Vaccines

The social distancing and sheltering in place mandated because of the COVID-19 pandemic are keeping parents and kids out of their doctors’ offices, and that has prompted a steep decline in recommended routine vaccinations for U.S. children, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researchers.

Pediatric vaccinations dropped sharply after the national emergency was declared on March 13, suggesting that some children may be at increased risk for other serious infectious diseases, such as measles.

The researchers compared weekly orders for federally funded vaccines from Jan. 6 to April 19, 2020, with those during the same period in 2019.

They noted that, by the end of the study period, there was a cumulative COVID-19–related decline of 2.5 million doses in orders for routine noninfluenza pediatric childhood vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, as well as a cumulative decline in orders of 250,000 doses of measles vaccines.

Although the overall decrease in vaccinations during the study period was larger, according to CDC spokesperson Richard Quartarone, the above figures represent declines clearly associated with the pandemic.

The weekly number of measles vaccines ordered for children aged 24 months or older fell dramatically to about 500 during the week beginning March 16, 2020, and fell further to approximately 250 during the week beginning March 23. It stayed at that level until the week beginning April 13. By comparison, more than 2,500 were ordered during the week starting March 2, before the emergency was declared.

The decline was notably less for children younger than 2 years. For those children, orders dropped to about 750 during the week starting March 23 and climbed slightly for 3 weeks. By comparison, during the week of March 2, about 2,000 vaccines were ordered.

The findings, which were published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, stem from an analysis of ordering data from the federal Vaccines for Children (VFC) Program, as well as from vaccine administration data from the CDC’s Vaccine Tracking System and the collaborative Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD).

The VFC provides federally purchased vaccines at no cost to about half of persons aged 18 years or younger. The VSD collaborates on vaccine coverage with the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office and eight large health care organizations across the country. Vaccination coverage is the usual metric for assessing vaccine usage; providers’ orders and the number of doses administered are two proxy measures, the authors explained.

“The substantial reduction in VFC-funded pediatric vaccine ordering after the COVID-19 emergency declaration is consistent with changes in vaccine administration among children in the VSD population receiving care through eight large U.S. health care organizations,” wrote Jeanne M. Santoli, MD, and colleagues, of the immunization services division at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. “The smaller decline in measles-containing vaccine administration among children aged ≤24 months suggests that system-level strategies to prioritize well child care and immunization for this age group are being implemented.”

Dr. Santoli, who is an Atlanta-based pediatrician, and associates stressed the importance of maintaining regular vaccinations during the pandemic. “The identified declines in routine pediatric vaccine ordering and doses administered might indicate that U.S. children and their communities face increased risks for outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases,” they wrote. “Parental concerns about potentially exposing their children to COVID-19 during well child visits might contribute to the declines observed.” Parents should therefore be reminded of the necessity of protecting their children against vaccine-preventable diseases.

In 2019, a Gallup survey reported that overall support for vaccination continued to decline in the United States.

The researchers predicted that, as social distancing relaxes, unvaccinated children will be more susceptible to other serious diseases. “In response, continued coordinated efforts between health care providers and public health officials at the local, state, and federal levels will be necessary to achieve rapid catch-up vaccination,” they concluded.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The social distancing and sheltering in place mandated because of the COVID-19 pandemic are keeping parents and kids out of their doctors’ offices, and that has prompted a steep decline in recommended routine vaccinations for U.S. children, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researchers.

Pediatric vaccinations dropped sharply after the national emergency was declared on March 13, suggesting that some children may be at increased risk for other serious infectious diseases, such as measles.

The researchers compared weekly orders for federally funded vaccines from Jan. 6 to April 19, 2020, with those during the same period in 2019.

They noted that, by the end of the study period, there was a cumulative COVID-19–related decline of 2.5 million doses in orders for routine noninfluenza pediatric childhood vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, as well as a cumulative decline in orders of 250,000 doses of measles vaccines.

Although the overall decrease in vaccinations during the study period was larger, according to CDC spokesperson Richard Quartarone, the above figures represent declines clearly associated with the pandemic.

The weekly number of measles vaccines ordered for children aged 24 months or older fell dramatically to about 500 during the week beginning March 16, 2020, and fell further to approximately 250 during the week beginning March 23. It stayed at that level until the week beginning April 13. By comparison, more than 2,500 were ordered during the week starting March 2, before the emergency was declared.

The decline was notably less for children younger than 2 years. For those children, orders dropped to about 750 during the week starting March 23 and climbed slightly for 3 weeks. By comparison, during the week of March 2, about 2,000 vaccines were ordered.

The findings, which were published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, stem from an analysis of ordering data from the federal Vaccines for Children (VFC) Program, as well as from vaccine administration data from the CDC’s Vaccine Tracking System and the collaborative Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD).

The VFC provides federally purchased vaccines at no cost to about half of persons aged 18 years or younger. The VSD collaborates on vaccine coverage with the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office and eight large health care organizations across the country. Vaccination coverage is the usual metric for assessing vaccine usage; providers’ orders and the number of doses administered are two proxy measures, the authors explained.

“The substantial reduction in VFC-funded pediatric vaccine ordering after the COVID-19 emergency declaration is consistent with changes in vaccine administration among children in the VSD population receiving care through eight large U.S. health care organizations,” wrote Jeanne M. Santoli, MD, and colleagues, of the immunization services division at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. “The smaller decline in measles-containing vaccine administration among children aged ≤24 months suggests that system-level strategies to prioritize well child care and immunization for this age group are being implemented.”

Dr. Santoli, who is an Atlanta-based pediatrician, and associates stressed the importance of maintaining regular vaccinations during the pandemic. “The identified declines in routine pediatric vaccine ordering and doses administered might indicate that U.S. children and their communities face increased risks for outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases,” they wrote. “Parental concerns about potentially exposing their children to COVID-19 during well child visits might contribute to the declines observed.” Parents should therefore be reminded of the necessity of protecting their children against vaccine-preventable diseases.

In 2019, a Gallup survey reported that overall support for vaccination continued to decline in the United States.

The researchers predicted that, as social distancing relaxes, unvaccinated children will be more susceptible to other serious diseases. “In response, continued coordinated efforts between health care providers and public health officials at the local, state, and federal levels will be necessary to achieve rapid catch-up vaccination,” they concluded.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The social distancing and sheltering in place mandated because of the COVID-19 pandemic are keeping parents and kids out of their doctors’ offices, and that has prompted a steep decline in recommended routine vaccinations for U.S. children, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researchers.

Pediatric vaccinations dropped sharply after the national emergency was declared on March 13, suggesting that some children may be at increased risk for other serious infectious diseases, such as measles.

The researchers compared weekly orders for federally funded vaccines from Jan. 6 to April 19, 2020, with those during the same period in 2019.

They noted that, by the end of the study period, there was a cumulative COVID-19–related decline of 2.5 million doses in orders for routine noninfluenza pediatric childhood vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, as well as a cumulative decline in orders of 250,000 doses of measles vaccines.

Although the overall decrease in vaccinations during the study period was larger, according to CDC spokesperson Richard Quartarone, the above figures represent declines clearly associated with the pandemic.

The weekly number of measles vaccines ordered for children aged 24 months or older fell dramatically to about 500 during the week beginning March 16, 2020, and fell further to approximately 250 during the week beginning March 23. It stayed at that level until the week beginning April 13. By comparison, more than 2,500 were ordered during the week starting March 2, before the emergency was declared.

The decline was notably less for children younger than 2 years. For those children, orders dropped to about 750 during the week starting March 23 and climbed slightly for 3 weeks. By comparison, during the week of March 2, about 2,000 vaccines were ordered.

The findings, which were published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, stem from an analysis of ordering data from the federal Vaccines for Children (VFC) Program, as well as from vaccine administration data from the CDC’s Vaccine Tracking System and the collaborative Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD).

The VFC provides federally purchased vaccines at no cost to about half of persons aged 18 years or younger. The VSD collaborates on vaccine coverage with the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office and eight large health care organizations across the country. Vaccination coverage is the usual metric for assessing vaccine usage; providers’ orders and the number of doses administered are two proxy measures, the authors explained.

“The substantial reduction in VFC-funded pediatric vaccine ordering after the COVID-19 emergency declaration is consistent with changes in vaccine administration among children in the VSD population receiving care through eight large U.S. health care organizations,” wrote Jeanne M. Santoli, MD, and colleagues, of the immunization services division at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. “The smaller decline in measles-containing vaccine administration among children aged ≤24 months suggests that system-level strategies to prioritize well child care and immunization for this age group are being implemented.”

Dr. Santoli, who is an Atlanta-based pediatrician, and associates stressed the importance of maintaining regular vaccinations during the pandemic. “The identified declines in routine pediatric vaccine ordering and doses administered might indicate that U.S. children and their communities face increased risks for outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases,” they wrote. “Parental concerns about potentially exposing their children to COVID-19 during well child visits might contribute to the declines observed.” Parents should therefore be reminded of the necessity of protecting their children against vaccine-preventable diseases.

In 2019, a Gallup survey reported that overall support for vaccination continued to decline in the United States.

The researchers predicted that, as social distancing relaxes, unvaccinated children will be more susceptible to other serious diseases. “In response, continued coordinated efforts between health care providers and public health officials at the local, state, and federal levels will be necessary to achieve rapid catch-up vaccination,” they concluded.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to spread across the United States, several members of the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board shared how practices have been adapting to the pandemic, especially in terms of immunization.

Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a member of a four-pediatrician private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview that “we have been seeing only children under age 2 years for their well visits to keep them up to date on their vaccinations” as recommended by infectious disease departments at nearby hospitals such as Connecticut Children’s Medical Center. “We also are seeing the 4- and 5-year-old children for vaccinations.”

Dr. Kinsella explained that, in case parents don’t want to bring their children into the office, her staff is offering to give the vaccinations in the parking lot. But most families are coming into the office.

“We are only seeing well babies and take the parent and child back to a room as soon as they come in the office to avoid having patients sit in the waiting room. At this point, both parents and office staff are wearing masks; we are cleaning the rooms between patients,” Dr. Kinsella said.

“Most of our patients are coming in for their vaccines, so I don’t anticipate a lot of kids being behind. However, we will have a surge of all the physicals that need to be done prior to school in the fall. We have thought about opening up for the weekends for physicals to accommodate this. We also may need to start the day earlier and end later. I have heard some schools may be postponing the date the physicals are due.”

Because of a lack of full personal protective equipment, the practice has not been seeing sick visits in the office, but they have been doing a lot of telehealth visits. “We have been using doxy.me for that, which is free, incredibly easy to use, and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)–compliant,” she said. “I am finding some visits, such as ADHD follow-ups and mental health follow-ups, very amenable to telehealth.”

“The hardest part – as I am sure is for most pediatricians – is the financial strain to a small business,” Dr. Kinsella noted. “We are down about 70% in revenue from this time last year. We have had to lay-off half our staff, and those who are working have much-reduced hours. We did not get the first round of funding for the paycheck protection program loan from the government and are waiting on the second round. We are trying to recoup some business by doing telehealth, but [the insurance companies] are only paying about 75%-80%. We also are charging for phone calls over 5 minutes. It will take a long time once we are up and running to recoup the losses.

“When this is all over, I’m hoping that we will be able to continue to incorporate telehealth into our schedules as I think it is convenient for families. I also am hoping that pediatricians continue to bill for phone calls as we have been giving out a lot of free care prior to this. I hope the American Academy of Pediatrics and all pediatricians work together to advocate for payment of these modalities,” she said.

J. Howard Smart, MD, who is chairman of the department of pediatrics at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group in San Diego, said in an interview, “We have been bringing all of the infants and toddlers in for checkups and vaccines up to age 18 months.” These visits are scheduled in the morning, and sick patients are scheduled in the afternoon. “Well-child visits for older ages are being done by video, and the kindergarten and adolescent vaccines can be done by quick nurse visits. We will have some catching up to do once restrictions are lifted.”

