Heidi Splete

All individuals aged 6 months and older should receive the influenza vaccine by the end of October next season, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Committee on Immunization Practices. The committee voted unanimously to accept minor updates to the ACIP flu recommendations for the 2019-2020 season, but no major changes were made from recent years.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

The past flu season was moderate overall, but notable for two waves of viral infections of similar magnitude, one with H1N1 and another with H3N2, said Lynette Brewer of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, who presented data on last year’s flu activity.

Last year’s vaccine likely prevented between 40,000 and 90,000 hospitalizations, but mostly reduced the burden of H1N1 disease and provided no real protection against H3N2, she said.

The recommended H3N2 component for next season is A/Kansas/14/2017–like virus, which is genetically similar to the H3N2 that circulated last year.

Lisa Grohskopf, MD, of the CDC’s influenza division, presented the minor adjustments that included the changes in vaccine composition for next year, some licensure changes, and a new table summarizing dose volumes. Also, language was changed to advise vaccination for all eligible individuals by the end of October, and individuals who need two doses should have the first one as soon as it becomes available, in July or August if possible. The updated language also clarified that 8 year olds who need two doses should receive the second dose, even if they turn 9 between the two doses.

Additional guidance updates approved by the committee included harmonizing language on groups that should be the focus of vaccination in the event of limited supply to be more consistent with the 2011 ACIP Recommendations for the Immunization of Health Care Personnel.

The committee also voted unanimously to accept the proposed influenza vaccine in the Vaccines for Children program; there were no changes in recommended dosing intervals, dosages, contraindications, or precautions, according to Frank Whitlach of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, who presented the Vaccines for Children information.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

All individuals aged 6 months and older should receive the influenza vaccine by the end of October next season, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Committee on Immunization Practices. The committee voted unanimously to accept minor updates to the ACIP flu recommendations for the 2019-2020 season, but no major changes were made from recent years.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

The past flu season was moderate overall, but notable for two waves of viral infections of similar magnitude, one with H1N1 and another with H3N2, said Lynette Brewer of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, who presented data on last year’s flu activity.

Last year’s vaccine likely prevented between 40,000 and 90,000 hospitalizations, but mostly reduced the burden of H1N1 disease and provided no real protection against H3N2, she said.

The recommended H3N2 component for next season is A/Kansas/14/2017–like virus, which is genetically similar to the H3N2 that circulated last year.

Lisa Grohskopf, MD, of the CDC’s influenza division, presented the minor adjustments that included the changes in vaccine composition for next year, some licensure changes, and a new table summarizing dose volumes. Also, language was changed to advise vaccination for all eligible individuals by the end of October, and individuals who need two doses should have the first one as soon as it becomes available, in July or August if possible. The updated language also clarified that 8 year olds who need two doses should receive the second dose, even if they turn 9 between the two doses.

Additional guidance updates approved by the committee included harmonizing language on groups that should be the focus of vaccination in the event of limited supply to be more consistent with the 2011 ACIP Recommendations for the Immunization of Health Care Personnel.

The committee also voted unanimously to accept the proposed influenza vaccine in the Vaccines for Children program; there were no changes in recommended dosing intervals, dosages, contraindications, or precautions, according to Frank Whitlach of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, who presented the Vaccines for Children information.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

All individuals aged 6 months and older should receive the influenza vaccine by the end of October next season, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Committee on Immunization Practices. The committee voted unanimously to accept minor updates to the ACIP flu recommendations for the 2019-2020 season, but no major changes were made from recent years.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

The past flu season was moderate overall, but notable for two waves of viral infections of similar magnitude, one with H1N1 and another with H3N2, said Lynette Brewer of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, who presented data on last year’s flu activity.

Last year’s vaccine likely prevented between 40,000 and 90,000 hospitalizations, but mostly reduced the burden of H1N1 disease and provided no real protection against H3N2, she said.

The recommended H3N2 component for next season is A/Kansas/14/2017–like virus, which is genetically similar to the H3N2 that circulated last year.

Lisa Grohskopf, MD, of the CDC’s influenza division, presented the minor adjustments that included the changes in vaccine composition for next year, some licensure changes, and a new table summarizing dose volumes. Also, language was changed to advise vaccination for all eligible individuals by the end of October, and individuals who need two doses should have the first one as soon as it becomes available, in July or August if possible. The updated language also clarified that 8 year olds who need two doses should receive the second dose, even if they turn 9 between the two doses.

Additional guidance updates approved by the committee included harmonizing language on groups that should be the focus of vaccination in the event of limited supply to be more consistent with the 2011 ACIP Recommendations for the Immunization of Health Care Personnel.

The committee also voted unanimously to accept the proposed influenza vaccine in the Vaccines for Children program; there were no changes in recommended dosing intervals, dosages, contraindications, or precautions, according to Frank Whitlach of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, who presented the Vaccines for Children information.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Committee on Immunization Practices voted unanimously in support of three recommendations for the use of hepatitis A vaccines.

Joseph Abbott/Thinkstock

The committee recommended catch-up vaccination at any age for all children aged 2-18 years who had not previously received hepatitis A vaccination, recommended that all persons with HIV aged 1 year and older should be vaccinated with the hepatitis A vaccine, and approved updating the language in the full hepatitis A vaccine statement, “Prevention of Hepatitis A Virus Infection in The United States: Recommendations of The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.”

Catch-up vaccination will expand coverage to adolescents who might have missed it, and data show that the vaccine effectiveness is high, and the rates of adverse events are low in the child and adolescent population, said Noele Nelson, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, who presented the recommendations to the committee. “Recent outbreaks are occurring primarily among adults,” and many cases are among persons who use drugs or are homeless, she added.

Several committee members noted that the specific recommendations for catch-up in children and teens and for vaccination of HIV patients offer more opportunities for protection than risk-based recommendations. Catching up with vaccinating adolescents is “more effective than tracking down high-risk adults later in life,” noted Grace Lee, MD, of Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford, Calif.

The committee also recommended that all persons with HIV aged 1 year and older should be vaccinated with the hepatitis A vaccine. Data on persons with HIV show that approximately 60% have at least one risk factor for hepatitis A, such as men who have sex with men or individuals engaged in intravenous drug use, said Dr. Nelson. Data also show that individuals with HIV are at increased risk for complications if they get hepatitis A.

The committee’s approval of the full hepatitis A vaccine statement included one notable change – the removal of clotting factor disorders as a high-risk group. The risk has decreased over time based on improvements such as better screening of source plasma, and this group is now at no greater risk than the general population, according to work group chair Kelly Moore, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Committee on Immunization Practices voted unanimously in support of three recommendations for the use of hepatitis A vaccines.

Joseph Abbott/Thinkstock

The committee recommended catch-up vaccination at any age for all children aged 2-18 years who had not previously received hepatitis A vaccination, recommended that all persons with HIV aged 1 year and older should be vaccinated with the hepatitis A vaccine, and approved updating the language in the full hepatitis A vaccine statement, “Prevention of Hepatitis A Virus Infection in The United States: Recommendations of The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.”

Catch-up vaccination will expand coverage to adolescents who might have missed it, and data show that the vaccine effectiveness is high, and the rates of adverse events are low in the child and adolescent population, said Noele Nelson, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, who presented the recommendations to the committee. “Recent outbreaks are occurring primarily among adults,” and many cases are among persons who use drugs or are homeless, she added.

Several committee members noted that the specific recommendations for catch-up in children and teens and for vaccination of HIV patients offer more opportunities for protection than risk-based recommendations. Catching up with vaccinating adolescents is “more effective than tracking down high-risk adults later in life,” noted Grace Lee, MD, of Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford, Calif.

