Federal Practitioner

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is earning high marks for the quality of care provided to veterans, according to multiple sources. For instance, systematic reviews published in 2023 found that VA health care is consistently as good as, or surpasses, non-VA health care. In the latest Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) annual Overall Hospital Quality Star Ratings, 67% of VA hospitals received either 4 or 5 stars, compared with only 41% of non-VA hospitals.

Veterans themselves are awarding high marks. According to the Medicare nationwide survey of patients, VA hospitals outperformed non-VA hospitals on all 10 core patient satisfaction metrics, including overall hospital rating, communication with doctors, communication about medications, and willingness to recommend the hospital. Furthermore, trust in VA outpatient care has reached an all-time record high of 92%, according to a survey of more than 440,000 veterans.

This year, in fact, the VA has broken a number of its own records. The VA cites other high points:

• More than 127.5 million health care appointments, a 6% increase over last year;
• Shorter wait times: new patients saw an 11% reduction in average wait times for VA primary care and a 7% reduction for mental health care compared to last year;
• $187 billion in benefits to 6.7 million veterans and survivors this year—an all-time record;
• 2,517,519 disability benefit claims processed, a 27% increase over 2023;
• No-cost emergency health care is provided to more than 50,000 veterans in acute suicidal crises; the Veterans Crisis Line supported 1,123,591 million calls, texts, and chats, up 12% from 2023;
• 47,925 veterans experiencing homelessness were housed in fiscal year 2024 and 96% remain housed long-term;
• 519,453 spouses and dependents received survivor benefits, a 4.5% increase from 2023;
• Services, resources, and assistance provided to a record 88,095 veteran family caregivers, an 18.6% increase over the 2023 record;
• A record 741,259 women veterans received compensation payments, 8.2% more than 2023;
• VA dental clinics provided > 6 million procedures to > 630,000 veterans; through community care, the VA delivered a record additional 3.4 million procedures to > 330,000 veterans.

Other actions this year include: expanding eligibility for VA healthcare to all toxin-exposed veterans years earlier than called for by the PACT Act; expanding access to care across the nation through VA Access Sprints, adding night and weekend clinics, and increasing the number of veterans scheduled into daily clinic schedules; removing copays for the first 3 outpatient mental health care and substance use disorder visits of each calendar year through 2027; expanding access to VA cancer care through establishing new cancer presumptive conditions, expanding access to genetic, lung, and colorectal cancer screening, and expanding the Close to Me cancer care program; expanding access to in vitro fertilization for eligible unmarried veterans and eligible veterans in same-sex marriages; expanding access to VA care and benefits for some former service members discharged under other than honorable conditions; and launching tele-emergency care for veterans nationwide.

The VA will continue to “aggressively reach out to and engage veterans to encourage them to come to VA for the care and benefits they have earned.”  

“Veterans deserve the very best from VA and our nation, and we will never settle for anything less,” said VA Secretary Denis McDonough. “We’re honored that more veterans are getting their earned health care and benefits from VA than ever before, but make no mistake: there is still work to do. We will continue to work each and every day to earn the trust of those we serve — and ensure that all Veterans, their families, and their survivors get the care and benefits they so rightly deserve.”

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is earning high marks for the quality of care provided to veterans, according to multiple sources. For instance, systematic reviews published in 2023 found that VA health care is consistently as good as, or surpasses, non-VA health care. In the latest Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) annual Overall Hospital Quality Star Ratings, 67% of VA hospitals received either 4 or 5 stars, compared with only 41% of non-VA hospitals.

Veterans themselves are awarding high marks. According to the Medicare nationwide survey of patients, VA hospitals outperformed non-VA hospitals on all 10 core patient satisfaction metrics, including overall hospital rating, communication with doctors, communication about medications, and willingness to recommend the hospital. Furthermore, trust in VA outpatient care has reached an all-time record high of 92%, according to a survey of more than 440,000 veterans.

This year, in fact, the VA has broken a number of its own records. The VA cites other high points:

• More than 127.5 million health care appointments, a 6% increase over last year;
• Shorter wait times: new patients saw an 11% reduction in average wait times for VA primary care and a 7% reduction for mental health care compared to last year;
• $187 billion in benefits to 6.7 million veterans and survivors this year—an all-time record;
• 2,517,519 disability benefit claims processed, a 27% increase over 2023;
• No-cost emergency health care is provided to more than 50,000 veterans in acute suicidal crises; the Veterans Crisis Line supported 1,123,591 million calls, texts, and chats, up 12% from 2023;
• 47,925 veterans experiencing homelessness were housed in fiscal year 2024 and 96% remain housed long-term;
• 519,453 spouses and dependents received survivor benefits, a 4.5% increase from 2023;
• Services, resources, and assistance provided to a record 88,095 veteran family caregivers, an 18.6% increase over the 2023 record;
• A record 741,259 women veterans received compensation payments, 8.2% more than 2023;
• VA dental clinics provided > 6 million procedures to > 630,000 veterans; through community care, the VA delivered a record additional 3.4 million procedures to > 330,000 veterans.

Other actions this year include: expanding eligibility for VA healthcare to all toxin-exposed veterans years earlier than called for by the PACT Act; expanding access to care across the nation through VA Access Sprints, adding night and weekend clinics, and increasing the number of veterans scheduled into daily clinic schedules; removing copays for the first 3 outpatient mental health care and substance use disorder visits of each calendar year through 2027; expanding access to VA cancer care through establishing new cancer presumptive conditions, expanding access to genetic, lung, and colorectal cancer screening, and expanding the Close to Me cancer care program; expanding access to in vitro fertilization for eligible unmarried veterans and eligible veterans in same-sex marriages; expanding access to VA care and benefits for some former service members discharged under other than honorable conditions; and launching tele-emergency care for veterans nationwide.

The VA will continue to “aggressively reach out to and engage veterans to encourage them to come to VA for the care and benefits they have earned.”  

“Veterans deserve the very best from VA and our nation, and we will never settle for anything less,” said VA Secretary Denis McDonough. “We’re honored that more veterans are getting their earned health care and benefits from VA than ever before, but make no mistake: there is still work to do. We will continue to work each and every day to earn the trust of those we serve — and ensure that all Veterans, their families, and their survivors get the care and benefits they so rightly deserve.”

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is earning high marks for the quality of care provided to veterans, according to multiple sources. For instance, systematic reviews published in 2023 found that VA health care is consistently as good as, or surpasses, non-VA health care. In the latest Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) annual Overall Hospital Quality Star Ratings, 67% of VA hospitals received either 4 or 5 stars, compared with only 41% of non-VA hospitals.

Veterans themselves are awarding high marks. According to the Medicare nationwide survey of patients, VA hospitals outperformed non-VA hospitals on all 10 core patient satisfaction metrics, including overall hospital rating, communication with doctors, communication about medications, and willingness to recommend the hospital. Furthermore, trust in VA outpatient care has reached an all-time record high of 92%, according to a survey of more than 440,000 veterans.

