Vaccines

Infants born in a country with no endemic measles no longer received adequate protection against the disease from maternal antibodies when they were aged 6 months, according to new research.

FatCamera/E+/Getty Images

In fact, most of the 196 infants’ maternal measles antibodies had dropped below the protective threshold by 3 months of age – well before the recommended age of 12-15 months for the first dose of MMR vaccine.

The odds of inadequate protection doubled for each additional month of age, Michelle Science, MD, of the University of Toronto and associates reported in Pediatrics.

“The widening gap between loss of maternal antibodies and measles vaccination described in our study leaves infants vulnerable to measles for much of their infancy and highlights the need for further research to support public health policy,” Dr. Science and colleagues wrote.

The findings are not surprising for a setting in which measles has been eliminated and align with results from past research, Huong Q. McLean, PhD, MPH, of the Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Research Institute and Walter A. Orenstein, MD, of Emory University in Atlanta wrote in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2019 Nov 21. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2541).

However, this susceptibility prior to receiving the MMR has taken on a new significance more recently, Dr. McLean and Dr. Orenstein suggested.

“In light of increasing measles outbreaks during the past year reaching levels not recorded in the United States since 1992 and increased measles elsewhere, coupled with the risk of severe illness in infants, there is increased concern regarding the protection of infants against measles,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Science and colleagues tested serum samples from 196 term infants, all under 12 months old, for antibodies against measles. The sera had been previously collected at a single tertiary care center in Ontario for clinical testing and then stored. Measles has been eliminated in Canada since 1998.

The researchers randomly selected 25 samples for each of eight different age groups: up to 30 days old; 1 month (31-60 days); 2 months (61-89 days); 3 months (90-119 days); 4 months; 5 months; 6-9 months; and 9-11 months.

Just over half the babies (56%) were male, and 35% had an underlying condition, but none had conditions that might affect antibody levels. The conditions were primarily a developmental delay or otherwise affecting the central nervous system, liver, or gastrointestinal function. Mean maternal age was 32 years.

To ensure high test sensitivity, the researchers used the plaque-reduction neutralization test (PRNT) to test for measles-neutralizing antibodies instead of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) because “ELISA sensitivity decreases as antibody titers decrease,” Dr. Science and colleagues wrote. They used a neutralization titer of less than 192 mIU/mL as the threshold for protection against measles.

When the researchers calculated the predicted standardized mean antibody titer for infants with a mother aged 32 years, they determined their mean to be 541 mIU/mL at 1 month, 142 mIU/mL at 3 months (below the measles threshold of susceptibility of 192 mIU/mL) , and 64 mIU/mL at 6 months. None of the infants had measles antibodies above the protective threshold at 6 months old, the authors noted.

Children’s odds of susceptibility to measles doubled for each additional month of age, after adjustment for infant sex and maternal age (odds ratio, 2.13). Children’s likelihood of susceptibility to measles modestly increased as maternal age increased in 5-year increments from 25 to 40 years.

Children with an underlying conditions had greater susceptibility to measles (83%), compared with those without a comorbidity (68%, P = .03). No difference in susceptibility existed between males and females or based on gestational age at birth (ranging from 37 to 41 weeks).

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices permits measles vaccination “as early as 6 months for infants who plan to travel internationally, infants with ongoing risk for exposure during measles outbreaks and as postexposure prophylaxis,” Dr. McLean and Dr. Orenstein noted in their editorial.

They discussed the rationale for various changes in the recommended schedule for measles immunization, based on changes in epidemiology of the disease and improved understanding of the immune response to vaccination since the vaccine became available in 1963. Then they posed the question of whether the recommendation should be revised again.

“Ideally, the schedule should minimize the risk of measles and its complications and optimize vaccine-induced protection,” Dr. McLean and Dr. Orenstein wrote.

They argued that the evidence cannot currently support changing the first MMR dose to a younger age because measles incidence in the United States remains extremely low outside of the extraordinary outbreaks in 2014 and 2019. Further, infants under 12 months of age make up less than 15% of measles cases during outbreaks, and unvaccinated people make up more than 70% of cases.

Rather, they stated, this new study emphasizes the importance of following the current schedule, with consideration of an earlier schedule only warranted during outbreaks.

“Health care providers must work to maintain high levels of coverage with 2 doses of MMR among vaccine-eligible populations and minimize pockets of susceptibility to prevent transmission to infants and prevent reestablishment of endemic transmission,” they concluded.

The research was funded by the Public Health Ontario Project Initiation Fund. The authors had no relevant financial disclosures. The editorialists had no external funding and no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Science M et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Nov 21. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-0630.

Infants born in a country with no endemic measles no longer received adequate protection against the disease from maternal antibodies when they were aged 6 months, according to new research.

FatCamera/E+/Getty Images

In fact, most of the 196 infants’ maternal measles antibodies had dropped below the protective threshold by 3 months of age – well before the recommended age of 12-15 months for the first dose of MMR vaccine.

The odds of inadequate protection doubled for each additional month of age, Michelle Science, MD, of the University of Toronto and associates reported in Pediatrics.

“The widening gap between loss of maternal antibodies and measles vaccination described in our study leaves infants vulnerable to measles for much of their infancy and highlights the need for further research to support public health policy,” Dr. Science and colleagues wrote.

The findings are not surprising for a setting in which measles has been eliminated and align with results from past research, Huong Q. McLean, PhD, MPH, of the Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Research Institute and Walter A. Orenstein, MD, of Emory University in Atlanta wrote in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2019 Nov 21. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2541).

However, this susceptibility prior to receiving the MMR has taken on a new significance more recently, Dr. McLean and Dr. Orenstein suggested.

“In light of increasing measles outbreaks during the past year reaching levels not recorded in the United States since 1992 and increased measles elsewhere, coupled with the risk of severe illness in infants, there is increased concern regarding the protection of infants against measles,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Science and colleagues tested serum samples from 196 term infants, all under 12 months old, for antibodies against measles. The sera had been previously collected at a single tertiary care center in Ontario for clinical testing and then stored. Measles has been eliminated in Canada since 1998.

The researchers randomly selected 25 samples for each of eight different age groups: up to 30 days old; 1 month (31-60 days); 2 months (61-89 days); 3 months (90-119 days); 4 months; 5 months; 6-9 months; and 9-11 months.

Just over half the babies (56%) were male, and 35% had an underlying condition, but none had conditions that might affect antibody levels. The conditions were primarily a developmental delay or otherwise affecting the central nervous system, liver, or gastrointestinal function. Mean maternal age was 32 years.

To ensure high test sensitivity, the researchers used the plaque-reduction neutralization test (PRNT) to test for measles-neutralizing antibodies instead of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) because “ELISA sensitivity decreases as antibody titers decrease,” Dr. Science and colleagues wrote. They used a neutralization titer of less than 192 mIU/mL as the threshold for protection against measles.

When the researchers calculated the predicted standardized mean antibody titer for infants with a mother aged 32 years, they determined their mean to be 541 mIU/mL at 1 month, 142 mIU/mL at 3 months (below the measles threshold of susceptibility of 192 mIU/mL) , and 64 mIU/mL at 6 months. None of the infants had measles antibodies above the protective threshold at 6 months old, the authors noted.

Children’s odds of susceptibility to measles doubled for each additional month of age, after adjustment for infant sex and maternal age (odds ratio, 2.13). Children’s likelihood of susceptibility to measles modestly increased as maternal age increased in 5-year increments from 25 to 40 years.

Children with an underlying conditions had greater susceptibility to measles (83%), compared with those without a comorbidity (68%, P = .03). No difference in susceptibility existed between males and females or based on gestational age at birth (ranging from 37 to 41 weeks).

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices permits measles vaccination “as early as 6 months for infants who plan to travel internationally, infants with ongoing risk for exposure during measles outbreaks and as postexposure prophylaxis,” Dr. McLean and Dr. Orenstein noted in their editorial.

They discussed the rationale for various changes in the recommended schedule for measles immunization, based on changes in epidemiology of the disease and improved understanding of the immune response to vaccination since the vaccine became available in 1963. Then they posed the question of whether the recommendation should be revised again.

“Ideally, the schedule should minimize the risk of measles and its complications and optimize vaccine-induced protection,” Dr. McLean and Dr. Orenstein wrote.

They argued that the evidence cannot currently support changing the first MMR dose to a younger age because measles incidence in the United States remains extremely low outside of the extraordinary outbreaks in 2014 and 2019. Further, infants under 12 months of age make up less than 15% of measles cases during outbreaks, and unvaccinated people make up more than 70% of cases.

Rather, they stated, this new study emphasizes the importance of following the current schedule, with consideration of an earlier schedule only warranted during outbreaks.

“Health care providers must work to maintain high levels of coverage with 2 doses of MMR among vaccine-eligible populations and minimize pockets of susceptibility to prevent transmission to infants and prevent reestablishment of endemic transmission,” they concluded.

The research was funded by the Public Health Ontario Project Initiation Fund. The authors had no relevant financial disclosures. The editorialists had no external funding and no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Science M et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Nov 21. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-0630.

Infants born in a country with no endemic measles no longer received adequate protection against the disease from maternal antibodies when they were aged 6 months, according to new research.

FatCamera/E+/Getty Images

In fact, most of the 196 infants’ maternal measles antibodies had dropped below the protective threshold by 3 months of age – well before the recommended age of 12-15 months for the first dose of MMR vaccine.

The odds of inadequate protection doubled for each additional month of age, Michelle Science, MD, of the University of Toronto and associates reported in Pediatrics.

“The widening gap between loss of maternal antibodies and measles vaccination described in our study leaves infants vulnerable to measles for much of their infancy and highlights the need for further research to support public health policy,” Dr. Science and colleagues wrote.

The findings are not surprising for a setting in which measles has been eliminated and align with results from past research, Huong Q. McLean, PhD, MPH, of the Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Research Institute and Walter A. Orenstein, MD, of Emory University in Atlanta wrote in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2019 Nov 21. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2541).

However, this susceptibility prior to receiving the MMR has taken on a new significance more recently, Dr. McLean and Dr. Orenstein suggested.

“In light of increasing measles outbreaks during the past year reaching levels not recorded in the United States since 1992 and increased measles elsewhere, coupled with the risk of severe illness in infants, there is increased concern regarding the protection of infants against measles,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Science and colleagues tested serum samples from 196 term infants, all under 12 months old, for antibodies against measles. The sera had been previously collected at a single tertiary care center in Ontario for clinical testing and then stored. Measles has been eliminated in Canada since 1998.

The researchers randomly selected 25 samples for each of eight different age groups: up to 30 days old; 1 month (31-60 days); 2 months (61-89 days); 3 months (90-119 days); 4 months; 5 months; 6-9 months; and 9-11 months.

Just over half the babies (56%) were male, and 35% had an underlying condition, but none had conditions that might affect antibody levels. The conditions were primarily a developmental delay or otherwise affecting the central nervous system, liver, or gastrointestinal function. Mean maternal age was 32 years.

To ensure high test sensitivity, the researchers used the plaque-reduction neutralization test (PRNT) to test for measles-neutralizing antibodies instead of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) because “ELISA sensitivity decreases as antibody titers decrease,” Dr. Science and colleagues wrote. They used a neutralization titer of less than 192 mIU/mL as the threshold for protection against measles.

When the researchers calculated the predicted standardized mean antibody titer for infants with a mother aged 32 years, they determined their mean to be 541 mIU/mL at 1 month, 142 mIU/mL at 3 months (below the measles threshold of susceptibility of 192 mIU/mL) , and 64 mIU/mL at 6 months. None of the infants had measles antibodies above the protective threshold at 6 months old, the authors noted.

Children’s odds of susceptibility to measles doubled for each additional month of age, after adjustment for infant sex and maternal age (odds ratio, 2.13). Children’s likelihood of susceptibility to measles modestly increased as maternal age increased in 5-year increments from 25 to 40 years.

Children with an underlying conditions had greater susceptibility to measles (83%), compared with those without a comorbidity (68%, P = .03). No difference in susceptibility existed between males and females or based on gestational age at birth (ranging from 37 to 41 weeks).

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices permits measles vaccination “as early as 6 months for infants who plan to travel internationally, infants with ongoing risk for exposure during measles outbreaks and as postexposure prophylaxis,” Dr. McLean and Dr. Orenstein noted in their editorial.

They discussed the rationale for various changes in the recommended schedule for measles immunization, based on changes in epidemiology of the disease and improved understanding of the immune response to vaccination since the vaccine became available in 1963. Then they posed the question of whether the recommendation should be revised again.

“Ideally, the schedule should minimize the risk of measles and its complications and optimize vaccine-induced protection,” Dr. McLean and Dr. Orenstein wrote.

They argued that the evidence cannot currently support changing the first MMR dose to a younger age because measles incidence in the United States remains extremely low outside of the extraordinary outbreaks in 2014 and 2019. Further, infants under 12 months of age make up less than 15% of measles cases during outbreaks, and unvaccinated people make up more than 70% of cases.

Rather, they stated, this new study emphasizes the importance of following the current schedule, with consideration of an earlier schedule only warranted during outbreaks.