The committee also recommended that all persons with HIV aged 1 year and older should be vaccinated with the hepatitis A vaccine. Data on persons with HIV show that approximately 60% have at least one risk factor for hepatitis A, such as men who have sex with men or individuals engaged in intravenous drug use, said Dr. Nelson. Data also show that individuals with HIV are at increased risk for complications if they get hepatitis A.

The committee’s approval of the full hepatitis A vaccine statement included one notable change – the removal of clotting factor disorders as a high-risk group. The risk has decreased over time based on improvements such as better screening of source plasma, and this group is now at no greater risk than the general population, according to work group chair Kelly Moore, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Committee on Immunization Practices voted unanimously in support of three recommendations for the use of hepatitis A vaccines.

Joseph Abbott/Thinkstock

The committee recommended catch-up vaccination at any age for all children aged 2-18 years who had not previously received hepatitis A vaccination, recommended that all persons with HIV aged 1 year and older should be vaccinated with the hepatitis A vaccine, and approved updating the language in the full hepatitis A vaccine statement, “Prevention of Hepatitis A Virus Infection in The United States: Recommendations of The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.”

Catch-up vaccination will expand coverage to adolescents who might have missed it, and data show that the vaccine effectiveness is high, and the rates of adverse events are low in the child and adolescent population, said Noele Nelson, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, who presented the recommendations to the committee. “Recent outbreaks are occurring primarily among adults,” and many cases are among persons who use drugs or are homeless, she added.

Several committee members noted that the specific recommendations for catch-up in children and teens and for vaccination of HIV patients offer more opportunities for protection than risk-based recommendations. Catching up with vaccinating adolescents is “more effective than tracking down high-risk adults later in life,” noted Grace Lee, MD, of Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford, Calif.

The committee also recommended that all persons with HIV aged 1 year and older should be vaccinated with the hepatitis A vaccine. Data on persons with HIV show that approximately 60% have at least one risk factor for hepatitis A, such as men who have sex with men or individuals engaged in intravenous drug use, said Dr. Nelson. Data also show that individuals with HIV are at increased risk for complications if they get hepatitis A.

The committee’s approval of the full hepatitis A vaccine statement included one notable change – the removal of clotting factor disorders as a high-risk group. The risk has decreased over time based on improvements such as better screening of source plasma, and this group is now at no greater risk than the general population, according to work group chair Kelly Moore, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The pediatric hexavalent vaccine (DTaP-[inactivated poliovirus] IPV-[hepatitis B] HepB-[Haemophilis influenzae type b] Hib) should be included as an option in the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program for the infant series at ages 2, 4, and 6 months, according to unanimous votes at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

copyright itsmejust/Thinkstock

The addition of the vaccine to the VFC program required no motions on the part of the committee, but involved separate votes on each component of the vaccine.

Combination vaccination has been associated with increased coverage and more likely completion of the full infant vaccine series, said Sara Oliver, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

The new vaccine is being developed jointly by Sanofi and Merck, and has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in children through age 4 years.

Dr. Oliver presented evidence that the safety profile of the combination vaccine is consistent with that of the component vaccines. In addition, “use of combination vaccines can reduce the number of injections patient receive and alleviate concern associated with the number of injections,” she said. However, “considerations should include provider assessment, patient preference, and the potential for adverse events.”

The vote does not make any changes to the current vaccination schedule, but adds the combination vaccine as an option in the VFC program, although it will not be available until 2021 in order to ensure sufficient supply, Dr. Oliver noted.

The combination vaccination work group considered whether the new vaccine should be preferentially recommended for American Indian and Alaskan Native populations, but they concluded that post–dose one immunogenicity data are needed before such a preferential recommendation can be made.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The pediatric hexavalent vaccine (DTaP-[inactivated poliovirus] IPV-[hepatitis B] HepB-[Haemophilis influenzae type b] Hib) should be included as an option in the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program for the infant series at ages 2, 4, and 6 months, according to unanimous votes at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

copyright itsmejust/Thinkstock

The addition of the vaccine to the VFC program required no motions on the part of the committee, but involved separate votes on each component of the vaccine.

Combination vaccination has been associated with increased coverage and more likely completion of the full infant vaccine series, said Sara Oliver, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

The new vaccine is being developed jointly by Sanofi and Merck, and has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in children through age 4 years.

Dr. Oliver presented evidence that the safety profile of the combination vaccine is consistent with that of the component vaccines. In addition, “use of combination vaccines can reduce the number of injections patient receive and alleviate concern associated with the number of injections,” she said. However, “considerations should include provider assessment, patient preference, and the potential for adverse events.”

The vote does not make any changes to the current vaccination schedule, but adds the combination vaccine as an option in the VFC program, although it will not be available until 2021 in order to ensure sufficient supply, Dr. Oliver noted.

The combination vaccination work group considered whether the new vaccine should be preferentially recommended for American Indian and Alaskan Native populations, but they concluded that post–dose one immunogenicity data are needed before such a preferential recommendation can be made.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The pediatric hexavalent vaccine (DTaP-[inactivated poliovirus] IPV-[hepatitis B] HepB-[Haemophilis influenzae type b] Hib) should be included as an option in the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program for the infant series at ages 2, 4, and 6 months, according to unanimous votes at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

copyright itsmejust/Thinkstock

The addition of the vaccine to the VFC program required no motions on the part of the committee, but involved separate votes on each component of the vaccine.

Combination vaccination has been associated with increased coverage and more likely completion of the full infant vaccine series, said Sara Oliver, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

The new vaccine is being developed jointly by Sanofi and Merck, and has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in children through age 4 years.

Dr. Oliver presented evidence that the safety profile of the combination vaccine is consistent with that of the component vaccines. In addition, “use of combination vaccines can reduce the number of injections patient receive and alleviate concern associated with the number of injections,” she said. However, “considerations should include provider assessment, patient preference, and the potential for adverse events.”

The vote does not make any changes to the current vaccination schedule, but adds the combination vaccine as an option in the VFC program, although it will not be available until 2021 in order to ensure sufficient supply, Dr. Oliver noted.

The combination vaccination work group considered whether the new vaccine should be preferentially recommended for American Indian and Alaskan Native populations, but they concluded that post–dose one immunogenicity data are needed before such a preferential recommendation can be made.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Pneumococcal vaccination with the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) based on shared clinical decision making is recommended for immunocompetent adults aged 65 years and older who have not previously received PCV13, and all adults aged 65 years and older should continue to receive the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23), according to a vote at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

bowdenimages/iStock/Getty Images

The motion passed with an 11-1 vote after members voted down two other options to either discontinue or continue the current recommendation of PCV13 for all immunocompetent adults aged 65 years and older. The current recommendation for PCV13 for adults aged 65 years and older has been in place since 2014.

The pneumococcal work group assessed indirect effects of the pediatric PCV vaccination on older adults prior to 2014 and since 2014, and what additional benefits might be expected if routine vaccination of older adults continued.

“Indirect effects have been observed in all age groups” said Almea Matanock, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. Although there were no safety concerns, the public health impact of continued vaccination of adults was minimal.

Although PCV13 resulted in a 75% reduction in vaccine-type invasive pneumococcal disease and a 45% reduction in vaccine-type nonbacteremic pneumonia in 2014, the annual number needed to vaccinate to prevent a single case of outpatient pneumonia was 2,600, said Dr. Matanock.

Dr. Matanock presented key issues from the Evidence to Recommendations Framework for and against the recommendation for PCV13 in older adults. Work group comments in favor of continuing the recommendation for PCV13 in older adults included effective disease prevention and the potential negative impact on the importance of adult vaccines if the vaccine was no longer recommended. However, some work group members and committee members expressed concern about resource allocation and steering vaccines away from younger age groups in whom they have been more consistently effective.

