less accurate or incomplete information, compared with the specific, individually-tailored advice that only the primary care provider can give.
The important take-away message from the Santelli et al. report is that regular discussion of potentially sensitive topics in pediatric primary care leads to “positive patterns for seeking help later in adulthood,” Dr. Van Cleave observed. Their research offers important evidence concerning what needs to change in the practice care environment to facilitate these improvements.
What comes next, namely development and testing of appropriate interventions, will determine whether we can effectively change the role health care has to play in mitigating health risks for this population, she concluded.
Dr. Van Cleave is affiliated with Children’s Hospital Colorado and adult and child consortium for health outcomes research and delivery science, University of Colorado, Aurora. These comments are excerpted from an editorial by Dr. Van Cleave on the study by Santelli et al. (Pediatrics. 2019. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-3618). She had no relevant financial disclosures and received no external funding.
Passage of the Affordable Care Act “provides a rich opportunity to improve the delivery of adolescent preventive services,” by lowering the financial barriers that had impeded preventive care, Jeanne Van Cleave, MD, wrote in an editorial published with the study. The findings in Santelli et al. “provide important direction for efforts to improve the delivery of adolescent preventive care.”
Specifically, changing office culture to ensure consistent screening, private time with providers, and policies that ensure discussion of confidentiality, can be accomplished by incorporating new roles for office staff, establishing team-based care, and requiring performance measurement. “By involving the whole practice, the burden of ensuring the elements of adolescent preventive care that facilitate discussion of potentially sensitive topics is lifted from individual providers,” advised Dr. Van Cleave.
Essential to the success of such a revised model of care is the practice-wide implementation and understanding of confidentiality. Dr. Van Cleave envisions a partnership between front-desk staff, medical assistants, and providers for administering screening tools and explaining to families the role of private time as well as confidentiality policies. Also essential is routine measurement of performance; the success of such a system would depend upon identifying where the gaps in care exist and what the options are for improving those gaps, she explained.
The use of alternative providers, such as nurses, social workers, or even properly trained parents, is a concept that has been tested previously. They afford greater flexibility, both during and outside of regular office hours, and they have been shown to raise the level of comfort among some youth who might otherwise be reluctant to discuss sensitive topics with their regular providers. These providers can be contacted by families outside of office visits when there are questions, giving advice and counseling by phone and electronic communication.
Dr. Van Cleave points out that while adolescents have many resources at their disposal for researching sensitive topics, including parents, social media, and even school health programs, such sources have been known to provide less accurate or incomplete information, compared with the specific, individually-tailored advice that only the primary care provider can give.
The important take-away message from the Santelli et al. report is that regular discussion of potentially sensitive topics in pediatric primary care leads to “positive patterns for seeking help later in adulthood,” Dr. Van Cleave observed. Their research offers important evidence concerning what needs to change in the practice care environment to facilitate these improvements.
What comes next, namely development and testing of appropriate interventions, will determine whether we can effectively change the role health care has to play in mitigating health risks for this population, she concluded.
Dr. Van Cleave is affiliated with Children’s Hospital Colorado and adult and child consortium for health outcomes research and delivery science, University of Colorado, Aurora. These comments are excerpted from an editorial by Dr. Van Cleave on the study by Santelli et al. (Pediatrics. 2019. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-3618). She had no relevant financial disclosures and received no external funding.
Passage of the Affordable Care Act “provides a rich opportunity to improve the delivery of adolescent preventive services,” by lowering the financial barriers that had impeded preventive care, Jeanne Van Cleave, MD, wrote in an editorial published with the study. The findings in Santelli et al. “provide important direction for efforts to improve the delivery of adolescent preventive care.”
Specifically, changing office culture to ensure consistent screening, private time with providers, and policies that ensure discussion of confidentiality, can be accomplished by incorporating new roles for office staff, establishing team-based care, and requiring performance measurement. “By involving the whole practice, the burden of ensuring the elements of adolescent preventive care that facilitate discussion of potentially sensitive topics is lifted from individual providers,” advised Dr. Van Cleave.
Essential to the success of such a revised model of care is the practice-wide implementation and understanding of confidentiality. Dr. Van Cleave envisions a partnership between front-desk staff, medical assistants, and providers for administering screening tools and explaining to families the role of private time as well as confidentiality policies. Also essential is routine measurement of performance; the success of such a system would depend upon identifying where the gaps in care exist and what the options are for improving those gaps, she explained.
The use of alternative providers, such as nurses, social workers, or even properly trained parents, is a concept that has been tested previously. They afford greater flexibility, both during and outside of regular office hours, and they have been shown to raise the level of comfort among some youth who might otherwise be reluctant to discuss sensitive topics with their regular providers. These providers can be contacted by families outside of office visits when there are questions, giving advice and counseling by phone and electronic communication.
Dr. Van Cleave points out that while adolescents have many resources at their disposal for researching sensitive topics, including parents, social media, and even school health programs, such sources have been known to provide less accurate or incomplete information, compared with the specific, individually-tailored advice that only the primary care provider can give.
The important take-away message from the Santelli et al. report is that regular discussion of potentially sensitive topics in pediatric primary care leads to “positive patterns for seeking help later in adulthood,” Dr. Van Cleave observed. Their research offers important evidence concerning what needs to change in the practice care environment to facilitate these improvements.
What comes next, namely development and testing of appropriate interventions, will determine whether we can effectively change the role health care has to play in mitigating health risks for this population, she concluded.
Dr. Van Cleave is affiliated with Children’s Hospital Colorado and adult and child consortium for health outcomes research and delivery science, University of Colorado, Aurora. These comments are excerpted from an editorial by Dr. Van Cleave on the study by Santelli et al. (Pediatrics. 2019. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-3618). She had no relevant financial disclosures and received no external funding.
Discussing confidentiality is essential to the appropriate health care of adolescents, especially prior to discussing sensitive subjects, reported John S. Santelli, MD, MPH, of Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, N.Y., and his associates.
“Previous research has shown that when adolescents and young adults (AYAs) are not assured of confidentiality, they are less willing to discuss sensitive topics with their providers,” they wrote. The report is in Pediatrics.
According to national guidelines, although discussions concerning confidentiality can begin with parents in early adolescence, over time, the goal should be to allow fully for alone time for the AYA with you without parents present in the room.
You have a unique opportunity to help parents understand confidentiality and aid them in transitioning over time, with full respect and support for the developing adolescent-provider relationship, so that it can be fully realized by the time the adolescent reaches 13 years of age.