“Health care providers must work to maintain high levels of coverage with 2 doses of MMR among vaccine-eligible populations and minimize pockets of susceptibility to prevent transmission to infants and prevent reestablishment of endemic transmission,” they concluded.

The research was funded by the Public Health Ontario Project Initiation Fund. The authors had no relevant financial disclosures. The editorialists had no external funding and no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Science M et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Nov 21. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-0630.

NEW ORLEANS – The incidence of acute otitis media has decreased by 25% to 35% in the past decade, thanks largely to the widespread and near universal use of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, according to Ellen R. Wald, MD.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Mar10029/Creative Commons License

“To a smaller degree, it is also attributable to the use of influenza vaccine, and to the use of more stringent diagnostic criteria,” Dr. Wald, who chairs the department of pediatrics at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “The fact that we are decreasing the number of episodes of otitis media in children in the first year of life means that we’re going to have fewer otitis-prone children and therefore less of a need for tympanostomy tubes, either as a solution to the problem of recurrence of acute otitis media (AOM) or for the problem of persistent effusion.”

The best way to limit antimicrobial use is for clinicians to increase their ability to differentiate AOM from otitis media with effusion (OME), said Dr. Wald, pediatrician-in-chief at the American Family Children’s Hospital in Madison. She noted that OME is a nonbacterial inflammatory state that usually resolves spontaneously. It tends to occur before or after AOM, and often without ever progressing to AOM. “Its principal importance is as a cause of hearing loss and as a confounder in the diagnosis AOM,” she explained. “Because it is a nonbacterial process, antibiotics are not indicated in the management of OME. In contrast, children with AOM have a bacterial infection that will benefit from the use of antimicrobials.”*

Middle ear effusion is common to both OME and AOM, she continued. To discriminate between the two conditions, clinicians must look for signs of acute inflammation of the tympanic membrane, “which we expect to see in AOM,” she said. “The most powerful sign of inflammation of the tympanic membrane is distinct fullness or bulging of the tympanic membrane on exam.”

Dr. Wald advises clinicians to be as systematic as possible when conducting the otoscopic exam, by looking at color and classifying it as pink, gray, white, yellow, red, amber, or blue, and by documenting the position as neutral, retracted, full, or bulging. “When we gauge how light passes through the tympanic membrane, we judge it as translucent, opaque, or partially opaque, and mobility as normal, decreased, or absent,” she added. “When we find decreased or absent mobility of the tympanic membrane, it tells us that we have fluid in the middle ear, but it does not discriminate between AOM and OME.”

Advances in digital otoscopy are helping pediatricians to improve their diagnostic skills. An early device, the iPhone otoscope by CellScope, uses an iOS smartphone to capture images and videos of the external ear canal and eardrum. “The image is pretty much the same as that seen through the eye of a hand-held otoscope,” Dr. Wald said. “The problem with this particular design is that the speculum is kind of large. It does still require the removal of cerumen, and the smartphone is kind of awkward to use as a handle during an otoscopic exam.”

A new digital otoscope called Wispr was unveiled at the AAP meeting. First developed at the University of Wisconsin and now marketed by WiscMed, Wispr delivers high-resolution views of the eardrum in even small or partially obstructed ear canals with one-button image and video capture. WiscMed was founded by Jim Berbee, MD, MBA, an engineer turned emergency medicine physician.

“One of the advantages of this particular model is that it handles a lot more like a usual otoscope and can be attached to the rechargeable handles that are commercially available,” Dr. Wald said. “It has an extremely tiny speculum. Within the head, there is even a smaller camera that allows the photographs to be taken. Because the speculum is so tiny, it allows the device to sometimes avoid the presence of cerumen, or sometimes go through it and still obtain an image.”

dbrunk@mdedge.com

*This article was updated 12/13/2019

NEW ORLEANS – The incidence of acute otitis media has decreased by 25% to 35% in the past decade, thanks largely to the widespread and near universal use of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, according to Ellen R. Wald, MD.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Mar10029/Creative Commons License

“To a smaller degree, it is also attributable to the use of influenza vaccine, and to the use of more stringent diagnostic criteria,” Dr. Wald, who chairs the department of pediatrics at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “The fact that we are decreasing the number of episodes of otitis media in children in the first year of life means that we’re going to have fewer otitis-prone children and therefore less of a need for tympanostomy tubes, either as a solution to the problem of recurrence of acute otitis media (AOM) or for the problem of persistent effusion.”

The best way to limit antimicrobial use is for clinicians to increase their ability to differentiate AOM from otitis media with effusion (OME), said Dr. Wald, pediatrician-in-chief at the American Family Children’s Hospital in Madison. She noted that OME is a nonbacterial inflammatory state that usually resolves spontaneously. It tends to occur before or after AOM, and often without ever progressing to AOM. “Its principal importance is as a cause of hearing loss and as a confounder in the diagnosis AOM,” she explained. “Because it is a nonbacterial process, antibiotics are not indicated in the management of OME. In contrast, children with AOM have a bacterial infection that will benefit from the use of antimicrobials.”*

Middle ear effusion is common to both OME and AOM, she continued. To discriminate between the two conditions, clinicians must look for signs of acute inflammation of the tympanic membrane, “which we expect to see in AOM,” she said. “The most powerful sign of inflammation of the tympanic membrane is distinct fullness or bulging of the tympanic membrane on exam.”

Dr. Wald advises clinicians to be as systematic as possible when conducting the otoscopic exam, by looking at color and classifying it as pink, gray, white, yellow, red, amber, or blue, and by documenting the position as neutral, retracted, full, or bulging. “When we gauge how light passes through the tympanic membrane, we judge it as translucent, opaque, or partially opaque, and mobility as normal, decreased, or absent,” she added. “When we find decreased or absent mobility of the tympanic membrane, it tells us that we have fluid in the middle ear, but it does not discriminate between AOM and OME.”

Advances in digital otoscopy are helping pediatricians to improve their diagnostic skills. An early device, the iPhone otoscope by CellScope, uses an iOS smartphone to capture images and videos of the external ear canal and eardrum. “The image is pretty much the same as that seen through the eye of a hand-held otoscope,” Dr. Wald said. “The problem with this particular design is that the speculum is kind of large. It does still require the removal of cerumen, and the smartphone is kind of awkward to use as a handle during an otoscopic exam.”

A new digital otoscope called Wispr was unveiled at the AAP meeting. First developed at the University of Wisconsin and now marketed by WiscMed, Wispr delivers high-resolution views of the eardrum in even small or partially obstructed ear canals with one-button image and video capture. WiscMed was founded by Jim Berbee, MD, MBA, an engineer turned emergency medicine physician.

“One of the advantages of this particular model is that it handles a lot more like a usual otoscope and can be attached to the rechargeable handles that are commercially available,” Dr. Wald said. “It has an extremely tiny speculum. Within the head, there is even a smaller camera that allows the photographs to be taken. Because the speculum is so tiny, it allows the device to sometimes avoid the presence of cerumen, or sometimes go through it and still obtain an image.”

dbrunk@mdedge.com

*This article was updated 12/13/2019

NEW ORLEANS – The incidence of acute otitis media has decreased by 25% to 35% in the past decade, thanks largely to the widespread and near universal use of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, according to Ellen R. Wald, MD.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Mar10029/Creative Commons License

“To a smaller degree, it is also attributable to the use of influenza vaccine, and to the use of more stringent diagnostic criteria,” Dr. Wald, who chairs the department of pediatrics at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “The fact that we are decreasing the number of episodes of otitis media in children in the first year of life means that we’re going to have fewer otitis-prone children and therefore less of a need for tympanostomy tubes, either as a solution to the problem of recurrence of acute otitis media (AOM) or for the problem of persistent effusion.”

The best way to limit antimicrobial use is for clinicians to increase their ability to differentiate AOM from otitis media with effusion (OME), said Dr. Wald, pediatrician-in-chief at the American Family Children’s Hospital in Madison. She noted that OME is a nonbacterial inflammatory state that usually resolves spontaneously. It tends to occur before or after AOM, and often without ever progressing to AOM. “Its principal importance is as a cause of hearing loss and as a confounder in the diagnosis AOM,” she explained. “Because it is a nonbacterial process, antibiotics are not indicated in the management of OME. In contrast, children with AOM have a bacterial infection that will benefit from the use of antimicrobials.”*

Middle ear effusion is common to both OME and AOM, she continued. To discriminate between the two conditions, clinicians must look for signs of acute inflammation of the tympanic membrane, “which we expect to see in AOM,” she said. “The most powerful sign of inflammation of the tympanic membrane is distinct fullness or bulging of the tympanic membrane on exam.”

Dr. Wald advises clinicians to be as systematic as possible when conducting the otoscopic exam, by looking at color and classifying it as pink, gray, white, yellow, red, amber, or blue, and by documenting the position as neutral, retracted, full, or bulging. “When we gauge how light passes through the tympanic membrane, we judge it as translucent, opaque, or partially opaque, and mobility as normal, decreased, or absent,” she added. “When we find decreased or absent mobility of the tympanic membrane, it tells us that we have fluid in the middle ear, but it does not discriminate between AOM and OME.”

Advances in digital otoscopy are helping pediatricians to improve their diagnostic skills. An early device, the iPhone otoscope by CellScope, uses an iOS smartphone to capture images and videos of the external ear canal and eardrum. “The image is pretty much the same as that seen through the eye of a hand-held otoscope,” Dr. Wald said. “The problem with this particular design is that the speculum is kind of large. It does still require the removal of cerumen, and the smartphone is kind of awkward to use as a handle during an otoscopic exam.”

A new digital otoscope called Wispr was unveiled at the AAP meeting. First developed at the University of Wisconsin and now marketed by WiscMed, Wispr delivers high-resolution views of the eardrum in even small or partially obstructed ear canals with one-button image and video capture. WiscMed was founded by Jim Berbee, MD, MBA, an engineer turned emergency medicine physician.

“One of the advantages of this particular model is that it handles a lot more like a usual otoscope and can be attached to the rechargeable handles that are commercially available,” Dr. Wald said. “It has an extremely tiny speculum. Within the head, there is even a smaller camera that allows the photographs to be taken. Because the speculum is so tiny, it allows the device to sometimes avoid the presence of cerumen, or sometimes go through it and still obtain an image.”

dbrunk@mdedge.com

*This article was updated 12/13/2019

NEW ORLEANS – One way to make sure your practice providing immunizations is in the black is to calculate your “carrying costs” and apply them to the cost of your vaccines.

Another is to make sure that you join an effectively managed and effective group purchasing organization.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

Those are two tips that Chip Hart shared with attendees at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

“Your practices will fail if immunizations are not paid,” said Mr. Hart, director of the Winooski, Vt.–based the Pediatric Solutions Consulting Group at the Physicians Computer Company. “Providing immunizations is the single most valuable thing that you do, by far. Yet you get ripped off by the payers all the time.”

Two documents from the AAP – “The business case for pricing vaccines” and “The business case for pricing immunization administration” – provide clear-cut guidance on the impact of vaccine delivery to your bottom line. Based on data from his company’s client base, Mr. Hart said that vaccines have grown from 13% of an average pediatric practice’s revenue in 2003 to 22% in 2018. “The AAP’s own research shows that you need to generate 17%-28% above what you paid for the vaccine in order just to break even,” he said. That’s to cover the administrative overhead required to purchase and store the product in an office-based refrigerator, and the staff time to administer it. Such “carrying costs” often are not factored into the analysis of many managing pediatricians.

“The unfortunate reality is, you are not paid for carrying costs related to the administration of vaccines, including your refrigerator, your sharps and waste management, claim denials, and especially every time you waste a vaccine,” Mr. Hart said. “None of those things are part of any fee schedule.”

How to determine your vaccine product overhead

There are two ways to go about determining your vaccine product overhead. The first is to perform an in-depth analysis of your costs, including time studies and cost accounting. For example, he said that if your hazardous waste costs are $3,500 per year and half of the material is composed of vaccine waste, that leaves $1,750. “If you divide that by the number of vaccines you did last year, it might come out to 13 cents per vaccine,” Mr. Hart said, “but these things add up.” On the administration side, he offered the example of a nurse who makes $45,000 per year and who devotes 10% of her time to vaccines in a practice that administers 13,000 vaccinations per year. In this case, $45,000 per year divided by 13,000 vaccines equals 35 cents than can be added to the cost of every vaccine.

“You can go into each one of these elements and figure out how much you need to clear in order to do all right,” he said.

Alternatively, you can use the research from the AAP to presume that you need to have a margin of 17%-28% on your product. “Use a figure like 20% or 25% – it’s likely as accurate as any analysis a busy private practice is capable of doing, and you can immediately determine if you are in the profitability ballpark,” Mr. Hart said. On the administration side of the equation, in 2009, researchers estimated that the total documented variable cost per injection, excluding vaccine cost, was $11.51 (Pediatrics. 2009 Dec;124 [Suppl 5]:S492-8). That figure is more like $14 or $15 per vaccine in today’s dollars, Mr. Hart estimated. “You can perform a time-motion study and determine all of your immunization administration costs or you can just simply pick an evidence-based figure like $14 and see how well you are doing,” he said.