“A fair amount of discussion went into these decisions. Is a video checkup better than no checkup? There is no clear-cut answer. Important things can be addressed by video: lifestyle, diet, exercise, family coping with stay-at-home orders, maintaining healthy childhood relationships, Internet use, ongoing education, among others. We know that we may miss things that can only be picked up by physical examination: hypertension, heart murmurs, abnormal growth, sexual development, abdominal masses, subtle strabismus. This is why we need to bring these children back for the physical exam later,” Dr. Smart emphasized.

“One possible negative result of doing the ‘well-child check’ by video would be if the parent assumed that the ‘checkup’ was done, never brought the child back for the exam, and something was missed that needed intervention. It will be important to get the message across that the return visit is needed. The American Academy of Pediatrics made this a part of their recommendations. It is going to be important for payers to realize that we need to do both visits – and to pay accordingly,” he concluded.

Francis E. Rushton Jr., MD, of Birmingham, Ala., described in an interview how the pediatricians in his former practice are looking for new ways to encourage shot administration in a timely manner during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as exploring ways to partner with home visitors in encouraging timely infant and toddler vaccinations.

At South Carolina’s Beaufort Pediatrics, Joseph Floyd, MD, described a multipronged initiative. The practice’s well-child visit reminder system is being reprogrammed to check for lapses in vaccinations rather than just well-child visit attendance. For the most part, Dr. Floyd stated parents appreciate the reminders and accept the need for vaccination: “In the absence of immunizations for coronavirus, families seem to be more cognizant of the value of the vaccines we do have.” Beaufort Pediatrics is also partnering with their local hospital on a publicity campaign stressing the importance of staying up to date with currently available and recommended vaccines.

Other child-service organizations are concerned as well. Dr. Francis E. Rushton Jr., as faculty with the Education Development Center’s Health Resources and Services Administration–funded home-visiting quality improvement collaborative (HV CoIIN 2.0), described efforts with home visitors in Alabama and other states. “Home visitors understand the importance of immunizations to the health and welfare of the infants they care for. They’re looking for opportunities to improve compliance with vaccination regimens.” Some of these home-visiting agencies are employing quality improvement technique to improve compliance. One idea they are working on is documenting annual training on updated vaccines for the home visitors. They are working on protocols for linking their clients with primary health care providers, referral relations, and relationship development with local pediatric offices. Motivational interviewing techniques for home visitors focused on immunizations are being considered. For families who are hesitant, home visitors are considering accompanying the family when they come to the doctor’s office while paying attention to COVID-19 social distancing policies at medical facilities.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to spread across the United States, several members of the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board shared how practices have been adapting to the pandemic, especially in terms of immunization.

Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a member of a four-pediatrician private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview that “we have been seeing only children under age 2 years for their well visits to keep them up to date on their vaccinations” as recommended by infectious disease departments at nearby hospitals such as Connecticut Children’s Medical Center. “We also are seeing the 4- and 5-year-old children for vaccinations.”

Dr. Kinsella explained that, in case parents don’t want to bring their children into the office, her staff is offering to give the vaccinations in the parking lot. But most families are coming into the office.

“We are only seeing well babies and take the parent and child back to a room as soon as they come in the office to avoid having patients sit in the waiting room. At this point, both parents and office staff are wearing masks; we are cleaning the rooms between patients,” Dr. Kinsella said.

“Most of our patients are coming in for their vaccines, so I don’t anticipate a lot of kids being behind. However, we will have a surge of all the physicals that need to be done prior to school in the fall. We have thought about opening up for the weekends for physicals to accommodate this. We also may need to start the day earlier and end later. I have heard some schools may be postponing the date the physicals are due.”

Because of a lack of full personal protective equipment, the practice has not been seeing sick visits in the office, but they have been doing a lot of telehealth visits. “We have been using doxy.me for that, which is free, incredibly easy to use, and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)–compliant,” she said. “I am finding some visits, such as ADHD follow-ups and mental health follow-ups, very amenable to telehealth.”

“The hardest part – as I am sure is for most pediatricians – is the financial strain to a small business,” Dr. Kinsella noted. “We are down about 70% in revenue from this time last year. We have had to lay-off half our staff, and those who are working have much-reduced hours. We did not get the first round of funding for the paycheck protection program loan from the government and are waiting on the second round. We are trying to recoup some business by doing telehealth, but [the insurance companies] are only paying about 75%-80%. We also are charging for phone calls over 5 minutes. It will take a long time once we are up and running to recoup the losses.

“When this is all over, I’m hoping that we will be able to continue to incorporate telehealth into our schedules as I think it is convenient for families. I also am hoping that pediatricians continue to bill for phone calls as we have been giving out a lot of free care prior to this. I hope the American Academy of Pediatrics and all pediatricians work together to advocate for payment of these modalities,” she said.

J. Howard Smart, MD, who is chairman of the department of pediatrics at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group in San Diego, said in an interview, “We have been bringing all of the infants and toddlers in for checkups and vaccines up to age 18 months.” These visits are scheduled in the morning, and sick patients are scheduled in the afternoon. “Well-child visits for older ages are being done by video, and the kindergarten and adolescent vaccines can be done by quick nurse visits. We will have some catching up to do once restrictions are lifted.”

“A fair amount of discussion went into these decisions. Is a video checkup better than no checkup? There is no clear-cut answer. Important things can be addressed by video: lifestyle, diet, exercise, family coping with stay-at-home orders, maintaining healthy childhood relationships, Internet use, ongoing education, among others. We know that we may miss things that can only be picked up by physical examination: hypertension, heart murmurs, abnormal growth, sexual development, abdominal masses, subtle strabismus. This is why we need to bring these children back for the physical exam later,” Dr. Smart emphasized.

“One possible negative result of doing the ‘well-child check’ by video would be if the parent assumed that the ‘checkup’ was done, never brought the child back for the exam, and something was missed that needed intervention. It will be important to get the message across that the return visit is needed. The American Academy of Pediatrics made this a part of their recommendations. It is going to be important for payers to realize that we need to do both visits – and to pay accordingly,” he concluded.

Francis E. Rushton Jr., MD, of Birmingham, Ala., described in an interview how the pediatricians in his former practice are looking for new ways to encourage shot administration in a timely manner during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as exploring ways to partner with home visitors in encouraging timely infant and toddler vaccinations.

At South Carolina’s Beaufort Pediatrics, Joseph Floyd, MD, described a multipronged initiative. The practice’s well-child visit reminder system is being reprogrammed to check for lapses in vaccinations rather than just well-child visit attendance. For the most part, Dr. Floyd stated parents appreciate the reminders and accept the need for vaccination: “In the absence of immunizations for coronavirus, families seem to be more cognizant of the value of the vaccines we do have.” Beaufort Pediatrics is also partnering with their local hospital on a publicity campaign stressing the importance of staying up to date with currently available and recommended vaccines.

Other child-service organizations are concerned as well. Dr. Francis E. Rushton Jr., as faculty with the Education Development Center’s Health Resources and Services Administration–funded home-visiting quality improvement collaborative (HV CoIIN 2.0), described efforts with home visitors in Alabama and other states. “Home visitors understand the importance of immunizations to the health and welfare of the infants they care for. They’re looking for opportunities to improve compliance with vaccination regimens.” Some of these home-visiting agencies are employing quality improvement technique to improve compliance. One idea they are working on is documenting annual training on updated vaccines for the home visitors. They are working on protocols for linking their clients with primary health care providers, referral relations, and relationship development with local pediatric offices. Motivational interviewing techniques for home visitors focused on immunizations are being considered. For families who are hesitant, home visitors are considering accompanying the family when they come to the doctor’s office while paying attention to COVID-19 social distancing policies at medical facilities.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to spread across the United States, several members of the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board shared how practices have been adapting to the pandemic, especially in terms of immunization.

Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a member of a four-pediatrician private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview that “we have been seeing only children under age 2 years for their well visits to keep them up to date on their vaccinations” as recommended by infectious disease departments at nearby hospitals such as Connecticut Children’s Medical Center. “We also are seeing the 4- and 5-year-old children for vaccinations.”

Dr. Kinsella explained that, in case parents don’t want to bring their children into the office, her staff is offering to give the vaccinations in the parking lot. But most families are coming into the office.

“We are only seeing well babies and take the parent and child back to a room as soon as they come in the office to avoid having patients sit in the waiting room. At this point, both parents and office staff are wearing masks; we are cleaning the rooms between patients,” Dr. Kinsella said.

“Most of our patients are coming in for their vaccines, so I don’t anticipate a lot of kids being behind. However, we will have a surge of all the physicals that need to be done prior to school in the fall. We have thought about opening up for the weekends for physicals to accommodate this. We also may need to start the day earlier and end later. I have heard some schools may be postponing the date the physicals are due.”

Because of a lack of full personal protective equipment, the practice has not been seeing sick visits in the office, but they have been doing a lot of telehealth visits. “We have been using doxy.me for that, which is free, incredibly easy to use, and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)–compliant,” she said. “I am finding some visits, such as ADHD follow-ups and mental health follow-ups, very amenable to telehealth.”

“The hardest part – as I am sure is for most pediatricians – is the financial strain to a small business,” Dr. Kinsella noted. “We are down about 70% in revenue from this time last year. We have had to lay-off half our staff, and those who are working have much-reduced hours. We did not get the first round of funding for the paycheck protection program loan from the government and are waiting on the second round. We are trying to recoup some business by doing telehealth, but [the insurance companies] are only paying about 75%-80%. We also are charging for phone calls over 5 minutes. It will take a long time once we are up and running to recoup the losses.

“When this is all over, I’m hoping that we will be able to continue to incorporate telehealth into our schedules as I think it is convenient for families. I also am hoping that pediatricians continue to bill for phone calls as we have been giving out a lot of free care prior to this. I hope the American Academy of Pediatrics and all pediatricians work together to advocate for payment of these modalities,” she said.

J. Howard Smart, MD, who is chairman of the department of pediatrics at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group in San Diego, said in an interview, “We have been bringing all of the infants and toddlers in for checkups and vaccines up to age 18 months.” These visits are scheduled in the morning, and sick patients are scheduled in the afternoon. “Well-child visits for older ages are being done by video, and the kindergarten and adolescent vaccines can be done by quick nurse visits. We will have some catching up to do once restrictions are lifted.”

“A fair amount of discussion went into these decisions. Is a video checkup better than no checkup? There is no clear-cut answer. Important things can be addressed by video: lifestyle, diet, exercise, family coping with stay-at-home orders, maintaining healthy childhood relationships, Internet use, ongoing education, among others. We know that we may miss things that can only be picked up by physical examination: hypertension, heart murmurs, abnormal growth, sexual development, abdominal masses, subtle strabismus. This is why we need to bring these children back for the physical exam later,” Dr. Smart emphasized.

“One possible negative result of doing the ‘well-child check’ by video would be if the parent assumed that the ‘checkup’ was done, never brought the child back for the exam, and something was missed that needed intervention. It will be important to get the message across that the return visit is needed. The American Academy of Pediatrics made this a part of their recommendations. It is going to be important for payers to realize that we need to do both visits – and to pay accordingly,” he concluded.

Francis E. Rushton Jr., MD, of Birmingham, Ala., described in an interview how the pediatricians in his former practice are looking for new ways to encourage shot administration in a timely manner during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as exploring ways to partner with home visitors in encouraging timely infant and toddler vaccinations.

At South Carolina’s Beaufort Pediatrics, Joseph Floyd, MD, described a multipronged initiative. The practice’s well-child visit reminder system is being reprogrammed to check for lapses in vaccinations rather than just well-child visit attendance. For the most part, Dr. Floyd stated parents appreciate the reminders and accept the need for vaccination: “In the absence of immunizations for coronavirus, families seem to be more cognizant of the value of the vaccines we do have.” Beaufort Pediatrics is also partnering with their local hospital on a publicity campaign stressing the importance of staying up to date with currently available and recommended vaccines.