Using a nationally representative age-, race/ethnicity-, and income-matched sample of AYAs, the authors surveyed youth aged 13-26 years concerning preventive services received and discussions held with health care providers. Of the 1,918 individuals who completed the survey, the authors’ analysis was limited to the 1,509 (79%) youth who had seen their providers in the past 2 years.
The study focused on 11 youth-provider discussion topics. For 10 of the 11 topics, less than half of the young people said they had a discussion on the topic with a health care provider on their last visit. The most commonly discussed topics overall included mental health/emotional issues (55%), drug or alcohol use (46%), tobacco use (44%), and school performance (43%); the least common were gun safety (14%), sexual orientation (20%), and sexual or physical abuse (21%). There were more discussions concerning birth control among young women (from 26% at ages 13-14 to 54% by ages 23-26) compared with young men (13% at ages 13-14 to 12% by ages 23-26).
On average, young women reported discussing just 3.7 of the 11 topics during their last preventive care visit; young men similarly reported an average of 3.6 topics. Overall, the mean number of youth-provider discussions declined over time from 4.1 at ages 13-14 and 4.4 at ages 15-18 to 2.6 by ages 23-26.
Compared with white youth, who reported 3.3 topics at their last visit, Hispanic and African American youth reported discussing 4.2 topics. Similar differences were seen when comparing rural (2.7 topics) and urban or suburban youth (3.8 topics) or incomes greater than $75,000 (3.6 topics) compared with incomes of $25,000 or less (4.2 topics).
Youth who previously discussed confidentiality also reported discussing more topics (4.4), compared with those who had not talked about confidentiality (2.9).
Before the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which requires the provision of prevention services without cost sharing, less than half of adolescents visited a medical provider for annual preventive care visits, other studies have shown.
Although professional guidelines for adolescent preventive care recommend youth access to confidential services, “young people report that health care encounters often do not include an explanation of confidentiality by their health care provider.” Without the assurance of confidentiality, adolescents are more likely to not seek care or to opt not to disclose risky behaviors.
Current systems tend to rely on parent reporting regarding uses of services, and there is no mechanism in place for collection of data on discussion of sensitive health topics. The authors also noted a lack of time available for dialogue during visits as well as an absence of screening questionnaires prior to visits that might invite opportunities to disclose information on sensitive topics.
“Young people who reported ever having talked about confidentiality with their regular provider were more likely to engage in health discussions with providers,” emphasized Dr. Santelli and his associates. “The use of a health checklist and/or questionnaire and having spent more time with their provider during the visit were consistently associated with more of these discussions.”
You can build rapport with AYAs during preventive care visits that include screening and counseling. Immunizations, screening, and treatment of sexually transmitted infections, and dispensing of reproductive and sexual health services, including contraception, offer good opportunities for these discussions. Other sensitive topics are tobacco, alcohol, and drug use; depression and mental health; and obesity and physical activity.
Dr. Santelli and his associates consider the results of their research to serve as a “valuable addition to the literature.” They did, however, note several limitations. Because the data are cross-sectional, they cannot demonstrate causality. The use of self-report data may have contributed to underreporting of risk behaviors because adolescents were interviewed directly following parents on the same computer. Survey questions did account for the existence of youth-provider discussions, but the researchers were not able to measure the impact or quality of the resulting conversations.
It is important to note that because providers were not interviewed, the time pressures and other expected barriers were not fully accounted for in this research, Dr. Santelli and his colleagues cautioned. “Future research should ask specifically about provider-level barriers to providing preventive care to better understand their impact,” they advised.
Ultimately, the clinicians who are providing care to youth and their families will need support in implementing such changes, especially where education in the importance of discussion confidentiality and private time are concerned, they added.
The authors had no relevant financial disclosures. The study was funded by an unrestricted research grant from the Merck Foundation.
SOURCE: Santelli J et. al. Pediatrics. 2019. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-1403.
Discussing confidentiality is essential to the appropriate health care of adolescents, especially prior to discussing sensitive subjects, reported John S. Santelli, MD, MPH, of Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, N.Y., and his associates.
“Previous research has shown that when adolescents and young adults (AYAs) are not assured of confidentiality, they are less willing to discuss sensitive topics with their providers,” they wrote. The report is in Pediatrics.
According to national guidelines, although discussions concerning confidentiality can begin with parents in early adolescence, over time, the goal should be to allow fully for alone time for the AYA with you without parents present in the room.
You have a unique opportunity to help parents understand confidentiality and aid them in transitioning over time, with full respect and support for the developing adolescent-provider relationship, so that it can be fully realized by the time the adolescent reaches 13 years of age.
Using a nationally representative age-, race/ethnicity-, and income-matched sample of AYAs, the authors surveyed youth aged 13-26 years concerning preventive services received and discussions held with health care providers. Of the 1,918 individuals who completed the survey, the authors’ analysis was limited to the 1,509 (79%) youth who had seen their providers in the past 2 years.
The study focused on 11 youth-provider discussion topics. For 10 of the 11 topics, less than half of the young people said they had a discussion on the topic with a health care provider on their last visit. The most commonly discussed topics overall included mental health/emotional issues (55%), drug or alcohol use (46%), tobacco use (44%), and school performance (43%); the least common were gun safety (14%), sexual orientation (20%), and sexual or physical abuse (21%). There were more discussions concerning birth control among young women (from 26% at ages 13-14 to 54% by ages 23-26) compared with young men (13% at ages 13-14 to 12% by ages 23-26).
On average, young women reported discussing just 3.7 of the 11 topics during their last preventive care visit; young men similarly reported an average of 3.6 topics. Overall, the mean number of youth-provider discussions declined over time from 4.1 at ages 13-14 and 4.4 at ages 15-18 to 2.6 by ages 23-26.
Compared with white youth, who reported 3.3 topics at their last visit, Hispanic and African American youth reported discussing 4.2 topics. Similar differences were seen when comparing rural (2.7 topics) and urban or suburban youth (3.8 topics) or incomes greater than $75,000 (3.6 topics) compared with incomes of $25,000 or less (4.2 topics).
Youth who previously discussed confidentiality also reported discussing more topics (4.4), compared with those who had not talked about confidentiality (2.9).
Before the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which requires the provision of prevention services without cost sharing, less than half of adolescents visited a medical provider for annual preventive care visits, other studies have shown.
Although professional guidelines for adolescent preventive care recommend youth access to confidential services, “young people report that health care encounters often do not include an explanation of confidentiality by their health care provider.” Without the assurance of confidentiality, adolescents are more likely to not seek care or to opt not to disclose risky behaviors.