On his company’s web site, he offers a free administrative analysis tool that clinicians can use to determine how they fare. The AAP also provides information about vaccine financing here.

How to make sure you are operating in the red

Mr. Hart advises practices operating in the red to review their vaccine delivery work flow “to look for leaks,” to use proper administrative codes, and to negotiate the price of vaccine product with payers. “The only payers that don’t negotiate are state Medicaid and Tricare,” he said. “Everyone else negotiates. You want to determine the methodology they use to calculate what they pay you for the vaccine product. Different payers have different rule sets.”

Another strategy to join a group purchasing organization (GPO), which can leverage volume purchasing to negotiate discounts on vaccines. “They’re like [the] Costco or Sam’s Club of vaccine purchasing, and in most cases they can save you about $10,000 per year,” Mr. Hart said. A list of GPOs from the AAP can be found here.

Implementing effective inventory management is also key. “Practices that have the discipline to maintain their inventories are inevitably the ones who are more profitable,” Mr. Hart said. “I’ve worked with too many practices where flu shots go missing. Staff take them home or bring in their friends after hours. You need inventory control, and you should be able to generate an inventory report out of your practice management system. You also should be able to generate a report out of your EHR.”

Mr. Hart reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

NEW ORLEANS – One way to make sure your practice providing immunizations is in the black is to calculate your “carrying costs” and apply them to the cost of your vaccines.

Another is to make sure that you join an effectively managed and effective group purchasing organization.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

Those are two tips that Chip Hart shared with attendees at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

“Your practices will fail if immunizations are not paid,” said Mr. Hart, director of the Winooski, Vt.–based the Pediatric Solutions Consulting Group at the Physicians Computer Company. “Providing immunizations is the single most valuable thing that you do, by far. Yet you get ripped off by the payers all the time.”

Two documents from the AAP – “The business case for pricing vaccines” and “The business case for pricing immunization administration” – provide clear-cut guidance on the impact of vaccine delivery to your bottom line. Based on data from his company’s client base, Mr. Hart said that vaccines have grown from 13% of an average pediatric practice’s revenue in 2003 to 22% in 2018. “The AAP’s own research shows that you need to generate 17%-28% above what you paid for the vaccine in order just to break even,” he said. That’s to cover the administrative overhead required to purchase and store the product in an office-based refrigerator, and the staff time to administer it. Such “carrying costs” often are not factored into the analysis of many managing pediatricians.

“The unfortunate reality is, you are not paid for carrying costs related to the administration of vaccines, including your refrigerator, your sharps and waste management, claim denials, and especially every time you waste a vaccine,” Mr. Hart said. “None of those things are part of any fee schedule.”

How to determine your vaccine product overhead

There are two ways to go about determining your vaccine product overhead. The first is to perform an in-depth analysis of your costs, including time studies and cost accounting. For example, he said that if your hazardous waste costs are $3,500 per year and half of the material is composed of vaccine waste, that leaves $1,750. “If you divide that by the number of vaccines you did last year, it might come out to 13 cents per vaccine,” Mr. Hart said, “but these things add up.” On the administration side, he offered the example of a nurse who makes $45,000 per year and who devotes 10% of her time to vaccines in a practice that administers 13,000 vaccinations per year. In this case, $45,000 per year divided by 13,000 vaccines equals 35 cents than can be added to the cost of every vaccine.

“You can go into each one of these elements and figure out how much you need to clear in order to do all right,” he said.

Alternatively, you can use the research from the AAP to presume that you need to have a margin of 17%-28% on your product. “Use a figure like 20% or 25% – it’s likely as accurate as any analysis a busy private practice is capable of doing, and you can immediately determine if you are in the profitability ballpark,” Mr. Hart said. On the administration side of the equation, in 2009, researchers estimated that the total documented variable cost per injection, excluding vaccine cost, was $11.51 (Pediatrics. 2009 Dec;124 [Suppl 5]:S492-8). That figure is more like $14 or $15 per vaccine in today’s dollars, Mr. Hart estimated. “You can perform a time-motion study and determine all of your immunization administration costs or you can just simply pick an evidence-based figure like $14 and see how well you are doing,” he said.

On his company’s web site, he offers a free administrative analysis tool that clinicians can use to determine how they fare. The AAP also provides information about vaccine financing here.

How to make sure you are operating in the red

Mr. Hart advises practices operating in the red to review their vaccine delivery work flow “to look for leaks,” to use proper administrative codes, and to negotiate the price of vaccine product with payers. “The only payers that don’t negotiate are state Medicaid and Tricare,” he said. “Everyone else negotiates. You want to determine the methodology they use to calculate what they pay you for the vaccine product. Different payers have different rule sets.”

Another strategy to join a group purchasing organization (GPO), which can leverage volume purchasing to negotiate discounts on vaccines. “They’re like [the] Costco or Sam’s Club of vaccine purchasing, and in most cases they can save you about $10,000 per year,” Mr. Hart said. A list of GPOs from the AAP can be found here.

Implementing effective inventory management is also key. “Practices that have the discipline to maintain their inventories are inevitably the ones who are more profitable,” Mr. Hart said. “I’ve worked with too many practices where flu shots go missing. Staff take them home or bring in their friends after hours. You need inventory control, and you should be able to generate an inventory report out of your practice management system. You also should be able to generate a report out of your EHR.”

Mr. Hart reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

NEW ORLEANS – One way to make sure your practice providing immunizations is in the black is to calculate your “carrying costs” and apply them to the cost of your vaccines.

Another is to make sure that you join an effectively managed and effective group purchasing organization.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

Those are two tips that Chip Hart shared with attendees at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

“Your practices will fail if immunizations are not paid,” said Mr. Hart, director of the Winooski, Vt.–based the Pediatric Solutions Consulting Group at the Physicians Computer Company. “Providing immunizations is the single most valuable thing that you do, by far. Yet you get ripped off by the payers all the time.”

Two documents from the AAP – “The business case for pricing vaccines” and “The business case for pricing immunization administration” – provide clear-cut guidance on the impact of vaccine delivery to your bottom line. Based on data from his company’s client base, Mr. Hart said that vaccines have grown from 13% of an average pediatric practice’s revenue in 2003 to 22% in 2018. “The AAP’s own research shows that you need to generate 17%-28% above what you paid for the vaccine in order just to break even,” he said. That’s to cover the administrative overhead required to purchase and store the product in an office-based refrigerator, and the staff time to administer it. Such “carrying costs” often are not factored into the analysis of many managing pediatricians.

“The unfortunate reality is, you are not paid for carrying costs related to the administration of vaccines, including your refrigerator, your sharps and waste management, claim denials, and especially every time you waste a vaccine,” Mr. Hart said. “None of those things are part of any fee schedule.”

How to determine your vaccine product overhead

There are two ways to go about determining your vaccine product overhead. The first is to perform an in-depth analysis of your costs, including time studies and cost accounting. For example, he said that if your hazardous waste costs are $3,500 per year and half of the material is composed of vaccine waste, that leaves $1,750. “If you divide that by the number of vaccines you did last year, it might come out to 13 cents per vaccine,” Mr. Hart said, “but these things add up.” On the administration side, he offered the example of a nurse who makes $45,000 per year and who devotes 10% of her time to vaccines in a practice that administers 13,000 vaccinations per year. In this case, $45,000 per year divided by 13,000 vaccines equals 35 cents than can be added to the cost of every vaccine.

“You can go into each one of these elements and figure out how much you need to clear in order to do all right,” he said.

Alternatively, you can use the research from the AAP to presume that you need to have a margin of 17%-28% on your product. “Use a figure like 20% or 25% – it’s likely as accurate as any analysis a busy private practice is capable of doing, and you can immediately determine if you are in the profitability ballpark,” Mr. Hart said. On the administration side of the equation, in 2009, researchers estimated that the total documented variable cost per injection, excluding vaccine cost, was $11.51 (Pediatrics. 2009 Dec;124 [Suppl 5]:S492-8). That figure is more like $14 or $15 per vaccine in today’s dollars, Mr. Hart estimated. “You can perform a time-motion study and determine all of your immunization administration costs or you can just simply pick an evidence-based figure like $14 and see how well you are doing,” he said.

On his company’s web site, he offers a free administrative analysis tool that clinicians can use to determine how they fare. The AAP also provides information about vaccine financing here.

How to make sure you are operating in the red

Mr. Hart advises practices operating in the red to review their vaccine delivery work flow “to look for leaks,” to use proper administrative codes, and to negotiate the price of vaccine product with payers. “The only payers that don’t negotiate are state Medicaid and Tricare,” he said. “Everyone else negotiates. You want to determine the methodology they use to calculate what they pay you for the vaccine product. Different payers have different rule sets.”

Another strategy to join a group purchasing organization (GPO), which can leverage volume purchasing to negotiate discounts on vaccines. “They’re like [the] Costco or Sam’s Club of vaccine purchasing, and in most cases they can save you about $10,000 per year,” Mr. Hart said. A list of GPOs from the AAP can be found here.

Implementing effective inventory management is also key. “Practices that have the discipline to maintain their inventories are inevitably the ones who are more profitable,” Mr. Hart said. “I’ve worked with too many practices where flu shots go missing. Staff take them home or bring in their friends after hours. You need inventory control, and you should be able to generate an inventory report out of your practice management system. You also should be able to generate a report out of your EHR.”

Mr. Hart reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

AUSTIN, TEX. – Neuromuscular complications from immunotherapy for cancer are rare, but they occur often enough that it is helpful to know which ones can result from different immunotherapies and how to distinguish them from non–adverse event conditions, according to Christopher Trevino, MD, a neuro-oncologist at Tulane University in New Orleans.

At the annual meeting of the American Association for Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, Dr. Trevino reviewed immunotherapy types, particularly immune checkpoint inhibitors, and the most common neuromuscular complications – primarily neuropathy, myasthenia gravis (MG), myositis, and encephalitis or meningitis.

“Timing of onset is a critical component to assist in identifying immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated versus non–immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated neuromuscular disease,” Dr. Trevino told attendees. Prompt recognition can be particularly urgent for MG because crisis and death rates are higher when induced by immunotherapy and require quick treatment. “Understanding the mechanisms of action sets a foundation for treatment approach,” he added.

Any part of the nervous system can be affected by immunotherapy toxicity, he said, and syndromes often overlap, with the peripheral nervous system typically more often affected than the central nervous system. Neurologic immune-related adverse events typically occur within four cycles of therapy – about 12 weeks after therapy initiation – but should always involve a work-up to exclude effects from the cancer itself, other neuromuscular diagnoses unrelated to therapy, and other toxicities from chemotherapy.

Recommended first-line treatment is halting immunotherapy with or without corticosteroids, after which most patients improve, often with “rapid, complete resolution of symptoms,” Dr. Trevino said. Restarting immunotherapy treatment is possible in some patients, though.
 

CAR T-cell and dendritic cell vaccine therapies

Four main types of immunotherapy exist: viral therapy, vaccine therapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and adoptive cell transfer, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. Dr. Trevino focused on checkpoint inhibitors and adoptive cell transfer.

CAR T-cell therapy is a multistep treatment process that involves first removing blood from the patient to obtain their T cells. These are used to create and grow CAR T cells in the lab so that they can be infused back into the patient. The cells then bind to cancer cells and destroy them. Examples of approved CAR T-cell therapy include Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel) for some types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel) for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

Dendritic cell vaccines are similar to CAR T-cell therapy in that they also use the patient’s own immune cells to create cancer-killing cells that the patient then receives back. The only currently approved dendritic cell vaccine is Provenge (sipuleucel-T) for advanced prostate cancer.

The main toxicity to watch for from CAR T-cell therapy and dendritic cell vaccines is cytokine release syndrome (CRS). It can begin anywhere from 1-14 days after the infusion and involves T-cell expansion in the body that leads to a cytokine storm. Symptoms are wide ranging, including fatigue, fever, loss of appetite, tachycardia, hypotension, pain, rash, diarrhea, headache, confusion, seizures, muscle and joint pain, tachypnea, hypoxia and hallucinations, among others.

Specific central neurotoxicities that can result from CAR T-cell therapy include encephalopathy, cerebral edema, seizures and status epilepticus, cerebral vasospasm, and aphasia.
 

Immune checkpoint inhibitor toxicities

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are drugs that interrupt a cancer’s ability to hijack the immune system; they block the proteins that hold back T-cells from attacking the cancer, thereby releasing the immune system to go after the malignant cells.

The two most common types of immune checkpoint inhibitors are those targeting the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) pathways. The three currently approved PD-1 inhibitors are pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), and cemiplimab (Libtayo), which can treat nearly a dozen malignancies affecting different organs. Atezolizumab (Tecentriq), avelumab (Bavencio), and durvalumab (Imfinzi) are the three currently approved PD-L1 inhibitors, indicated for urothelial carcinoma and a handful of other cancers, such as small-cell and non–small cell lung cancer and triple negative breast cancer.

The only other type of approved checkpoint inhibitor is ipilimumab (Yervoy), which targets the CTLA-4 protein. A number of other checkpoint inhibitors are in trials, however, such as ones targeting pathways involving OX40, ICOS, TIM3, and LAG-3 (J Hematol Oncol. 2018. doi: 10.1186/s13045-018-0582-8).