Other child-service organizations are concerned as well. Dr. Francis E. Rushton Jr., as faculty with the Education Development Center’s Health Resources and Services Administration–funded home-visiting quality improvement collaborative (HV CoIIN 2.0), described efforts with home visitors in Alabama and other states. “Home visitors understand the importance of immunizations to the health and welfare of the infants they care for. They’re looking for opportunities to improve compliance with vaccination regimens.” Some of these home-visiting agencies are employing quality improvement technique to improve compliance. One idea they are working on is documenting annual training on updated vaccines for the home visitors. They are working on protocols for linking their clients with primary health care providers, referral relations, and relationship development with local pediatric offices. Motivational interviewing techniques for home visitors focused on immunizations are being considered. For families who are hesitant, home visitors are considering accompanying the family when they come to the doctor’s office while paying attention to COVID-19 social distancing policies at medical facilities.

A second booster dose of the influenza vaccine in vaccine-naive children may significantly reduce their likelihood of getting the disease, new research suggests.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Writing for JAMA Pediatrics, researchers reported on a case-control study of 7,533 children presenting to outpatient clinics – all in the U.S. Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network – with acute respiratory tract illnesses from 2014 to 2018. The study looked at the effectiveness of vaccination against laboratory-confirmed influenza.

Current U.S. guidelines recommend that children aged 6 months to 8 years receive two doses of the influenza vaccine initially – a priming dose and a booster dose – while those aged 9 years or older are considered to be ‘immunologically primed’ and therefore only require one annual dose.

The study found that 60% of the children had received two doses of the influenza vaccine during their first vaccination season, and 68% were first vaccinated before the current influenza season. Of those who had been vaccinated, 89% had received their first influenza vaccine dose when they were younger than 2 years.

Among the 2,140 children who were unvaccinated before the current influenza season, the 436 children who received two doses of the influenza vaccine had 43% lower odds of influenza compared with the 466 children who received one dose. The overall vaccine effectiveness among this vaccine-naive group aged under 2 years was 38%; for those who received two doses it was 53%, and for those who received one dose it was 23%.

“The higher risk of infection resulting from underdeveloped immune and respiratory tract systems provides a reason to identify vaccination strategies focusing on this vulnerable population of younger children,” wrote Jessie R. Chung, MPH, of the Influenza Division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and coauthors. “Promoting efforts to improve influenza vaccine coverage—particularly with 2 doses in the first vaccination season – may reduce the burden of influenza illness among young children, who are particularly vulnerable to complications and death from influenza infection.”

Overall 52% of children were unvaccinated for the current influenza season and 9% were partially vaccinated. Of those who were fully vaccinated for the current season, 83% had received one dose in the current season, and 17% had received two doses.

The authors found that full vaccination against any influenza was associated with a 22% lower odds of influenza compared with partial vaccination (95% confidence interval, 0.61-1.01), with partial vaccination defined as anything less than two doses of vaccine in the current season – at least 4 weeks apart – or two or more doses before the current season and one or more doses in the current season. However, even children who were only partially vaccinated still showed statistically significant vaccine effectiveness, except for those who received one dose of vaccine in the current season and were aged under 2 years.

“Compared with older children, young children, even if healthy, are at an elevated risk of influenza infection and influenza-associated complications, such as hospitalization,” the authors wrote. “One recent simulation study reported that even small improvements in either vaccine coverage or VE [vaccine effectiveness], and ideally both, may avert substantial amounts of influenza-associated illnesses, medical visits, and hospitalizations.”

The study also noted that children who had received only a single previous vaccine dose rarely received two doses in the current season.

In an accompanying editorial, Claire Abraham, MD, and Melissa S. Stockwell, MD, of Columbia University Medical Center, New York, wrote that modeling suggested that in the 2017-2018 influenza season, vaccination prevented 1.3 million cases of infection, 895,000 medical visits, 10,500 hospitalizations and 111 deaths in children aged under 5 years.

“This study highlights the importance of administering 2 doses of the influenza vaccine to children younger than 9 years for whom 2 doses are needed, and especially to vaccine naive children younger than 2 years,” they wrote.

But despite many studies showing the impact and importance of influenza vaccination, uptake of this vaccine remained lower than for other pediatric vaccines.

“This present study reemphasizes the need for further research exploring why families who are seemingly willing to vaccinate their children against influenza, as indicated by their receiving the first needed dose of influenza vaccine, find barriers to receiving all of the needed doses, placing their children at higher risk for contracting a potentially devastating virus.”

The U.S. Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network is funded by the CDC, and this project also received support from the National Institutes of Health. Eight authors declared grants from the CDC during the conduct of the study, and five declared grants and other funding from private industry outside the study.

SOURCE: Chung J et al. JAMA Pediatrics 2020 May 4. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.0372.

A second booster dose of the influenza vaccine in vaccine-naive children may significantly reduce their likelihood of getting the disease, new research suggests.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Writing for JAMA Pediatrics, researchers reported on a case-control study of 7,533 children presenting to outpatient clinics – all in the U.S. Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network – with acute respiratory tract illnesses from 2014 to 2018. The study looked at the effectiveness of vaccination against laboratory-confirmed influenza.

Current U.S. guidelines recommend that children aged 6 months to 8 years receive two doses of the influenza vaccine initially – a priming dose and a booster dose – while those aged 9 years or older are considered to be ‘immunologically primed’ and therefore only require one annual dose.

The study found that 60% of the children had received two doses of the influenza vaccine during their first vaccination season, and 68% were first vaccinated before the current influenza season. Of those who had been vaccinated, 89% had received their first influenza vaccine dose when they were younger than 2 years.

Among the 2,140 children who were unvaccinated before the current influenza season, the 436 children who received two doses of the influenza vaccine had 43% lower odds of influenza compared with the 466 children who received one dose. The overall vaccine effectiveness among this vaccine-naive group aged under 2 years was 38%; for those who received two doses it was 53%, and for those who received one dose it was 23%.

“The higher risk of infection resulting from underdeveloped immune and respiratory tract systems provides a reason to identify vaccination strategies focusing on this vulnerable population of younger children,” wrote Jessie R. Chung, MPH, of the Influenza Division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and coauthors. “Promoting efforts to improve influenza vaccine coverage—particularly with 2 doses in the first vaccination season – may reduce the burden of influenza illness among young children, who are particularly vulnerable to complications and death from influenza infection.”

Overall 52% of children were unvaccinated for the current influenza season and 9% were partially vaccinated. Of those who were fully vaccinated for the current season, 83% had received one dose in the current season, and 17% had received two doses.

The authors found that full vaccination against any influenza was associated with a 22% lower odds of influenza compared with partial vaccination (95% confidence interval, 0.61-1.01), with partial vaccination defined as anything less than two doses of vaccine in the current season – at least 4 weeks apart – or two or more doses before the current season and one or more doses in the current season. However, even children who were only partially vaccinated still showed statistically significant vaccine effectiveness, except for those who received one dose of vaccine in the current season and were aged under 2 years.

“Compared with older children, young children, even if healthy, are at an elevated risk of influenza infection and influenza-associated complications, such as hospitalization,” the authors wrote. “One recent simulation study reported that even small improvements in either vaccine coverage or VE [vaccine effectiveness], and ideally both, may avert substantial amounts of influenza-associated illnesses, medical visits, and hospitalizations.”

The study also noted that children who had received only a single previous vaccine dose rarely received two doses in the current season.

In an accompanying editorial, Claire Abraham, MD, and Melissa S. Stockwell, MD, of Columbia University Medical Center, New York, wrote that modeling suggested that in the 2017-2018 influenza season, vaccination prevented 1.3 million cases of infection, 895,000 medical visits, 10,500 hospitalizations and 111 deaths in children aged under 5 years.

“This study highlights the importance of administering 2 doses of the influenza vaccine to children younger than 9 years for whom 2 doses are needed, and especially to vaccine naive children younger than 2 years,” they wrote.

But despite many studies showing the impact and importance of influenza vaccination, uptake of this vaccine remained lower than for other pediatric vaccines.

“This present study reemphasizes the need for further research exploring why families who are seemingly willing to vaccinate their children against influenza, as indicated by their receiving the first needed dose of influenza vaccine, find barriers to receiving all of the needed doses, placing their children at higher risk for contracting a potentially devastating virus.”

The U.S. Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network is funded by the CDC, and this project also received support from the National Institutes of Health. Eight authors declared grants from the CDC during the conduct of the study, and five declared grants and other funding from private industry outside the study.

SOURCE: Chung J et al. JAMA Pediatrics 2020 May 4. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.0372.

A second booster dose of the influenza vaccine in vaccine-naive children may significantly reduce their likelihood of getting the disease, new research suggests.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Writing for JAMA Pediatrics, researchers reported on a case-control study of 7,533 children presenting to outpatient clinics – all in the U.S. Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network – with acute respiratory tract illnesses from 2014 to 2018. The study looked at the effectiveness of vaccination against laboratory-confirmed influenza.

Current U.S. guidelines recommend that children aged 6 months to 8 years receive two doses of the influenza vaccine initially – a priming dose and a booster dose – while those aged 9 years or older are considered to be ‘immunologically primed’ and therefore only require one annual dose.

The study found that 60% of the children had received two doses of the influenza vaccine during their first vaccination season, and 68% were first vaccinated before the current influenza season. Of those who had been vaccinated, 89% had received their first influenza vaccine dose when they were younger than 2 years.

Among the 2,140 children who were unvaccinated before the current influenza season, the 436 children who received two doses of the influenza vaccine had 43% lower odds of influenza compared with the 466 children who received one dose. The overall vaccine effectiveness among this vaccine-naive group aged under 2 years was 38%; for those who received two doses it was 53%, and for those who received one dose it was 23%.

“The higher risk of infection resulting from underdeveloped immune and respiratory tract systems provides a reason to identify vaccination strategies focusing on this vulnerable population of younger children,” wrote Jessie R. Chung, MPH, of the Influenza Division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and coauthors. “Promoting efforts to improve influenza vaccine coverage—particularly with 2 doses in the first vaccination season – may reduce the burden of influenza illness among young children, who are particularly vulnerable to complications and death from influenza infection.”

Overall 52% of children were unvaccinated for the current influenza season and 9% were partially vaccinated. Of those who were fully vaccinated for the current season, 83% had received one dose in the current season, and 17% had received two doses.

The authors found that full vaccination against any influenza was associated with a 22% lower odds of influenza compared with partial vaccination (95% confidence interval, 0.61-1.01), with partial vaccination defined as anything less than two doses of vaccine in the current season – at least 4 weeks apart – or two or more doses before the current season and one or more doses in the current season. However, even children who were only partially vaccinated still showed statistically significant vaccine effectiveness, except for those who received one dose of vaccine in the current season and were aged under 2 years.

“Compared with older children, young children, even if healthy, are at an elevated risk of influenza infection and influenza-associated complications, such as hospitalization,” the authors wrote. “One recent simulation study reported that even small improvements in either vaccine coverage or VE [vaccine effectiveness], and ideally both, may avert substantial amounts of influenza-associated illnesses, medical visits, and hospitalizations.”

The study also noted that children who had received only a single previous vaccine dose rarely received two doses in the current season.

In an accompanying editorial, Claire Abraham, MD, and Melissa S. Stockwell, MD, of Columbia University Medical Center, New York, wrote that modeling suggested that in the 2017-2018 influenza season, vaccination prevented 1.3 million cases of infection, 895,000 medical visits, 10,500 hospitalizations and 111 deaths in children aged under 5 years.

“This study highlights the importance of administering 2 doses of the influenza vaccine to children younger than 9 years for whom 2 doses are needed, and especially to vaccine naive children younger than 2 years,” they wrote.

But despite many studies showing the impact and importance of influenza vaccination, uptake of this vaccine remained lower than for other pediatric vaccines.

“This present study reemphasizes the need for further research exploring why families who are seemingly willing to vaccinate their children against influenza, as indicated by their receiving the first needed dose of influenza vaccine, find barriers to receiving all of the needed doses, placing their children at higher risk for contracting a potentially devastating virus.”

The U.S. Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network is funded by the CDC, and this project also received support from the National Institutes of Health. Eight authors declared grants from the CDC during the conduct of the study, and five declared grants and other funding from private industry outside the study.

SOURCE: Chung J et al. JAMA Pediatrics 2020 May 4. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.0372.