Current systems tend to rely on parent reporting regarding uses of services, and there is no mechanism in place for collection of data on discussion of sensitive health topics. The authors also noted a lack of time available for dialogue during visits as well as an absence of screening questionnaires prior to visits that might invite opportunities to disclose information on sensitive topics.
“Young people who reported ever having talked about confidentiality with their regular provider were more likely to engage in health discussions with providers,” emphasized Dr. Santelli and his associates. “The use of a health checklist and/or questionnaire and having spent more time with their provider during the visit were consistently associated with more of these discussions.”
You can build rapport with AYAs during preventive care visits that include screening and counseling. Immunizations, screening, and treatment of sexually transmitted infections, and dispensing of reproductive and sexual health services, including contraception, offer good opportunities for these discussions. Other sensitive topics are tobacco, alcohol, and drug use; depression and mental health; and obesity and physical activity.
Dr. Santelli and his associates consider the results of their research to serve as a “valuable addition to the literature.” They did, however, note several limitations. Because the data are cross-sectional, they cannot demonstrate causality. The use of self-report data may have contributed to underreporting of risk behaviors because adolescents were interviewed directly following parents on the same computer. Survey questions did account for the existence of youth-provider discussions, but the researchers were not able to measure the impact or quality of the resulting conversations.
It is important to note that because providers were not interviewed, the time pressures and other expected barriers were not fully accounted for in this research, Dr. Santelli and his colleagues cautioned. “Future research should ask specifically about provider-level barriers to providing preventive care to better understand their impact,” they advised.
Ultimately, the clinicians who are providing care to youth and their families will need support in implementing such changes, especially where education in the importance of discussion confidentiality and private time are concerned, they added.
The authors had no relevant financial disclosures. The study was funded by an unrestricted research grant from the Merck Foundation.
SOURCE: Santelli J et. al. Pediatrics. 2019. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-1403.
FROM PEDIATRICS
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The most commonly discussed topics overall included mental health/emotional issues (55%), drug or alcohol use (46%), tobacco use (44%), and school performance (43%); the least common were gun safety (14%), sexual orientation (20%), and sexual or physical abuse (21%).
Study details: Self-report survey.
Disclosures: The authors had no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose. The study was funded by an unrestricted research grant from the Merck Foundation.
Source: Santelli J. et. al. Pediatrics. 2019;143(2):e20181403.
Cyberbullied by anti-vaxxers: Monique Tello Part I
Dr. Tell wrote about her experience in a blog post where she opened up about how difficult the process has been, and how she has found support in a community of her colleagues.
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
Dr. Tell wrote about her experience in a blog post where she opened up about how difficult the process has been, and how she has found support in a community of her colleagues.
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
Dr. Tell wrote about her experience in a blog post where she opened up about how difficult the process has been, and how she has found support in a community of her colleagues.
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
FDA approves Adacel for repeat Tdap vaccinations
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the expanded use of Adacel (Tetanus Toxoid, Reduced Diphtheria Toxoid and Acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine Adsorbed) to include repeat vaccinations 8 years or more after the first vaccination in people aged 10-64 years.
The expanded indication was based on results of a randomized, controlled trial, published in the Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, in which more than 1,300 adults aged 18-64 years received either Adacel or a Td (tetanus-diphtheria) vaccine 8-12 years after receiving a previous dose of Adacel.
Over the course of the study, no significant difference in adverse event incidence was observed between groups. Injection-site reaction was the most common adverse event during the study, occurring in 87.7% of those who received Adacel and 88.0% of those who received the Td vaccine. Other common adverse events associated with Adacel include headache, body ache or muscle weakness, tiredness, muscle aches, and general discomfort.
“While strong vaccination programs are in place for young adolescents, a single Tdap immunization does not offer lifetime protection against pertussis due to waning immunity. The licensure of Adacel as the first Tdap vaccine in the U.S. for repeat vaccination is an important step for eligible patients and offers flexibility for health care providers to help manage their immunization schedules,” said David P. Greenberg, MD, regional medical head North America at Sanofi Pasteur, in the press release.
Find the full press release on the Sanofi website.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the expanded use of Adacel (Tetanus Toxoid, Reduced Diphtheria Toxoid and Acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine Adsorbed) to include repeat vaccinations 8 years or more after the first vaccination in people aged 10-64 years.
The expanded indication was based on results of a randomized, controlled trial, published in the Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, in which more than 1,300 adults aged 18-64 years received either Adacel or a Td (tetanus-diphtheria) vaccine 8-12 years after receiving a previous dose of Adacel.
Over the course of the study, no significant difference in adverse event incidence was observed between groups. Injection-site reaction was the most common adverse event during the study, occurring in 87.7% of those who received Adacel and 88.0% of those who received the Td vaccine. Other common adverse events associated with Adacel include headache, body ache or muscle weakness, tiredness, muscle aches, and general discomfort.
“While strong vaccination programs are in place for young adolescents, a single Tdap immunization does not offer lifetime protection against pertussis due to waning immunity. The licensure of Adacel as the first Tdap vaccine in the U.S. for repeat vaccination is an important step for eligible patients and offers flexibility for health care providers to help manage their immunization schedules,” said David P. Greenberg, MD, regional medical head North America at Sanofi Pasteur, in the press release.
Find the full press release on the Sanofi website.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the expanded use of Adacel (Tetanus Toxoid, Reduced Diphtheria Toxoid and Acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine Adsorbed) to include repeat vaccinations 8 years or more after the first vaccination in people aged 10-64 years.
The expanded indication was based on results of a randomized, controlled trial, published in the Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, in which more than 1,300 adults aged 18-64 years received either Adacel or a Td (tetanus-diphtheria) vaccine 8-12 years after receiving a previous dose of Adacel.
Over the course of the study, no significant difference in adverse event incidence was observed between groups. Injection-site reaction was the most common adverse event during the study, occurring in 87.7% of those who received Adacel and 88.0% of those who received the Td vaccine. Other common adverse events associated with Adacel include headache, body ache or muscle weakness, tiredness, muscle aches, and general discomfort.
“While strong vaccination programs are in place for young adolescents, a single Tdap immunization does not offer lifetime protection against pertussis due to waning immunity. The licensure of Adacel as the first Tdap vaccine in the U.S. for repeat vaccination is an important step for eligible patients and offers flexibility for health care providers to help manage their immunization schedules,” said David P. Greenberg, MD, regional medical head North America at Sanofi Pasteur, in the press release.