This year, in fact, the VA has broken a number of its own records. The VA cites other high points:

• More than 127.5 million health care appointments, a 6% increase over last year;
• Shorter wait times: new patients saw an 11% reduction in average wait times for VA primary care and a 7% reduction for mental health care compared to last year;
• $187 billion in benefits to 6.7 million veterans and survivors this year—an all-time record;
• 2,517,519 disability benefit claims processed, a 27% increase over 2023;
• No-cost emergency health care is provided to more than 50,000 veterans in acute suicidal crises; the Veterans Crisis Line supported 1,123,591 million calls, texts, and chats, up 12% from 2023;
• 47,925 veterans experiencing homelessness were housed in fiscal year 2024 and 96% remain housed long-term;
• 519,453 spouses and dependents received survivor benefits, a 4.5% increase from 2023;
• Services, resources, and assistance provided to a record 88,095 veteran family caregivers, an 18.6% increase over the 2023 record;
• A record 741,259 women veterans received compensation payments, 8.2% more than 2023;
• VA dental clinics provided > 6 million procedures to > 630,000 veterans; through community care, the VA delivered a record additional 3.4 million procedures to > 330,000 veterans.

Other actions this year include: expanding eligibility for VA healthcare to all toxin-exposed veterans years earlier than called for by the PACT Act; expanding access to care across the nation through VA Access Sprints, adding night and weekend clinics, and increasing the number of veterans scheduled into daily clinic schedules; removing copays for the first 3 outpatient mental health care and substance use disorder visits of each calendar year through 2027; expanding access to VA cancer care through establishing new cancer presumptive conditions, expanding access to genetic, lung, and colorectal cancer screening, and expanding the Close to Me cancer care program; expanding access to in vitro fertilization for eligible unmarried veterans and eligible veterans in same-sex marriages; expanding access to VA care and benefits for some former service members discharged under other than honorable conditions; and launching tele-emergency care for veterans nationwide.

The VA will continue to “aggressively reach out to and engage veterans to encourage them to come to VA for the care and benefits they have earned.”  

“Veterans deserve the very best from VA and our nation, and we will never settle for anything less,” said VA Secretary Denis McDonough. “We’re honored that more veterans are getting their earned health care and benefits from VA than ever before, but make no mistake: there is still work to do. We will continue to work each and every day to earn the trust of those we serve — and ensure that all Veterans, their families, and their survivors get the care and benefits they so rightly deserve.”

Mental health, family planning, and career aspirations are among the unique challenges faced by younger adults diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) — issues that may not be adequately addressed by cancer care providers, a new survey showed.

“We tend to think of cancer as a disease of older populations, but it’s impacting younger people who are in important developmental stages of their lives,” said Samantha Savitch, MD, in a podcast from the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Clinical Congress 2024, where she presented her research.

In fact, since 1994, cases of young-onset CRC have increased by more than 50%, according to the National Cancer Institute.

“Our goal with the study was to better understand what young adults with colorectal cancer really care about, so that we can ensure that we’re properly addressing their needs as part of like comprehensive cancer care,” Savitch, with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, explained.

The researchers interviewed a sample of 35 patients who were diagnosed with CRC before the age of 50 years. The researchers asked patients open-ended questions about the influence their CRC diagnosis had on their lives, the daily challenges they experienced, as well as concerns about the future.

Patients expressed the greatest concern about four areas of health and well-being: Physical health, mental health, family planning, and career.

For physical health, patients worried about incontinence, loss of vitality, and expenses related to healthcare. On the mental health front, patients expressed concern about the uncertainty surrounding long-term survival and anxiety about the timing of their diagnosis. Family planning was a key issue as well, with patients highlighting uncertainties about fertility after chemotherapy. On the career front, patients also noted concerns surrounding job security, challenges pursuing advanced degrees, and a reliance on benefits from employment.

These concerns were not gender-specific. Career, physical health, financial security, mental health, fertility, and family planning were equally important to men and women.

Savitch provided a sample of quotes from interviewees that illustrated their specific concerns in each category.

A 47-year-old man reflected on his physical health now that his rectum is gone. “I no longer have that feeling of sensation like in my cheeks; basically, the cheeks and the anus area is all dead,” he said. A 48-year-old woman discussed the havoc chemotherapy wrecked on her teeth. “I don’t want to get emotional, I just went to the dentist yesterday, and I just get so frustrated ... All these things to pay. I should be happy to be alive,” she said. But “I have so much money in my mouth.”

On the mental health front, a 34-year-old woman described the fear she felt about a cancer recurrence following the birth of her daughter. After a CT scan, she had to experience 2 weeks of limbo, thinking, “I have cancer again.” She had begun a journal dedicated to her daughter in case she had a recurrence and died. “I always think that I am going to die. I think about death every day.”

Reflecting on her future fertility, a 22-year-old woman recalled the uncertainty surrounding whether chemotherapy would affect her ability to have children. “I would get really nervous,” she said, “so I was like, ‘I will do the injections. I just want to save a few of my eggs just in case.’ ” A 33-year-old man opted not to freeze his sperm because “I didn’t know if I was going to live or die, I didn’t know anything ... I barely had any money. So, like, do I risk putting this money up to freeze something when I don’t even know if I am going to be here or not?”

On the career front, a 48-year-old man highlighted how his cancer completely changed his family’s life.”I went from being a provider for my family, making enough money to take care of my family, where my wife was staying home, to now not being able to work and her having to pick up little side jobs and stuff just to try to help make ends meet.”

“These aspects of cancer care are rarely discussed, so it is important to acknowledge that patients care about fertility and family planning, their career aspirations, building assets — all things they must put on hold because of their cancer diagnosis,” Savitch said in a news release.

“This goes beyond just colorectal cancer,” Savitch added. “There are a lot of patients experiencing similar challenges, so we need more research to better understand these issues in patients with colorectal cancer as well as other cancers and, ultimately, to restructure our comprehensive cancer programs to make sure we are treating the patient and not just the disease.”

Support for the study was provided by the Rogel Cancer Center at the University of Michigan. Savitch had no relevant disclosures.

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

Mental health, family planning, and career aspirations are among the unique challenges faced by younger adults diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) — issues that may not be adequately addressed by cancer care providers, a new survey showed.

“We tend to think of cancer as a disease of older populations, but it’s impacting younger people who are in important developmental stages of their lives,” said Samantha Savitch, MD, in a podcast from the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Clinical Congress 2024, where she presented her research.

In fact, since 1994, cases of young-onset CRC have increased by more than 50%, according to the National Cancer Institute.

“Our goal with the study was to better understand what young adults with colorectal cancer really care about, so that we can ensure that we’re properly addressing their needs as part of like comprehensive cancer care,” Savitch, with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, explained.

The researchers interviewed a sample of 35 patients who were diagnosed with CRC before the age of 50 years. The researchers asked patients open-ended questions about the influence their CRC diagnosis had on their lives, the daily challenges they experienced, as well as concerns about the future.

Patients expressed the greatest concern about four areas of health and well-being: Physical health, mental health, family planning, and career.

For physical health, patients worried about incontinence, loss of vitality, and expenses related to healthcare. On the mental health front, patients expressed concern about the uncertainty surrounding long-term survival and anxiety about the timing of their diagnosis. Family planning was a key issue as well, with patients highlighting uncertainties about fertility after chemotherapy. On the career front, patients also noted concerns surrounding job security, challenges pursuing advanced degrees, and a reliance on benefits from employment.

These concerns were not gender-specific. Career, physical health, financial security, mental health, fertility, and family planning were equally important to men and women.

Savitch provided a sample of quotes from interviewees that illustrated their specific concerns in each category.