Paul Hunter, MD, of the City of Milwaukee Health Department, voted against the shared clinical decision making, and instead favored discontinuing the recommendation for PCV13 for older adults. “I think clinicians need a clear message,” he said, adding that “the public health bang for the buck is with the kids.”

“I think there was a recognition that the population level benefit is minimal,” said work group chair Grace Lee, MD.

Although the work group recognized some benefit for older adults, the burden of disease for PCV-specific disease is low, compared with all-cause pneumonia, said Dr. Lee of Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford, Calif. However, the recommendation for shared clinical decision making allows for potential insurance coverage of the vaccine for adults who decide after discussion with their health care provider that they would benefit.

“We are still unpacking this construct” of shared clinical decision making, which in this case applies to adults without immunocompromising conditions, and is more of a provider assessment than a risk assessment, she said.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Pneumococcal vaccination with the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) based on shared clinical decision making is recommended for immunocompetent adults aged 65 years and older who have not previously received PCV13, and all adults aged 65 years and older should continue to receive the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23), according to a vote at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

bowdenimages/iStock/Getty Images

The motion passed with an 11-1 vote after members voted down two other options to either discontinue or continue the current recommendation of PCV13 for all immunocompetent adults aged 65 years and older. The current recommendation for PCV13 for adults aged 65 years and older has been in place since 2014.

The pneumococcal work group assessed indirect effects of the pediatric PCV vaccination on older adults prior to 2014 and since 2014, and what additional benefits might be expected if routine vaccination of older adults continued.

“Indirect effects have been observed in all age groups” said Almea Matanock, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. Although there were no safety concerns, the public health impact of continued vaccination of adults was minimal.

Although PCV13 resulted in a 75% reduction in vaccine-type invasive pneumococcal disease and a 45% reduction in vaccine-type nonbacteremic pneumonia in 2014, the annual number needed to vaccinate to prevent a single case of outpatient pneumonia was 2,600, said Dr. Matanock.

Dr. Matanock presented key issues from the Evidence to Recommendations Framework for and against the recommendation for PCV13 in older adults. Work group comments in favor of continuing the recommendation for PCV13 in older adults included effective disease prevention and the potential negative impact on the importance of adult vaccines if the vaccine was no longer recommended. However, some work group members and committee members expressed concern about resource allocation and steering vaccines away from younger age groups in whom they have been more consistently effective.

Paul Hunter, MD, of the City of Milwaukee Health Department, voted against the shared clinical decision making, and instead favored discontinuing the recommendation for PCV13 for older adults. “I think clinicians need a clear message,” he said, adding that “the public health bang for the buck is with the kids.”

“I think there was a recognition that the population level benefit is minimal,” said work group chair Grace Lee, MD.

Although the work group recognized some benefit for older adults, the burden of disease for PCV-specific disease is low, compared with all-cause pneumonia, said Dr. Lee of Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford, Calif. However, the recommendation for shared clinical decision making allows for potential insurance coverage of the vaccine for adults who decide after discussion with their health care provider that they would benefit.

“We are still unpacking this construct” of shared clinical decision making, which in this case applies to adults without immunocompromising conditions, and is more of a provider assessment than a risk assessment, she said.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Pneumococcal vaccination with the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) based on shared clinical decision making is recommended for immunocompetent adults aged 65 years and older who have not previously received PCV13, and all adults aged 65 years and older should continue to receive the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23), according to a vote at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

bowdenimages/iStock/Getty Images

The motion passed with an 11-1 vote after members voted down two other options to either discontinue or continue the current recommendation of PCV13 for all immunocompetent adults aged 65 years and older. The current recommendation for PCV13 for adults aged 65 years and older has been in place since 2014.

The pneumococcal work group assessed indirect effects of the pediatric PCV vaccination on older adults prior to 2014 and since 2014, and what additional benefits might be expected if routine vaccination of older adults continued.

“Indirect effects have been observed in all age groups” said Almea Matanock, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. Although there were no safety concerns, the public health impact of continued vaccination of adults was minimal.

Although PCV13 resulted in a 75% reduction in vaccine-type invasive pneumococcal disease and a 45% reduction in vaccine-type nonbacteremic pneumonia in 2014, the annual number needed to vaccinate to prevent a single case of outpatient pneumonia was 2,600, said Dr. Matanock.

Dr. Matanock presented key issues from the Evidence to Recommendations Framework for and against the recommendation for PCV13 in older adults. Work group comments in favor of continuing the recommendation for PCV13 in older adults included effective disease prevention and the potential negative impact on the importance of adult vaccines if the vaccine was no longer recommended. However, some work group members and committee members expressed concern about resource allocation and steering vaccines away from younger age groups in whom they have been more consistently effective.

Paul Hunter, MD, of the City of Milwaukee Health Department, voted against the shared clinical decision making, and instead favored discontinuing the recommendation for PCV13 for older adults. “I think clinicians need a clear message,” he said, adding that “the public health bang for the buck is with the kids.”

“I think there was a recognition that the population level benefit is minimal,” said work group chair Grace Lee, MD.

Although the work group recognized some benefit for older adults, the burden of disease for PCV-specific disease is low, compared with all-cause pneumonia, said Dr. Lee of Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford, Calif. However, the recommendation for shared clinical decision making allows for potential insurance coverage of the vaccine for adults who decide after discussion with their health care provider that they would benefit.

“We are still unpacking this construct” of shared clinical decision making, which in this case applies to adults without immunocompromising conditions, and is more of a provider assessment than a risk assessment, she said.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Catch-up human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination should be harmonized to include all individuals through 26 years of age, according to a unanimous vote at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

This change affects males aged 22 through 26 years; the HPV vaccine is currently recommended for males and females aged 11 or 12 years, with catch-up vaccination through age 21 for males and age 26 for females.

copyright DesignPics/Thinkstock

The change was supported in part by increased interest in simplifying and harmonizing the vaccine schedule, said Lauri Markowitz, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), who presented the HPV work group’s considerations.

In addition, the committee voted 10-4 in favor of catch-up HPV vaccination, based on shared clinical decision making, for all adults aged 27 through 45 years.

Although the current program of HPV vaccination for youth has demonstrated effectiveness, data from multiple models suggest that widespread HPV vaccination for adults older than 26 years is much less cost effective, and would yield relatively small additional health benefits, Dr. Markowitz said.

The HPV work group reviewed data from a range of clinical trials, epidemiology, and natural history, as well as results from five different health economic models. They concluded that an assessment of benefits and harms favors expanding the catch-up vaccination to all individuals through 26 years, said Elissa Meites, MD, of the CDC, who presented the official work group opinion. The group’s opinion on the second question was that the additional population level benefit of expanding HPV vaccination to all adults would be minimal and not a reasonable and effective allocation of resources, but that shared clinical decision making would allow flexibility.

The committee expressed strong opinions about the potential for shared clinical decision making as a policy for vaccination for adults older than 26 years. Some felt that this option was a way to include adults at risk for HPV, such as divorced women with new partners, or women getting married for the first time later in life who might not have been exposed to HPV through other relationships. In addition, supporters noted that the shared clinical decision-making option would allow for potential insurance coverage, and would involve discussion between doctors and patients to assess risk.

However, other committee members felt that any recommendation for older adult vaccination would distract clinicians from the importance and value of HPV vaccination for the target age group of 11- and 12-year-olds, and might divert resources from the younger age group in whom it has shown the most benefit.

Resource allocation was a concern voiced by many committee members. Kelly Moore, MD, MPH, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said she voted no on expanding vaccination to older adults because “we didn’t have details on shared clinical decision making, in the absence of information on what that meant, and in the presence of supply questions, I didn’t feel comfortable expanding vaccination to a huge population,” she said.