Find the full press release on the Sanofi website.
Incidence of late-onset GBS cases are higher than early-onset disease
according to a multistate study of invasive group B streptococcal disease published in JAMA Pediatrics.
Using data from the Active Bacterial Core surveillance (ABCs) program, Srinivas Acharya Nanduri, MD, MPH, at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and colleagues performed an analysis of early-onset disease (EOD) and late-onset disease (LOD) cases of group B Streptococcus (GBS) in infants from 10 different states between 2006 and 2015, and whether mothers of infants with EOD received intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP). EOD was defined as between 0 and 6 days old, while LOD occurred between 7 days and 89 days old.
They found 1,277 cases of EOD and 1,387 cases of LOD in total, with a decrease in incidence of EOD from 0.37 per 1,000 live births in 2006 to 0.23 per 1,000 live births in 2015 (P less than .001); LOD incidence remained stable at a mean 0.31 per 1,000 live births during the same time period.
In 2015, the national burden for EOD and LOD was estimated at 840 and 1,265 cases, respectively. Mothers of infants with EOD did not have indications for and did not receive IAP in 617 cases (48%) and did not receive IAP despite indications in 278 (22%) cases.
“While the current culture-based screening strategy has been highly successful in reducing EOD burden, our data show that almost half of remaining infants with EOD were born to mothers with no indication for receiving IAP,” Dr. Nanduri and colleagues wrote.
Because there currently is no effective prevention strategy against LOS GBS, the investigators wrote that a maternal vaccine against the most common serotypes “holds promise to prevent a substantial portion of this remaining burden,” and noted several GBS candidate vaccines were in advanced stages of development.
The researchers also looked at GBS serotype data in 1,743 patients from seven different centers. The most commonly found serotype isolates of 887 EOD cases were Ia (242 cases, 27%) and III (242 cases, 27%) overall. Serotype III was most common for LOD cases (481 cases, 56%) and increased in incidence from 0.12 per 1,000 live births to 0.20 per 1,000 live births during the study period (P less than .001), while serotype IV was responsible for 53 cases (6%) of both EOD and LOD.
Dr. Nanduri and associates wrote that over 99% of the serotyped EOD (881 cases) and serotyped LOD (853 cases) cases were caused by serotypes Ia, Ib, II, III, IV, and V. With regard to antimicrobial resistance, there were no cases of beta-lactam resistance, but there was constitutive clindamycin resistance in 359 isolate test results (21%).
The researchers noted that they were limited in the study by 1 year of whole-genome sequencing data, the ABCs capturing only 10% of live birth data in the United States, and conclusions on EOD prevention restricted to data from labor and delivery records.
This study was funded in part by the CDC. Paula S. Vagnone received grants from the CDC, while William S. Schaffner, MD, received grants from the CDC and personal fees from Pfizer, Merck, SutroVax, Shionogi, Dynavax, and Seqirus outside of the study. The other authors reported no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Nanduri SA et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Jan 14. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.4826.
Perinatal group B Streptococcus (GBS) disease prevention guidelines are credited for the low rate of early-onset disease (EOD) cases of GBS in the United States, but the practice of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) remains controversial in places like the United Kingdom where the National Health Service does not recommend screening-based IAP for GBS, Sagori Mukhopadhyay, MD, MMSc, and Karen M. Puopolo, MD, PhD, wrote in a related editorial.
One reason for concern about GBS IAP policies is that, despite the decreased number of EOD cases after implementation of IAP, the rate of late-onset disease (LOD) cases remain the same, the authors wrote. And implementation of IAP is not perfect: In some cases IAP was used for less than the recommended duration, used less effective drugs, or given too late so fetal infections were already established.
In addition, some may be uncomfortable with increased perinatal exposure to antibiotics – “a long-held concern about the extent to which widespread perinatal antibiotic use may contribute to the emergence and expansion of antibiotic-resistant GBS,” they added. However, despite the concern, the fatality ratio for EOD was 7% in the study by Nanduri et al., and one complication of GBS in survivors is neurodevelopmental impairment, according to a meta-analysis of 18 studies.
One solution that could address both EOD and LOD cases of GBS is the development of a GBS vaccine. Although there is reluctance to vaccinate pregnant women, recent studies have shown success in vaccinating women for influenza, tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis; these recent efforts have “reinvigorated” academia’s interest in vaccine research for this population.
“Vaccination certainly could be a first step to eliminating neonatal GBS disease in the United States and may be the only available approach to addressing the substantial international burden of GBS-associated stillbirth, preterm birth, and neonatal disease morbidity and mortality,” the authors wrote. “But for now, while GBS IAP may be imperfect, it is the success we have.”
Dr. Mukhopadhyay and Dr. Puopolo are from the division of neonatology at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Mukhopadhyay and Dr. Puopolo commented on the study by Nanduri et al. in an accompanying editorial (Mukhopadhyay et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.4824). They reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
Perinatal group B Streptococcus (GBS) disease prevention guidelines are credited for the low rate of early-onset disease (EOD) cases of GBS in the United States, but the practice of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) remains controversial in places like the United Kingdom where the National Health Service does not recommend screening-based IAP for GBS, Sagori Mukhopadhyay, MD, MMSc, and Karen M. Puopolo, MD, PhD, wrote in a related editorial.
One reason for concern about GBS IAP policies is that, despite the decreased number of EOD cases after implementation of IAP, the rate of late-onset disease (LOD) cases remain the same, the authors wrote. And implementation of IAP is not perfect: In some cases IAP was used for less than the recommended duration, used less effective drugs, or given too late so fetal infections were already established.
In addition, some may be uncomfortable with increased perinatal exposure to antibiotics – “a long-held concern about the extent to which widespread perinatal antibiotic use may contribute to the emergence and expansion of antibiotic-resistant GBS,” they added. However, despite the concern, the fatality ratio for EOD was 7% in the study by Nanduri et al., and one complication of GBS in survivors is neurodevelopmental impairment, according to a meta-analysis of 18 studies.
One solution that could address both EOD and LOD cases of GBS is the development of a GBS vaccine. Although there is reluctance to vaccinate pregnant women, recent studies have shown success in vaccinating women for influenza, tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis; these recent efforts have “reinvigorated” academia’s interest in vaccine research for this population.
“Vaccination certainly could be a first step to eliminating neonatal GBS disease in the United States and may be the only available approach to addressing the substantial international burden of GBS-associated stillbirth, preterm birth, and neonatal disease morbidity and mortality,” the authors wrote. “But for now, while GBS IAP may be imperfect, it is the success we have.”