Worldwide cases of neonatal tetanus fell by 90% from 2000 to 2018, deaths dropped by 85%, and 45 countries achieved elimination of maternal and neonatal tetanus (MNT), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Njuguna HN et al. MMWR. 2020 May 1;69(17):515-20.

Worldwide cases of neonatal tetanus fell by 90% from 2000 to 2018, deaths dropped by 85%, and 45 countries achieved elimination of maternal and neonatal tetanus (MNT), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Njuguna HN et al. MMWR. 2020 May 1;69(17):515-20.

Worldwide cases of neonatal tetanus fell by 90% from 2000 to 2018, deaths dropped by 85%, and 45 countries achieved elimination of maternal and neonatal tetanus (MNT), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Njuguna HN et al. MMWR. 2020 May 1;69(17):515-20.

The biggest barrier to using standing orders for childhood immunizations is concern that patients will receive the wrong vaccine, according to a survey of pediatricians published in Pediatrics.

spukkato/Getty Images

The other top reasons pediatricians give for not using standing orders for vaccines are concerns that parents may want to talk to the doctor about the vaccine before their child gets it, and a belief that the doctor should be the one who personally recommends a vaccine for their patient.

But with severe drops in vaccination rates resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, standing orders may be a valuable tool for ensuring children get their vaccines on time, suggested lead author, Jessica Cataldi, MD, of the University of Colorado and Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora.

“As we work to bring more families back to their pediatrician’s office for well-child checks, standing orders are one process that can streamline the visit by saving providers time and increasing vaccine delivery,” she said in an interview. “We will also need use standing orders to support different ways to get children their immunizations during times of social distancing. This could take the form of drive-through immunization clinics or telehealth well-child checks that are paired with a quick immunization-only visit.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics issued guidance April 14 that emphasizes the need to prioritize immunization of children through 2-years-old.

Paul A. Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the division of infectious diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, agreed that it’s essential children do not fall behind on the recommended schedule during the pandemic.

“It’s important not to have greater collateral damage from this COVID-19 pandemic by putting children at increased risk from other infections that are circulating, like measles and pertussis,” he said, noting that nearly 1,300 measles cases and more than 15,000 pertussis cases occurred in the United States in 2019.

It’s important “not to delay those primary vaccines because it’s hard to catch up,” he said in an interview

Although “standing orders” may go by other names in non–inpatient settings, the researchers defined them in their survey as “a written or verbal policy that persons other than a medical provider, such as a nurse or medical assistant, may consent and vaccinate a person without speaking with the physician or advanced care provider first.” Further, the “vaccine may be given before or after a physician encounter or in the absence of a physician encounter altogether.”

Research strongly suggests that standing orders for childhood vaccines are cost-effective and increase immunization rates, the authors noted. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the federal National Vaccine Advisory Committee all recommend using standing orders to improve vaccination access and rates.

The authors sought to understand how many pediatricians use standing orders and what reasons stop them from doing so. During June-September 2017, they sent out 471 online and mail surveys to a nationally representative sample of AAP members who spent at least half their time in primary care.

The 372 pediatricians who completed the survey made up a response rate of 79%, with no differences in response based on age, sex, years in practice, practice setting, region or rural/urban location.

More than half the respondents (59%) used standing orders for childhood immunizations. Just over a third of respondents (36%) said they use standing orders for all routinely recommended vaccines, and 23% use them for some vaccines.

Among those who did not use standing orders, 68% cited the concern that patients would get the incorrect vaccine by mistake as a barrier to using them. That came as a surprise to Dr Offit, who would expect standing orders to reduce the likelihood of error.

“The standing order should make things a little more foolproof so that you’re less likely to make a mistake,” Dr Offit said.

No studies have shown that vaccine errors occur more often in clinics that use standing orders for immunizations, but the question merits continued monitoring, Dr Cataldi said.

“It is important for any clinic that is new to the use of standing orders to provide adequate education to providers and other staff about when and how to use standing orders, and to always leave room for staff to bring vaccination questions to the provider,” Dr Cataldi told this newspaper

Nearly as many physicians (62%) believed that families would want to speak to the doctor about a vaccine before getting it, and 57% of respondents who didn’t use standing orders believed they should be the one who recommends a vaccine to their patient’s parents.

All three of these reasons also ranked highest as barriers in responses from all respondents, including those who use standing orders. But those who didn’t use them were significantly more likely to cite these reasons (P less than .0001).

Since the survey occurred in 2017, however, it’s possible the pandemic and the rapid increase in telehealth as a result may influence perceptions moving forward.

“With provider concerns that standing orders remove physicians from the vaccination conversation, it may be that those conversations become less crucial as some families may start to value and accept immunizations more as a result of this pandemic,” Dr Cataldi said. “Or for families with vaccine questions, telehealth might support those conversations with a provider well.”

After adjusting for potential confounders, the only practice or physician factor significantly associated with not using standing orders for vaccines was physicians’ having a higher “physician responsibility score.” Doctors with these higher scores also were marginally more likely to make independent decisions about vaccines than counterparts working at practices where system-level decisions occur.

“Perhaps physicians who feel more personal responsibility about their role in vaccination are more likely to choose practice settings where they have more independent decision-making ability,” the authors wrote. “Alternatively, knowing the level of decision-making about vaccines in the practice may influence the amount of personal responsibility that pediatricians feel about their role in vaccine delivery.”

Again, attitudes may have shifted since the coronavirus pandemic began. The biggest risk to children in terms of immunizations is not getting them, Dr Offit said.

“The parents are scared, and the doctors are scared,” he said. “They feel that going to a doctor’s office is going to a concentrated area where they’re more likely to pick up this virus.”

He’s expressed uncertainty about whether standing orders could play a role in alleviating that anxiety. But Dr Cataldi suggests it’s possible.

“I think standing orders will be important to increasing vaccination rates during a pandemic as they can be used to support delivery of vaccines through public health departments and through vaccine-only nurse visits,” she said.

The research was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Cataldi J et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Apr;e20191855.

The biggest barrier to using standing orders for childhood immunizations is concern that patients will receive the wrong vaccine, according to a survey of pediatricians published in Pediatrics.

spukkato/Getty Images

The other top reasons pediatricians give for not using standing orders for vaccines are concerns that parents may want to talk to the doctor about the vaccine before their child gets it, and a belief that the doctor should be the one who personally recommends a vaccine for their patient.

But with severe drops in vaccination rates resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, standing orders may be a valuable tool for ensuring children get their vaccines on time, suggested lead author, Jessica Cataldi, MD, of the University of Colorado and Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora.

“As we work to bring more families back to their pediatrician’s office for well-child checks, standing orders are one process that can streamline the visit by saving providers time and increasing vaccine delivery,” she said in an interview. “We will also need use standing orders to support different ways to get children their immunizations during times of social distancing. This could take the form of drive-through immunization clinics or telehealth well-child checks that are paired with a quick immunization-only visit.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics issued guidance April 14 that emphasizes the need to prioritize immunization of children through 2-years-old.

Paul A. Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the division of infectious diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, agreed that it’s essential children do not fall behind on the recommended schedule during the pandemic.

“It’s important not to have greater collateral damage from this COVID-19 pandemic by putting children at increased risk from other infections that are circulating, like measles and pertussis,” he said, noting that nearly 1,300 measles cases and more than 15,000 pertussis cases occurred in the United States in 2019.

It’s important “not to delay those primary vaccines because it’s hard to catch up,” he said in an interview

Although “standing orders” may go by other names in non–inpatient settings, the researchers defined them in their survey as “a written or verbal policy that persons other than a medical provider, such as a nurse or medical assistant, may consent and vaccinate a person without speaking with the physician or advanced care provider first.” Further, the “vaccine may be given before or after a physician encounter or in the absence of a physician encounter altogether.”

Research strongly suggests that standing orders for childhood vaccines are cost-effective and increase immunization rates, the authors noted. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the federal National Vaccine Advisory Committee all recommend using standing orders to improve vaccination access and rates.

The authors sought to understand how many pediatricians use standing orders and what reasons stop them from doing so. During June-September 2017, they sent out 471 online and mail surveys to a nationally representative sample of AAP members who spent at least half their time in primary care.

The 372 pediatricians who completed the survey made up a response rate of 79%, with no differences in response based on age, sex, years in practice, practice setting, region or rural/urban location.

More than half the respondents (59%) used standing orders for childhood immunizations. Just over a third of respondents (36%) said they use standing orders for all routinely recommended vaccines, and 23% use them for some vaccines.

Among those who did not use standing orders, 68% cited the concern that patients would get the incorrect vaccine by mistake as a barrier to using them. That came as a surprise to Dr Offit, who would expect standing orders to reduce the likelihood of error.

“The standing order should make things a little more foolproof so that you’re less likely to make a mistake,” Dr Offit said.

No studies have shown that vaccine errors occur more often in clinics that use standing orders for immunizations, but the question merits continued monitoring, Dr Cataldi said.

“It is important for any clinic that is new to the use of standing orders to provide adequate education to providers and other staff about when and how to use standing orders, and to always leave room for staff to bring vaccination questions to the provider,” Dr Cataldi told this newspaper

Nearly as many physicians (62%) believed that families would want to speak to the doctor about a vaccine before getting it, and 57% of respondents who didn’t use standing orders believed they should be the one who recommends a vaccine to their patient’s parents.

All three of these reasons also ranked highest as barriers in responses from all respondents, including those who use standing orders. But those who didn’t use them were significantly more likely to cite these reasons (P less than .0001).

Since the survey occurred in 2017, however, it’s possible the pandemic and the rapid increase in telehealth as a result may influence perceptions moving forward.

“With provider concerns that standing orders remove physicians from the vaccination conversation, it may be that those conversations become less crucial as some families may start to value and accept immunizations more as a result of this pandemic,” Dr Cataldi said. “Or for families with vaccine questions, telehealth might support those conversations with a provider well.”

After adjusting for potential confounders, the only practice or physician factor significantly associated with not using standing orders for vaccines was physicians’ having a higher “physician responsibility score.” Doctors with these higher scores also were marginally more likely to make independent decisions about vaccines than counterparts working at practices where system-level decisions occur.

“Perhaps physicians who feel more personal responsibility about their role in vaccination are more likely to choose practice settings where they have more independent decision-making ability,” the authors wrote. “Alternatively, knowing the level of decision-making about vaccines in the practice may influence the amount of personal responsibility that pediatricians feel about their role in vaccine delivery.”

Again, attitudes may have shifted since the coronavirus pandemic began. The biggest risk to children in terms of immunizations is not getting them, Dr Offit said.

“The parents are scared, and the doctors are scared,” he said. “They feel that going to a doctor’s office is going to a concentrated area where they’re more likely to pick up this virus.”

He’s expressed uncertainty about whether standing orders could play a role in alleviating that anxiety. But Dr Cataldi suggests it’s possible.

“I think standing orders will be important to increasing vaccination rates during a pandemic as they can be used to support delivery of vaccines through public health departments and through vaccine-only nurse visits,” she said.

The research was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Cataldi J et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Apr;e20191855.

The biggest barrier to using standing orders for childhood immunizations is concern that patients will receive the wrong vaccine, according to a survey of pediatricians published in Pediatrics.

spukkato/Getty Images

The other top reasons pediatricians give for not using standing orders for vaccines are concerns that parents may want to talk to the doctor about the vaccine before their child gets it, and a belief that the doctor should be the one who personally recommends a vaccine for their patient.

But with severe drops in vaccination rates resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, standing orders may be a valuable tool for ensuring children get their vaccines on time, suggested lead author, Jessica Cataldi, MD, of the University of Colorado and Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora.

“As we work to bring more families back to their pediatrician’s office for well-child checks, standing orders are one process that can streamline the visit by saving providers time and increasing vaccine delivery,” she said in an interview. “We will also need use standing orders to support different ways to get children their immunizations during times of social distancing. This could take the form of drive-through immunization clinics or telehealth well-child checks that are paired with a quick immunization-only visit.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics issued guidance April 14 that emphasizes the need to prioritize immunization of children through 2-years-old.

Paul A. Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the division of infectious diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, agreed that it’s essential children do not fall behind on the recommended schedule during the pandemic.