Paul Hunter, MD, of the City of Milwaukee Health Department, also voted no, and expressed concern that expanding the HPV vaccination recommendations to older adults would send the message that vaccination for children and teens is not effective or important.

The text of the new recommendations for routine and catch-up vaccination states that the recommendations “also apply to MSM [men who have sex with men], transgender people, and people with immunocompromising conditions.”

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Catch-up human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination should be harmonized to include all individuals through 26 years of age, according to a unanimous vote at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

This change affects males aged 22 through 26 years; the HPV vaccine is currently recommended for males and females aged 11 or 12 years, with catch-up vaccination through age 21 for males and age 26 for females.

copyright DesignPics/Thinkstock

The change was supported in part by increased interest in simplifying and harmonizing the vaccine schedule, said Lauri Markowitz, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), who presented the HPV work group’s considerations.

In addition, the committee voted 10-4 in favor of catch-up HPV vaccination, based on shared clinical decision making, for all adults aged 27 through 45 years.

Although the current program of HPV vaccination for youth has demonstrated effectiveness, data from multiple models suggest that widespread HPV vaccination for adults older than 26 years is much less cost effective, and would yield relatively small additional health benefits, Dr. Markowitz said.

The HPV work group reviewed data from a range of clinical trials, epidemiology, and natural history, as well as results from five different health economic models. They concluded that an assessment of benefits and harms favors expanding the catch-up vaccination to all individuals through 26 years, said Elissa Meites, MD, of the CDC, who presented the official work group opinion. The group’s opinion on the second question was that the additional population level benefit of expanding HPV vaccination to all adults would be minimal and not a reasonable and effective allocation of resources, but that shared clinical decision making would allow flexibility.

The committee expressed strong opinions about the potential for shared clinical decision making as a policy for vaccination for adults older than 26 years. Some felt that this option was a way to include adults at risk for HPV, such as divorced women with new partners, or women getting married for the first time later in life who might not have been exposed to HPV through other relationships. In addition, supporters noted that the shared clinical decision-making option would allow for potential insurance coverage, and would involve discussion between doctors and patients to assess risk.

However, other committee members felt that any recommendation for older adult vaccination would distract clinicians from the importance and value of HPV vaccination for the target age group of 11- and 12-year-olds, and might divert resources from the younger age group in whom it has shown the most benefit.

Resource allocation was a concern voiced by many committee members. Kelly Moore, MD, MPH, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said she voted no on expanding vaccination to older adults because “we didn’t have details on shared clinical decision making, in the absence of information on what that meant, and in the presence of supply questions, I didn’t feel comfortable expanding vaccination to a huge population,” she said.

Paul Hunter, MD, of the City of Milwaukee Health Department, also voted no, and expressed concern that expanding the HPV vaccination recommendations to older adults would send the message that vaccination for children and teens is not effective or important.

The text of the new recommendations for routine and catch-up vaccination states that the recommendations “also apply to MSM [men who have sex with men], transgender people, and people with immunocompromising conditions.”

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Catch-up human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination should be harmonized to include all individuals through 26 years of age, according to a unanimous vote at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

This change affects males aged 22 through 26 years; the HPV vaccine is currently recommended for males and females aged 11 or 12 years, with catch-up vaccination through age 21 for males and age 26 for females.

copyright DesignPics/Thinkstock

The change was supported in part by increased interest in simplifying and harmonizing the vaccine schedule, said Lauri Markowitz, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), who presented the HPV work group’s considerations.

In addition, the committee voted 10-4 in favor of catch-up HPV vaccination, based on shared clinical decision making, for all adults aged 27 through 45 years.

Although the current program of HPV vaccination for youth has demonstrated effectiveness, data from multiple models suggest that widespread HPV vaccination for adults older than 26 years is much less cost effective, and would yield relatively small additional health benefits, Dr. Markowitz said.

The HPV work group reviewed data from a range of clinical trials, epidemiology, and natural history, as well as results from five different health economic models. They concluded that an assessment of benefits and harms favors expanding the catch-up vaccination to all individuals through 26 years, said Elissa Meites, MD, of the CDC, who presented the official work group opinion. The group’s opinion on the second question was that the additional population level benefit of expanding HPV vaccination to all adults would be minimal and not a reasonable and effective allocation of resources, but that shared clinical decision making would allow flexibility.

The committee expressed strong opinions about the potential for shared clinical decision making as a policy for vaccination for adults older than 26 years. Some felt that this option was a way to include adults at risk for HPV, such as divorced women with new partners, or women getting married for the first time later in life who might not have been exposed to HPV through other relationships. In addition, supporters noted that the shared clinical decision-making option would allow for potential insurance coverage, and would involve discussion between doctors and patients to assess risk.

However, other committee members felt that any recommendation for older adult vaccination would distract clinicians from the importance and value of HPV vaccination for the target age group of 11- and 12-year-olds, and might divert resources from the younger age group in whom it has shown the most benefit.

Resource allocation was a concern voiced by many committee members. Kelly Moore, MD, MPH, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said she voted no on expanding vaccination to older adults because “we didn’t have details on shared clinical decision making, in the absence of information on what that meant, and in the presence of supply questions, I didn’t feel comfortable expanding vaccination to a huge population,” she said.

Paul Hunter, MD, of the City of Milwaukee Health Department, also voted no, and expressed concern that expanding the HPV vaccination recommendations to older adults would send the message that vaccination for children and teens is not effective or important.

The text of the new recommendations for routine and catch-up vaccination states that the recommendations “also apply to MSM [men who have sex with men], transgender people, and people with immunocompromising conditions.”

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Patients given lower prescription quantities of opioid tablets with and without opioid education used significantly less of the medication compared with those given more tablets and no education, according to data from 264 adults and adolescents who underwent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Although lower default prescription programs have been shown to reduce the number of tablets prescribed, “the effect of reduced prescription quantities on actual patient opioid consumption remains undetermined,” wrote Kevin X. Farley, BS, of Emory University, Atlanta, and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA, the researchers examined whether patients took fewer tablets if given fewer, and whether patient education about opioids further reduced the number of tablets taken.

The study population included adults and adolescents who underwent ACL surgery at a single center. The patients were divided into three groups: 109 patients received 50 opioid tablets after surgery, 78 received 30 tablets plus education prior to surgery about appropriate opioid use and alternative pain management, and 77 received 30 tablets but no education on opioid use.

Patients given 50 tablets consumed an average of 25 tablets for an average of 5.8 days. By contrast, patients given 30 tablets but no opioid education consumed an average of 16 tablets for an average of 4.5 days, and those given 30 tablets and preoperative education consumed an average of 12 tablets for an average of 3.5 days.

In addition, patients given 30 tablets reported lower levels of constipation and fatigue compared with patients given 50 tablets. No differences were seen in medication refills among the groups.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from a single center, the lack of randomization, and the potential for recall bias, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that prescribing fewer tablets may further reduce use, as each group consumed approximately half of the tablets given, the researchers added.

“Further investigation should evaluate whether similar opioid stewardship and education protocols would be successful in other patient populations,” they said.

Corresponding author John Xerogeanes, MD, disclosed personal fees from Arthrex and stock options from Trice. The other researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Farley KX et al. JAMA. 2019 June 25.321(24):2465-7.

Patients given lower prescription quantities of opioid tablets with and without opioid education used significantly less of the medication compared with those given more tablets and no education, according to data from 264 adults and adolescents who underwent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Although lower default prescription programs have been shown to reduce the number of tablets prescribed, “the effect of reduced prescription quantities on actual patient opioid consumption remains undetermined,” wrote Kevin X. Farley, BS, of Emory University, Atlanta, and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA, the researchers examined whether patients took fewer tablets if given fewer, and whether patient education about opioids further reduced the number of tablets taken.