A 47-year-old man reflected on his physical health now that his rectum is gone. “I no longer have that feeling of sensation like in my cheeks; basically, the cheeks and the anus area is all dead,” he said. A 48-year-old woman discussed the havoc chemotherapy wrecked on her teeth. “I don’t want to get emotional, I just went to the dentist yesterday, and I just get so frustrated ... All these things to pay. I should be happy to be alive,” she said. But “I have so much money in my mouth.”

On the mental health front, a 34-year-old woman described the fear she felt about a cancer recurrence following the birth of her daughter. After a CT scan, she had to experience 2 weeks of limbo, thinking, “I have cancer again.” She had begun a journal dedicated to her daughter in case she had a recurrence and died. “I always think that I am going to die. I think about death every day.”

Reflecting on her future fertility, a 22-year-old woman recalled the uncertainty surrounding whether chemotherapy would affect her ability to have children. “I would get really nervous,” she said, “so I was like, ‘I will do the injections. I just want to save a few of my eggs just in case.’ ” A 33-year-old man opted not to freeze his sperm because “I didn’t know if I was going to live or die, I didn’t know anything ... I barely had any money. So, like, do I risk putting this money up to freeze something when I don’t even know if I am going to be here or not?”

On the career front, a 48-year-old man highlighted how his cancer completely changed his family’s life.”I went from being a provider for my family, making enough money to take care of my family, where my wife was staying home, to now not being able to work and her having to pick up little side jobs and stuff just to try to help make ends meet.”

“These aspects of cancer care are rarely discussed, so it is important to acknowledge that patients care about fertility and family planning, their career aspirations, building assets — all things they must put on hold because of their cancer diagnosis,” Savitch said in a news release.

“This goes beyond just colorectal cancer,” Savitch added. “There are a lot of patients experiencing similar challenges, so we need more research to better understand these issues in patients with colorectal cancer as well as other cancers and, ultimately, to restructure our comprehensive cancer programs to make sure we are treating the patient and not just the disease.”

Support for the study was provided by the Rogel Cancer Center at the University of Michigan. Savitch had no relevant disclosures.

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

Mental health, family planning, and career aspirations are among the unique challenges faced by younger adults diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) — issues that may not be adequately addressed by cancer care providers, a new survey showed.

“We tend to think of cancer as a disease of older populations, but it’s impacting younger people who are in important developmental stages of their lives,” said Samantha Savitch, MD, in a podcast from the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Clinical Congress 2024, where she presented her research.

In fact, since 1994, cases of young-onset CRC have increased by more than 50%, according to the National Cancer Institute.

“Our goal with the study was to better understand what young adults with colorectal cancer really care about, so that we can ensure that we’re properly addressing their needs as part of like comprehensive cancer care,” Savitch, with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, explained.

The researchers interviewed a sample of 35 patients who were diagnosed with CRC before the age of 50 years. The researchers asked patients open-ended questions about the influence their CRC diagnosis had on their lives, the daily challenges they experienced, as well as concerns about the future.

Patients expressed the greatest concern about four areas of health and well-being: Physical health, mental health, family planning, and career.

For physical health, patients worried about incontinence, loss of vitality, and expenses related to healthcare. On the mental health front, patients expressed concern about the uncertainty surrounding long-term survival and anxiety about the timing of their diagnosis. Family planning was a key issue as well, with patients highlighting uncertainties about fertility after chemotherapy. On the career front, patients also noted concerns surrounding job security, challenges pursuing advanced degrees, and a reliance on benefits from employment.

These concerns were not gender-specific. Career, physical health, financial security, mental health, fertility, and family planning were equally important to men and women.

Savitch provided a sample of quotes from interviewees that illustrated their specific concerns in each category.

A 47-year-old man reflected on his physical health now that his rectum is gone. “I no longer have that feeling of sensation like in my cheeks; basically, the cheeks and the anus area is all dead,” he said. A 48-year-old woman discussed the havoc chemotherapy wrecked on her teeth. “I don’t want to get emotional, I just went to the dentist yesterday, and I just get so frustrated ... All these things to pay. I should be happy to be alive,” she said. But “I have so much money in my mouth.”

On the mental health front, a 34-year-old woman described the fear she felt about a cancer recurrence following the birth of her daughter. After a CT scan, she had to experience 2 weeks of limbo, thinking, “I have cancer again.” She had begun a journal dedicated to her daughter in case she had a recurrence and died. “I always think that I am going to die. I think about death every day.”

Reflecting on her future fertility, a 22-year-old woman recalled the uncertainty surrounding whether chemotherapy would affect her ability to have children. “I would get really nervous,” she said, “so I was like, ‘I will do the injections. I just want to save a few of my eggs just in case.’ ” A 33-year-old man opted not to freeze his sperm because “I didn’t know if I was going to live or die, I didn’t know anything ... I barely had any money. So, like, do I risk putting this money up to freeze something when I don’t even know if I am going to be here or not?”

On the career front, a 48-year-old man highlighted how his cancer completely changed his family’s life.”I went from being a provider for my family, making enough money to take care of my family, where my wife was staying home, to now not being able to work and her having to pick up little side jobs and stuff just to try to help make ends meet.”

“These aspects of cancer care are rarely discussed, so it is important to acknowledge that patients care about fertility and family planning, their career aspirations, building assets — all things they must put on hold because of their cancer diagnosis,” Savitch said in a news release.

“This goes beyond just colorectal cancer,” Savitch added. “There are a lot of patients experiencing similar challenges, so we need more research to better understand these issues in patients with colorectal cancer as well as other cancers and, ultimately, to restructure our comprehensive cancer programs to make sure we are treating the patient and not just the disease.”

Support for the study was provided by the Rogel Cancer Center at the University of Michigan. Savitch had no relevant disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

COVID-19 infection increases the risk for autoimmune blistering diseases (AIBDs), specifically pemphigus and bullous pemphigoid, according to a study that also found that vaccination against COVID-19 is associated with a reduced risk for these conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study using data from the TriNetX Analytics Network, encompassing over 112 million electronic health records in the United States.
• The study compared the risk for AIBD within 3 months among individuals who had COVID-19 infection and no COVID-19 vaccination 6 months prior to the infection (n = 4,787,106), individuals who had COVID-19 vaccination but did not have COVID-19 infection (n = 3,466,536), and individuals who did not have COVID-19 infection or vaccination (n = 5,609,197).
• The mean age of the three groups was 44.9, 52.3, and 49.3 years, respectively.
• Propensity score matching included 4,408,748 individuals each for the comparison between COVID-19 infection and controls, 3,465,420 for COVID-19 vaccination and controls, and 3,362,850 for COVID-19 infection and vaccination. The mean follow-up ranged from 72.2 to 76.3 days.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with COVID-19 infection showed a 50.8% increased risk for AIBD within 3 months (P < .001) compared with those without infection or vaccination. The risk was more pronounced for pemphigus (hazard ratio [HR], 2.432; P < .001) than bullous pemphigoid (HR, 1.376; P = .036).
• On the contrary, individuals who had the COVID-19 vaccination showed almost half the risk for AIBD (HR, 0.514; P < .001). The risk reduction was significant for pemphigus (HR, 0.477; P = .030), but not for bullous pemphigoid (HR, 0.846).
• When the infection and vaccination groups were compared, COVID-19 infection increased AIBD risk by more than threefold (HR, 3.130; P < .001), with a particularly high risk for pemphigus (HR, 5.508; P < .001). A significant risk was also seen for bullous pemphigoid (HR, 1.587; P = .008).