Dr. Mukhopadhyay and Dr. Puopolo are from the division of neonatology at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Mukhopadhyay and Dr. Puopolo commented on the study by Nanduri et al. in an accompanying editorial (Mukhopadhyay et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.4824). They reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
Perinatal group B Streptococcus (GBS) disease prevention guidelines are credited for the low rate of early-onset disease (EOD) cases of GBS in the United States, but the practice of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) remains controversial in places like the United Kingdom where the National Health Service does not recommend screening-based IAP for GBS, Sagori Mukhopadhyay, MD, MMSc, and Karen M. Puopolo, MD, PhD, wrote in a related editorial.
One reason for concern about GBS IAP policies is that, despite the decreased number of EOD cases after implementation of IAP, the rate of late-onset disease (LOD) cases remain the same, the authors wrote. And implementation of IAP is not perfect: In some cases IAP was used for less than the recommended duration, used less effective drugs, or given too late so fetal infections were already established.
In addition, some may be uncomfortable with increased perinatal exposure to antibiotics – “a long-held concern about the extent to which widespread perinatal antibiotic use may contribute to the emergence and expansion of antibiotic-resistant GBS,” they added. However, despite the concern, the fatality ratio for EOD was 7% in the study by Nanduri et al., and one complication of GBS in survivors is neurodevelopmental impairment, according to a meta-analysis of 18 studies.
One solution that could address both EOD and LOD cases of GBS is the development of a GBS vaccine. Although there is reluctance to vaccinate pregnant women, recent studies have shown success in vaccinating women for influenza, tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis; these recent efforts have “reinvigorated” academia’s interest in vaccine research for this population.
“Vaccination certainly could be a first step to eliminating neonatal GBS disease in the United States and may be the only available approach to addressing the substantial international burden of GBS-associated stillbirth, preterm birth, and neonatal disease morbidity and mortality,” the authors wrote. “But for now, while GBS IAP may be imperfect, it is the success we have.”
Dr. Mukhopadhyay and Dr. Puopolo are from the division of neonatology at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Mukhopadhyay and Dr. Puopolo commented on the study by Nanduri et al. in an accompanying editorial (Mukhopadhyay et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.4824). They reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
according to a multistate study of invasive group B streptococcal disease published in JAMA Pediatrics.
Using data from the Active Bacterial Core surveillance (ABCs) program, Srinivas Acharya Nanduri, MD, MPH, at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and colleagues performed an analysis of early-onset disease (EOD) and late-onset disease (LOD) cases of group B Streptococcus (GBS) in infants from 10 different states between 2006 and 2015, and whether mothers of infants with EOD received intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP). EOD was defined as between 0 and 6 days old, while LOD occurred between 7 days and 89 days old.
They found 1,277 cases of EOD and 1,387 cases of LOD in total, with a decrease in incidence of EOD from 0.37 per 1,000 live births in 2006 to 0.23 per 1,000 live births in 2015 (P less than .001); LOD incidence remained stable at a mean 0.31 per 1,000 live births during the same time period.
In 2015, the national burden for EOD and LOD was estimated at 840 and 1,265 cases, respectively. Mothers of infants with EOD did not have indications for and did not receive IAP in 617 cases (48%) and did not receive IAP despite indications in 278 (22%) cases.
“While the current culture-based screening strategy has been highly successful in reducing EOD burden, our data show that almost half of remaining infants with EOD were born to mothers with no indication for receiving IAP,” Dr. Nanduri and colleagues wrote.
Because there currently is no effective prevention strategy against LOS GBS, the investigators wrote that a maternal vaccine against the most common serotypes “holds promise to prevent a substantial portion of this remaining burden,” and noted several GBS candidate vaccines were in advanced stages of development.
The researchers also looked at GBS serotype data in 1,743 patients from seven different centers. The most commonly found serotype isolates of 887 EOD cases were Ia (242 cases, 27%) and III (242 cases, 27%) overall. Serotype III was most common for LOD cases (481 cases, 56%) and increased in incidence from 0.12 per 1,000 live births to 0.20 per 1,000 live births during the study period (P less than .001), while serotype IV was responsible for 53 cases (6%) of both EOD and LOD.
Dr. Nanduri and associates wrote that over 99% of the serotyped EOD (881 cases) and serotyped LOD (853 cases) cases were caused by serotypes Ia, Ib, II, III, IV, and V. With regard to antimicrobial resistance, there were no cases of beta-lactam resistance, but there was constitutive clindamycin resistance in 359 isolate test results (21%).
The researchers noted that they were limited in the study by 1 year of whole-genome sequencing data, the ABCs capturing only 10% of live birth data in the United States, and conclusions on EOD prevention restricted to data from labor and delivery records.
This study was funded in part by the CDC. Paula S. Vagnone received grants from the CDC, while William S. Schaffner, MD, received grants from the CDC and personal fees from Pfizer, Merck, SutroVax, Shionogi, Dynavax, and Seqirus outside of the study. The other authors reported no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Nanduri SA et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Jan 14. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.4826.
according to a multistate study of invasive group B streptococcal disease published in JAMA Pediatrics.
Using data from the Active Bacterial Core surveillance (ABCs) program, Srinivas Acharya Nanduri, MD, MPH, at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and colleagues performed an analysis of early-onset disease (EOD) and late-onset disease (LOD) cases of group B Streptococcus (GBS) in infants from 10 different states between 2006 and 2015, and whether mothers of infants with EOD received intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP). EOD was defined as between 0 and 6 days old, while LOD occurred between 7 days and 89 days old.
They found 1,277 cases of EOD and 1,387 cases of LOD in total, with a decrease in incidence of EOD from 0.37 per 1,000 live births in 2006 to 0.23 per 1,000 live births in 2015 (P less than .001); LOD incidence remained stable at a mean 0.31 per 1,000 live births during the same time period.
In 2015, the national burden for EOD and LOD was estimated at 840 and 1,265 cases, respectively. Mothers of infants with EOD did not have indications for and did not receive IAP in 617 cases (48%) and did not receive IAP despite indications in 278 (22%) cases.
“While the current culture-based screening strategy has been highly successful in reducing EOD burden, our data show that almost half of remaining infants with EOD were born to mothers with no indication for receiving IAP,” Dr. Nanduri and colleagues wrote.
Because there currently is no effective prevention strategy against LOS GBS, the investigators wrote that a maternal vaccine against the most common serotypes “holds promise to prevent a substantial portion of this remaining burden,” and noted several GBS candidate vaccines were in advanced stages of development.