The study population included adults and adolescents who underwent ACL surgery at a single center. The patients were divided into three groups: 109 patients received 50 opioid tablets after surgery, 78 received 30 tablets plus education prior to surgery about appropriate opioid use and alternative pain management, and 77 received 30 tablets but no education on opioid use.

Patients given 50 tablets consumed an average of 25 tablets for an average of 5.8 days. By contrast, patients given 30 tablets but no opioid education consumed an average of 16 tablets for an average of 4.5 days, and those given 30 tablets and preoperative education consumed an average of 12 tablets for an average of 3.5 days.

In addition, patients given 30 tablets reported lower levels of constipation and fatigue compared with patients given 50 tablets. No differences were seen in medication refills among the groups.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from a single center, the lack of randomization, and the potential for recall bias, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that prescribing fewer tablets may further reduce use, as each group consumed approximately half of the tablets given, the researchers added.

“Further investigation should evaluate whether similar opioid stewardship and education protocols would be successful in other patient populations,” they said.

Corresponding author John Xerogeanes, MD, disclosed personal fees from Arthrex and stock options from Trice. The other researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Farley KX et al. JAMA. 2019 June 25.321(24):2465-7.

Patients given lower prescription quantities of opioid tablets with and without opioid education used significantly less of the medication compared with those given more tablets and no education, according to data from 264 adults and adolescents who underwent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Although lower default prescription programs have been shown to reduce the number of tablets prescribed, “the effect of reduced prescription quantities on actual patient opioid consumption remains undetermined,” wrote Kevin X. Farley, BS, of Emory University, Atlanta, and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA, the researchers examined whether patients took fewer tablets if given fewer, and whether patient education about opioids further reduced the number of tablets taken.

The study population included adults and adolescents who underwent ACL surgery at a single center. The patients were divided into three groups: 109 patients received 50 opioid tablets after surgery, 78 received 30 tablets plus education prior to surgery about appropriate opioid use and alternative pain management, and 77 received 30 tablets but no education on opioid use.

Patients given 50 tablets consumed an average of 25 tablets for an average of 5.8 days. By contrast, patients given 30 tablets but no opioid education consumed an average of 16 tablets for an average of 4.5 days, and those given 30 tablets and preoperative education consumed an average of 12 tablets for an average of 3.5 days.

In addition, patients given 30 tablets reported lower levels of constipation and fatigue compared with patients given 50 tablets. No differences were seen in medication refills among the groups.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from a single center, the lack of randomization, and the potential for recall bias, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that prescribing fewer tablets may further reduce use, as each group consumed approximately half of the tablets given, the researchers added.

“Further investigation should evaluate whether similar opioid stewardship and education protocols would be successful in other patient populations,” they said.

Corresponding author John Xerogeanes, MD, disclosed personal fees from Arthrex and stock options from Trice. The other researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Farley KX et al. JAMA. 2019 June 25.321(24):2465-7.

Postmenopausal breast cancer survivors are at greater risk for cardiovascular disease than are their peers without breast cancer, according to a new study of nearly 300 women.

Previous studies have shown that cardiovascular risk is greater among postmenopausal women treated for breast cancer compared with those without cancer, but specific risk factors have not been well studied, wrote Daniel de Araujo Brito Buttros, MD, of Paulista State University, Sao Paulo, Brazil, and colleagues.

In a study published in Menopause, the researchers evaluated several CVD risk factors in 96 postmenopausal women with breast cancer and 192 women without breast cancer, including metabolic syndrome, subclinical atherosclerosis, and heat shock proteins (HSP) 60 and 70.

Overall, breast cancer patients had significantly higher HSP60 levels and lower HSP70 levels than those of their cancer-free peers. These two proteins have an antagonistic relationship in cardiovascular disease, with HSP60 considered a risk factor for CVD, and HSP70 considered a protective factor. Average HSP60 levels for the breast cancer and control groups were 35 ng/mL and 10.8 ng/mL, respectively; average HSP70 levels were 0.5 ng/mL and 1.3 ng/mL, respectively.

Both diabetes and metabolic syndrome were significantly more common among breast cancer patients vs. controls (19.8% vs. 6.8% and 54.2% vs. 30.7%, respectively). Carotid artery plaque also was more common in breast cancer patients vs. controls (19.8% vs. 9.4%, respectively, P = 0.013).

In addition, systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels were significantly higher among the breast cancer patients, as were triglycerides and glucose.

The findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional design that could not prove a causal relationship between CVD risk and breast cancer, the researchers noted.

However, the results demonstrate the increased CVD risk for breast cancer patients, and “[therefore], women diagnosed with breast cancer might receive multidisciplinary care, including cardiology consultation at the time of breast cancer diagnosis and also during oncologic follow-up visits,” they said.

“Heart disease appears more commonly in women treated for breast cancer because of the toxicities of chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and use of aromatase inhibitors, which lower estrogen. Heart-healthy lifestyle modifications will decrease both the risk of recurrent breast cancer and the risk of developing heart disease,” JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, executive director of the North American Menopause Society, said in a statement. “Women should schedule a cardiology consultation when breast cancer is diagnosed and continue with ongoing follow-up after cancer treatments are completed,” she emphasized.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Buttros DAB et al. Menopause. 2019. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000001348.

Postmenopausal breast cancer survivors are at greater risk for cardiovascular disease than are their peers without breast cancer, according to a new study of nearly 300 women.

Previous studies have shown that cardiovascular risk is greater among postmenopausal women treated for breast cancer compared with those without cancer, but specific risk factors have not been well studied, wrote Daniel de Araujo Brito Buttros, MD, of Paulista State University, Sao Paulo, Brazil, and colleagues.

In a study published in Menopause, the researchers evaluated several CVD risk factors in 96 postmenopausal women with breast cancer and 192 women without breast cancer, including metabolic syndrome, subclinical atherosclerosis, and heat shock proteins (HSP) 60 and 70.

Overall, breast cancer patients had significantly higher HSP60 levels and lower HSP70 levels than those of their cancer-free peers. These two proteins have an antagonistic relationship in cardiovascular disease, with HSP60 considered a risk factor for CVD, and HSP70 considered a protective factor. Average HSP60 levels for the breast cancer and control groups were 35 ng/mL and 10.8 ng/mL, respectively; average HSP70 levels were 0.5 ng/mL and 1.3 ng/mL, respectively.

Both diabetes and metabolic syndrome were significantly more common among breast cancer patients vs. controls (19.8% vs. 6.8% and 54.2% vs. 30.7%, respectively). Carotid artery plaque also was more common in breast cancer patients vs. controls (19.8% vs. 9.4%, respectively, P = 0.013).

In addition, systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels were significantly higher among the breast cancer patients, as were triglycerides and glucose.

The findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional design that could not prove a causal relationship between CVD risk and breast cancer, the researchers noted.

However, the results demonstrate the increased CVD risk for breast cancer patients, and “[therefore], women diagnosed with breast cancer might receive multidisciplinary care, including cardiology consultation at the time of breast cancer diagnosis and also during oncologic follow-up visits,” they said.

“Heart disease appears more commonly in women treated for breast cancer because of the toxicities of chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and use of aromatase inhibitors, which lower estrogen. Heart-healthy lifestyle modifications will decrease both the risk of recurrent breast cancer and the risk of developing heart disease,” JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, executive director of the North American Menopause Society, said in a statement. “Women should schedule a cardiology consultation when breast cancer is diagnosed and continue with ongoing follow-up after cancer treatments are completed,” she emphasized.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Buttros DAB et al. Menopause. 2019. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000001348.