Immune-related adverse events are less common with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors – a rate of 5%-10% – compared with adverse events from CTLA-4 inhibitors, which occur in about 15% of patients. Neurologic complications occur even more rarely – about 1%-4% of all immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies – and primarily include MG, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), and inflammatory myositis (Muscle Nerve. 2018;58[1]:10-22).

Treatment with multiple checkpoint inhibitors increases the likelihood of severe adverse events, with rates of up to 30%-50% of patients with dual treatment.
 

Distinguishing features of neuromuscular immunotherapy-related adverse events

MG is the most common neuromuscular immune-related adverse event from immune checkpoint inhibitors and tends to occur 3-12 weeks after beginning treatment, frequently comorbid with inflammatory myopathy or cardiomyopathy, Dr. Trevino said. About two-thirds of cases are de novo, while the remaining one-third involve preexisting MG; no reports of Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome have been linked to checkpoint inhibitors.

Several characteristics distinguish checkpoint inhibitor–associated MG from standard MG. Standard MG can be ocular with or without bulbar or appendicular weakness, whereas immunotherapy-related MG is rarely only ocular (about 18% of cases). Immunotherapy-related MG involves an MG crisis at diagnosis in up to 50% of cases and has high mortality, both of which are rarer with standard MG.

While standard MG can be seronegative or involve AChR, MuSK, or LRP4 antibodies, about two-thirds of immunotherapy-related MG cases are positive for AChR antibodies. LRP4 antibodies are rare with MG from checkpoint inhibitors, and no MuSK antibodies have been reported in these cases. Creatine kinase (CK) or troponin I (TnI) elevation occurs in about 87% of patients with checkpoint inhibitor-induced MG, but standard MG doesn’t typically involve increased CK levels.

Inflammatory myositis (IM), the second most common neuromuscular adverse event from immunotherapy, tends to occur 2-15 weeks after immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy and can involve polymyositis, necrotizing autoimmune myopathy, dermatomyositis, granulomatous myositis, or other nonspecific myositis and myopathies.

Though proximal weakness occurs with IM both associated with immunotherapy and not, ocular symptoms are unique to cases associated with therapy and occur in about half of them. Myalgia, dyspnea, and dysphagia can all occur with checkpoint inhibitor–associated IM but don’t generally occur with standard IM. Immunotherapy-related IM is usually seronegative for myositis antibodies and doesn’t generally cause abnormalities in electromyography, compared with increased exertional activity and early recruitment of myopathic motor units in electromyography with standard IM.

GBS and CIDP are the third most common cause of neuromuscular complications from checkpoint inhibitors. The main distinguishing feature of these conditions from those not related to immunotherapy is that they occur anywhere from 4 to 68 weeks after therapy begins. Presentation is otherwise similar whether related to checkpoint inhibitors or not.

Aside from GBS and CIDP, other neuropathies that can result from immunotherapy complications include acute cranial neuropathies, axonal or demyelinating neuropathies, motor polyradiculopathy, vasculitic neuropathy, and plexopathy.

Neuromuscular complications other than those described above can also occur from checkpoint inhibitor therapy, such as enteric neuropathy, polyradiculitis, and meningo-radiculo-neuritis, but these are much rarer.

Four organizations have developed consensus guidelines for immune checkpoint inhibitor toxicities: the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO, 2017), Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC, 2017), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO, 2018), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN, 2019).

Dr Trevino had no disclosures.

AUSTIN, TEX. – Neuromuscular complications from immunotherapy for cancer are rare, but they occur often enough that it is helpful to know which ones can result from different immunotherapies and how to distinguish them from non–adverse event conditions, according to Christopher Trevino, MD, a neuro-oncologist at Tulane University in New Orleans.

At the annual meeting of the American Association for Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, Dr. Trevino reviewed immunotherapy types, particularly immune checkpoint inhibitors, and the most common neuromuscular complications – primarily neuropathy, myasthenia gravis (MG), myositis, and encephalitis or meningitis.

“Timing of onset is a critical component to assist in identifying immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated versus non–immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated neuromuscular disease,” Dr. Trevino told attendees. Prompt recognition can be particularly urgent for MG because crisis and death rates are higher when induced by immunotherapy and require quick treatment. “Understanding the mechanisms of action sets a foundation for treatment approach,” he added.

Any part of the nervous system can be affected by immunotherapy toxicity, he said, and syndromes often overlap, with the peripheral nervous system typically more often affected than the central nervous system. Neurologic immune-related adverse events typically occur within four cycles of therapy – about 12 weeks after therapy initiation – but should always involve a work-up to exclude effects from the cancer itself, other neuromuscular diagnoses unrelated to therapy, and other toxicities from chemotherapy.

Recommended first-line treatment is halting immunotherapy with or without corticosteroids, after which most patients improve, often with “rapid, complete resolution of symptoms,” Dr. Trevino said. Restarting immunotherapy treatment is possible in some patients, though.
 

CAR T-cell and dendritic cell vaccine therapies

Four main types of immunotherapy exist: viral therapy, vaccine therapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and adoptive cell transfer, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. Dr. Trevino focused on checkpoint inhibitors and adoptive cell transfer.

CAR T-cell therapy is a multistep treatment process that involves first removing blood from the patient to obtain their T cells. These are used to create and grow CAR T cells in the lab so that they can be infused back into the patient. The cells then bind to cancer cells and destroy them. Examples of approved CAR T-cell therapy include Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel) for some types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel) for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

Dendritic cell vaccines are similar to CAR T-cell therapy in that they also use the patient’s own immune cells to create cancer-killing cells that the patient then receives back. The only currently approved dendritic cell vaccine is Provenge (sipuleucel-T) for advanced prostate cancer.

The main toxicity to watch for from CAR T-cell therapy and dendritic cell vaccines is cytokine release syndrome (CRS). It can begin anywhere from 1-14 days after the infusion and involves T-cell expansion in the body that leads to a cytokine storm. Symptoms are wide ranging, including fatigue, fever, loss of appetite, tachycardia, hypotension, pain, rash, diarrhea, headache, confusion, seizures, muscle and joint pain, tachypnea, hypoxia and hallucinations, among others.

Specific central neurotoxicities that can result from CAR T-cell therapy include encephalopathy, cerebral edema, seizures and status epilepticus, cerebral vasospasm, and aphasia.
 

Immune checkpoint inhibitor toxicities

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are drugs that interrupt a cancer’s ability to hijack the immune system; they block the proteins that hold back T-cells from attacking the cancer, thereby releasing the immune system to go after the malignant cells.

The two most common types of immune checkpoint inhibitors are those targeting the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) pathways. The three currently approved PD-1 inhibitors are pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), and cemiplimab (Libtayo), which can treat nearly a dozen malignancies affecting different organs. Atezolizumab (Tecentriq), avelumab (Bavencio), and durvalumab (Imfinzi) are the three currently approved PD-L1 inhibitors, indicated for urothelial carcinoma and a handful of other cancers, such as small-cell and non–small cell lung cancer and triple negative breast cancer.

The only other type of approved checkpoint inhibitor is ipilimumab (Yervoy), which targets the CTLA-4 protein. A number of other checkpoint inhibitors are in trials, however, such as ones targeting pathways involving OX40, ICOS, TIM3, and LAG-3 (J Hematol Oncol. 2018. doi: 10.1186/s13045-018-0582-8).

Immune-related adverse events are less common with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors – a rate of 5%-10% – compared with adverse events from CTLA-4 inhibitors, which occur in about 15% of patients. Neurologic complications occur even more rarely – about 1%-4% of all immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies – and primarily include MG, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), and inflammatory myositis (Muscle Nerve. 2018;58[1]:10-22).

Treatment with multiple checkpoint inhibitors increases the likelihood of severe adverse events, with rates of up to 30%-50% of patients with dual treatment.
 

Distinguishing features of neuromuscular immunotherapy-related adverse events

MG is the most common neuromuscular immune-related adverse event from immune checkpoint inhibitors and tends to occur 3-12 weeks after beginning treatment, frequently comorbid with inflammatory myopathy or cardiomyopathy, Dr. Trevino said. About two-thirds of cases are de novo, while the remaining one-third involve preexisting MG; no reports of Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome have been linked to checkpoint inhibitors.

Several characteristics distinguish checkpoint inhibitor–associated MG from standard MG. Standard MG can be ocular with or without bulbar or appendicular weakness, whereas immunotherapy-related MG is rarely only ocular (about 18% of cases). Immunotherapy-related MG involves an MG crisis at diagnosis in up to 50% of cases and has high mortality, both of which are rarer with standard MG.

While standard MG can be seronegative or involve AChR, MuSK, or LRP4 antibodies, about two-thirds of immunotherapy-related MG cases are positive for AChR antibodies. LRP4 antibodies are rare with MG from checkpoint inhibitors, and no MuSK antibodies have been reported in these cases. Creatine kinase (CK) or troponin I (TnI) elevation occurs in about 87% of patients with checkpoint inhibitor-induced MG, but standard MG doesn’t typically involve increased CK levels.

Inflammatory myositis (IM), the second most common neuromuscular adverse event from immunotherapy, tends to occur 2-15 weeks after immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy and can involve polymyositis, necrotizing autoimmune myopathy, dermatomyositis, granulomatous myositis, or other nonspecific myositis and myopathies.

Though proximal weakness occurs with IM both associated with immunotherapy and not, ocular symptoms are unique to cases associated with therapy and occur in about half of them. Myalgia, dyspnea, and dysphagia can all occur with checkpoint inhibitor–associated IM but don’t generally occur with standard IM. Immunotherapy-related IM is usually seronegative for myositis antibodies and doesn’t generally cause abnormalities in electromyography, compared with increased exertional activity and early recruitment of myopathic motor units in electromyography with standard IM.

GBS and CIDP are the third most common cause of neuromuscular complications from checkpoint inhibitors. The main distinguishing feature of these conditions from those not related to immunotherapy is that they occur anywhere from 4 to 68 weeks after therapy begins. Presentation is otherwise similar whether related to checkpoint inhibitors or not.

Aside from GBS and CIDP, other neuropathies that can result from immunotherapy complications include acute cranial neuropathies, axonal or demyelinating neuropathies, motor polyradiculopathy, vasculitic neuropathy, and plexopathy.

Neuromuscular complications other than those described above can also occur from checkpoint inhibitor therapy, such as enteric neuropathy, polyradiculitis, and meningo-radiculo-neuritis, but these are much rarer.

Four organizations have developed consensus guidelines for immune checkpoint inhibitor toxicities: the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO, 2017), Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC, 2017), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO, 2018), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN, 2019).

Dr Trevino had no disclosures.

AUSTIN, TEX. – Neuromuscular complications from immunotherapy for cancer are rare, but they occur often enough that it is helpful to know which ones can result from different immunotherapies and how to distinguish them from non–adverse event conditions, according to Christopher Trevino, MD, a neuro-oncologist at Tulane University in New Orleans.

At the annual meeting of the American Association for Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, Dr. Trevino reviewed immunotherapy types, particularly immune checkpoint inhibitors, and the most common neuromuscular complications – primarily neuropathy, myasthenia gravis (MG), myositis, and encephalitis or meningitis.

“Timing of onset is a critical component to assist in identifying immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated versus non–immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated neuromuscular disease,” Dr. Trevino told attendees. Prompt recognition can be particularly urgent for MG because crisis and death rates are higher when induced by immunotherapy and require quick treatment. “Understanding the mechanisms of action sets a foundation for treatment approach,” he added.

Any part of the nervous system can be affected by immunotherapy toxicity, he said, and syndromes often overlap, with the peripheral nervous system typically more often affected than the central nervous system. Neurologic immune-related adverse events typically occur within four cycles of therapy – about 12 weeks after therapy initiation – but should always involve a work-up to exclude effects from the cancer itself, other neuromuscular diagnoses unrelated to therapy, and other toxicities from chemotherapy.

Recommended first-line treatment is halting immunotherapy with or without corticosteroids, after which most patients improve, often with “rapid, complete resolution of symptoms,” Dr. Trevino said. Restarting immunotherapy treatment is possible in some patients, though.
 

CAR T-cell and dendritic cell vaccine therapies

Four main types of immunotherapy exist: viral therapy, vaccine therapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and adoptive cell transfer, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. Dr. Trevino focused on checkpoint inhibitors and adoptive cell transfer.

CAR T-cell therapy is a multistep treatment process that involves first removing blood from the patient to obtain their T cells. These are used to create and grow CAR T cells in the lab so that they can be infused back into the patient. The cells then bind to cancer cells and destroy them. Examples of approved CAR T-cell therapy include Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel) for some types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel) for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

Dendritic cell vaccines are similar to CAR T-cell therapy in that they also use the patient’s own immune cells to create cancer-killing cells that the patient then receives back. The only currently approved dendritic cell vaccine is Provenge (sipuleucel-T) for advanced prostate cancer.