The researchers also looked at GBS serotype data in 1,743 patients from seven different centers. The most commonly found serotype isolates of 887 EOD cases were Ia (242 cases, 27%) and III (242 cases, 27%) overall. Serotype III was most common for LOD cases (481 cases, 56%) and increased in incidence from 0.12 per 1,000 live births to 0.20 per 1,000 live births during the study period (P less than .001), while serotype IV was responsible for 53 cases (6%) of both EOD and LOD.
Dr. Nanduri and associates wrote that over 99% of the serotyped EOD (881 cases) and serotyped LOD (853 cases) cases were caused by serotypes Ia, Ib, II, III, IV, and V. With regard to antimicrobial resistance, there were no cases of beta-lactam resistance, but there was constitutive clindamycin resistance in 359 isolate test results (21%).
The researchers noted that they were limited in the study by 1 year of whole-genome sequencing data, the ABCs capturing only 10% of live birth data in the United States, and conclusions on EOD prevention restricted to data from labor and delivery records.
This study was funded in part by the CDC. Paula S. Vagnone received grants from the CDC, while William S. Schaffner, MD, received grants from the CDC and personal fees from Pfizer, Merck, SutroVax, Shionogi, Dynavax, and Seqirus outside of the study. The other authors reported no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Nanduri SA et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Jan 14. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.4826.
FROM JAMA PEDIATRICS
Key clinical point: Between 2006 and 2015, early-onset disease cases of group B Streptococcus (GBS) declined, while the incidence of late-onset cases did not change.
Major finding: The rate of early-onset GBS declined from 0.37 to 0.23 per 1,000 live births and the rate of late-onset GBS cases remained at a mean 0.31 per 1,000 live births.
Study details: A population-based study of infants with early-onset disease and late-onset disease GBS from 10 different states in the Active Bacterial Core surveillance program between 2006 and 2015.
Disclosures: This study was funded in part by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Paula S. Vagnone received grants from the CDC, while William S. Schaffner, MD, received grants from the CDC and personal fees from Pfizer, Merck, SutroVax, Shionogi, Dynavax, and Seqirus outside of the study. The other authors reported no relevant disclosures.
Source: Nanduri SA et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Jan 14. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.4826.
LAIV4 was less effective for children than IIV against influenza A/H1N1pdm09
The live attenuated influenza vaccine was less effective against the influenza A/H1N1pdm09 virus in children and adolescents across multiple influenza seasons between 2013 and 2016, compared with the inactivated influenza vaccine, according to research published in the journal Pediatrics.
Jessie R. Chung, MPH, from the influenza division at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, and her colleagues performed an analysis of five different studies where vaccine effectiveness (VE) was examined for quadrivalent live attenuated vaccine (LAIV4) and inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) in children and adolescents aged 2-17 years from 42 states.
The analysis included data from the U.S. Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network (6,793 patients), a study from the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center (3,822 patients), the Influenza Clinical Investigation for Children (3,521 patients), Department of Defense Global, Laboratory-based, Influenza Surveillance Program (1,935 patients), and the Influenza Incidence Surveillance Project (1,102 patients) between the periods of 2013-2014 and 2015-2016. The researchers sourced current and previous season vaccination history from electronic medical records and immunization registries.
Of patients who were vaccinated across all seasons, there was 67% effectiveness against influenza A/H1N1pdm09 (95% confidence interval, 62%-72%) for those who received the IIV and 20% (95% CI, −6%-39%) for LAIV4. Among patients who received the LAIV4 vaccination, there was a significantly higher likelihood of developing influenza A/H1N1pdm09 (odds ratio, 2.66; 95% CI, 2.06-3.44) compared with patients who received the IIV vaccination.
With regard to other strains, there was similar effectiveness against influenza A/H3N2 and influenza B with LAIV4 and IIV vaccinations.
“In contrast to findings of reduced LAIV4 effectiveness against influenza A/H1N1pdm09 viruses, our results suggest a possible but nonsignificant benefit of LAIV4 over IIV against influenza B viruses, which has been described previously,” the investigators wrote.
Limitations of the study included having data only one season prior to enrollment and little available demographic information beyond age, gender, and geographic location.
The Influenza Clinical Investigation for Children was funded by MedImmune, a member of the AstraZeneca Group. Two of the researchers are employees of AstraZeneca. The other authors reported having no conflicts of interest. The U.S. Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network was supported by the CDC through cooperative agreements with the University of Michigan, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Marshfield Clinic Research Institute, University of Pittsburgh, and Baylor Scott & White Health. At the University of Pittsburgh, the project also was supported by the National Institutes of Health.
SOURCE: Chung JR et al. Pediatrics. 2018. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-2094.
There are many explanations for the decline in effectiveness of the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4), but the data are complicated by conflicting information from studies outside the United States indicating “reasonable protection” against influenza A/H1N1pdm09, A/H3N2, and influenza B, compared with the inactivated influenza virus (IIV), Pedro A. Piedra, MD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
In 2016, the World Health Organization met to discuss LAIV effectiveness and highlighted factors such as methodological study differences, inadequate vaccine handling at distribution centers, intrinsic virological differences of the A/H1N1pdm09 virus, and increased preexisting population immunity in the United States since 2010 as potential explanations. During the transition from LAIV3 to LAIV4 for the 2013-2014 influenza season, viral interference may have also occurred when the influenza B strain was introduced into the vaccine, he added.
According to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), viral growth properties of A/H1N1pdm09 has improved in LAIV4, and viral shedding also has improved for children between 2 years and 4 years of age. Although effectiveness numbers were not available for the ACIP recommendation, an interim analysis from Public Health England for the 2017-2018 influenza season found a vaccine effectiveness of 90.3% (95% confidence interval, 16.4%-98.9%).
“This early result is encouraging and supports the reintroduction of LAIV4 in the United States as an option for the control of seasonal influenza,” he said. “It also highlights the need for annual influenza vaccine effectiveness estimates and the importance of the U.S. Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network in providing updated information for ACIP recommendations.”
Dr. Piedra is from the departments of molecular virology and microbiology and pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. He reports being a consultant for AstraZeneca, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and Merck Sharp and Dohme, and he has received travel support to present at an influenza seminar supported by Seqirus. His comments are from an editorial accompanying the article by Chung and colleagues ( Pediatrics. 2019. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018- 3290 ).