Postmenopausal breast cancer survivors are at greater risk for cardiovascular disease than are their peers without breast cancer, according to a new study of nearly 300 women.

Previous studies have shown that cardiovascular risk is greater among postmenopausal women treated for breast cancer compared with those without cancer, but specific risk factors have not been well studied, wrote Daniel de Araujo Brito Buttros, MD, of Paulista State University, Sao Paulo, Brazil, and colleagues.

In a study published in Menopause, the researchers evaluated several CVD risk factors in 96 postmenopausal women with breast cancer and 192 women without breast cancer, including metabolic syndrome, subclinical atherosclerosis, and heat shock proteins (HSP) 60 and 70.

Overall, breast cancer patients had significantly higher HSP60 levels and lower HSP70 levels than those of their cancer-free peers. These two proteins have an antagonistic relationship in cardiovascular disease, with HSP60 considered a risk factor for CVD, and HSP70 considered a protective factor. Average HSP60 levels for the breast cancer and control groups were 35 ng/mL and 10.8 ng/mL, respectively; average HSP70 levels were 0.5 ng/mL and 1.3 ng/mL, respectively.

Both diabetes and metabolic syndrome were significantly more common among breast cancer patients vs. controls (19.8% vs. 6.8% and 54.2% vs. 30.7%, respectively). Carotid artery plaque also was more common in breast cancer patients vs. controls (19.8% vs. 9.4%, respectively, P = 0.013).

In addition, systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels were significantly higher among the breast cancer patients, as were triglycerides and glucose.

The findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional design that could not prove a causal relationship between CVD risk and breast cancer, the researchers noted.

However, the results demonstrate the increased CVD risk for breast cancer patients, and “[therefore], women diagnosed with breast cancer might receive multidisciplinary care, including cardiology consultation at the time of breast cancer diagnosis and also during oncologic follow-up visits,” they said.

“Heart disease appears more commonly in women treated for breast cancer because of the toxicities of chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and use of aromatase inhibitors, which lower estrogen. Heart-healthy lifestyle modifications will decrease both the risk of recurrent breast cancer and the risk of developing heart disease,” JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, executive director of the North American Menopause Society, said in a statement. “Women should schedule a cardiology consultation when breast cancer is diagnosed and continue with ongoing follow-up after cancer treatments are completed,” she emphasized.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Buttros DAB et al. Menopause. 2019. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000001348.

One in 10 high school students has used an e-cigarette device to vaporize (vape) cannabis and that practice is associated with cigars, waterpipe and e-cigarette use, findings from a survey of nearly 3,000 adolescents have shown.

6okean/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“Although the prevalence of e-cigarette use among youth has increased dramatically in the past decade, little epidemiologic data exist on the prevalence of using e-cigarette devices or other specialised devices to vaporise (‘vape’) cannabis in the form of hash oil, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) wax or oil, or dried cannabis buds or leaves,” wrote Sarah D. Kowitt, PhD, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and colleagues. “This is surprising given that (1) cannabis (also referred to as marijuana) and e-cigarettes are the most commonly used substances by adolescents in the USA, (2) evidence exists that adolescents dual use both tobacco e-cigarettes and cannabis, and (3) longitudinal research suggests that use of e-cigarettes is associated with progression to use of cannabis.”

In a study published in BMJ Open, the researchers used data from the 2017 North Carolina Youth Tobacco Survey, a school-based survey of students in grades 6-12. The study population included 2,835 adolescents in grades 9-12.

Overall, 9.6% of students reported ever vaping cannabis. In multivariate analysis, cannabis vaping was significantly more likely among adolescents who reported using e-cigarettes (adjusted odds ratio 3.18), cigars (aOR 3.76), or water pipes (aOR 2.32) in the past 30 days, compared with peers who didn’t use tobacco.

The researchers found no significant association between smokeless tobacco use or traditional cigarette use in the past 30 days and vaping cannabis.

In a bivariate analysis, vaping cannabis was significantly more common among males vs. females (11% vs. 8.2%) and among non-Hispanic white students (11.3%), Hispanic students (10.5%), and other non-Hispanic students (11.8%) compared with non-Hispanic black students (5.0%).

In addition, prevalence of cannabis vaping increased with grade level, from 4.7% of 9th graders to 15.5% of 12th graders.

The health impacts of vaping cannabis are not well researched, but the researchers note that among the potential safety issues are earlier initiation of tobacco or cannabis use, concomitant tobacco and cannabis use, increased frequency of use or misuse of tobacco or cannabis, or increased potency of cannabis.

The results of the study were limited by several factors including the use of data only from the state of North Carolina, the lack of data on frequency or current vaping cannabis behavior, lack of data on specific products, and lack of data on whether teens used specialized devices or e-cigarettes for cannabis vaping. However, the findings are consistent with studies on prevalence of cannabis vaping in other states such as Connecticut and California. “No studies to our knowledge have examined how adolescents who vape cannabis use other specific tobacco products (i.e., cigarettes, cigars, waterpipe, smokeless tobacco),” the researchers wrote.

The findings confirm that a large number of adolescents who use tobacco products have vaped cannabis as well, and this growing public health issue “is likely to affect and be affected by tobacco control and cannabis policies in states and at the federal level in the USA,” the researchers concluded.

“Increased research investigating how youth use e-cigarette devices for other purposes beyond vaping nicotine, like the current study, is needed,” they added.

The study was supported in part by the National Cancer Institute and the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Kowitt SD et al. BMJ Open. 2019 Jun 13. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028535.

One in 10 high school students has used an e-cigarette device to vaporize (vape) cannabis and that practice is associated with cigars, waterpipe and e-cigarette use, findings from a survey of nearly 3,000 adolescents have shown.

6okean/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“Although the prevalence of e-cigarette use among youth has increased dramatically in the past decade, little epidemiologic data exist on the prevalence of using e-cigarette devices or other specialised devices to vaporise (‘vape’) cannabis in the form of hash oil, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) wax or oil, or dried cannabis buds or leaves,” wrote Sarah D. Kowitt, PhD, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and colleagues. “This is surprising given that (1) cannabis (also referred to as marijuana) and e-cigarettes are the most commonly used substances by adolescents in the USA, (2) evidence exists that adolescents dual use both tobacco e-cigarettes and cannabis, and (3) longitudinal research suggests that use of e-cigarettes is associated with progression to use of cannabis.”

In a study published in BMJ Open, the researchers used data from the 2017 North Carolina Youth Tobacco Survey, a school-based survey of students in grades 6-12. The study population included 2,835 adolescents in grades 9-12.

Overall, 9.6% of students reported ever vaping cannabis. In multivariate analysis, cannabis vaping was significantly more likely among adolescents who reported using e-cigarettes (adjusted odds ratio 3.18), cigars (aOR 3.76), or water pipes (aOR 2.32) in the past 30 days, compared with peers who didn’t use tobacco.

The researchers found no significant association between smokeless tobacco use or traditional cigarette use in the past 30 days and vaping cannabis.

In a bivariate analysis, vaping cannabis was significantly more common among males vs. females (11% vs. 8.2%) and among non-Hispanic white students (11.3%), Hispanic students (10.5%), and other non-Hispanic students (11.8%) compared with non-Hispanic black students (5.0%).

In addition, prevalence of cannabis vaping increased with grade level, from 4.7% of 9th graders to 15.5% of 12th graders.

The health impacts of vaping cannabis are not well researched, but the researchers note that among the potential safety issues are earlier initiation of tobacco or cannabis use, concomitant tobacco and cannabis use, increased frequency of use or misuse of tobacco or cannabis, or increased potency of cannabis.