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings underscore the importance of vaccination not only in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes but also in potentially protecting against autoimmune complications,” the authors wrote, adding that “this potential dual benefit of vaccination should be a key message in public health campaigns and clinical practice to enhance vaccine uptake and ultimately improve health outcomes.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Philip Curman, MD, PhD, of the Dermato-Venereology Clinic at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, and was published online on November 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design has inherent biases, there is potential underreporting of COVID-19 cases and vaccinations, and there is misallocation of individuals. Unmeasured confounding factors may be present.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by grant from the State of Schleswig-Holstein. Two authors were employees of TriNetX. Some authors received financial support and travel grants from various sources, including TriNetX. Additional disclosures are noted in the article.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

COVID-19 infection increases the risk for autoimmune blistering diseases (AIBDs), specifically pemphigus and bullous pemphigoid, according to a study that also found that vaccination against COVID-19 is associated with a reduced risk for these conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study using data from the TriNetX Analytics Network, encompassing over 112 million electronic health records in the United States.
• The study compared the risk for AIBD within 3 months among individuals who had COVID-19 infection and no COVID-19 vaccination 6 months prior to the infection (n = 4,787,106), individuals who had COVID-19 vaccination but did not have COVID-19 infection (n = 3,466,536), and individuals who did not have COVID-19 infection or vaccination (n = 5,609,197).
• The mean age of the three groups was 44.9, 52.3, and 49.3 years, respectively.
• Propensity score matching included 4,408,748 individuals each for the comparison between COVID-19 infection and controls, 3,465,420 for COVID-19 vaccination and controls, and 3,362,850 for COVID-19 infection and vaccination. The mean follow-up ranged from 72.2 to 76.3 days.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with COVID-19 infection showed a 50.8% increased risk for AIBD within 3 months (P < .001) compared with those without infection or vaccination. The risk was more pronounced for pemphigus (hazard ratio [HR], 2.432; P < .001) than bullous pemphigoid (HR, 1.376; P = .036).
• On the contrary, individuals who had the COVID-19 vaccination showed almost half the risk for AIBD (HR, 0.514; P < .001). The risk reduction was significant for pemphigus (HR, 0.477; P = .030), but not for bullous pemphigoid (HR, 0.846).
• When the infection and vaccination groups were compared, COVID-19 infection increased AIBD risk by more than threefold (HR, 3.130; P < .001), with a particularly high risk for pemphigus (HR, 5.508; P < .001). A significant risk was also seen for bullous pemphigoid (HR, 1.587; P = .008).

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings underscore the importance of vaccination not only in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes but also in potentially protecting against autoimmune complications,” the authors wrote, adding that “this potential dual benefit of vaccination should be a key message in public health campaigns and clinical practice to enhance vaccine uptake and ultimately improve health outcomes.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Philip Curman, MD, PhD, of the Dermato-Venereology Clinic at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, and was published online on November 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design has inherent biases, there is potential underreporting of COVID-19 cases and vaccinations, and there is misallocation of individuals. Unmeasured confounding factors may be present.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by grant from the State of Schleswig-Holstein. Two authors were employees of TriNetX. Some authors received financial support and travel grants from various sources, including TriNetX. Additional disclosures are noted in the article.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

COVID-19 infection increases the risk for autoimmune blistering diseases (AIBDs), specifically pemphigus and bullous pemphigoid, according to a study that also found that vaccination against COVID-19 is associated with a reduced risk for these conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study using data from the TriNetX Analytics Network, encompassing over 112 million electronic health records in the United States.
• The study compared the risk for AIBD within 3 months among individuals who had COVID-19 infection and no COVID-19 vaccination 6 months prior to the infection (n = 4,787,106), individuals who had COVID-19 vaccination but did not have COVID-19 infection (n = 3,466,536), and individuals who did not have COVID-19 infection or vaccination (n = 5,609,197).
• The mean age of the three groups was 44.9, 52.3, and 49.3 years, respectively.
• Propensity score matching included 4,408,748 individuals each for the comparison between COVID-19 infection and controls, 3,465,420 for COVID-19 vaccination and controls, and 3,362,850 for COVID-19 infection and vaccination. The mean follow-up ranged from 72.2 to 76.3 days.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with COVID-19 infection showed a 50.8% increased risk for AIBD within 3 months (P < .001) compared with those without infection or vaccination. The risk was more pronounced for pemphigus (hazard ratio [HR], 2.432; P < .001) than bullous pemphigoid (HR, 1.376; P = .036).
• On the contrary, individuals who had the COVID-19 vaccination showed almost half the risk for AIBD (HR, 0.514; P < .001). The risk reduction was significant for pemphigus (HR, 0.477; P = .030), but not for bullous pemphigoid (HR, 0.846).
• When the infection and vaccination groups were compared, COVID-19 infection increased AIBD risk by more than threefold (HR, 3.130; P < .001), with a particularly high risk for pemphigus (HR, 5.508; P < .001). A significant risk was also seen for bullous pemphigoid (HR, 1.587; P = .008).

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings underscore the importance of vaccination not only in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes but also in potentially protecting against autoimmune complications,” the authors wrote, adding that “this potential dual benefit of vaccination should be a key message in public health campaigns and clinical practice to enhance vaccine uptake and ultimately improve health outcomes.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Philip Curman, MD, PhD, of the Dermato-Venereology Clinic at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, and was published online on November 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design has inherent biases, there is potential underreporting of COVID-19 cases and vaccinations, and there is misallocation of individuals. Unmeasured confounding factors may be present.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by grant from the State of Schleswig-Holstein. Two authors were employees of TriNetX. Some authors received financial support and travel grants from various sources, including TriNetX. Additional disclosures are noted in the article.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Veterans Health Administration cancer centers are lacking registered dieticians (RDs), and patients are more likely to be diagnosed with malnutrition when they are on staff, according to a new study.

The average number of full-time RDs across 13 cancer centers was just 1 per 1,065 patients, advanced practice oncology dietitian Katherine Petersen, MS, RDN, CSO, of the Phoenix VA Health Care System, reported at the AVAHO annual meeting.

However, patients treated by RDs were more likely to be diagnosed with malnutrition (odds ratio [OR], 2.9, 95% CI, 1.6-5.1). And patients were more likely to maintain weight if their clinic had a higher ratio of RDs to oncologists (OR, 1.6 for each 10% increase in ratio, 95% CI, 2.0-127.5).

Petersen told Federal Practitioner that dieticians came up with the idea for the study after attending AVAHO meetings. “A lot of the questions we were getting from physicians and other providers were: How do we get dietitians in our clinic?”

There is currently no standard staffing model for dieticians in oncology centers, Petersen said, and they are not reimbursed through Medicare or Medicaid. “We thought, ‘What do we add to the cancer center by having adequate staffing levels and seeing cancer patients?’ We designed a study to try and get to the heart of that.”

Petersen and her team focused on malnutrition. Nutrition impairment impacts an estimated 40% to 80% of patients with gastrointestinal, head and neck, pancreas, and colorectal cancer at diagnosis, she said.

Petersen discussed the published evidence that outlines how physicians recognize malnutrition at a lower rate than RDs. Dietary counseling from an RD is linked to better nutritional outcomes, physical function, and quality of life.