The main toxicity to watch for from CAR T-cell therapy and dendritic cell vaccines is cytokine release syndrome (CRS). It can begin anywhere from 1-14 days after the infusion and involves T-cell expansion in the body that leads to a cytokine storm. Symptoms are wide ranging, including fatigue, fever, loss of appetite, tachycardia, hypotension, pain, rash, diarrhea, headache, confusion, seizures, muscle and joint pain, tachypnea, hypoxia and hallucinations, among others.

Specific central neurotoxicities that can result from CAR T-cell therapy include encephalopathy, cerebral edema, seizures and status epilepticus, cerebral vasospasm, and aphasia.
 

Immune checkpoint inhibitor toxicities

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are drugs that interrupt a cancer’s ability to hijack the immune system; they block the proteins that hold back T-cells from attacking the cancer, thereby releasing the immune system to go after the malignant cells.

The two most common types of immune checkpoint inhibitors are those targeting the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) pathways. The three currently approved PD-1 inhibitors are pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), and cemiplimab (Libtayo), which can treat nearly a dozen malignancies affecting different organs. Atezolizumab (Tecentriq), avelumab (Bavencio), and durvalumab (Imfinzi) are the three currently approved PD-L1 inhibitors, indicated for urothelial carcinoma and a handful of other cancers, such as small-cell and non–small cell lung cancer and triple negative breast cancer.

The only other type of approved checkpoint inhibitor is ipilimumab (Yervoy), which targets the CTLA-4 protein. A number of other checkpoint inhibitors are in trials, however, such as ones targeting pathways involving OX40, ICOS, TIM3, and LAG-3 (J Hematol Oncol. 2018. doi: 10.1186/s13045-018-0582-8).

Immune-related adverse events are less common with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors – a rate of 5%-10% – compared with adverse events from CTLA-4 inhibitors, which occur in about 15% of patients. Neurologic complications occur even more rarely – about 1%-4% of all immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies – and primarily include MG, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), and inflammatory myositis (Muscle Nerve. 2018;58[1]:10-22).

Treatment with multiple checkpoint inhibitors increases the likelihood of severe adverse events, with rates of up to 30%-50% of patients with dual treatment.
 

Distinguishing features of neuromuscular immunotherapy-related adverse events

MG is the most common neuromuscular immune-related adverse event from immune checkpoint inhibitors and tends to occur 3-12 weeks after beginning treatment, frequently comorbid with inflammatory myopathy or cardiomyopathy, Dr. Trevino said. About two-thirds of cases are de novo, while the remaining one-third involve preexisting MG; no reports of Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome have been linked to checkpoint inhibitors.

Several characteristics distinguish checkpoint inhibitor–associated MG from standard MG. Standard MG can be ocular with or without bulbar or appendicular weakness, whereas immunotherapy-related MG is rarely only ocular (about 18% of cases). Immunotherapy-related MG involves an MG crisis at diagnosis in up to 50% of cases and has high mortality, both of which are rarer with standard MG.

While standard MG can be seronegative or involve AChR, MuSK, or LRP4 antibodies, about two-thirds of immunotherapy-related MG cases are positive for AChR antibodies. LRP4 antibodies are rare with MG from checkpoint inhibitors, and no MuSK antibodies have been reported in these cases. Creatine kinase (CK) or troponin I (TnI) elevation occurs in about 87% of patients with checkpoint inhibitor-induced MG, but standard MG doesn’t typically involve increased CK levels.

Inflammatory myositis (IM), the second most common neuromuscular adverse event from immunotherapy, tends to occur 2-15 weeks after immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy and can involve polymyositis, necrotizing autoimmune myopathy, dermatomyositis, granulomatous myositis, or other nonspecific myositis and myopathies.

Though proximal weakness occurs with IM both associated with immunotherapy and not, ocular symptoms are unique to cases associated with therapy and occur in about half of them. Myalgia, dyspnea, and dysphagia can all occur with checkpoint inhibitor–associated IM but don’t generally occur with standard IM. Immunotherapy-related IM is usually seronegative for myositis antibodies and doesn’t generally cause abnormalities in electromyography, compared with increased exertional activity and early recruitment of myopathic motor units in electromyography with standard IM.

GBS and CIDP are the third most common cause of neuromuscular complications from checkpoint inhibitors. The main distinguishing feature of these conditions from those not related to immunotherapy is that they occur anywhere from 4 to 68 weeks after therapy begins. Presentation is otherwise similar whether related to checkpoint inhibitors or not.

Aside from GBS and CIDP, other neuropathies that can result from immunotherapy complications include acute cranial neuropathies, axonal or demyelinating neuropathies, motor polyradiculopathy, vasculitic neuropathy, and plexopathy.

Neuromuscular complications other than those described above can also occur from checkpoint inhibitor therapy, such as enteric neuropathy, polyradiculitis, and meningo-radiculo-neuritis, but these are much rarer.

Four organizations have developed consensus guidelines for immune checkpoint inhibitor toxicities: the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO, 2017), Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC, 2017), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO, 2018), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN, 2019).

Dr Trevino had no disclosures.

ATLANTA – A group of patients using a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor safely received the live-attenuated varicella vaccine Zostavax without any cases of herpes zoster in the first 6 weeks after vaccination in the blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled Varicella Zoster Vaccine (VERVE) trial .

According to guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, there is a theoretical concern that patients using a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and other biologic therapies who receive a live-attenuated version of the varicella vaccine (Zostavax) could become infected with varicella from the vaccine. Patients with RA and psoriatic arthritis as well as other autoimmune and inflammatory conditions who are likely to receive TNFi therapy are also at risk for herpes zoster reactivation, Jeffrey Curtis, MD, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in his presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. There also exists a risk for patients receiving low-dose glucocorticoids.

“The challenge, of course, is there’s not a great definition and there certainly is not a well-standardized assay for how immunocompromised someone is, and so that led to the uncertainty in this patient population for this and other live-virus vaccines,” Dr. Curtis said.

Dr. Curtis and colleagues enrolled 627 participants from 33 centers into the VERVE trial. Participants were aged at least 50 years, were taking a TNFi, and had not previously received Zostavax.

Patients in both groups had a mean age of about 63 years and about two-thirds were women. The most common indications for TNFi use in the Zostavax group and the placebo group were RA (59.2% vs. 56.0%, respectively), psoriatic arthritis (24.3% vs. 23.9%), and ankylosing spondylitis (7.2% vs. 8.5%), while the anti-TNF agents used were adalimumab (38.1% vs. 27.4%), infliximab (28.4% vs. 34.2%), etanercept (19.0% vs. 23.5%), golimumab (10.0% vs. 8.1%), and certolizumab pegol (4.5% vs. 6.8%). In addition, some patients in the Zostavax and placebo groups were also taking concomitant therapies with TNFi, such as oral glucocorticoids (9.7% vs. 11.4%).

The researchers randomized participants to receive Zostavax or placebo (saline) and then followed them for 6 weeks, and looked for signs of wild-type or vaccine-strain varicella infection. If participants were suspected to have varicella, they were assessed clinically, underwent polymerase chain reaction testing, and rashes were photographed. At baseline and at 6 weeks, the researchers collected serum and peripheral blood mononuclear cells to determine patient immunity to varicella. After 6 months, participants were unmasked to the treatment arm of the study.

Dr. Curtis and colleagues found no confirmed varicella infection cases at 6 weeks. “To the extent that 0 cases out of 317 vaccinated people is reassuring, there were no cases, so that was exceedingly heartening as a result,” he said.

Out of 20 serious adverse events total in the groups, 15 events occurred before 6 months, including 8 suspected varicella cases in the Zostavax group and 7 in the placebo group. However, there were no positive cases of varicella – either wild type or vaccine type – after polymerase chain reaction tests. Overall, there were 268 adverse events in 195 participants, with 73 events (27.2%) consisting of injection-site reactions. The researchers also found no difference in the rate of disease flares, and found no differences in adverse reactions between groups, apart from a higher rate of injection-site reactions in the varicella group (19.4% vs. 4.2%).

With regard to immunogenicity, the humoral immune response was measured through IgG, which showed an immune response in the varicella group at 6 weeks (geometric mean fold ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.51), compared with the placebo group (GMFR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91-1.14); cell-mediated immune response was measured by interferon-gamma, which also showed an immune response in the live-vaccine group (GMFR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.14-1.94), compared with participants who received placebo (GMFR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.87-1.48). In preliminary 1-year data, IgG immune response was elevated in the varicella group (GMFR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.08-1.99), but there was no elevated immune response for interferon-gamma (GMFR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.49-1.25).

“I think the trial is encouraging not only for its result with the live zoster vaccine and TNF-treated patients, but also challenge the notion that, if you need to, a live-virus vaccine may in fact be able to be safely given to people with autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, even those treated with biologics like tumor necrosis factor inhibitors,” Dr. Curtis said.

As patients in VERVE consented to long-term follow-up in health plan claims and EHR data, it will be possible to follow these patients in the future to assess herpes zoster reactivation. Dr. Curtis also noted that a new trial involving the recombinant, adjuvanted zoster vaccine (Shingrix) is currently in development and should begin next year.

The VERVE trial was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Curtis reported serving as a current member of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Herpes Zoster Work Group. He and some of the other authors reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Curtis J et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 824.

ATLANTA – A group of patients using a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor safely received the live-attenuated varicella vaccine Zostavax without any cases of herpes zoster in the first 6 weeks after vaccination in the blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled Varicella Zoster Vaccine (VERVE) trial .

According to guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, there is a theoretical concern that patients using a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and other biologic therapies who receive a live-attenuated version of the varicella vaccine (Zostavax) could become infected with varicella from the vaccine. Patients with RA and psoriatic arthritis as well as other autoimmune and inflammatory conditions who are likely to receive TNFi therapy are also at risk for herpes zoster reactivation, Jeffrey Curtis, MD, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in his presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. There also exists a risk for patients receiving low-dose glucocorticoids.

“The challenge, of course, is there’s not a great definition and there certainly is not a well-standardized assay for how immunocompromised someone is, and so that led to the uncertainty in this patient population for this and other live-virus vaccines,” Dr. Curtis said.

Dr. Curtis and colleagues enrolled 627 participants from 33 centers into the VERVE trial. Participants were aged at least 50 years, were taking a TNFi, and had not previously received Zostavax.

Patients in both groups had a mean age of about 63 years and about two-thirds were women. The most common indications for TNFi use in the Zostavax group and the placebo group were RA (59.2% vs. 56.0%, respectively), psoriatic arthritis (24.3% vs. 23.9%), and ankylosing spondylitis (7.2% vs. 8.5%), while the anti-TNF agents used were adalimumab (38.1% vs. 27.4%), infliximab (28.4% vs. 34.2%), etanercept (19.0% vs. 23.5%), golimumab (10.0% vs. 8.1%), and certolizumab pegol (4.5% vs. 6.8%). In addition, some patients in the Zostavax and placebo groups were also taking concomitant therapies with TNFi, such as oral glucocorticoids (9.7% vs. 11.4%).

The researchers randomized participants to receive Zostavax or placebo (saline) and then followed them for 6 weeks, and looked for signs of wild-type or vaccine-strain varicella infection. If participants were suspected to have varicella, they were assessed clinically, underwent polymerase chain reaction testing, and rashes were photographed. At baseline and at 6 weeks, the researchers collected serum and peripheral blood mononuclear cells to determine patient immunity to varicella. After 6 months, participants were unmasked to the treatment arm of the study.

Dr. Curtis and colleagues found no confirmed varicella infection cases at 6 weeks. “To the extent that 0 cases out of 317 vaccinated people is reassuring, there were no cases, so that was exceedingly heartening as a result,” he said.

Out of 20 serious adverse events total in the groups, 15 events occurred before 6 months, including 8 suspected varicella cases in the Zostavax group and 7 in the placebo group. However, there were no positive cases of varicella – either wild type or vaccine type – after polymerase chain reaction tests. Overall, there were 268 adverse events in 195 participants, with 73 events (27.2%) consisting of injection-site reactions. The researchers also found no difference in the rate of disease flares, and found no differences in adverse reactions between groups, apart from a higher rate of injection-site reactions in the varicella group (19.4% vs. 4.2%).

With regard to immunogenicity, the humoral immune response was measured through IgG, which showed an immune response in the varicella group at 6 weeks (geometric mean fold ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.51), compared with the placebo group (GMFR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91-1.14); cell-mediated immune response was measured by interferon-gamma, which also showed an immune response in the live-vaccine group (GMFR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.14-1.94), compared with participants who received placebo (GMFR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.87-1.48). In preliminary 1-year data, IgG immune response was elevated in the varicella group (GMFR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.08-1.99), but there was no elevated immune response for interferon-gamma (GMFR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.49-1.25).

“I think the trial is encouraging not only for its result with the live zoster vaccine and TNF-treated patients, but also challenge the notion that, if you need to, a live-virus vaccine may in fact be able to be safely given to people with autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, even those treated with biologics like tumor necrosis factor inhibitors,” Dr. Curtis said.

As patients in VERVE consented to long-term follow-up in health plan claims and EHR data, it will be possible to follow these patients in the future to assess herpes zoster reactivation. Dr. Curtis also noted that a new trial involving the recombinant, adjuvanted zoster vaccine (Shingrix) is currently in development and should begin next year.