The results of the study were limited by several factors including the use of data only from the state of North Carolina, the lack of data on frequency or current vaping cannabis behavior, lack of data on specific products, and lack of data on whether teens used specialized devices or e-cigarettes for cannabis vaping. However, the findings are consistent with studies on prevalence of cannabis vaping in other states such as Connecticut and California. “No studies to our knowledge have examined how adolescents who vape cannabis use other specific tobacco products (i.e., cigarettes, cigars, waterpipe, smokeless tobacco),” the researchers wrote.

The findings confirm that a large number of adolescents who use tobacco products have vaped cannabis as well, and this growing public health issue “is likely to affect and be affected by tobacco control and cannabis policies in states and at the federal level in the USA,” the researchers concluded.

“Increased research investigating how youth use e-cigarette devices for other purposes beyond vaping nicotine, like the current study, is needed,” they added.

The study was supported in part by the National Cancer Institute and the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Kowitt SD et al. BMJ Open. 2019 Jun 13. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028535.

One in 10 high school students has used an e-cigarette device to vaporize (vape) cannabis and that practice is associated with cigars, waterpipe and e-cigarette use, findings from a survey of nearly 3,000 adolescents have shown.

6okean/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“Although the prevalence of e-cigarette use among youth has increased dramatically in the past decade, little epidemiologic data exist on the prevalence of using e-cigarette devices or other specialised devices to vaporise (‘vape’) cannabis in the form of hash oil, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) wax or oil, or dried cannabis buds or leaves,” wrote Sarah D. Kowitt, PhD, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and colleagues. “This is surprising given that (1) cannabis (also referred to as marijuana) and e-cigarettes are the most commonly used substances by adolescents in the USA, (2) evidence exists that adolescents dual use both tobacco e-cigarettes and cannabis, and (3) longitudinal research suggests that use of e-cigarettes is associated with progression to use of cannabis.”

In a study published in BMJ Open, the researchers used data from the 2017 North Carolina Youth Tobacco Survey, a school-based survey of students in grades 6-12. The study population included 2,835 adolescents in grades 9-12.

Overall, 9.6% of students reported ever vaping cannabis. In multivariate analysis, cannabis vaping was significantly more likely among adolescents who reported using e-cigarettes (adjusted odds ratio 3.18), cigars (aOR 3.76), or water pipes (aOR 2.32) in the past 30 days, compared with peers who didn’t use tobacco.

The researchers found no significant association between smokeless tobacco use or traditional cigarette use in the past 30 days and vaping cannabis.

In a bivariate analysis, vaping cannabis was significantly more common among males vs. females (11% vs. 8.2%) and among non-Hispanic white students (11.3%), Hispanic students (10.5%), and other non-Hispanic students (11.8%) compared with non-Hispanic black students (5.0%).

In addition, prevalence of cannabis vaping increased with grade level, from 4.7% of 9th graders to 15.5% of 12th graders.

The health impacts of vaping cannabis are not well researched, but the researchers note that among the potential safety issues are earlier initiation of tobacco or cannabis use, concomitant tobacco and cannabis use, increased frequency of use or misuse of tobacco or cannabis, or increased potency of cannabis.

The results of the study were limited by several factors including the use of data only from the state of North Carolina, the lack of data on frequency or current vaping cannabis behavior, lack of data on specific products, and lack of data on whether teens used specialized devices or e-cigarettes for cannabis vaping. However, the findings are consistent with studies on prevalence of cannabis vaping in other states such as Connecticut and California. “No studies to our knowledge have examined how adolescents who vape cannabis use other specific tobacco products (i.e., cigarettes, cigars, waterpipe, smokeless tobacco),” the researchers wrote.

The findings confirm that a large number of adolescents who use tobacco products have vaped cannabis as well, and this growing public health issue “is likely to affect and be affected by tobacco control and cannabis policies in states and at the federal level in the USA,” the researchers concluded.

“Increased research investigating how youth use e-cigarette devices for other purposes beyond vaping nicotine, like the current study, is needed,” they added.

The study was supported in part by the National Cancer Institute and the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Kowitt SD et al. BMJ Open. 2019 Jun 13. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028535.

Suicides in teens and young adults reached 6,241 in 2017, the highest since 2000, according to data from a review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Underlying Cause of Death database.

StHelena/Getty Images

The suicide rate overall was 12 per 100,000 in 2017 for 15-19 year olds.

Although suicide rates have increased across all age groups in the United States since 2000, “adolescents are of particular concern, with increases in social media use, anxiety, depression, and self-inflicted injuries,” wrote Oren Miron of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

In a research letter published in JAMA, the researchers analyzed trends in teen and young adult suicides from 2000 to 2017. The combined suicide rate for males and females aged 15-19 years in 2000 was 8 per 100,000 with no significant changes until 2007, followed by an annual percentage change (APC) of 3% from 2007 to 2014 and 10% from 2014 to 2017.

When the data were broken out by gender, males aged 15-19 years showed a spike in suicides in recent years, with an increase in APC of 14% from 2015 to 2017. Of note, these young men showed a decreasing trend in APC of –2% from 2000 to 2007 before increasing.

Among females aged 15-19 years, no increase was noted until 2010, then researchers identified an APC of 8% from 2010 to 2017.

For ages 20-24 years, the combined suicide rate for males and females was 13 per 100,000 in 2000, which rose to 17 per 100,000 in 2017. The APC in the older group was 1% from 2000 to 2013 and 6% from 2013 to 2017. Increasing trends were observed for both males and females over the study period.

The study was limited by the potential inaccuracy in cause of death listed on death certificates, such as mistaking a suicide for an accidental overdose, and the increased suicide rate could reflect more accurate reporting, the researchers noted.

Nonetheless, the results support the need for more studies of contributing factors to teen and young adult suicides to help develop prevention strategies and analysis of factors that may have contributed to declines in suicide rates in the past, they said.

Coauthor Dr. Yu was supported by the Harvard Data Science Fellowship. The researchers had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Miron O et al. JAMA. 2019 Jun 28;321:2362-4.

Suicides in teens and young adults reached 6,241 in 2017, the highest since 2000, according to data from a review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Underlying Cause of Death database.

StHelena/Getty Images

The suicide rate overall was 12 per 100,000 in 2017 for 15-19 year olds.

Although suicide rates have increased across all age groups in the United States since 2000, “adolescents are of particular concern, with increases in social media use, anxiety, depression, and self-inflicted injuries,” wrote Oren Miron of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

In a research letter published in JAMA, the researchers analyzed trends in teen and young adult suicides from 2000 to 2017. The combined suicide rate for males and females aged 15-19 years in 2000 was 8 per 100,000 with no significant changes until 2007, followed by an annual percentage change (APC) of 3% from 2007 to 2014 and 10% from 2014 to 2017.

When the data were broken out by gender, males aged 15-19 years showed a spike in suicides in recent years, with an increase in APC of 14% from 2015 to 2017. Of note, these young men showed a decreasing trend in APC of –2% from 2000 to 2007 before increasing.

Among females aged 15-19 years, no increase was noted until 2010, then researchers identified an APC of 8% from 2010 to 2017.

For ages 20-24 years, the combined suicide rate for males and females was 13 per 100,000 in 2000, which rose to 17 per 100,000 in 2017. The APC in the older group was 1% from 2000 to 2013 and 6% from 2013 to 2017. Increasing trends were observed for both males and females over the study period.

The study was limited by the potential inaccuracy in cause of death listed on death certificates, such as mistaking a suicide for an accidental overdose, and the increased suicide rate could reflect more accurate reporting, the researchers noted.