The study authors examined 2016 and 2017 VA registry data and reviewed charts of 681 veterans treated by 207 oncologists. Oncology clinics had a mean of 0.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) RD. The mean ratio of full-time RDs to oncologists was 1 per 48.5 and ranged from 1 per 4 to 1 per 850.

“It's almost like somebody randomly assigned [RDs] to cancer centers, and it has nothing to do with how many patients are seen in that particular center,” Petersen said. “Some clinics only have .1 or .2 FTEs assigned, and that may be a larger cancer center where they have maybe 85 cancer oncology providers, which includes surgical, medical, and radiation oncology and trainees.”

Why would a clinic have a .1 FTE RD, which suggests someone may be working 4 hours a week? In this kind of situation, an RD may cover a variety of areas and only work in cancer care when they receive a referral, Petersen said.

“That is just vastly underserving veterans,” she said. “You're missing so many veterans whom you could help with preventative care if you're only getting patients referred based on consults.”

As for the findings regarding higher RD staffing and higher detection of malnutrition, the study text notes “there was not a ‘high enough’ level of RD staffing at which we stopped seeing this trend. This is probably because – at least at the time of this study – no VA cancer center was adequately staffed for nutrition.”

Petersen hopes the findings will convince VA cancer center leadership to boost better patient outcomes by prioritizing the hiring of RDs.

Katherine Petersen, MS, RDN, CSO has no disclosures.

Veterans Health Administration cancer centers are lacking registered dieticians (RDs), and patients are more likely to be diagnosed with malnutrition when they are on staff, according to a new study.

The average number of full-time RDs across 13 cancer centers was just 1 per 1,065 patients, advanced practice oncology dietitian Katherine Petersen, MS, RDN, CSO, of the Phoenix VA Health Care System, reported at the AVAHO annual meeting.

However, patients treated by RDs were more likely to be diagnosed with malnutrition (odds ratio [OR], 2.9, 95% CI, 1.6-5.1). And patients were more likely to maintain weight if their clinic had a higher ratio of RDs to oncologists (OR, 1.6 for each 10% increase in ratio, 95% CI, 2.0-127.5).

Petersen told Federal Practitioner that dieticians came up with the idea for the study after attending AVAHO meetings. “A lot of the questions we were getting from physicians and other providers were: How do we get dietitians in our clinic?”

There is currently no standard staffing model for dieticians in oncology centers, Petersen said, and they are not reimbursed through Medicare or Medicaid. “We thought, ‘What do we add to the cancer center by having adequate staffing levels and seeing cancer patients?’ We designed a study to try and get to the heart of that.”

Petersen and her team focused on malnutrition. Nutrition impairment impacts an estimated 40% to 80% of patients with gastrointestinal, head and neck, pancreas, and colorectal cancer at diagnosis, she said.

Petersen discussed the published evidence that outlines how physicians recognize malnutrition at a lower rate than RDs. Dietary counseling from an RD is linked to better nutritional outcomes, physical function, and quality of life.

The study authors examined 2016 and 2017 VA registry data and reviewed charts of 681 veterans treated by 207 oncologists. Oncology clinics had a mean of 0.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) RD. The mean ratio of full-time RDs to oncologists was 1 per 48.5 and ranged from 1 per 4 to 1 per 850.

“It's almost like somebody randomly assigned [RDs] to cancer centers, and it has nothing to do with how many patients are seen in that particular center,” Petersen said. “Some clinics only have .1 or .2 FTEs assigned, and that may be a larger cancer center where they have maybe 85 cancer oncology providers, which includes surgical, medical, and radiation oncology and trainees.”

Why would a clinic have a .1 FTE RD, which suggests someone may be working 4 hours a week? In this kind of situation, an RD may cover a variety of areas and only work in cancer care when they receive a referral, Petersen said.

“That is just vastly underserving veterans,” she said. “You're missing so many veterans whom you could help with preventative care if you're only getting patients referred based on consults.”

As for the findings regarding higher RD staffing and higher detection of malnutrition, the study text notes “there was not a ‘high enough’ level of RD staffing at which we stopped seeing this trend. This is probably because – at least at the time of this study – no VA cancer center was adequately staffed for nutrition.”

Petersen hopes the findings will convince VA cancer center leadership to boost better patient outcomes by prioritizing the hiring of RDs.

Katherine Petersen, MS, RDN, CSO has no disclosures.

Veterans Health Administration cancer centers are lacking registered dieticians (RDs), and patients are more likely to be diagnosed with malnutrition when they are on staff, according to a new study.

The average number of full-time RDs across 13 cancer centers was just 1 per 1,065 patients, advanced practice oncology dietitian Katherine Petersen, MS, RDN, CSO, of the Phoenix VA Health Care System, reported at the AVAHO annual meeting.

However, patients treated by RDs were more likely to be diagnosed with malnutrition (odds ratio [OR], 2.9, 95% CI, 1.6-5.1). And patients were more likely to maintain weight if their clinic had a higher ratio of RDs to oncologists (OR, 1.6 for each 10% increase in ratio, 95% CI, 2.0-127.5).

Petersen told Federal Practitioner that dieticians came up with the idea for the study after attending AVAHO meetings. “A lot of the questions we were getting from physicians and other providers were: How do we get dietitians in our clinic?”

There is currently no standard staffing model for dieticians in oncology centers, Petersen said, and they are not reimbursed through Medicare or Medicaid. “We thought, ‘What do we add to the cancer center by having adequate staffing levels and seeing cancer patients?’ We designed a study to try and get to the heart of that.”

Petersen and her team focused on malnutrition. Nutrition impairment impacts an estimated 40% to 80% of patients with gastrointestinal, head and neck, pancreas, and colorectal cancer at diagnosis, she said.

Petersen discussed the published evidence that outlines how physicians recognize malnutrition at a lower rate than RDs. Dietary counseling from an RD is linked to better nutritional outcomes, physical function, and quality of life.

The study authors examined 2016 and 2017 VA registry data and reviewed charts of 681 veterans treated by 207 oncologists. Oncology clinics had a mean of 0.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) RD. The mean ratio of full-time RDs to oncologists was 1 per 48.5 and ranged from 1 per 4 to 1 per 850.

“It's almost like somebody randomly assigned [RDs] to cancer centers, and it has nothing to do with how many patients are seen in that particular center,” Petersen said. “Some clinics only have .1 or .2 FTEs assigned, and that may be a larger cancer center where they have maybe 85 cancer oncology providers, which includes surgical, medical, and radiation oncology and trainees.”

Why would a clinic have a .1 FTE RD, which suggests someone may be working 4 hours a week? In this kind of situation, an RD may cover a variety of areas and only work in cancer care when they receive a referral, Petersen said.

“That is just vastly underserving veterans,” she said. “You're missing so many veterans whom you could help with preventative care if you're only getting patients referred based on consults.”

As for the findings regarding higher RD staffing and higher detection of malnutrition, the study text notes “there was not a ‘high enough’ level of RD staffing at which we stopped seeing this trend. This is probably because – at least at the time of this study – no VA cancer center was adequately staffed for nutrition.”

Petersen hopes the findings will convince VA cancer center leadership to boost better patient outcomes by prioritizing the hiring of RDs.