The VERVE trial was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Curtis reported serving as a current member of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Herpes Zoster Work Group. He and some of the other authors reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Curtis J et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 824.

ATLANTA – A group of patients using a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor safely received the live-attenuated varicella vaccine Zostavax without any cases of herpes zoster in the first 6 weeks after vaccination in the blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled Varicella Zoster Vaccine (VERVE) trial .

According to guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, there is a theoretical concern that patients using a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and other biologic therapies who receive a live-attenuated version of the varicella vaccine (Zostavax) could become infected with varicella from the vaccine. Patients with RA and psoriatic arthritis as well as other autoimmune and inflammatory conditions who are likely to receive TNFi therapy are also at risk for herpes zoster reactivation, Jeffrey Curtis, MD, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in his presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. There also exists a risk for patients receiving low-dose glucocorticoids.

“The challenge, of course, is there’s not a great definition and there certainly is not a well-standardized assay for how immunocompromised someone is, and so that led to the uncertainty in this patient population for this and other live-virus vaccines,” Dr. Curtis said.

Dr. Curtis and colleagues enrolled 627 participants from 33 centers into the VERVE trial. Participants were aged at least 50 years, were taking a TNFi, and had not previously received Zostavax.

Patients in both groups had a mean age of about 63 years and about two-thirds were women. The most common indications for TNFi use in the Zostavax group and the placebo group were RA (59.2% vs. 56.0%, respectively), psoriatic arthritis (24.3% vs. 23.9%), and ankylosing spondylitis (7.2% vs. 8.5%), while the anti-TNF agents used were adalimumab (38.1% vs. 27.4%), infliximab (28.4% vs. 34.2%), etanercept (19.0% vs. 23.5%), golimumab (10.0% vs. 8.1%), and certolizumab pegol (4.5% vs. 6.8%). In addition, some patients in the Zostavax and placebo groups were also taking concomitant therapies with TNFi, such as oral glucocorticoids (9.7% vs. 11.4%).

The researchers randomized participants to receive Zostavax or placebo (saline) and then followed them for 6 weeks, and looked for signs of wild-type or vaccine-strain varicella infection. If participants were suspected to have varicella, they were assessed clinically, underwent polymerase chain reaction testing, and rashes were photographed. At baseline and at 6 weeks, the researchers collected serum and peripheral blood mononuclear cells to determine patient immunity to varicella. After 6 months, participants were unmasked to the treatment arm of the study.

Dr. Curtis and colleagues found no confirmed varicella infection cases at 6 weeks. “To the extent that 0 cases out of 317 vaccinated people is reassuring, there were no cases, so that was exceedingly heartening as a result,” he said.

Out of 20 serious adverse events total in the groups, 15 events occurred before 6 months, including 8 suspected varicella cases in the Zostavax group and 7 in the placebo group. However, there were no positive cases of varicella – either wild type or vaccine type – after polymerase chain reaction tests. Overall, there were 268 adverse events in 195 participants, with 73 events (27.2%) consisting of injection-site reactions. The researchers also found no difference in the rate of disease flares, and found no differences in adverse reactions between groups, apart from a higher rate of injection-site reactions in the varicella group (19.4% vs. 4.2%).

With regard to immunogenicity, the humoral immune response was measured through IgG, which showed an immune response in the varicella group at 6 weeks (geometric mean fold ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.51), compared with the placebo group (GMFR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91-1.14); cell-mediated immune response was measured by interferon-gamma, which also showed an immune response in the live-vaccine group (GMFR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.14-1.94), compared with participants who received placebo (GMFR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.87-1.48). In preliminary 1-year data, IgG immune response was elevated in the varicella group (GMFR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.08-1.99), but there was no elevated immune response for interferon-gamma (GMFR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.49-1.25).

“I think the trial is encouraging not only for its result with the live zoster vaccine and TNF-treated patients, but also challenge the notion that, if you need to, a live-virus vaccine may in fact be able to be safely given to people with autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, even those treated with biologics like tumor necrosis factor inhibitors,” Dr. Curtis said.

As patients in VERVE consented to long-term follow-up in health plan claims and EHR data, it will be possible to follow these patients in the future to assess herpes zoster reactivation. Dr. Curtis also noted that a new trial involving the recombinant, adjuvanted zoster vaccine (Shingrix) is currently in development and should begin next year.

The VERVE trial was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Curtis reported serving as a current member of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Herpes Zoster Work Group. He and some of the other authors reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Curtis J et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 824.

NEW ORLEANS – In the opinion of Paul A. Offit, MD, pushback against antivaccination campaigns and advocates is stronger than ever.

The shift began with the measles outbreak in Southern California in late 2014, he said. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 125 measles cases with rash that occurred between Dec. 28, 2014, and Feb. 8, 2015, were confirmed in U.S. residents. Of these, 100 were California residents (MMWR. 2015 Feb 20;64[06];153-4).

“This outbreak spread ultimately to 25 states and involved 189 people,” Dr. Offit said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “It was in the news almost every day. As a consequence, there were measles outbreaks in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Oregon, and Texas, and Washington, which began to turn the public sentiment against the antivaccine movement.”

Even longstanding skeptics are changing their tune. Dr. Offit, professor of pediatrics in the division of infectious diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, cited a recent study from the Autism Science Foundation which found that 85% of parents of children with autism spectrum disorder don’t believe that vaccines cause the condition. “Although there will be parents who continue to believe that vaccines cause autism, most parents of children with autism don’t believe that,” he said. “Also, it’s a little hard to make your case that vaccines are dangerous and that you shouldn’t get them in the midst of outbreaks.”

Perhaps the greatest pushback against antivaccination efforts has been made in the legal arena. In 2019 alone, legislators in California banned parents from not vaccinating their kids because of personal beliefs, while lawmakers in New York repealed the religious exemption to vaccinate, those in Maine repealed the religious and philosophical exemption, those in New Jersey required detailed written explanation for religious exemption, and those in Washington State repealed the philosophical exemption for the MMR vaccine.

Pushback also is apparent on various social media platforms. For example, Dr. Offit said, Pinterest restricts vaccine search results to curb the spread of misinformation, YouTube removes ads from antivaccine channels, Amazon Prime has pulled antivaccination documentaries from its video service, and Facebook has taken steps to curb misinformation about vaccines. “With outbreaks and with children suffering, the media and public sentiment has largely turned against those who are vehemently against vaccines,” he said. “I’m talking about an angry, politically connected, lawyer-backed group of people who are conspiracy theorists, [those] who no matter what you say, they’re going to believe there’s a conspiracy theory to hurt their children and not believe you. When that group becomes big enough and you start to see outbreaks like we’ve seen, then it becomes an issue. That’s where it comes down to legislation. Is it your inalienable right as a U.S. citizen to allow your child to catch and transmit a potentially fatal infection? That’s what we’re struggling with now.”

When meeting with parents who are skeptical about vaccines or refuse their children to have them, Dr. Offit advises clinicians to “go down swinging” in favor of vaccination. He shared how his wife, Bonnie, a pediatrician who practices in suburban Philadelphia, counsels parents who raise such concerns. “The way she handled it initially was to do the best she could to eventually get people vaccinated,” he said. “She was successful about one-quarter of the time. Then she drew a line. She started saying to parents, ‘Look; don’t put me in a position where you are asking me to practice substandard care. I can’t send them out of this room knowing that there’s more measles out there, knowing that there’s mumps out there, knowing that there’s whooping cough out there, knowing that there’s pneumococcus and varicella out there. If this child leaves this office and is hurt by any of those viruses or bacteria and I knew I could have done something to prevent it, I couldn’t live with myself. If you’re going to let this child out without being vaccinated I can’t see you anymore because I’m responsible for the health of this child.’ With that [approach], she has been far more successful. Because at some level, if you continue to see that patient, you’re tacitly agreeing that it’s okay to [not vaccinate].”

In 2000, Dr. Offit and colleagues created the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, which provides complete, up-to-date, and reliable information about vaccines to parents and clinicians. It summarizes the purpose of each vaccine, and the relative risks and benefits in easy-to-read language. The CDC also maintains updated information about vaccines and immunizations on its web site. For his part, Dr. Offit tells parents that passing on an opportunity to vaccinate their child is not a risk-free choice. “If you choose not to get a vaccine you probably will get away with it, but you might not,” he said. “You are playing a game of Russian roulette. It may not be five empty chambers and one bullet, but maybe it’s 100,000 empty chambers and one bullet. There’s a bullet there.”

Dr. Offit reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

NEW ORLEANS – In the opinion of Paul A. Offit, MD, pushback against antivaccination campaigns and advocates is stronger than ever.

The shift began with the measles outbreak in Southern California in late 2014, he said. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 125 measles cases with rash that occurred between Dec. 28, 2014, and Feb. 8, 2015, were confirmed in U.S. residents. Of these, 100 were California residents (MMWR. 2015 Feb 20;64[06];153-4).

“This outbreak spread ultimately to 25 states and involved 189 people,” Dr. Offit said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “It was in the news almost every day. As a consequence, there were measles outbreaks in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Oregon, and Texas, and Washington, which began to turn the public sentiment against the antivaccine movement.”

Even longstanding skeptics are changing their tune. Dr. Offit, professor of pediatrics in the division of infectious diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, cited a recent study from the Autism Science Foundation which found that 85% of parents of children with autism spectrum disorder don’t believe that vaccines cause the condition. “Although there will be parents who continue to believe that vaccines cause autism, most parents of children with autism don’t believe that,” he said. “Also, it’s a little hard to make your case that vaccines are dangerous and that you shouldn’t get them in the midst of outbreaks.”

Perhaps the greatest pushback against antivaccination efforts has been made in the legal arena. In 2019 alone, legislators in California banned parents from not vaccinating their kids because of personal beliefs, while lawmakers in New York repealed the religious exemption to vaccinate, those in Maine repealed the religious and philosophical exemption, those in New Jersey required detailed written explanation for religious exemption, and those in Washington State repealed the philosophical exemption for the MMR vaccine.

Pushback also is apparent on various social media platforms. For example, Dr. Offit said, Pinterest restricts vaccine search results to curb the spread of misinformation, YouTube removes ads from antivaccine channels, Amazon Prime has pulled antivaccination documentaries from its video service, and Facebook has taken steps to curb misinformation about vaccines. “With outbreaks and with children suffering, the media and public sentiment has largely turned against those who are vehemently against vaccines,” he said. “I’m talking about an angry, politically connected, lawyer-backed group of people who are conspiracy theorists, [those] who no matter what you say, they’re going to believe there’s a conspiracy theory to hurt their children and not believe you. When that group becomes big enough and you start to see outbreaks like we’ve seen, then it becomes an issue. That’s where it comes down to legislation. Is it your inalienable right as a U.S. citizen to allow your child to catch and transmit a potentially fatal infection? That’s what we’re struggling with now.”

When meeting with parents who are skeptical about vaccines or refuse their children to have them, Dr. Offit advises clinicians to “go down swinging” in favor of vaccination. He shared how his wife, Bonnie, a pediatrician who practices in suburban Philadelphia, counsels parents who raise such concerns. “The way she handled it initially was to do the best she could to eventually get people vaccinated,” he said. “She was successful about one-quarter of the time. Then she drew a line. She started saying to parents, ‘Look; don’t put me in a position where you are asking me to practice substandard care. I can’t send them out of this room knowing that there’s more measles out there, knowing that there’s mumps out there, knowing that there’s whooping cough out there, knowing that there’s pneumococcus and varicella out there. If this child leaves this office and is hurt by any of those viruses or bacteria and I knew I could have done something to prevent it, I couldn’t live with myself. If you’re going to let this child out without being vaccinated I can’t see you anymore because I’m responsible for the health of this child.’ With that [approach], she has been far more successful. Because at some level, if you continue to see that patient, you’re tacitly agreeing that it’s okay to [not vaccinate].”

In 2000, Dr. Offit and colleagues created the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, which provides complete, up-to-date, and reliable information about vaccines to parents and clinicians. It summarizes the purpose of each vaccine, and the relative risks and benefits in easy-to-read language. The CDC also maintains updated information about vaccines and immunizations on its web site. For his part, Dr. Offit tells parents that passing on an opportunity to vaccinate their child is not a risk-free choice. “If you choose not to get a vaccine you probably will get away with it, but you might not,” he said. “You are playing a game of Russian roulette. It may not be five empty chambers and one bullet, but maybe it’s 100,000 empty chambers and one bullet. There’s a bullet there.”

Dr. Offit reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

NEW ORLEANS – In the opinion of Paul A. Offit, MD, pushback against antivaccination campaigns and advocates is stronger than ever.

The shift began with the measles outbreak in Southern California in late 2014, he said. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 125 measles cases with rash that occurred between Dec. 28, 2014, and Feb. 8, 2015, were confirmed in U.S. residents. Of these, 100 were California residents (MMWR. 2015 Feb 20;64[06];153-4).

“This outbreak spread ultimately to 25 states and involved 189 people,” Dr. Offit said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “It was in the news almost every day. As a consequence, there were measles outbreaks in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Oregon, and Texas, and Washington, which began to turn the public sentiment against the antivaccine movement.”