“It’s important not to have greater collateral damage from this COVID-19 pandemic by putting children at increased risk from other infections that are circulating, like measles and pertussis,” he said, noting that nearly 1,300 measles cases and more than 15,000 pertussis cases occurred in the United States in 2019.

It’s important “not to delay those primary vaccines because it’s hard to catch up,” he said in an interview

Although “standing orders” may go by other names in non–inpatient settings, the researchers defined them in their survey as “a written or verbal policy that persons other than a medical provider, such as a nurse or medical assistant, may consent and vaccinate a person without speaking with the physician or advanced care provider first.” Further, the “vaccine may be given before or after a physician encounter or in the absence of a physician encounter altogether.”

Research strongly suggests that standing orders for childhood vaccines are cost-effective and increase immunization rates, the authors noted. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the federal National Vaccine Advisory Committee all recommend using standing orders to improve vaccination access and rates.

The authors sought to understand how many pediatricians use standing orders and what reasons stop them from doing so. During June-September 2017, they sent out 471 online and mail surveys to a nationally representative sample of AAP members who spent at least half their time in primary care.

The 372 pediatricians who completed the survey made up a response rate of 79%, with no differences in response based on age, sex, years in practice, practice setting, region or rural/urban location.

More than half the respondents (59%) used standing orders for childhood immunizations. Just over a third of respondents (36%) said they use standing orders for all routinely recommended vaccines, and 23% use them for some vaccines.

Among those who did not use standing orders, 68% cited the concern that patients would get the incorrect vaccine by mistake as a barrier to using them. That came as a surprise to Dr Offit, who would expect standing orders to reduce the likelihood of error.

“The standing order should make things a little more foolproof so that you’re less likely to make a mistake,” Dr Offit said.

No studies have shown that vaccine errors occur more often in clinics that use standing orders for immunizations, but the question merits continued monitoring, Dr Cataldi said.

“It is important for any clinic that is new to the use of standing orders to provide adequate education to providers and other staff about when and how to use standing orders, and to always leave room for staff to bring vaccination questions to the provider,” Dr Cataldi told this newspaper

Nearly as many physicians (62%) believed that families would want to speak to the doctor about a vaccine before getting it, and 57% of respondents who didn’t use standing orders believed they should be the one who recommends a vaccine to their patient’s parents.

All three of these reasons also ranked highest as barriers in responses from all respondents, including those who use standing orders. But those who didn’t use them were significantly more likely to cite these reasons (P less than .0001).

Since the survey occurred in 2017, however, it’s possible the pandemic and the rapid increase in telehealth as a result may influence perceptions moving forward.

“With provider concerns that standing orders remove physicians from the vaccination conversation, it may be that those conversations become less crucial as some families may start to value and accept immunizations more as a result of this pandemic,” Dr Cataldi said. “Or for families with vaccine questions, telehealth might support those conversations with a provider well.”

After adjusting for potential confounders, the only practice or physician factor significantly associated with not using standing orders for vaccines was physicians’ having a higher “physician responsibility score.” Doctors with these higher scores also were marginally more likely to make independent decisions about vaccines than counterparts working at practices where system-level decisions occur.

“Perhaps physicians who feel more personal responsibility about their role in vaccination are more likely to choose practice settings where they have more independent decision-making ability,” the authors wrote. “Alternatively, knowing the level of decision-making about vaccines in the practice may influence the amount of personal responsibility that pediatricians feel about their role in vaccine delivery.”

Again, attitudes may have shifted since the coronavirus pandemic began. The biggest risk to children in terms of immunizations is not getting them, Dr Offit said.

“The parents are scared, and the doctors are scared,” he said. “They feel that going to a doctor’s office is going to a concentrated area where they’re more likely to pick up this virus.”

He’s expressed uncertainty about whether standing orders could play a role in alleviating that anxiety. But Dr Cataldi suggests it’s possible.

“I think standing orders will be important to increasing vaccination rates during a pandemic as they can be used to support delivery of vaccines through public health departments and through vaccine-only nurse visits,” she said.

The research was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Cataldi J et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Apr;e20191855.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A systematic review of 13 RCTs (5077 patients) compared the effects of a prophylactic antipyretic (acetaminophen or ibuprofen, doses and schedules not described) with placebo in healthy children 6 years or younger undergoing routine childhood immunizations.¹ Trials examined various schedules and combinations of vaccines. Researchers defined febrile reactions as a temperature of 38°C or higher and categorized pain as: none, mild (reaction to touch over vaccine site), moderate (protesting to limb movement), or severe (resisting limb movement).

Acetaminophen works better than ibuprofen for both fever and pain

Acetaminophen prophylaxis resulted in fewer febrile reactions in the first 24 to 48 hours after vaccine administration than placebo following both primary (odds ratio [OR] = 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.48) and booster vaccinations (OR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.93). Acetaminophen also reduced pain of all grades (primary vaccination: OR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.47-0.7; booster vaccination: OR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48-0.84).

In contrast, ibuprofen prophylaxis had no effect on early febrile reactions for either primary or booster vaccinations. It reduced pain of all grades after primary vaccination (OR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49-0.88) but not after boosters (OR = 1.03; 95% CI, 0.59-1.81).

Reduced antibody response doesn’t affect seroprotective levels

Acetaminophen also generally reduced the antibody response compared with placebo (assessed using the geometric mean concentration [GMC], a statistical technique for comparing values that change logarithmically).¹ GMC results are difficult to interpret clinically, however, and they differed by vaccine, antigen, and primary or booster vaccination status.

Nevertheless, patients mounted seroprotective antibody levels with or without acetaminophen prophylaxis, and the nasopharyngeal carriage rates of Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae didn’t change. Researchers didn’t publish the antibody responses to ibuprofen, nor did they track actual infection rates.

How do antipyretics work with newer combination vaccines?

A subsequent trial evaluated the immune response in 908 children receiving newer combination vaccines (DTaP/HBV/IPV/Hib and PCV13) who were randomized to 5 groups: acetaminophen 15 mg/kg at vaccination and 6 to 8 hours later; acetaminophen 15 mg/kg starting 6 to 8 hours after vaccination with a second dose 6 to 8 hours later; ibuprofen 10 mg/kg/dose at vaccination with a second dose 6 to 8 hours later; ibuprofen 10 mg/kg starting 6 to 8 hours after vaccination with a second dose 6 to 8 hours later; and placebo.²

Patients received age-appropriate vaccination and their assigned antipyretic (or placebo) at 2, 3, 4 and 12 months of age. Researchers measured the immune response at 5 and 13 months of age.

Continue to: Overall, 5% to 10% of the prophylaxis group...

Overall, 5% to 10% of the prophylaxis group had fever on Day 1 or 2 after vaccination, compared with 10% to 20% of the placebo group (no P value given). Antipyretic use produced lower antibody GMC responses for antipertussis and antitetanus vaccines at 5 months but not at 13 months. Patients achieved the prespecified effective antibody levels at both 5 and 13 months, regardless of intervention.

Antipyretics don’t affect immune ­response with inactivated flu vaccine

A 2017 RCT investigated the effect of either prophylactic acetaminophen (15 mg/kg every 4 to 6 hours for 24 hours) or ibuprofen (10 mg/kg every 4 to 6 hours for 24 hours) on immune response in children receiving inactivated influenza vaccine.³ Researchers randomized 142 children into 3 treatment groups (acetaminophen, 59 children; ibuprofen, 24 children; placebo, 59 children). They defined seroconversion as a hemagglutinin inhibition assay titer of 1:40 postvaccination (if baseline titer was less than 1:10) or a 4-fold rise (if the baseline titer was ≥ 1:10).

Prophylactic acetaminophen reduces the odds of febrile reactions in the first 48 hours after vaccination by 40% to 65% and pain of all grades by 36% to 43%.

All interventions resulted in similar seroconversion rates for all A or B influenza strains investigated. Vaccine protection-level responses ranged from 9% for B/Phuket to 100% for A/Switzerland. The trial didn’t report febrile reactions or infection rates.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In 2017, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued guidelines generally discouraging the use of antipyretics at the time of vaccination, but allowing their use later for local discomfort or fever that might arise after vaccination. The guidelines also noted that antipyretics at the time of vaccination didn’t reduce the risk of febrile seizures.⁴

Editor’s takeaway

Although ACIP doesn’t encourage giving antipyretics with vaccines, moderate-quality evidence suggests that prophylactic acetaminophen reduces fever and pain after immunizations by a reasonable amount without an apparent clinical downside.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A systematic review of 13 RCTs (5077 patients) compared the effects of a prophylactic antipyretic (acetaminophen or ibuprofen, doses and schedules not described) with placebo in healthy children 6 years or younger undergoing routine childhood immunizations.¹ Trials examined various schedules and combinations of vaccines. Researchers defined febrile reactions as a temperature of 38°C or higher and categorized pain as: none, mild (reaction to touch over vaccine site), moderate (protesting to limb movement), or severe (resisting limb movement).

Acetaminophen works better than ibuprofen for both fever and pain

Acetaminophen prophylaxis resulted in fewer febrile reactions in the first 24 to 48 hours after vaccine administration than placebo following both primary (odds ratio [OR] = 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.48) and booster vaccinations (OR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.93). Acetaminophen also reduced pain of all grades (primary vaccination: OR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.47-0.7; booster vaccination: OR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48-0.84).

In contrast, ibuprofen prophylaxis had no effect on early febrile reactions for either primary or booster vaccinations. It reduced pain of all grades after primary vaccination (OR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49-0.88) but not after boosters (OR = 1.03; 95% CI, 0.59-1.81).

Reduced antibody response doesn’t affect seroprotective levels

Acetaminophen also generally reduced the antibody response compared with placebo (assessed using the geometric mean concentration [GMC], a statistical technique for comparing values that change logarithmically).¹ GMC results are difficult to interpret clinically, however, and they differed by vaccine, antigen, and primary or booster vaccination status.

Nevertheless, patients mounted seroprotective antibody levels with or without acetaminophen prophylaxis, and the nasopharyngeal carriage rates of Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae didn’t change. Researchers didn’t publish the antibody responses to ibuprofen, nor did they track actual infection rates.

How do antipyretics work with newer combination vaccines?

A subsequent trial evaluated the immune response in 908 children receiving newer combination vaccines (DTaP/HBV/IPV/Hib and PCV13) who were randomized to 5 groups: acetaminophen 15 mg/kg at vaccination and 6 to 8 hours later; acetaminophen 15 mg/kg starting 6 to 8 hours after vaccination with a second dose 6 to 8 hours later; ibuprofen 10 mg/kg/dose at vaccination with a second dose 6 to 8 hours later; ibuprofen 10 mg/kg starting 6 to 8 hours after vaccination with a second dose 6 to 8 hours later; and placebo.²

Patients received age-appropriate vaccination and their assigned antipyretic (or placebo) at 2, 3, 4 and 12 months of age. Researchers measured the immune response at 5 and 13 months of age.

Continue to: Overall, 5% to 10% of the prophylaxis group...

Overall, 5% to 10% of the prophylaxis group had fever on Day 1 or 2 after vaccination, compared with 10% to 20% of the placebo group (no P value given). Antipyretic use produced lower antibody GMC responses for antipertussis and antitetanus vaccines at 5 months but not at 13 months. Patients achieved the prespecified effective antibody levels at both 5 and 13 months, regardless of intervention.

Antipyretics don’t affect immune ­response with inactivated flu vaccine

A 2017 RCT investigated the effect of either prophylactic acetaminophen (15 mg/kg every 4 to 6 hours for 24 hours) or ibuprofen (10 mg/kg every 4 to 6 hours for 24 hours) on immune response in children receiving inactivated influenza vaccine.³ Researchers randomized 142 children into 3 treatment groups (acetaminophen, 59 children; ibuprofen, 24 children; placebo, 59 children). They defined seroconversion as a hemagglutinin inhibition assay titer of 1:40 postvaccination (if baseline titer was less than 1:10) or a 4-fold rise (if the baseline titer was ≥ 1:10).

Prophylactic acetaminophen reduces the odds of febrile reactions in the first 48 hours after vaccination by 40% to 65% and pain of all grades by 36% to 43%.