Katherine Petersen, MS, RDN, CSO has no disclosures.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

This episode of Medicine Matters reviews highlights from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ (ACIP’s) October 2024 meeting, with new recommendations for pneumococcal, COVID, and meningococcal B (Men B) vaccines, as well as a safety update for maternal RSV vaccination.

Pneumococcal Vaccination and New Lower Age-Based Recommendations 

New age-based recommendation. ACIP has lowered the age for routine vaccination with the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) from age 65 down to age 50, but only with PCV. Review of data revealed that more than half of those in the 50- to 64-year-old age group already had a risk indication to receive a PCV dose. In addition, rates of invasive pneumococcal disease peak at younger ages in Black patients compared with White patients. The rate of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) among Black adults aged 50 or older exceeds the average rate of IPD for all adults aged 65 or older. The goal of this age-based change is to reduce disease in demographic groups with the highest burden of disease. 

The new expanded age-based recommendation applies only to vaccination with PCV. Conjugate vaccines trigger memory B-cell production and therefore induce greater long-term immunity. New research is now focusing on higher-valent PCV vaccines. Two 24-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines and one 31-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine are now in advanced stages of development.

Risk-based recommendation. A risk-based recommendation for ages 19 through 49 years still applies to those with certain medical conditions, including diabetes; chronic heart, lung, liver, or kidney disease; and also for those with immunocompromising conditions. Risk-based recommendations are harder to implement particularly because many vaccines are now administered in pharmacies and pharmacists don’t know the patients as well as their physicians do, so it’s harder for them to know who should get the vaccine if the recommendation is based on risk.

COVID-19 Vaccines With Additional Dose Recommendations 

Everyone 6 months or older is recommended to receive a dose of the updated 2024-2025 COVID vaccine. An additional updated COVID vaccine dose is now recommended for everyone aged 65 or older, and for those aged 6 months or older with immunocompromising (moderate or severe) conditions. Review of data revealed that 1 in 6 patients hospitalized with COVID have an immunocompromising condition, and 70% of COVID hospitalizations are in those aged 65 or older. This older age group also has the highest death rates due to COVID-19. We know that vaccination protection wanes with time. Data from previous studies show that additional vaccine doses provide additional protection. Additional doses are now being recommended for those at highest risk.

Timing of additional doses. This second dose is recommended at 6 months after the last updated COVID-19 vaccine dose. However, the additional dose can be given as early as 2 months after the last dose. Those who recently had COVID-19 can wait 3 months before getting an additional vaccine dose. This flexibility allows patients to maximize additional protection by timing additional doses around travel and life events, such as weddings, family get-togethers, or chemotherapy.

Those with immunocompromising conditions may receive more doses. Patients with immunocompromising conditions can receive even more additional doses, if recommended by their physician, under shared clinical decision-making. 

Meningococcal Vaccines

Meningococcal disease is rare but deadly. The disease can progress rapidly. As many as 10%-15% of people with meningococcal infection die, even with appropriate antibiotic therapy. And for those who survive, about 20% suffer long-term sequalae (cognitive deficits, hearing loss, limb amputations).

Aligning Men B vaccine dosing intervals. The new ACIP vote applies only to Men B vaccines, of which there are two: one by GSK (brand name Bexsero), and the other by Wyeth, a Pfizer subsidiary (brand name Trumenba). The two MenB vaccine products are not interchangeable. The same type of MenB vaccine has to be used to complete the series.

The MenB vaccines initially had different dosing schedules and now they don’t. ACIP voted to harmonize and align the dosing schedule for the two different MenB products to mirror recent FDA (Food and Drug Administration) labeling updates. So now the dosing recommendations for both MenB vaccines are the same: either two doses given 6 months apart to healthy adolescents and young adults, or a three-dose series given at zero, 1-2 months, and 6 months for those at high risk or for those who want to optimize rapid protection (for example, if they are starting the series within 6 months of going off to college). But understand that the current recommendation for MenB vaccination for healthy adolescents and young adults is based on shared clinical decision-making, preferably for those aged 16-18.

MenACWY. Two doses of MenACWY are routinely recommended, with the first dose at age 11-12 and a second dose at age 16. The MenACWY vaccines are interchangeable.

Implementation challenges and new pentavalent vaccines. Having to use the same MenB vaccine product for all doses in a patient’s series is difficult. It’s even more difficult when the patient needs both MenACWY and MenB vaccinations. 

Adding to the complexity is a new pentavalent vaccine from Pfizer (brand name Penbraya) that combines MenACWY with the MenB vaccine. And another pentavalent vaccine version by GSK is up for regulatory decision in February 2025.

The work group did say that they plan to take a fresh look at the meningococcal vaccination schedule. Let’s hope it gets simpler, so more to come on that.
 

Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Vaccines 

Current RSV vaccine recommendations for older adults. RSV vaccine has both age- and risk-based recommendations. Now, everyone aged 75 or older needs a dose of RSV vaccine. Adults aged 60-75 with risk factors for severe RSV are also recommended to receive a dose of RSV vaccine, but not adults without these risk factors. The conditions associated with increased risk for severe RSV disease include lung disease, heart disease, immune compromise, diabetes, obesity with BMI (body mass index) of 40 or higher, neurologic or neuromuscular conditions, chronic kidney disease, liver disorders, and hematologic disorders. Frailty, as well as living in a nursing home or other long-term care facility, are other risk factors for severe RSV disease. Those aged 60-75 without these risk factors are no longer recommended to receive it. 

Three RSV vaccines. We now have three RSV vaccine to choose from. Two are protein subunit vaccines. One is by Pfizer (brand name Abrysvo) that does not contain an adjuvant. The other protein-based RSV vaccine by GSK (brand name Arexvy) does contain an adjuvant. The third RSV vaccine by Moderna (brand name mRESVIA) uses an mRNA platform, and durability of protection is still unclear. However, recent studies now suggest that the RSV protein subunit vaccines confer 36 months of protection rather than only 24 months. 

All three RSV vaccines are licensed for those aged 60 or older. The age indication for GSK’s RSV vaccine, Arexvy, has already been lowered by the FDA to age 50. FDA recently lowered the age approval for Abrysvo to age 18 for those at high risk. However, ACIP has not yet expanded its age recommendations for getting these vaccines. One of the main hesitations is vaccine safety concerns. FDA›s safety update presented to ACIP still suggests an increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome with both protein-based RSV vaccines among those aged 65 or older. Fortunately, the risk is rare: less than 10 cases per million vaccinations. 

RSV immunization for infant protection. RSV season starts in October and goes through March. We now have two new ways to protect babies. One is a maternal RSV vaccine, given at 32-36 weeks of pregnancy to moms who will deliver their babies during RSV season. But only Pfizer’s RSV vaccine (brand name Abrysvo, without an adjuvant) can be given during pregnancy. 

A maternal RSV vaccine safety update, presented at ACIP, was reassuring. Abrysvo was not associated with increased risk for preterm birth or small gestational age at birth. 

Nirsevimab, a long-acting monoclonal antibody, can be given to infants. Nirsevimab is indicated for all babies under 8 months of age entering their first RSV season. 

People who received a maternal RSV vaccine during a previous pregnancy are not recommended to receive additional doses during subsequent pregnancies. However, infants born to women who were vaccinated during a prior pregnancy should receive nirsevimab.

Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, has disclosed conflicts of interest with the American Medical Association, the Medical Association of Atlanta, ACIP, and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

This episode of Medicine Matters reviews highlights from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ (ACIP’s) October 2024 meeting, with new recommendations for pneumococcal, COVID, and meningococcal B (Men B) vaccines, as well as a safety update for maternal RSV vaccination.

Pneumococcal Vaccination and New Lower Age-Based Recommendations 

New age-based recommendation. ACIP has lowered the age for routine vaccination with the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) from age 65 down to age 50, but only with PCV. Review of data revealed that more than half of those in the 50- to 64-year-old age group already had a risk indication to receive a PCV dose. In addition, rates of invasive pneumococcal disease peak at younger ages in Black patients compared with White patients. The rate of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) among Black adults aged 50 or older exceeds the average rate of IPD for all adults aged 65 or older. The goal of this age-based change is to reduce disease in demographic groups with the highest burden of disease. 

The new expanded age-based recommendation applies only to vaccination with PCV. Conjugate vaccines trigger memory B-cell production and therefore induce greater long-term immunity. New research is now focusing on higher-valent PCV vaccines. Two 24-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines and one 31-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine are now in advanced stages of development.

Risk-based recommendation. A risk-based recommendation for ages 19 through 49 years still applies to those with certain medical conditions, including diabetes; chronic heart, lung, liver, or kidney disease; and also for those with immunocompromising conditions. Risk-based recommendations are harder to implement particularly because many vaccines are now administered in pharmacies and pharmacists don’t know the patients as well as their physicians do, so it’s harder for them to know who should get the vaccine if the recommendation is based on risk.

COVID-19 Vaccines With Additional Dose Recommendations 

Everyone 6 months or older is recommended to receive a dose of the updated 2024-2025 COVID vaccine. An additional updated COVID vaccine dose is now recommended for everyone aged 65 or older, and for those aged 6 months or older with immunocompromising (moderate or severe) conditions. Review of data revealed that 1 in 6 patients hospitalized with COVID have an immunocompromising condition, and 70% of COVID hospitalizations are in those aged 65 or older. This older age group also has the highest death rates due to COVID-19. We know that vaccination protection wanes with time. Data from previous studies show that additional vaccine doses provide additional protection. Additional doses are now being recommended for those at highest risk.

Timing of additional doses. This second dose is recommended at 6 months after the last updated COVID-19 vaccine dose. However, the additional dose can be given as early as 2 months after the last dose. Those who recently had COVID-19 can wait 3 months before getting an additional vaccine dose. This flexibility allows patients to maximize additional protection by timing additional doses around travel and life events, such as weddings, family get-togethers, or chemotherapy.

Those with immunocompromising conditions may receive more doses. Patients with immunocompromising conditions can receive even more additional doses, if recommended by their physician, under shared clinical decision-making. 

Meningococcal Vaccines

Meningococcal disease is rare but deadly. The disease can progress rapidly. As many as 10%-15% of people with meningococcal infection die, even with appropriate antibiotic therapy. And for those who survive, about 20% suffer long-term sequalae (cognitive deficits, hearing loss, limb amputations).

Aligning Men B vaccine dosing intervals. The new ACIP vote applies only to Men B vaccines, of which there are two: one by GSK (brand name Bexsero), and the other by Wyeth, a Pfizer subsidiary (brand name Trumenba). The two MenB vaccine products are not interchangeable. The same type of MenB vaccine has to be used to complete the series.

The MenB vaccines initially had different dosing schedules and now they don’t. ACIP voted to harmonize and align the dosing schedule for the two different MenB products to mirror recent FDA (Food and Drug Administration) labeling updates. So now the dosing recommendations for both MenB vaccines are the same: either two doses given 6 months apart to healthy adolescents and young adults, or a three-dose series given at zero, 1-2 months, and 6 months for those at high risk or for those who want to optimize rapid protection (for example, if they are starting the series within 6 months of going off to college). But understand that the current recommendation for MenB vaccination for healthy adolescents and young adults is based on shared clinical decision-making, preferably for those aged 16-18.

MenACWY. Two doses of MenACWY are routinely recommended, with the first dose at age 11-12 and a second dose at age 16. The MenACWY vaccines are interchangeable.

Implementation challenges and new pentavalent vaccines. Having to use the same MenB vaccine product for all doses in a patient’s series is difficult. It’s even more difficult when the patient needs both MenACWY and MenB vaccinations. 

Adding to the complexity is a new pentavalent vaccine from Pfizer (brand name Penbraya) that combines MenACWY with the MenB vaccine. And another pentavalent vaccine version by GSK is up for regulatory decision in February 2025.

The work group did say that they plan to take a fresh look at the meningococcal vaccination schedule. Let’s hope it gets simpler, so more to come on that.
 

Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Vaccines 

Current RSV vaccine recommendations for older adults. RSV vaccine has both age- and risk-based recommendations. Now, everyone aged 75 or older needs a dose of RSV vaccine. Adults aged 60-75 with risk factors for severe RSV are also recommended to receive a dose of RSV vaccine, but not adults without these risk factors. The conditions associated with increased risk for severe RSV disease include lung disease, heart disease, immune compromise, diabetes, obesity with BMI (body mass index) of 40 or higher, neurologic or neuromuscular conditions, chronic kidney disease, liver disorders, and hematologic disorders. Frailty, as well as living in a nursing home or other long-term care facility, are other risk factors for severe RSV disease. Those aged 60-75 without these risk factors are no longer recommended to receive it. 

Three RSV vaccines. We now have three RSV vaccine to choose from. Two are protein subunit vaccines. One is by Pfizer (brand name Abrysvo) that does not contain an adjuvant. The other protein-based RSV vaccine by GSK (brand name Arexvy) does contain an adjuvant. The third RSV vaccine by Moderna (brand name mRESVIA) uses an mRNA platform, and durability of protection is still unclear. However, recent studies now suggest that the RSV protein subunit vaccines confer 36 months of protection rather than only 24 months. 

All three RSV vaccines are licensed for those aged 60 or older. The age indication for GSK’s RSV vaccine, Arexvy, has already been lowered by the FDA to age 50. FDA recently lowered the age approval for Abrysvo to age 18 for those at high risk. However, ACIP has not yet expanded its age recommendations for getting these vaccines. One of the main hesitations is vaccine safety concerns. FDA›s safety update presented to ACIP still suggests an increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome with both protein-based RSV vaccines among those aged 65 or older. Fortunately, the risk is rare: less than 10 cases per million vaccinations. 

RSV immunization for infant protection. RSV season starts in October and goes through March. We now have two new ways to protect babies. One is a maternal RSV vaccine, given at 32-36 weeks of pregnancy to moms who will deliver their babies during RSV season. But only Pfizer’s RSV vaccine (brand name Abrysvo, without an adjuvant) can be given during pregnancy. 

A maternal RSV vaccine safety update, presented at ACIP, was reassuring. Abrysvo was not associated with increased risk for preterm birth or small gestational age at birth. 

Nirsevimab, a long-acting monoclonal antibody, can be given to infants. Nirsevimab is indicated for all babies under 8 months of age entering their first RSV season. 

People who received a maternal RSV vaccine during a previous pregnancy are not recommended to receive additional doses during subsequent pregnancies. However, infants born to women who were vaccinated during a prior pregnancy should receive nirsevimab.

Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, has disclosed conflicts of interest with the American Medical Association, the Medical Association of Atlanta, ACIP, and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

This episode of Medicine Matters reviews highlights from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ (ACIP’s) October 2024 meeting, with new recommendations for pneumococcal, COVID, and meningococcal B (Men B) vaccines, as well as a safety update for maternal RSV vaccination.

Pneumococcal Vaccination and New Lower Age-Based Recommendations 

New age-based recommendation. ACIP has lowered the age for routine vaccination with the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) from age 65 down to age 50, but only with PCV. Review of data revealed that more than half of those in the 50- to 64-year-old age group already had a risk indication to receive a PCV dose. In addition, rates of invasive pneumococcal disease peak at younger ages in Black patients compared with White patients. The rate of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) among Black adults aged 50 or older exceeds the average rate of IPD for all adults aged 65 or older. The goal of this age-based change is to reduce disease in demographic groups with the highest burden of disease. 

The new expanded age-based recommendation applies only to vaccination with PCV. Conjugate vaccines trigger memory B-cell production and therefore induce greater long-term immunity. New research is now focusing on higher-valent PCV vaccines. Two 24-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines and one 31-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine are now in advanced stages of development.

Risk-based recommendation. A risk-based recommendation for ages 19 through 49 years still applies to those with certain medical conditions, including diabetes; chronic heart, lung, liver, or kidney disease; and also for those with immunocompromising conditions. Risk-based recommendations are harder to implement particularly because many vaccines are now administered in pharmacies and pharmacists don’t know the patients as well as their physicians do, so it’s harder for them to know who should get the vaccine if the recommendation is based on risk.

COVID-19 Vaccines With Additional Dose Recommendations 

Everyone 6 months or older is recommended to receive a dose of the updated 2024-2025 COVID vaccine. An additional updated COVID vaccine dose is now recommended for everyone aged 65 or older, and for those aged 6 months or older with immunocompromising (moderate or severe) conditions. Review of data revealed that 1 in 6 patients hospitalized with COVID have an immunocompromising condition, and 70% of COVID hospitalizations are in those aged 65 or older. This older age group also has the highest death rates due to COVID-19. We know that vaccination protection wanes with time. Data from previous studies show that additional vaccine doses provide additional protection. Additional doses are now being recommended for those at highest risk.

Timing of additional doses. This second dose is recommended at 6 months after the last updated COVID-19 vaccine dose. However, the additional dose can be given as early as 2 months after the last dose. Those who recently had COVID-19 can wait 3 months before getting an additional vaccine dose. This flexibility allows patients to maximize additional protection by timing additional doses around travel and life events, such as weddings, family get-togethers, or chemotherapy.

Those with immunocompromising conditions may receive more doses. Patients with immunocompromising conditions can receive even more additional doses, if recommended by their physician, under shared clinical decision-making. 

Meningococcal Vaccines

Meningococcal disease is rare but deadly. The disease can progress rapidly. As many as 10%-15% of people with meningococcal infection die, even with appropriate antibiotic therapy. And for those who survive, about 20% suffer long-term sequalae (cognitive deficits, hearing loss, limb amputations).

Aligning Men B vaccine dosing intervals. The new ACIP vote applies only to Men B vaccines, of which there are two: one by GSK (brand name Bexsero), and the other by Wyeth, a Pfizer subsidiary (brand name Trumenba). The two MenB vaccine products are not interchangeable. The same type of MenB vaccine has to be used to complete the series.

The MenB vaccines initially had different dosing schedules and now they don’t. ACIP voted to harmonize and align the dosing schedule for the two different MenB products to mirror recent FDA (Food and Drug Administration) labeling updates. So now the dosing recommendations for both MenB vaccines are the same: either two doses given 6 months apart to healthy adolescents and young adults, or a three-dose series given at zero, 1-2 months, and 6 months for those at high risk or for those who want to optimize rapid protection (for example, if they are starting the series within 6 months of going off to college). But understand that the current recommendation for MenB vaccination for healthy adolescents and young adults is based on shared clinical decision-making, preferably for those aged 16-18.

MenACWY. Two doses of MenACWY are routinely recommended, with the first dose at age 11-12 and a second dose at age 16. The MenACWY vaccines are interchangeable.

Implementation challenges and new pentavalent vaccines. Having to use the same MenB vaccine product for all doses in a patient’s series is difficult. It’s even more difficult when the patient needs both MenACWY and MenB vaccinations. 

Adding to the complexity is a new pentavalent vaccine from Pfizer (brand name Penbraya) that combines MenACWY with the MenB vaccine. And another pentavalent vaccine version by GSK is up for regulatory decision in February 2025.

The work group did say that they plan to take a fresh look at the meningococcal vaccination schedule. Let’s hope it gets simpler, so more to come on that.
 

Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Vaccines 

Current RSV vaccine recommendations for older adults. RSV vaccine has both age- and risk-based recommendations. Now, everyone aged 75 or older needs a dose of RSV vaccine. Adults aged 60-75 with risk factors for severe RSV are also recommended to receive a dose of RSV vaccine, but not adults without these risk factors. The conditions associated with increased risk for severe RSV disease include lung disease, heart disease, immune compromise, diabetes, obesity with BMI (body mass index) of 40 or higher, neurologic or neuromuscular conditions, chronic kidney disease, liver disorders, and hematologic disorders. Frailty, as well as living in a nursing home or other long-term care facility, are other risk factors for severe RSV disease. Those aged 60-75 without these risk factors are no longer recommended to receive it. 

Three RSV vaccines. We now have three RSV vaccine to choose from. Two are protein subunit vaccines. One is by Pfizer (brand name Abrysvo) that does not contain an adjuvant. The other protein-based RSV vaccine by GSK (brand name Arexvy) does contain an adjuvant. The third RSV vaccine by Moderna (brand name mRESVIA) uses an mRNA platform, and durability of protection is still unclear. However, recent studies now suggest that the RSV protein subunit vaccines confer 36 months of protection rather than only 24 months. 

All three RSV vaccines are licensed for those aged 60 or older. The age indication for GSK’s RSV vaccine, Arexvy, has already been lowered by the FDA to age 50. FDA recently lowered the age approval for Abrysvo to age 18 for those at high risk. However, ACIP has not yet expanded its age recommendations for getting these vaccines. One of the main hesitations is vaccine safety concerns. FDA›s safety update presented to ACIP still suggests an increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome with both protein-based RSV vaccines among those aged 65 or older. Fortunately, the risk is rare: less than 10 cases per million vaccinations. 

RSV immunization for infant protection. RSV season starts in October and goes through March. We now have two new ways to protect babies. One is a maternal RSV vaccine, given at 32-36 weeks of pregnancy to moms who will deliver their babies during RSV season. But only Pfizer’s RSV vaccine (brand name Abrysvo, without an adjuvant) can be given during pregnancy. 

A maternal RSV vaccine safety update, presented at ACIP, was reassuring. Abrysvo was not associated with increased risk for preterm birth or small gestational age at birth. 

Nirsevimab, a long-acting monoclonal antibody, can be given to infants. Nirsevimab is indicated for all babies under 8 months of age entering their first RSV season. 

People who received a maternal RSV vaccine during a previous pregnancy are not recommended to receive additional doses during subsequent pregnancies. However, infants born to women who were vaccinated during a prior pregnancy should receive nirsevimab.

Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, has disclosed conflicts of interest with the American Medical Association, the Medical Association of Atlanta, ACIP, and Medscape.

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