Even longstanding skeptics are changing their tune. Dr. Offit, professor of pediatrics in the division of infectious diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, cited a recent study from the Autism Science Foundation which found that 85% of parents of children with autism spectrum disorder don’t believe that vaccines cause the condition. “Although there will be parents who continue to believe that vaccines cause autism, most parents of children with autism don’t believe that,” he said. “Also, it’s a little hard to make your case that vaccines are dangerous and that you shouldn’t get them in the midst of outbreaks.”

Perhaps the greatest pushback against antivaccination efforts has been made in the legal arena. In 2019 alone, legislators in California banned parents from not vaccinating their kids because of personal beliefs, while lawmakers in New York repealed the religious exemption to vaccinate, those in Maine repealed the religious and philosophical exemption, those in New Jersey required detailed written explanation for religious exemption, and those in Washington State repealed the philosophical exemption for the MMR vaccine.

Pushback also is apparent on various social media platforms. For example, Dr. Offit said, Pinterest restricts vaccine search results to curb the spread of misinformation, YouTube removes ads from antivaccine channels, Amazon Prime has pulled antivaccination documentaries from its video service, and Facebook has taken steps to curb misinformation about vaccines. “With outbreaks and with children suffering, the media and public sentiment has largely turned against those who are vehemently against vaccines,” he said. “I’m talking about an angry, politically connected, lawyer-backed group of people who are conspiracy theorists, [those] who no matter what you say, they’re going to believe there’s a conspiracy theory to hurt their children and not believe you. When that group becomes big enough and you start to see outbreaks like we’ve seen, then it becomes an issue. That’s where it comes down to legislation. Is it your inalienable right as a U.S. citizen to allow your child to catch and transmit a potentially fatal infection? That’s what we’re struggling with now.”

When meeting with parents who are skeptical about vaccines or refuse their children to have them, Dr. Offit advises clinicians to “go down swinging” in favor of vaccination. He shared how his wife, Bonnie, a pediatrician who practices in suburban Philadelphia, counsels parents who raise such concerns. “The way she handled it initially was to do the best she could to eventually get people vaccinated,” he said. “She was successful about one-quarter of the time. Then she drew a line. She started saying to parents, ‘Look; don’t put me in a position where you are asking me to practice substandard care. I can’t send them out of this room knowing that there’s more measles out there, knowing that there’s mumps out there, knowing that there’s whooping cough out there, knowing that there’s pneumococcus and varicella out there. If this child leaves this office and is hurt by any of those viruses or bacteria and I knew I could have done something to prevent it, I couldn’t live with myself. If you’re going to let this child out without being vaccinated I can’t see you anymore because I’m responsible for the health of this child.’ With that [approach], she has been far more successful. Because at some level, if you continue to see that patient, you’re tacitly agreeing that it’s okay to [not vaccinate].”

In 2000, Dr. Offit and colleagues created the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, which provides complete, up-to-date, and reliable information about vaccines to parents and clinicians. It summarizes the purpose of each vaccine, and the relative risks and benefits in easy-to-read language. The CDC also maintains updated information about vaccines and immunizations on its web site. For his part, Dr. Offit tells parents that passing on an opportunity to vaccinate their child is not a risk-free choice. “If you choose not to get a vaccine you probably will get away with it, but you might not,” he said. “You are playing a game of Russian roulette. It may not be five empty chambers and one bullet, but maybe it’s 100,000 empty chambers and one bullet. There’s a bullet there.”

Dr. Offit reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

BOSTON – A prime-boost hepatitis C virus (HCV) vaccine regimen did not protect against chronic infection, but it did evoke immune responses and differences in viral trajectory, according to investigators in what is believed to be the first randomized, placebo-controlled efficacy trial in this setting.

copyright wildpixel/Thinkstock

There were no apparent safety concerns with the vaccine according to investigators, led by Kimberly Page, PhD, MPH, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

“A safe and effective vaccine to prevent chronic hepatitis C virus infection is essential to reduce transmission,” Dr. Page and coauthors said in a late-breaking abstract of the study results, which will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The phase 1/2 trial described by Dr. Page and colleagues included 455 adults at risk of HCV infection because of injection drug use. They were randomized to vaccine, which consisted of a recombinant chimpanzee adenovirus-3 vectored vaccine prime plus a recombinant Modified Vaccinia virus Ankara boost, or to two doses of placebo at days 0 and 56 of the study.

There was no difference in chronic HCV infection at 6 months, the primary endpoint of the study. There were 14 chronically infected participants in the vaccine group, as well as 14 in the placebo group, for an overall incidence of infection of 13.0/100 person-years, Dr. Page and coauthors reported in the abstract.

However, there were significant differences in HCV RNA geometric mean peak at 1 month, which was 193,795 IU/L in the vaccine group and 1,078,092 IU/L in the placebo group, according to investigators. Similarly, geometric mean fold rise after infection was 0.2 in the vaccine group and 13.5 in the placebo group.

A total of 78% of vaccinated individuals had T-cell responses to at least one vaccine antigen pool, investigators said, adding that the vaccine was safe, well tolerated, and not associated with any serious adverse events.

Dr. Page had no disclosures related to the abstract.

SOURCE: Page K et al. The Liver Meeting 2019. Abstract LP17.

BOSTON – A prime-boost hepatitis C virus (HCV) vaccine regimen did not protect against chronic infection, but it did evoke immune responses and differences in viral trajectory, according to investigators in what is believed to be the first randomized, placebo-controlled efficacy trial in this setting.

copyright wildpixel/Thinkstock

There were no apparent safety concerns with the vaccine according to investigators, led by Kimberly Page, PhD, MPH, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

“A safe and effective vaccine to prevent chronic hepatitis C virus infection is essential to reduce transmission,” Dr. Page and coauthors said in a late-breaking abstract of the study results, which will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The phase 1/2 trial described by Dr. Page and colleagues included 455 adults at risk of HCV infection because of injection drug use. They were randomized to vaccine, which consisted of a recombinant chimpanzee adenovirus-3 vectored vaccine prime plus a recombinant Modified Vaccinia virus Ankara boost, or to two doses of placebo at days 0 and 56 of the study.

There was no difference in chronic HCV infection at 6 months, the primary endpoint of the study. There were 14 chronically infected participants in the vaccine group, as well as 14 in the placebo group, for an overall incidence of infection of 13.0/100 person-years, Dr. Page and coauthors reported in the abstract.

However, there were significant differences in HCV RNA geometric mean peak at 1 month, which was 193,795 IU/L in the vaccine group and 1,078,092 IU/L in the placebo group, according to investigators. Similarly, geometric mean fold rise after infection was 0.2 in the vaccine group and 13.5 in the placebo group.

A total of 78% of vaccinated individuals had T-cell responses to at least one vaccine antigen pool, investigators said, adding that the vaccine was safe, well tolerated, and not associated with any serious adverse events.

Dr. Page had no disclosures related to the abstract.

SOURCE: Page K et al. The Liver Meeting 2019. Abstract LP17.

BOSTON – A prime-boost hepatitis C virus (HCV) vaccine regimen did not protect against chronic infection, but it did evoke immune responses and differences in viral trajectory, according to investigators in what is believed to be the first randomized, placebo-controlled efficacy trial in this setting.

copyright wildpixel/Thinkstock

There were no apparent safety concerns with the vaccine according to investigators, led by Kimberly Page, PhD, MPH, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

“A safe and effective vaccine to prevent chronic hepatitis C virus infection is essential to reduce transmission,” Dr. Page and coauthors said in a late-breaking abstract of the study results, which will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The phase 1/2 trial described by Dr. Page and colleagues included 455 adults at risk of HCV infection because of injection drug use. They were randomized to vaccine, which consisted of a recombinant chimpanzee adenovirus-3 vectored vaccine prime plus a recombinant Modified Vaccinia virus Ankara boost, or to two doses of placebo at days 0 and 56 of the study.

There was no difference in chronic HCV infection at 6 months, the primary endpoint of the study. There were 14 chronically infected participants in the vaccine group, as well as 14 in the placebo group, for an overall incidence of infection of 13.0/100 person-years, Dr. Page and coauthors reported in the abstract.

However, there were significant differences in HCV RNA geometric mean peak at 1 month, which was 193,795 IU/L in the vaccine group and 1,078,092 IU/L in the placebo group, according to investigators. Similarly, geometric mean fold rise after infection was 0.2 in the vaccine group and 13.5 in the placebo group.

A total of 78% of vaccinated individuals had T-cell responses to at least one vaccine antigen pool, investigators said, adding that the vaccine was safe, well tolerated, and not associated with any serious adverse events.

Dr. Page had no disclosures related to the abstract.

SOURCE: Page K et al. The Liver Meeting 2019. Abstract LP17.

Infection with the measles virus appears to reduce immunity to other pathogens, according to a paper published in Science.

CDC/Molly Kurnit, M.P.H.

The hypothesis that the measles virus could cause “immunological amnesia” by impairing immune memory is supported by early research showing children with measles had negative cutaneous tuberculin reactions after having previously tested positive.

“Subsequent studies have shown decreased interferon signaling, skewed cytokine responses, lymphopenia, and suppression of lymphocyte proliferation shortly after infection,” wrote Michael Mina, MD, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and coauthors.

“Given the variation in the degree of immune repertoire modulation we observed, we anticipate that future risk of morbidity and mortality after measles would not be homogeneous but would be skewed toward individuals with the most severe elimination of immunological memory,” they wrote. “These findings underscore the crucial need for continued widespread vaccination.”

In this study, researchers compared the levels of around 400 pathogen-specific antibodies in blood samples from 77 unvaccinated children, taken before and 2 months after natural measles infection, with 5 unvaccinated children who did not contract measles. A total of 34 the children experienced mild measles, and 43 had severe measles.

They found that the samples taken after measles infection showed “substantial” reductions in the number of pathogen epitopes, compared with the samples from children who did not get infected with measles.

This amounted to approximately a 20% mean reduction in overall diversity or size of the antibody repertoire. However, in children who experienced severe measles, there was a median loss of 40% (range, 11%-62%) of antibody repertoire, compared with a median of 33% (range, 12%-73%) range in children who experienced mild infection. Meanwhile, the control subjects retained approximately 90% of their antibody repertoire over a similar or longer time period. Some children lost up to 70% of antibodies for specific pathogens.

The study did find increases in measles virus–specific antigens in children both after measles infection and MMR vaccination. However the authors did not detect any changes in total IgG, IgA, or IgM levels.

“These results suggest that, rather than a simple loss of total IgG, there is a restructuring of the antibody repertoire after measles,” Dr. Mina and associates wrote.

They also noted that controls who received the MMR vaccine showed a marked increase in overall antibody repertoire.

In a separate investigation reported in Science Immunology, Velislava N. Petrova, PhD, of the Wellcome Sanger Institute in Cambridge, England, and coauthors investigated genetic changes in 26 unvaccinated children from the Netherlands who previously had measles to determine if B-cell impairment can lead to measles-associated immunosuppression. Their antibody genes were sequenced before any symptoms of measles developed and roughly 40 days after rash. Two control groups also were sequenced accordingly: vaccinated adults and three unvaccinated children from the same community who were not infected with measles.

Naive B cells from individuals in the vaccinated and uninfected control groups showed high correlation of immunoglobulin heavy chain (IgVH-J) gene frequencies across time periods (R2 = 0.96 and 0.92, respectively) but no significant differences in gene expression (P greater than .05). At the same time, although B-cell frequencies in measles patients recovered to levels before infection, they had significant changes in IgVH-J gene frequencies (P = .01) and decreased correlation in gene expression (R2 = 0.78).

In addition, individuals in the control groups had “a stable genetic composition of B memory cells” but no significant changes in the third complementarity-determining region (CDR3) lengths or mutational frequency of IgVH-J genes (P greater than .05). B memory cells in measles patients, however, showed increases in mutational frequency (P = .0008) and a reduction in CDR3 length (P = .017) of IgVH genes, Dr. Petrova and associates reported.

The study by Mina et al. was supported by grants from various U.S., European, and Finnish foundations and national organizations. Some of the coauthors had relationships with biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, and three reported a patent holding related to technology used in the study. The study by Petrova et al. was funded by grants to the investigators from various Indonesian and German organizations and the Wellcome Trust. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCES: Mina M et al. Science. 2019 Nov 1;366:599-606; Petrova VN et al. Sci Immunol. 2019 Nov 1. doi: 10.1126/sciimmunol.aay6125.

Infection with the measles virus appears to reduce immunity to other pathogens, according to a paper published in Science.

CDC/Molly Kurnit, M.P.H.

The hypothesis that the measles virus could cause “immunological amnesia” by impairing immune memory is supported by early research showing children with measles had negative cutaneous tuberculin reactions after having previously tested positive.

“Subsequent studies have shown decreased interferon signaling, skewed cytokine responses, lymphopenia, and suppression of lymphocyte proliferation shortly after infection,” wrote Michael Mina, MD, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and coauthors.