All interventions resulted in similar seroconversion rates for all A or B influenza strains investigated. Vaccine protection-level responses ranged from 9% for B/Phuket to 100% for A/Switzerland. The trial didn’t report febrile reactions or infection rates.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In 2017, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued guidelines generally discouraging the use of antipyretics at the time of vaccination, but allowing their use later for local discomfort or fever that might arise after vaccination. The guidelines also noted that antipyretics at the time of vaccination didn’t reduce the risk of febrile seizures.⁴

Editor’s takeaway

Although ACIP doesn’t encourage giving antipyretics with vaccines, moderate-quality evidence suggests that prophylactic acetaminophen reduces fever and pain after immunizations by a reasonable amount without an apparent clinical downside.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A systematic review of 13 RCTs (5077 patients) compared the effects of a prophylactic antipyretic (acetaminophen or ibuprofen, doses and schedules not described) with placebo in healthy children 6 years or younger undergoing routine childhood immunizations.¹ Trials examined various schedules and combinations of vaccines. Researchers defined febrile reactions as a temperature of 38°C or higher and categorized pain as: none, mild (reaction to touch over vaccine site), moderate (protesting to limb movement), or severe (resisting limb movement).

Acetaminophen works better than ibuprofen for both fever and pain

Acetaminophen prophylaxis resulted in fewer febrile reactions in the first 24 to 48 hours after vaccine administration than placebo following both primary (odds ratio [OR] = 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.48) and booster vaccinations (OR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.93). Acetaminophen also reduced pain of all grades (primary vaccination: OR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.47-0.7; booster vaccination: OR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48-0.84).

In contrast, ibuprofen prophylaxis had no effect on early febrile reactions for either primary or booster vaccinations. It reduced pain of all grades after primary vaccination (OR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49-0.88) but not after boosters (OR = 1.03; 95% CI, 0.59-1.81).

Reduced antibody response doesn’t affect seroprotective levels

Acetaminophen also generally reduced the antibody response compared with placebo (assessed using the geometric mean concentration [GMC], a statistical technique for comparing values that change logarithmically).¹ GMC results are difficult to interpret clinically, however, and they differed by vaccine, antigen, and primary or booster vaccination status.

Nevertheless, patients mounted seroprotective antibody levels with or without acetaminophen prophylaxis, and the nasopharyngeal carriage rates of Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae didn’t change. Researchers didn’t publish the antibody responses to ibuprofen, nor did they track actual infection rates.

How do antipyretics work with newer combination vaccines?

A subsequent trial evaluated the immune response in 908 children receiving newer combination vaccines (DTaP/HBV/IPV/Hib and PCV13) who were randomized to 5 groups: acetaminophen 15 mg/kg at vaccination and 6 to 8 hours later; acetaminophen 15 mg/kg starting 6 to 8 hours after vaccination with a second dose 6 to 8 hours later; ibuprofen 10 mg/kg/dose at vaccination with a second dose 6 to 8 hours later; ibuprofen 10 mg/kg starting 6 to 8 hours after vaccination with a second dose 6 to 8 hours later; and placebo.²

Patients received age-appropriate vaccination and their assigned antipyretic (or placebo) at 2, 3, 4 and 12 months of age. Researchers measured the immune response at 5 and 13 months of age.

Continue to: Overall, 5% to 10% of the prophylaxis group...

Overall, 5% to 10% of the prophylaxis group had fever on Day 1 or 2 after vaccination, compared with 10% to 20% of the placebo group (no P value given). Antipyretic use produced lower antibody GMC responses for antipertussis and antitetanus vaccines at 5 months but not at 13 months. Patients achieved the prespecified effective antibody levels at both 5 and 13 months, regardless of intervention.

Antipyretics don’t affect immune ­response with inactivated flu vaccine

A 2017 RCT investigated the effect of either prophylactic acetaminophen (15 mg/kg every 4 to 6 hours for 24 hours) or ibuprofen (10 mg/kg every 4 to 6 hours for 24 hours) on immune response in children receiving inactivated influenza vaccine.³ Researchers randomized 142 children into 3 treatment groups (acetaminophen, 59 children; ibuprofen, 24 children; placebo, 59 children). They defined seroconversion as a hemagglutinin inhibition assay titer of 1:40 postvaccination (if baseline titer was less than 1:10) or a 4-fold rise (if the baseline titer was ≥ 1:10).

Prophylactic acetaminophen reduces the odds of febrile reactions in the first 48 hours after vaccination by 40% to 65% and pain of all grades by 36% to 43%.

All interventions resulted in similar seroconversion rates for all A or B influenza strains investigated. Vaccine protection-level responses ranged from 9% for B/Phuket to 100% for A/Switzerland. The trial didn’t report febrile reactions or infection rates.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In 2017, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued guidelines generally discouraging the use of antipyretics at the time of vaccination, but allowing their use later for local discomfort or fever that might arise after vaccination. The guidelines also noted that antipyretics at the time of vaccination didn’t reduce the risk of febrile seizures.⁴

Editor’s takeaway

Although ACIP doesn’t encourage giving antipyretics with vaccines, moderate-quality evidence suggests that prophylactic acetaminophen reduces fever and pain after immunizations by a reasonable amount without an apparent clinical downside.

The live attenuated zoster vaccine (Zostavax) does not provide adequate long-term protection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) starting tofacitinib, suggests the ORAL Sequel extension study.

Elsevier

The incidence of herpes zoster in patients with RA taking tofacitinib (Xeljanz), an oral Janus kinase inhibitor, is about double the rate seen with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, noted the investigators, who were led by Kevin L. Winthrop, MD, professor of infectious diseases, ophthalmology, public health, and preventive medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. The American College of Rheumatology’s guideline for the treatment of RA recommends herpes zoster vaccination before patients aged 50 years or older initiate any of these agents.

The investigators studied 100 patients with RA from an index randomized, placebo-controlled trial of tofacitinib who started the long-term extension study 14 weeks after receiving the live attenuated zoster vaccine. All were given open-label tofacitinib, at 5 or 10 mg two times per day, along with background RA therapy as needed.

With a follow-up of 27 months, five patients (5%) developed herpes zoster, including two treated with the 5-mg dose and three treated with the 10-mg dose, according to results reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. Cases occurred between 218 and 741 days after vaccination.

Four of the patients had herpes zoster involving a single dermatome, while one had involvement of five dermatomes. All episodes were mild or moderate, and resolved with antiviral therapy.

Humoral and cell-mediated immunity to the varicella zoster virus were assessed with immunoglobulin G titer and an interferon-gamma enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot assay, respectively. Results showed that three of the patients developing herpes zoster had undetectable cell-mediated immunity to the virus at baseline and week 6 after vaccination. The other two patients had an adequate humoral and cell-mediated immune response to the vaccine, as assessed from changes from baseline, but had below-average immunoglobulin G titer at baseline and week 6.

“These results suggest that [live attenuated zoster vaccine] may not provide adequate long-term protection, as previously demonstrated in healthy individuals aged ≥60 years 3 years post-vaccination, in which [herpes zoster] risk was reduced by 51%,” Dr. Winthrop and colleagues wrote.

“While it is possible that [live attenuated zoster vaccine] booster vaccinations may improve vaccine efficacy, to date there is a lack of data on the use and timing of booster vaccinations, and no recommendations on the use of [live attenuated zoster vaccine] booster vaccinations currently exist,” they concluded. “This highlights the importance of evaluating the newly approved subunit non-live vaccine (Shingrix) in patients with RA receiving tofacitinib.”

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Winthrop disclosed consulting for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Pfizer, and UCB and receiving grant/research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Two coauthors disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies, and the other seven coauthors were employees and shareholders of Pfizer.

SOURCE: Winthrop KL et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216566.

The live attenuated zoster vaccine (Zostavax) does not provide adequate long-term protection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) starting tofacitinib, suggests the ORAL Sequel extension study.

Elsevier

The incidence of herpes zoster in patients with RA taking tofacitinib (Xeljanz), an oral Janus kinase inhibitor, is about double the rate seen with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, noted the investigators, who were led by Kevin L. Winthrop, MD, professor of infectious diseases, ophthalmology, public health, and preventive medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. The American College of Rheumatology’s guideline for the treatment of RA recommends herpes zoster vaccination before patients aged 50 years or older initiate any of these agents.

The investigators studied 100 patients with RA from an index randomized, placebo-controlled trial of tofacitinib who started the long-term extension study 14 weeks after receiving the live attenuated zoster vaccine. All were given open-label tofacitinib, at 5 or 10 mg two times per day, along with background RA therapy as needed.

With a follow-up of 27 months, five patients (5%) developed herpes zoster, including two treated with the 5-mg dose and three treated with the 10-mg dose, according to results reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. Cases occurred between 218 and 741 days after vaccination.

Four of the patients had herpes zoster involving a single dermatome, while one had involvement of five dermatomes. All episodes were mild or moderate, and resolved with antiviral therapy.

Humoral and cell-mediated immunity to the varicella zoster virus were assessed with immunoglobulin G titer and an interferon-gamma enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot assay, respectively. Results showed that three of the patients developing herpes zoster had undetectable cell-mediated immunity to the virus at baseline and week 6 after vaccination. The other two patients had an adequate humoral and cell-mediated immune response to the vaccine, as assessed from changes from baseline, but had below-average immunoglobulin G titer at baseline and week 6.

“These results suggest that [live attenuated zoster vaccine] may not provide adequate long-term protection, as previously demonstrated in healthy individuals aged ≥60 years 3 years post-vaccination, in which [herpes zoster] risk was reduced by 51%,” Dr. Winthrop and colleagues wrote.

“While it is possible that [live attenuated zoster vaccine] booster vaccinations may improve vaccine efficacy, to date there is a lack of data on the use and timing of booster vaccinations, and no recommendations on the use of [live attenuated zoster vaccine] booster vaccinations currently exist,” they concluded. “This highlights the importance of evaluating the newly approved subunit non-live vaccine (Shingrix) in patients with RA receiving tofacitinib.”

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Winthrop disclosed consulting for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Pfizer, and UCB and receiving grant/research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Two coauthors disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies, and the other seven coauthors were employees and shareholders of Pfizer.

SOURCE: Winthrop KL et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216566.

The live attenuated zoster vaccine (Zostavax) does not provide adequate long-term protection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) starting tofacitinib, suggests the ORAL Sequel extension study.

Elsevier

The incidence of herpes zoster in patients with RA taking tofacitinib (Xeljanz), an oral Janus kinase inhibitor, is about double the rate seen with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, noted the investigators, who were led by Kevin L. Winthrop, MD, professor of infectious diseases, ophthalmology, public health, and preventive medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. The American College of Rheumatology’s guideline for the treatment of RA recommends herpes zoster vaccination before patients aged 50 years or older initiate any of these agents.

The investigators studied 100 patients with RA from an index randomized, placebo-controlled trial of tofacitinib who started the long-term extension study 14 weeks after receiving the live attenuated zoster vaccine. All were given open-label tofacitinib, at 5 or 10 mg two times per day, along with background RA therapy as needed.

With a follow-up of 27 months, five patients (5%) developed herpes zoster, including two treated with the 5-mg dose and three treated with the 10-mg dose, according to results reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. Cases occurred between 218 and 741 days after vaccination.

Four of the patients had herpes zoster involving a single dermatome, while one had involvement of five dermatomes. All episodes were mild or moderate, and resolved with antiviral therapy.

Humoral and cell-mediated immunity to the varicella zoster virus were assessed with immunoglobulin G titer and an interferon-gamma enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot assay, respectively. Results showed that three of the patients developing herpes zoster had undetectable cell-mediated immunity to the virus at baseline and week 6 after vaccination. The other two patients had an adequate humoral and cell-mediated immune response to the vaccine, as assessed from changes from baseline, but had below-average immunoglobulin G titer at baseline and week 6.

“These results suggest that [live attenuated zoster vaccine] may not provide adequate long-term protection, as previously demonstrated in healthy individuals aged ≥60 years 3 years post-vaccination, in which [herpes zoster] risk was reduced by 51%,” Dr. Winthrop and colleagues wrote.