There are many explanations for the decline in effectiveness of the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4), but the data are complicated by conflicting information from studies outside the United States indicating “reasonable protection” against influenza A/H1N1pdm09, A/H3N2, and influenza B, compared with the inactivated influenza virus (IIV), Pedro A. Piedra, MD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
In 2016, the World Health Organization met to discuss LAIV effectiveness and highlighted factors such as methodological study differences, inadequate vaccine handling at distribution centers, intrinsic virological differences of the A/H1N1pdm09 virus, and increased preexisting population immunity in the United States since 2010 as potential explanations. During the transition from LAIV3 to LAIV4 for the 2013-2014 influenza season, viral interference may have also occurred when the influenza B strain was introduced into the vaccine, he added.
According to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), viral growth properties of A/H1N1pdm09 has improved in LAIV4, and viral shedding also has improved for children between 2 years and 4 years of age. Although effectiveness numbers were not available for the ACIP recommendation, an interim analysis from Public Health England for the 2017-2018 influenza season found a vaccine effectiveness of 90.3% (95% confidence interval, 16.4%-98.9%).
“This early result is encouraging and supports the reintroduction of LAIV4 in the United States as an option for the control of seasonal influenza,” he said. “It also highlights the need for annual influenza vaccine effectiveness estimates and the importance of the U.S. Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network in providing updated information for ACIP recommendations.”
Dr. Piedra is from the departments of molecular virology and microbiology and pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. He reports being a consultant for AstraZeneca, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and Merck Sharp and Dohme, and he has received travel support to present at an influenza seminar supported by Seqirus. His comments are from an editorial accompanying the article by Chung and colleagues ( Pediatrics. 2019. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018- 3290 ).
There are many explanations for the decline in effectiveness of the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4), but the data are complicated by conflicting information from studies outside the United States indicating “reasonable protection” against influenza A/H1N1pdm09, A/H3N2, and influenza B, compared with the inactivated influenza virus (IIV), Pedro A. Piedra, MD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
In 2016, the World Health Organization met to discuss LAIV effectiveness and highlighted factors such as methodological study differences, inadequate vaccine handling at distribution centers, intrinsic virological differences of the A/H1N1pdm09 virus, and increased preexisting population immunity in the United States since 2010 as potential explanations. During the transition from LAIV3 to LAIV4 for the 2013-2014 influenza season, viral interference may have also occurred when the influenza B strain was introduced into the vaccine, he added.
According to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), viral growth properties of A/H1N1pdm09 has improved in LAIV4, and viral shedding also has improved for children between 2 years and 4 years of age. Although effectiveness numbers were not available for the ACIP recommendation, an interim analysis from Public Health England for the 2017-2018 influenza season found a vaccine effectiveness of 90.3% (95% confidence interval, 16.4%-98.9%).
“This early result is encouraging and supports the reintroduction of LAIV4 in the United States as an option for the control of seasonal influenza,” he said. “It also highlights the need for annual influenza vaccine effectiveness estimates and the importance of the U.S. Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network in providing updated information for ACIP recommendations.”
Dr. Piedra is from the departments of molecular virology and microbiology and pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. He reports being a consultant for AstraZeneca, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and Merck Sharp and Dohme, and he has received travel support to present at an influenza seminar supported by Seqirus. His comments are from an editorial accompanying the article by Chung and colleagues ( Pediatrics. 2019. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018- 3290 ).
The live attenuated influenza vaccine was less effective against the influenza A/H1N1pdm09 virus in children and adolescents across multiple influenza seasons between 2013 and 2016, compared with the inactivated influenza vaccine, according to research published in the journal Pediatrics.
Jessie R. Chung, MPH, from the influenza division at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, and her colleagues performed an analysis of five different studies where vaccine effectiveness (VE) was examined for quadrivalent live attenuated vaccine (LAIV4) and inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) in children and adolescents aged 2-17 years from 42 states.
The analysis included data from the U.S. Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network (6,793 patients), a study from the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center (3,822 patients), the Influenza Clinical Investigation for Children (3,521 patients), Department of Defense Global, Laboratory-based, Influenza Surveillance Program (1,935 patients), and the Influenza Incidence Surveillance Project (1,102 patients) between the periods of 2013-2014 and 2015-2016. The researchers sourced current and previous season vaccination history from electronic medical records and immunization registries.
Of patients who were vaccinated across all seasons, there was 67% effectiveness against influenza A/H1N1pdm09 (95% confidence interval, 62%-72%) for those who received the IIV and 20% (95% CI, −6%-39%) for LAIV4. Among patients who received the LAIV4 vaccination, there was a significantly higher likelihood of developing influenza A/H1N1pdm09 (odds ratio, 2.66; 95% CI, 2.06-3.44) compared with patients who received the IIV vaccination.
With regard to other strains, there was similar effectiveness against influenza A/H3N2 and influenza B with LAIV4 and IIV vaccinations.
“In contrast to findings of reduced LAIV4 effectiveness against influenza A/H1N1pdm09 viruses, our results suggest a possible but nonsignificant benefit of LAIV4 over IIV against influenza B viruses, which has been described previously,” the investigators wrote.
Limitations of the study included having data only one season prior to enrollment and little available demographic information beyond age, gender, and geographic location.
The Influenza Clinical Investigation for Children was funded by MedImmune, a member of the AstraZeneca Group. Two of the researchers are employees of AstraZeneca. The other authors reported having no conflicts of interest. The U.S. Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network was supported by the CDC through cooperative agreements with the University of Michigan, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Marshfield Clinic Research Institute, University of Pittsburgh, and Baylor Scott & White Health. At the University of Pittsburgh, the project also was supported by the National Institutes of Health.
SOURCE: Chung JR et al. Pediatrics. 2018. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-2094.
The live attenuated influenza vaccine was less effective against the influenza A/H1N1pdm09 virus in children and adolescents across multiple influenza seasons between 2013 and 2016, compared with the inactivated influenza vaccine, according to research published in the journal Pediatrics.
Jessie R. Chung, MPH, from the influenza division at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, and her colleagues performed an analysis of five different studies where vaccine effectiveness (VE) was examined for quadrivalent live attenuated vaccine (LAIV4) and inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) in children and adolescents aged 2-17 years from 42 states.
The analysis included data from the U.S. Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network (6,793 patients), a study from the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center (3,822 patients), the Influenza Clinical Investigation for Children (3,521 patients), Department of Defense Global, Laboratory-based, Influenza Surveillance Program (1,935 patients), and the Influenza Incidence Surveillance Project (1,102 patients) between the periods of 2013-2014 and 2015-2016. The researchers sourced current and previous season vaccination history from electronic medical records and immunization registries.