Nonetheless, the results support the need for more studies of contributing factors to teen and young adult suicides to help develop prevention strategies and analysis of factors that may have contributed to declines in suicide rates in the past, they said.

Coauthor Dr. Yu was supported by the Harvard Data Science Fellowship. The researchers had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Miron O et al. JAMA. 2019 Jun 28;321:2362-4.

Suicides in teens and young adults reached 6,241 in 2017, the highest since 2000, according to data from a review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Underlying Cause of Death database.

StHelena/Getty Images

The suicide rate overall was 12 per 100,000 in 2017 for 15-19 year olds.

Although suicide rates have increased across all age groups in the United States since 2000, “adolescents are of particular concern, with increases in social media use, anxiety, depression, and self-inflicted injuries,” wrote Oren Miron of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

In a research letter published in JAMA, the researchers analyzed trends in teen and young adult suicides from 2000 to 2017. The combined suicide rate for males and females aged 15-19 years in 2000 was 8 per 100,000 with no significant changes until 2007, followed by an annual percentage change (APC) of 3% from 2007 to 2014 and 10% from 2014 to 2017.

When the data were broken out by gender, males aged 15-19 years showed a spike in suicides in recent years, with an increase in APC of 14% from 2015 to 2017. Of note, these young men showed a decreasing trend in APC of –2% from 2000 to 2007 before increasing.

Among females aged 15-19 years, no increase was noted until 2010, then researchers identified an APC of 8% from 2010 to 2017.

For ages 20-24 years, the combined suicide rate for males and females was 13 per 100,000 in 2000, which rose to 17 per 100,000 in 2017. The APC in the older group was 1% from 2000 to 2013 and 6% from 2013 to 2017. Increasing trends were observed for both males and females over the study period.

The study was limited by the potential inaccuracy in cause of death listed on death certificates, such as mistaking a suicide for an accidental overdose, and the increased suicide rate could reflect more accurate reporting, the researchers noted.

Nonetheless, the results support the need for more studies of contributing factors to teen and young adult suicides to help develop prevention strategies and analysis of factors that may have contributed to declines in suicide rates in the past, they said.

Coauthor Dr. Yu was supported by the Harvard Data Science Fellowship. The researchers had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Miron O et al. JAMA. 2019 Jun 28;321:2362-4.

Esketamine nasal spray used with an oral antidepressant was significantly more effective at delaying a relapse of depression compared with placebo, based on data from 297 adults in remission.

Patients with treatment-resistant depression are more likely to relapse, wrote Ella J. Daly, MD, of Janssen Research and Development, Titusville, N.J., and colleagues.

In the SUSTAIN-1 study, published in JAMA Psychiatry, the researchers randomized 297 adults in the maintenance phase of depression treatment to esketamine hydrochloride or placebo. The average age of the patients was 46 years, and 66% were female.

Overall, 26.7% of patients in the esketamine and antidepressant group experienced relapses, compared with 45.3% of the placebo group during the maintenance period among the 176 patients who achieved stable remission. In addition, relapse occurred in 25.8% in the esketamine and antidepressant group and 57.6 in the antidepressant and placebo among the patients who achieved stable response.

The median duration esketamine use during the maintenance phase was 17.7 weeks among patients who achieved stable remission and 19.4 among those who achieved stable response.

The study was designed to include a 4-week screening and prospective observation phase, a 4-week open-label induction phase, a 12-week optimization phase, a maintenance phase, and a 2-week posttreatment follow-up phase.

The most common adverse events reported by esketamine patients were transient dysgeusia, vertigo, dissociation, somnolence, and dizziness. Most of these effects were moderate; no cases of respiratory depression, interstitial cystitis, or death were reported.

The results were limited by several factors, including the transient effects of esketamine that made blinding difficult, the researchers noted. However, the findings support the safety of the spray and “significant, clinically meaningful superiority” of the spray, compared with placebo, for relapse prevention in patients with treatment-resistant depression, they concluded.

Janssen Research and Development funded the study. Dr. Daly and several coauthors are employees of the company.

SOURCE: Daly E et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019 Jun 5. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.1189.

Esketamine nasal spray used with an oral antidepressant was significantly more effective at delaying a relapse of depression compared with placebo, based on data from 297 adults in remission.

Patients with treatment-resistant depression are more likely to relapse, wrote Ella J. Daly, MD, of Janssen Research and Development, Titusville, N.J., and colleagues.

In the SUSTAIN-1 study, published in JAMA Psychiatry, the researchers randomized 297 adults in the maintenance phase of depression treatment to esketamine hydrochloride or placebo. The average age of the patients was 46 years, and 66% were female.

Overall, 26.7% of patients in the esketamine and antidepressant group experienced relapses, compared with 45.3% of the placebo group during the maintenance period among the 176 patients who achieved stable remission. In addition, relapse occurred in 25.8% in the esketamine and antidepressant group and 57.6 in the antidepressant and placebo among the patients who achieved stable response.

The median duration esketamine use during the maintenance phase was 17.7 weeks among patients who achieved stable remission and 19.4 among those who achieved stable response.

The study was designed to include a 4-week screening and prospective observation phase, a 4-week open-label induction phase, a 12-week optimization phase, a maintenance phase, and a 2-week posttreatment follow-up phase.

The most common adverse events reported by esketamine patients were transient dysgeusia, vertigo, dissociation, somnolence, and dizziness. Most of these effects were moderate; no cases of respiratory depression, interstitial cystitis, or death were reported.

The results were limited by several factors, including the transient effects of esketamine that made blinding difficult, the researchers noted. However, the findings support the safety of the spray and “significant, clinically meaningful superiority” of the spray, compared with placebo, for relapse prevention in patients with treatment-resistant depression, they concluded.

Janssen Research and Development funded the study. Dr. Daly and several coauthors are employees of the company.

SOURCE: Daly E et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019 Jun 5. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.1189.

Esketamine nasal spray used with an oral antidepressant was significantly more effective at delaying a relapse of depression compared with placebo, based on data from 297 adults in remission.

Patients with treatment-resistant depression are more likely to relapse, wrote Ella J. Daly, MD, of Janssen Research and Development, Titusville, N.J., and colleagues.

In the SUSTAIN-1 study, published in JAMA Psychiatry, the researchers randomized 297 adults in the maintenance phase of depression treatment to esketamine hydrochloride or placebo. The average age of the patients was 46 years, and 66% were female.

Overall, 26.7% of patients in the esketamine and antidepressant group experienced relapses, compared with 45.3% of the placebo group during the maintenance period among the 176 patients who achieved stable remission. In addition, relapse occurred in 25.8% in the esketamine and antidepressant group and 57.6 in the antidepressant and placebo among the patients who achieved stable response.

The median duration esketamine use during the maintenance phase was 17.7 weeks among patients who achieved stable remission and 19.4 among those who achieved stable response.

The study was designed to include a 4-week screening and prospective observation phase, a 4-week open-label induction phase, a 12-week optimization phase, a maintenance phase, and a 2-week posttreatment follow-up phase.

The most common adverse events reported by esketamine patients were transient dysgeusia, vertigo, dissociation, somnolence, and dizziness. Most of these effects were moderate; no cases of respiratory depression, interstitial cystitis, or death were reported.

The results were limited by several factors, including the transient effects of esketamine that made blinding difficult, the researchers noted. However, the findings support the safety of the spray and “significant, clinically meaningful superiority” of the spray, compared with placebo, for relapse prevention in patients with treatment-resistant depression, they concluded.

Janssen Research and Development funded the study. Dr. Daly and several coauthors are employees of the company.

SOURCE: Daly E et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019 Jun 5. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.1189.