“While it is possible that [live attenuated zoster vaccine] booster vaccinations may improve vaccine efficacy, to date there is a lack of data on the use and timing of booster vaccinations, and no recommendations on the use of [live attenuated zoster vaccine] booster vaccinations currently exist,” they concluded. “This highlights the importance of evaluating the newly approved subunit non-live vaccine (Shingrix) in patients with RA receiving tofacitinib.”

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Winthrop disclosed consulting for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Pfizer, and UCB and receiving grant/research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Two coauthors disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies, and the other seven coauthors were employees and shareholders of Pfizer.

SOURCE: Winthrop KL et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216566.

There is a highly infectious virus spreading around the world and it is targeting the most vulnerable among us. It is among the most contagious of human diseases, spreading through the air unseen. No, it isn’t the novel coronavirus, COVID-19. It’s measles.

Remember measles? Outbreaks in recent years have brought the disease, which once was declared eliminated in the United States, back into the news and public awareness, but measles never has really gone away. Every year there are millions of cases worldwide – in 2018 alone there were nearly 10 million estimated cases and 142,300 deaths, according to the World Health Organization. The good news is that measles vaccination is highly effective, at about 97% after the recommended two doses. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “because of vaccination, more than 21 million lives have been saved and measles deaths have been reduced by 80% since 2000.” This is a tremendous public health success and a cause for celebration. But our work is not done. The recent increases in vaccine hesitancy and refusal in many countries has contributed to the resurgence of measles worldwide.

COVID-19 may be in the forefront of everyone’s minds, but this doesn’t mean that other contagious illnesses like measles have gone away. Influenza still is in full swing with the CDC reporting high activity in 1 states for the week ending April 4th. Seasonal influenza, according to currently available data, has a lower fatality rate than COVID-19, but that doesn’t mean it is harmless. Thus far in the 2019-2020 flu season, there have been at least 24,000 deaths because of influenza in the United States alone, 166 of which were among pediatric patients.*

Like many pediatricians, I have seen firsthand the impact of vaccine-preventable illnesses like influenza, pertussis, and varicella. I have personally cared for an infant with pertussis who had to be intubated and on a ventilator for nearly a week. I have told the family of a child with cancer that they would have to be admitted to the hospital yet again for intravenous antiviral medication because that little rash turned out to be varicella. I have performed CPR on a previously healthy teenager with the flu whose heart was failing despite maximum ventilator support. All these illnesses might have been prevented had these patients or those around them been appropriately vaccinated.

Right now, the United States and governments around the world are taking unprecedented public health measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19, directing the public to stay home, avoid unnecessary contact with other people, practice good hand-washing and infection-control techniques. In order to promote social distancing, many primary care clinics are canceling nonurgent appointments or converting them to virtual visits, including some visits for routine vaccinations for older children, teens, and adults. This is a responsible choice to keep potentially asymptomatic people from spreading COVID-19, but once restrictions begin to lift, we all will need to act to help our patients catch up on these missing vaccinations.

This pandemic has made it more apparent than ever that we all rely upon each other to stay healthy. While this pandemic has disrupted nearly every aspect of daily life, we can’t let it disrupt one of the great successes in health care today: the prevention of serious illnesses. As soon as it is safe to do so, we must help and encourage patients to catch up on missing vaccinations. It’s rare that preventative public health measures and vaccine developments are in the nightly news, so we should use this increased public awareness to ensure patients are well educated and protected from every disease. As part of this, we must continue our efforts to share accurate information on the safety and efficacy of routine vaccination. And when there is a vaccine for COVID-19? Let’s make sure everyone gets that too.

Dr. Leighton is a pediatrician in the ED at Children’s National Hospital and currently is completing her MPH in health policy at George Washington University, both in Washington. She had no relevant financial disclosures.*

* This article was updated 4/10/2020.

There is a highly infectious virus spreading around the world and it is targeting the most vulnerable among us. It is among the most contagious of human diseases, spreading through the air unseen. No, it isn’t the novel coronavirus, COVID-19. It’s measles.

Remember measles? Outbreaks in recent years have brought the disease, which once was declared eliminated in the United States, back into the news and public awareness, but measles never has really gone away. Every year there are millions of cases worldwide – in 2018 alone there were nearly 10 million estimated cases and 142,300 deaths, according to the World Health Organization. The good news is that measles vaccination is highly effective, at about 97% after the recommended two doses. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “because of vaccination, more than 21 million lives have been saved and measles deaths have been reduced by 80% since 2000.” This is a tremendous public health success and a cause for celebration. But our work is not done. The recent increases in vaccine hesitancy and refusal in many countries has contributed to the resurgence of measles worldwide.

COVID-19 may be in the forefront of everyone’s minds, but this doesn’t mean that other contagious illnesses like measles have gone away. Influenza still is in full swing with the CDC reporting high activity in 1 states for the week ending April 4th. Seasonal influenza, according to currently available data, has a lower fatality rate than COVID-19, but that doesn’t mean it is harmless. Thus far in the 2019-2020 flu season, there have been at least 24,000 deaths because of influenza in the United States alone, 166 of which were among pediatric patients.*

Like many pediatricians, I have seen firsthand the impact of vaccine-preventable illnesses like influenza, pertussis, and varicella. I have personally cared for an infant with pertussis who had to be intubated and on a ventilator for nearly a week. I have told the family of a child with cancer that they would have to be admitted to the hospital yet again for intravenous antiviral medication because that little rash turned out to be varicella. I have performed CPR on a previously healthy teenager with the flu whose heart was failing despite maximum ventilator support. All these illnesses might have been prevented had these patients or those around them been appropriately vaccinated.

Right now, the United States and governments around the world are taking unprecedented public health measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19, directing the public to stay home, avoid unnecessary contact with other people, practice good hand-washing and infection-control techniques. In order to promote social distancing, many primary care clinics are canceling nonurgent appointments or converting them to virtual visits, including some visits for routine vaccinations for older children, teens, and adults. This is a responsible choice to keep potentially asymptomatic people from spreading COVID-19, but once restrictions begin to lift, we all will need to act to help our patients catch up on these missing vaccinations.

This pandemic has made it more apparent than ever that we all rely upon each other to stay healthy. While this pandemic has disrupted nearly every aspect of daily life, we can’t let it disrupt one of the great successes in health care today: the prevention of serious illnesses. As soon as it is safe to do so, we must help and encourage patients to catch up on missing vaccinations. It’s rare that preventative public health measures and vaccine developments are in the nightly news, so we should use this increased public awareness to ensure patients are well educated and protected from every disease. As part of this, we must continue our efforts to share accurate information on the safety and efficacy of routine vaccination. And when there is a vaccine for COVID-19? Let’s make sure everyone gets that too.

Dr. Leighton is a pediatrician in the ED at Children’s National Hospital and currently is completing her MPH in health policy at George Washington University, both in Washington. She had no relevant financial disclosures.*

* This article was updated 4/10/2020.

There is a highly infectious virus spreading around the world and it is targeting the most vulnerable among us. It is among the most contagious of human diseases, spreading through the air unseen. No, it isn’t the novel coronavirus, COVID-19. It’s measles.

Remember measles? Outbreaks in recent years have brought the disease, which once was declared eliminated in the United States, back into the news and public awareness, but measles never has really gone away. Every year there are millions of cases worldwide – in 2018 alone there were nearly 10 million estimated cases and 142,300 deaths, according to the World Health Organization. The good news is that measles vaccination is highly effective, at about 97% after the recommended two doses. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “because of vaccination, more than 21 million lives have been saved and measles deaths have been reduced by 80% since 2000.” This is a tremendous public health success and a cause for celebration. But our work is not done. The recent increases in vaccine hesitancy and refusal in many countries has contributed to the resurgence of measles worldwide.

COVID-19 may be in the forefront of everyone’s minds, but this doesn’t mean that other contagious illnesses like measles have gone away. Influenza still is in full swing with the CDC reporting high activity in 1 states for the week ending April 4th. Seasonal influenza, according to currently available data, has a lower fatality rate than COVID-19, but that doesn’t mean it is harmless. Thus far in the 2019-2020 flu season, there have been at least 24,000 deaths because of influenza in the United States alone, 166 of which were among pediatric patients.*

Like many pediatricians, I have seen firsthand the impact of vaccine-preventable illnesses like influenza, pertussis, and varicella. I have personally cared for an infant with pertussis who had to be intubated and on a ventilator for nearly a week. I have told the family of a child with cancer that they would have to be admitted to the hospital yet again for intravenous antiviral medication because that little rash turned out to be varicella. I have performed CPR on a previously healthy teenager with the flu whose heart was failing despite maximum ventilator support. All these illnesses might have been prevented had these patients or those around them been appropriately vaccinated.

Right now, the United States and governments around the world are taking unprecedented public health measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19, directing the public to stay home, avoid unnecessary contact with other people, practice good hand-washing and infection-control techniques. In order to promote social distancing, many primary care clinics are canceling nonurgent appointments or converting them to virtual visits, including some visits for routine vaccinations for older children, teens, and adults. This is a responsible choice to keep potentially asymptomatic people from spreading COVID-19, but once restrictions begin to lift, we all will need to act to help our patients catch up on these missing vaccinations.

This pandemic has made it more apparent than ever that we all rely upon each other to stay healthy. While this pandemic has disrupted nearly every aspect of daily life, we can’t let it disrupt one of the great successes in health care today: the prevention of serious illnesses. As soon as it is safe to do so, we must help and encourage patients to catch up on missing vaccinations. It’s rare that preventative public health measures and vaccine developments are in the nightly news, so we should use this increased public awareness to ensure patients are well educated and protected from every disease. As part of this, we must continue our efforts to share accurate information on the safety and efficacy of routine vaccination. And when there is a vaccine for COVID-19? Let’s make sure everyone gets that too.

Dr. Leighton is a pediatrician in the ED at Children’s National Hospital and currently is completing her MPH in health policy at George Washington University, both in Washington. She had no relevant financial disclosures.*

* This article was updated 4/10/2020.

Use of the inactivated influenza vaccine by adults with autoimmune rheumatic diseases significantly reduced their risk of influenza-like illness, hospitalization for pneumonia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and death from pneumonia, according to findings from an observational study of more than 30,000 patients in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

CAP53/iStockphoto.com

Although the inactivated vaccine has been recommended for patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs), including rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthritis, the vaccine’s impact on patient outcomes including pneumonia, hospitalization, and death has not been well studied, wrote Georgina Nakafero, PhD, of the University of Nottingham, England, and colleagues.

In a study published in Rheumatology, the researchers identified 30,788 adults with AIRDs from the longitudinal Clinical Practice Research Datalink database in the United Kingdom. Of these, 66% were women, 76% had rheumatoid arthritis, and 61% had been prescribed methotrexate. The study included a total of 125,034 flu cycles between 2006 and 2009 and between 2010 and 2015.

Overall, vaccination with the inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) reduced the risk of primary care consultation for influenza-like illness (adjusted odds ratio, 0.70), hospitalization for pneumonia (aOR, 0.61), exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (aOR, 0.67), and death caused by pneumonia (aOR, 0.48) in the study population. In a propensity score–adjusted analysis, only protection from influenza-like illness lost statistical significance.

In addition, vaccination was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality among AIRDs patients, but restricting the outcomes to the active influenza periods may have confounded this result, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including observational design, the use of a single vaccine efficacy estimate for each outcome, potential missed vaccination cycles, and potential confounding by indication and healthy user bias that could inflate the vaccine effectiveness, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, including a range of AIRDs, and the use of both diagnostic and prescription codes, they said.

“The findings of this study, together with the results of our previous study demonstrating the safety of IIV in people with AIRDs, provides evidence to promote seasonal flu vaccination in this population,” they concluded. They still emphasized that randomized, controlled trials are needed for an assessment of vaccine efficacy.

The study was supported by Versus Arthritis and the National Institute of Health Research. Lead author Dr. Nakafero had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with companies, including AstraZeneca, Roche, and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Nakafero G et al. Rheumatology. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa078.