Of patients who were vaccinated across all seasons, there was 67% effectiveness against influenza A/H1N1pdm09 (95% confidence interval, 62%-72%) for those who received the IIV and 20% (95% CI, −6%-39%) for LAIV4. Among patients who received the LAIV4 vaccination, there was a significantly higher likelihood of developing influenza A/H1N1pdm09 (odds ratio, 2.66; 95% CI, 2.06-3.44) compared with patients who received the IIV vaccination.
With regard to other strains, there was similar effectiveness against influenza A/H3N2 and influenza B with LAIV4 and IIV vaccinations.
“In contrast to findings of reduced LAIV4 effectiveness against influenza A/H1N1pdm09 viruses, our results suggest a possible but nonsignificant benefit of LAIV4 over IIV against influenza B viruses, which has been described previously,” the investigators wrote.
Limitations of the study included having data only one season prior to enrollment and little available demographic information beyond age, gender, and geographic location.
The Influenza Clinical Investigation for Children was funded by MedImmune, a member of the AstraZeneca Group. Two of the researchers are employees of AstraZeneca. The other authors reported having no conflicts of interest. The U.S. Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network was supported by the CDC through cooperative agreements with the University of Michigan, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Marshfield Clinic Research Institute, University of Pittsburgh, and Baylor Scott & White Health. At the University of Pittsburgh, the project also was supported by the National Institutes of Health.
SOURCE: Chung JR et al. Pediatrics. 2018. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-2094.
FROM PEDIATRICS
Key clinical point: The live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4) was significantly less effective than was the inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) for children against the influenza A/H1N1pdm09 virus across multiple flu seasons.
Major finding:
Study details: A combined analysis of five studies in the United States between the periods of 2013-2014 and 2015-2016 from the U.S. Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network.
Disclosures: The Influenza Clinical Investigation for Children was funded by MedImmune, a member of the AstraZeneca Group. Two of the researchers are employees of AstraZeneca. The other authors reported having no conflicts of interest. The U.S. Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network was supported by the CDC through cooperative agreements with the University of Michigan, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Marshfield Clinic Research Institute, University of Pittsburgh, and Baylor Scott & White Health. At the University of Pittsburgh, the project also was supported by the National Institutes of Health.
Source: Chung JR et al. Pediatrics. 2018. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-2094.
Cerebral small vessel and cognitive impairment
Also today, antidepressants are tied to greater hip fracture incidence, a hospital readmission reduction program may be doing more harm than good, and the flu season rages on with 19 states showing high activity in the final week of 2018.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
Also today, antidepressants are tied to greater hip fracture incidence, a hospital readmission reduction program may be doing more harm than good, and the flu season rages on with 19 states showing high activity in the final week of 2018.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
Also today, antidepressants are tied to greater hip fracture incidence, a hospital readmission reduction program may be doing more harm than good, and the flu season rages on with 19 states showing high activity in the final week of 2018.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
Aspirin and Omega-3 fatty acids fail
Also today, New data reveal that college students are at greater risk of meningococcal B infection, children who survive Hodgkin lymphoma face a massive increased risk for second cancers down the road, and the 2018/19 flu season shows high activity in nine states.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
Also today, New data reveal that college students are at greater risk of meningococcal B infection, children who survive Hodgkin lymphoma face a massive increased risk for second cancers down the road, and the 2018/19 flu season shows high activity in nine states.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
Also today, New data reveal that college students are at greater risk of meningococcal B infection, children who survive Hodgkin lymphoma face a massive increased risk for second cancers down the road, and the 2018/19 flu season shows high activity in nine states.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
2018-2019 flu season starts in earnest
National flu activity moved solidly into above-average territory during the week ending Dec. 15, as Colorado and Georgia took the lead with the highest activity levels in the country, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The proportion of outpatient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) was 2.7% for the week, which was up from 2.3% the previous week and above the national baseline of 2.2%, the CDC reported. ILI is defined “as fever (temperature of 100°F [37.8°C] or greater) and cough and/or sore throat.”
Colorado and Georgia both reported ILI activity of 10 on the CDC’s 1-10 scale, making them the only states in the “high” range (8-10). Nine states and New York City had activity levels in the “moderate” range (6-7), Puerto Rico and 11 states were in the “low” range (4-5), and 28 states and the District of Columbia were in the “minimal” range (1-3), the CDC said.
During the comparable period of last year’s high-severity flu season, which ultimately resulted in 900,000 flu-related hospitalizations and 80,000 deaths (185 pediatric), nine states were already at level 10. For the 2018-2019 season so far, there have been seven ILI-related pediatric deaths, CDC data show.
National flu activity moved solidly into above-average territory during the week ending Dec. 15, as Colorado and Georgia took the lead with the highest activity levels in the country, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The proportion of outpatient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) was 2.7% for the week, which was up from 2.3% the previous week and above the national baseline of 2.2%, the CDC reported. ILI is defined “as fever (temperature of 100°F [37.8°C] or greater) and cough and/or sore throat.”
Colorado and Georgia both reported ILI activity of 10 on the CDC’s 1-10 scale, making them the only states in the “high” range (8-10). Nine states and New York City had activity levels in the “moderate” range (6-7), Puerto Rico and 11 states were in the “low” range (4-5), and 28 states and the District of Columbia were in the “minimal” range (1-3), the CDC said.
During the comparable period of last year’s high-severity flu season, which ultimately resulted in 900,000 flu-related hospitalizations and 80,000 deaths (185 pediatric), nine states were already at level 10. For the 2018-2019 season so far, there have been seven ILI-related pediatric deaths, CDC data show.
National flu activity moved solidly into above-average territory during the week ending Dec. 15, as Colorado and Georgia took the lead with the highest activity levels in the country, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The proportion of outpatient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) was 2.7% for the week, which was up from 2.3% the previous week and above the national baseline of 2.2%, the CDC reported. ILI is defined “as fever (temperature of 100°F [37.8°C] or greater) and cough and/or sore throat.”
Colorado and Georgia both reported ILI activity of 10 on the CDC’s 1-10 scale, making them the only states in the “high” range (8-10). Nine states and New York City had activity levels in the “moderate” range (6-7), Puerto Rico and 11 states were in the “low” range (4-5), and 28 states and the District of Columbia were in the “minimal” range (1-3), the CDC said.
During the comparable period of last year’s high-severity flu season, which ultimately resulted in 900,000 flu-related hospitalizations and 80,000 deaths (185 pediatric), nine states were already at level 10. For the 2018-2019 season so far, there have been seven ILI-related pediatric deaths, CDC data show.