Use of the inactivated influenza vaccine by adults with autoimmune rheumatic diseases significantly reduced their risk of influenza-like illness, hospitalization for pneumonia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and death from pneumonia, according to findings from an observational study of more than 30,000 patients in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

CAP53/iStockphoto.com

Although the inactivated vaccine has been recommended for patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs), including rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthritis, the vaccine’s impact on patient outcomes including pneumonia, hospitalization, and death has not been well studied, wrote Georgina Nakafero, PhD, of the University of Nottingham, England, and colleagues.

In a study published in Rheumatology, the researchers identified 30,788 adults with AIRDs from the longitudinal Clinical Practice Research Datalink database in the United Kingdom. Of these, 66% were women, 76% had rheumatoid arthritis, and 61% had been prescribed methotrexate. The study included a total of 125,034 flu cycles between 2006 and 2009 and between 2010 and 2015.

Overall, vaccination with the inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) reduced the risk of primary care consultation for influenza-like illness (adjusted odds ratio, 0.70), hospitalization for pneumonia (aOR, 0.61), exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (aOR, 0.67), and death caused by pneumonia (aOR, 0.48) in the study population. In a propensity score–adjusted analysis, only protection from influenza-like illness lost statistical significance.

In addition, vaccination was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality among AIRDs patients, but restricting the outcomes to the active influenza periods may have confounded this result, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including observational design, the use of a single vaccine efficacy estimate for each outcome, potential missed vaccination cycles, and potential confounding by indication and healthy user bias that could inflate the vaccine effectiveness, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, including a range of AIRDs, and the use of both diagnostic and prescription codes, they said.

“The findings of this study, together with the results of our previous study demonstrating the safety of IIV in people with AIRDs, provides evidence to promote seasonal flu vaccination in this population,” they concluded. They still emphasized that randomized, controlled trials are needed for an assessment of vaccine efficacy.

The study was supported by Versus Arthritis and the National Institute of Health Research. Lead author Dr. Nakafero had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with companies, including AstraZeneca, Roche, and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Nakafero G et al. Rheumatology. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa078.

Use of the inactivated influenza vaccine by adults with autoimmune rheumatic diseases significantly reduced their risk of influenza-like illness, hospitalization for pneumonia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and death from pneumonia, according to findings from an observational study of more than 30,000 patients in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

CAP53/iStockphoto.com

Although the inactivated vaccine has been recommended for patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs), including rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthritis, the vaccine’s impact on patient outcomes including pneumonia, hospitalization, and death has not been well studied, wrote Georgina Nakafero, PhD, of the University of Nottingham, England, and colleagues.

In a study published in Rheumatology, the researchers identified 30,788 adults with AIRDs from the longitudinal Clinical Practice Research Datalink database in the United Kingdom. Of these, 66% were women, 76% had rheumatoid arthritis, and 61% had been prescribed methotrexate. The study included a total of 125,034 flu cycles between 2006 and 2009 and between 2010 and 2015.

Overall, vaccination with the inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) reduced the risk of primary care consultation for influenza-like illness (adjusted odds ratio, 0.70), hospitalization for pneumonia (aOR, 0.61), exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (aOR, 0.67), and death caused by pneumonia (aOR, 0.48) in the study population. In a propensity score–adjusted analysis, only protection from influenza-like illness lost statistical significance.

In addition, vaccination was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality among AIRDs patients, but restricting the outcomes to the active influenza periods may have confounded this result, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including observational design, the use of a single vaccine efficacy estimate for each outcome, potential missed vaccination cycles, and potential confounding by indication and healthy user bias that could inflate the vaccine effectiveness, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, including a range of AIRDs, and the use of both diagnostic and prescription codes, they said.

“The findings of this study, together with the results of our previous study demonstrating the safety of IIV in people with AIRDs, provides evidence to promote seasonal flu vaccination in this population,” they concluded. They still emphasized that randomized, controlled trials are needed for an assessment of vaccine efficacy.

The study was supported by Versus Arthritis and the National Institute of Health Research. Lead author Dr. Nakafero had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with companies, including AstraZeneca, Roche, and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Nakafero G et al. Rheumatology. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa078.

Longer survival was observed in women who had a stronger immune response to an investigational human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine while treated with standard chemotherapy for advanced, metastatic, or recurrent cervical cancer.

The results, from a phase 1/2 study, showed that women with a vaccine-induced immune response higher than the median had a median overall survival of 16.8 months, compared with a median overall survival of 11.2 months for women with an immune response lower than the median (hazard ratio, 0.491; P = .012).

Cornelis “Kees” Melief, MD, chief scientific officer of ISA Pharmaceuticals in Leiden, the Netherlands, and colleagues reported these findings in Science Translational Medicine.

The researchers previously evaluated the HPV16 vaccine, ISA101, in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel in a pilot study. Results showed that carboplatin and paclitaxel reduced abnormally high numbers of immunosuppressive myeloid cells, which allowed for “much stronger” ISA101-induced tumor immunity.

To investigate further, the researchers tested the chemotherapy-ISA101 combination in a phase 1/2 study (NCT02128126) of 79 women with advanced, metastatic, or recurrent HPV16-positive cervical cancer.

The patients received the vaccine 2 weeks after starting the second, third, and fourth cycles of chemotherapy. They received various doses of the vaccine (20, 40, 100, or 300 mcg) with or without pegylated type 1 interferon (1 mcg/kg body weight).

“ISA101 was generally safe and well tolerated in that its safety profile was not different from chemotherapy alone,” Dr. Melief and colleagues wrote.

Chemotherapy-associated adverse events occurred in 98.9% of patients, with more than 80% of patients reporting adverse events possibly related to the vaccine or interferon-alpha. However, less than 16% of patients withdrew from the study because of an adverse event.

Of the 72 patients evaluable for efficacy, 43% experienced tumor regression, and 43% had stable disease. The researchers observed regression of the target lesion in 29 of 59 patients with a measurable target lesion.

The team noted that, since all patients received chemotherapy, it is “difficult to interpret short-term clinical outcomes as being due to chemotherapy alone or to the combination,” although they noted that the use of interferon-alpha did not seem to provide any additional benefit.

“Eleven of 14 patients still alive at the end of the study displayed a strong vaccine-induced response and included 9 patients with FIGO stage IVa/IVb cancer who had a mean OS [overall survival] of 3 years,” the researchers noted.

Considering that patients with higher vaccine-induced immune responses lived longer, the researchers concluded that “chemoimmunotherapy can be exploited to the benefit of patients with advanced cancer based on a defined mode of action.”

This trial was funded by ISA Pharmaceuticals and a Dutch Cancer Society grant. Investigators disclosed relationships with ISA Pharmaceuticals and other companies.

SOURCE: Melief CJM et al. Sci Transl Med. 2020;12:eaaz8235.

Longer survival was observed in women who had a stronger immune response to an investigational human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine while treated with standard chemotherapy for advanced, metastatic, or recurrent cervical cancer.

The results, from a phase 1/2 study, showed that women with a vaccine-induced immune response higher than the median had a median overall survival of 16.8 months, compared with a median overall survival of 11.2 months for women with an immune response lower than the median (hazard ratio, 0.491; P = .012).

Cornelis “Kees” Melief, MD, chief scientific officer of ISA Pharmaceuticals in Leiden, the Netherlands, and colleagues reported these findings in Science Translational Medicine.

The researchers previously evaluated the HPV16 vaccine, ISA101, in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel in a pilot study. Results showed that carboplatin and paclitaxel reduced abnormally high numbers of immunosuppressive myeloid cells, which allowed for “much stronger” ISA101-induced tumor immunity.

To investigate further, the researchers tested the chemotherapy-ISA101 combination in a phase 1/2 study (NCT02128126) of 79 women with advanced, metastatic, or recurrent HPV16-positive cervical cancer.

The patients received the vaccine 2 weeks after starting the second, third, and fourth cycles of chemotherapy. They received various doses of the vaccine (20, 40, 100, or 300 mcg) with or without pegylated type 1 interferon (1 mcg/kg body weight).

“ISA101 was generally safe and well tolerated in that its safety profile was not different from chemotherapy alone,” Dr. Melief and colleagues wrote.

Chemotherapy-associated adverse events occurred in 98.9% of patients, with more than 80% of patients reporting adverse events possibly related to the vaccine or interferon-alpha. However, less than 16% of patients withdrew from the study because of an adverse event.

Of the 72 patients evaluable for efficacy, 43% experienced tumor regression, and 43% had stable disease. The researchers observed regression of the target lesion in 29 of 59 patients with a measurable target lesion.

The team noted that, since all patients received chemotherapy, it is “difficult to interpret short-term clinical outcomes as being due to chemotherapy alone or to the combination,” although they noted that the use of interferon-alpha did not seem to provide any additional benefit.

“Eleven of 14 patients still alive at the end of the study displayed a strong vaccine-induced response and included 9 patients with FIGO stage IVa/IVb cancer who had a mean OS [overall survival] of 3 years,” the researchers noted.

Considering that patients with higher vaccine-induced immune responses lived longer, the researchers concluded that “chemoimmunotherapy can be exploited to the benefit of patients with advanced cancer based on a defined mode of action.”

This trial was funded by ISA Pharmaceuticals and a Dutch Cancer Society grant. Investigators disclosed relationships with ISA Pharmaceuticals and other companies.

SOURCE: Melief CJM et al. Sci Transl Med. 2020;12:eaaz8235.

Longer survival was observed in women who had a stronger immune response to an investigational human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine while treated with standard chemotherapy for advanced, metastatic, or recurrent cervical cancer.

The results, from a phase 1/2 study, showed that women with a vaccine-induced immune response higher than the median had a median overall survival of 16.8 months, compared with a median overall survival of 11.2 months for women with an immune response lower than the median (hazard ratio, 0.491; P = .012).

Cornelis “Kees” Melief, MD, chief scientific officer of ISA Pharmaceuticals in Leiden, the Netherlands, and colleagues reported these findings in Science Translational Medicine.

The researchers previously evaluated the HPV16 vaccine, ISA101, in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel in a pilot study. Results showed that carboplatin and paclitaxel reduced abnormally high numbers of immunosuppressive myeloid cells, which allowed for “much stronger” ISA101-induced tumor immunity.

To investigate further, the researchers tested the chemotherapy-ISA101 combination in a phase 1/2 study (NCT02128126) of 79 women with advanced, metastatic, or recurrent HPV16-positive cervical cancer.

The patients received the vaccine 2 weeks after starting the second, third, and fourth cycles of chemotherapy. They received various doses of the vaccine (20, 40, 100, or 300 mcg) with or without pegylated type 1 interferon (1 mcg/kg body weight).

“ISA101 was generally safe and well tolerated in that its safety profile was not different from chemotherapy alone,” Dr. Melief and colleagues wrote.

Chemotherapy-associated adverse events occurred in 98.9% of patients, with more than 80% of patients reporting adverse events possibly related to the vaccine or interferon-alpha. However, less than 16% of patients withdrew from the study because of an adverse event.

Of the 72 patients evaluable for efficacy, 43% experienced tumor regression, and 43% had stable disease. The researchers observed regression of the target lesion in 29 of 59 patients with a measurable target lesion.

The team noted that, since all patients received chemotherapy, it is “difficult to interpret short-term clinical outcomes as being due to chemotherapy alone or to the combination,” although they noted that the use of interferon-alpha did not seem to provide any additional benefit.

“Eleven of 14 patients still alive at the end of the study displayed a strong vaccine-induced response and included 9 patients with FIGO stage IVa/IVb cancer who had a mean OS [overall survival] of 3 years,” the researchers noted.

Considering that patients with higher vaccine-induced immune responses lived longer, the researchers concluded that “chemoimmunotherapy can be exploited to the benefit of patients with advanced cancer based on a defined mode of action.”

This trial was funded by ISA Pharmaceuticals and a Dutch Cancer Society grant. Investigators disclosed relationships with ISA Pharmaceuticals and other companies.

SOURCE: Melief CJM et al. Sci Transl Med. 2020;12:eaaz8235.