“Given the variation in the degree of immune repertoire modulation we observed, we anticipate that future risk of morbidity and mortality after measles would not be homogeneous but would be skewed toward individuals with the most severe elimination of immunological memory,” they wrote. “These findings underscore the crucial need for continued widespread vaccination.”

In this study, researchers compared the levels of around 400 pathogen-specific antibodies in blood samples from 77 unvaccinated children, taken before and 2 months after natural measles infection, with 5 unvaccinated children who did not contract measles. A total of 34 the children experienced mild measles, and 43 had severe measles.

They found that the samples taken after measles infection showed “substantial” reductions in the number of pathogen epitopes, compared with the samples from children who did not get infected with measles.

This amounted to approximately a 20% mean reduction in overall diversity or size of the antibody repertoire. However, in children who experienced severe measles, there was a median loss of 40% (range, 11%-62%) of antibody repertoire, compared with a median of 33% (range, 12%-73%) range in children who experienced mild infection. Meanwhile, the control subjects retained approximately 90% of their antibody repertoire over a similar or longer time period. Some children lost up to 70% of antibodies for specific pathogens.

The study did find increases in measles virus–specific antigens in children both after measles infection and MMR vaccination. However the authors did not detect any changes in total IgG, IgA, or IgM levels.

“These results suggest that, rather than a simple loss of total IgG, there is a restructuring of the antibody repertoire after measles,” Dr. Mina and associates wrote.

They also noted that controls who received the MMR vaccine showed a marked increase in overall antibody repertoire.

In a separate investigation reported in Science Immunology, Velislava N. Petrova, PhD, of the Wellcome Sanger Institute in Cambridge, England, and coauthors investigated genetic changes in 26 unvaccinated children from the Netherlands who previously had measles to determine if B-cell impairment can lead to measles-associated immunosuppression. Their antibody genes were sequenced before any symptoms of measles developed and roughly 40 days after rash. Two control groups also were sequenced accordingly: vaccinated adults and three unvaccinated children from the same community who were not infected with measles.

Naive B cells from individuals in the vaccinated and uninfected control groups showed high correlation of immunoglobulin heavy chain (IgVH-J) gene frequencies across time periods (R2 = 0.96 and 0.92, respectively) but no significant differences in gene expression (P greater than .05). At the same time, although B-cell frequencies in measles patients recovered to levels before infection, they had significant changes in IgVH-J gene frequencies (P = .01) and decreased correlation in gene expression (R2 = 0.78).

In addition, individuals in the control groups had “a stable genetic composition of B memory cells” but no significant changes in the third complementarity-determining region (CDR3) lengths or mutational frequency of IgVH-J genes (P greater than .05). B memory cells in measles patients, however, showed increases in mutational frequency (P = .0008) and a reduction in CDR3 length (P = .017) of IgVH genes, Dr. Petrova and associates reported.

The study by Mina et al. was supported by grants from various U.S., European, and Finnish foundations and national organizations. Some of the coauthors had relationships with biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, and three reported a patent holding related to technology used in the study. The study by Petrova et al. was funded by grants to the investigators from various Indonesian and German organizations and the Wellcome Trust. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCES: Mina M et al. Science. 2019 Nov 1;366:599-606; Petrova VN et al. Sci Immunol. 2019 Nov 1. doi: 10.1126/sciimmunol.aay6125.

Infection with the measles virus appears to reduce immunity to other pathogens, according to a paper published in Science.

CDC/Molly Kurnit, M.P.H.

The hypothesis that the measles virus could cause “immunological amnesia” by impairing immune memory is supported by early research showing children with measles had negative cutaneous tuberculin reactions after having previously tested positive.

“Subsequent studies have shown decreased interferon signaling, skewed cytokine responses, lymphopenia, and suppression of lymphocyte proliferation shortly after infection,” wrote Michael Mina, MD, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and coauthors.

“Given the variation in the degree of immune repertoire modulation we observed, we anticipate that future risk of morbidity and mortality after measles would not be homogeneous but would be skewed toward individuals with the most severe elimination of immunological memory,” they wrote. “These findings underscore the crucial need for continued widespread vaccination.”

In this study, researchers compared the levels of around 400 pathogen-specific antibodies in blood samples from 77 unvaccinated children, taken before and 2 months after natural measles infection, with 5 unvaccinated children who did not contract measles. A total of 34 the children experienced mild measles, and 43 had severe measles.

They found that the samples taken after measles infection showed “substantial” reductions in the number of pathogen epitopes, compared with the samples from children who did not get infected with measles.

This amounted to approximately a 20% mean reduction in overall diversity or size of the antibody repertoire. However, in children who experienced severe measles, there was a median loss of 40% (range, 11%-62%) of antibody repertoire, compared with a median of 33% (range, 12%-73%) range in children who experienced mild infection. Meanwhile, the control subjects retained approximately 90% of their antibody repertoire over a similar or longer time period. Some children lost up to 70% of antibodies for specific pathogens.

The study did find increases in measles virus–specific antigens in children both after measles infection and MMR vaccination. However the authors did not detect any changes in total IgG, IgA, or IgM levels.

“These results suggest that, rather than a simple loss of total IgG, there is a restructuring of the antibody repertoire after measles,” Dr. Mina and associates wrote.

They also noted that controls who received the MMR vaccine showed a marked increase in overall antibody repertoire.

In a separate investigation reported in Science Immunology, Velislava N. Petrova, PhD, of the Wellcome Sanger Institute in Cambridge, England, and coauthors investigated genetic changes in 26 unvaccinated children from the Netherlands who previously had measles to determine if B-cell impairment can lead to measles-associated immunosuppression. Their antibody genes were sequenced before any symptoms of measles developed and roughly 40 days after rash. Two control groups also were sequenced accordingly: vaccinated adults and three unvaccinated children from the same community who were not infected with measles.

Naive B cells from individuals in the vaccinated and uninfected control groups showed high correlation of immunoglobulin heavy chain (IgVH-J) gene frequencies across time periods (R2 = 0.96 and 0.92, respectively) but no significant differences in gene expression (P greater than .05). At the same time, although B-cell frequencies in measles patients recovered to levels before infection, they had significant changes in IgVH-J gene frequencies (P = .01) and decreased correlation in gene expression (R2 = 0.78).

In addition, individuals in the control groups had “a stable genetic composition of B memory cells” but no significant changes in the third complementarity-determining region (CDR3) lengths or mutational frequency of IgVH-J genes (P greater than .05). B memory cells in measles patients, however, showed increases in mutational frequency (P = .0008) and a reduction in CDR3 length (P = .017) of IgVH genes, Dr. Petrova and associates reported.

The study by Mina et al. was supported by grants from various U.S., European, and Finnish foundations and national organizations. Some of the coauthors had relationships with biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, and three reported a patent holding related to technology used in the study. The study by Petrova et al. was funded by grants to the investigators from various Indonesian and German organizations and the Wellcome Trust. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCES: Mina M et al. Science. 2019 Nov 1;366:599-606; Petrova VN et al. Sci Immunol. 2019 Nov 1. doi: 10.1126/sciimmunol.aay6125.

A new study has uncovered how the measles virus (MeV) can induce immunosuppression by delaying the reconstitution of B cells.

CDC/ Cynthia S. Goldsmith; William Bellini, Ph.D.

“Our findings provide a biological explanation for the observed increase in childhood mortality and secondary infections several years after an episode of measles,” said Velislava N. Petrova, PhD, of the Wellcome Sanger Institute in Cambridge, England, and coauthors. The study was published in Science Immunology.

To determine if B-cell impairment can lead to measles-associated immunosuppression, the researchers investigated genetic changes in 26 unvaccinated children from the Netherlands who previously had measles. Their antibody genes were sequenced before any symptoms of measles developed and roughly 40 days after rash. Two control groups also were sequenced accordingly: vaccinated adults and three unvaccinated children from the same community who were not infected with measles.

Naive B cells from individuals in the vaccinated and uninfected control groups showed high correlation of immunoglobulin heavy chain (IGHV-J) gene frequencies across time periods (R² = 0.96 and 0.92, respectively) but no significant differences in gene expression (P greater than .05). At the same time, although B cell frequencies in measles patients recovered to levels before infection, they had significant changes in IGHV-J gene frequencies (P = .01) and decreased correlation in gene expression (R² = 0.78).

In addition, individuals in the control groups had “a stable genetic composition of B memory cells” but no significant changes in the third complementarity-determining region (CDR3) lengths or mutational frequency of IGHV genes (P greater than .05). B memory cells in measles patients, however, showed increases in mutational frequency (P = .0008) and a reduction in CDR3 length (P = .017) of IGHV genes, Dr. Petrova and associates said.

Finally, the researchers confirmed a hypothesis about the depletion of B memory cell clones during measles and a repopulation of new cells with less clonal expansion. The frequency of individual IGHV-J gene combinations before infection was correlated with a reduction after infection, “with the most frequent combinations undergoing the most marked depletion” and the result being an increase in genetic diversity.

To further test their findings, the researchers vaccinated two groups of four ferrets with live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) and at 4 weeks infected one of the groups with canine distemper virus (CDV), a surrogate for MeV. At 14 weeks after vaccination, the uninfected group maintained high levels of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies while the infected group saw impaired B cells and a subsequent reduction in neutralizing antibodies.
 

Understanding the impact of measles on the immune system

“How measles infection has such a long-lasting deleterious effect on the immune system while allowing robust immunity against itself has been a burning immunological question,” Duane R. Wesemann, MD, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in an accompanying editorial. The research from Petrova et al. begins to answer that question.

Among the observations he found most interesting was how “post-measles memory cells were more diverse than the pre-measles memory pool,” despite expectations that measles immunity would be dominant. He speculated that the void in memory cells is filled by a set of clones binding to unidentified or nonnative antigens, which may bring polyclonal diversity into B memory cells.

More research is needed to determine just what these findings mean, including looking beyond memory cell depletion and focusing on the impact of immature immunoglobulin repertoires in naive cells. But his broad takeaway is that measles remains both a public health concern and an opportunity to understand how the human body counters disease.

“The unique relationship measles has with the human immune system,” he said, “can illuminate aspects of its inner workings.”

The study was funded by grants to the investigators the Indonesian Endowment Fund for Education, the Wellcome Trust, the German Centre for Infection Research, the Collaborative Research Centre of the German Research Foundation, the German Ministry of Health, and the Royal Society. The authors declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Wesemann reported receiving support from National Institutes of Health grants and an award from the Burroughs Wellcome Fund; he also reports being a consultant for OpenBiome.

SOURCE: Petrova VN et al. Sci Immunol. 2019 Nov 1. doi: 10.1126/sciimmunol.aay6125; Wesemann DR. Sci Immunol. 2019 Nov 1. doi: 10.1126/sciimmunol.aaz4195.

A new study has uncovered how the measles virus (MeV) can induce immunosuppression by delaying the reconstitution of B cells.

CDC/ Cynthia S. Goldsmith; William Bellini, Ph.D.

“Our findings provide a biological explanation for the observed increase in childhood mortality and secondary infections several years after an episode of measles,” said Velislava N. Petrova, PhD, of the Wellcome Sanger Institute in Cambridge, England, and coauthors. The study was published in Science Immunology.

To determine if B-cell impairment can lead to measles-associated immunosuppression, the researchers investigated genetic changes in 26 unvaccinated children from the Netherlands who previously had measles. Their antibody genes were sequenced before any symptoms of measles developed and roughly 40 days after rash. Two control groups also were sequenced accordingly: vaccinated adults and three unvaccinated children from the same community who were not infected with measles.

Naive B cells from individuals in the vaccinated and uninfected control groups showed high correlation of immunoglobulin heavy chain (IGHV-J) gene frequencies across time periods (R² = 0.96 and 0.92, respectively) but no significant differences in gene expression (P greater than .05). At the same time, although B cell frequencies in measles patients recovered to levels before infection, they had significant changes in IGHV-J gene frequencies (P = .01) and decreased correlation in gene expression (R² = 0.78).

In addition, individuals in the control groups had “a stable genetic composition of B memory cells” but no significant changes in the third complementarity-determining region (CDR3) lengths or mutational frequency of IGHV genes (P greater than .05). B memory cells in measles patients, however, showed increases in mutational frequency (P = .0008) and a reduction in CDR3 length (P = .017) of IGHV genes, Dr. Petrova and associates said.

Finally, the researchers confirmed a hypothesis about the depletion of B memory cell clones during measles and a repopulation of new cells with less clonal expansion. The frequency of individual IGHV-J gene combinations before infection was correlated with a reduction after infection, “with the most frequent combinations undergoing the most marked depletion” and the result being an increase in genetic diversity.

To further test their findings, the researchers vaccinated two groups of four ferrets with live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) and at 4 weeks infected one of the groups with canine distemper virus (CDV), a surrogate for MeV. At 14 weeks after vaccination, the uninfected group maintained high levels of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies while the infected group saw impaired B cells and a subsequent reduction in neutralizing antibodies.
 

Understanding the impact of measles on the immune system

“How measles infection has such a long-lasting deleterious effect on the immune system while allowing robust immunity against itself has been a burning immunological question,” Duane R. Wesemann, MD, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in an accompanying editorial. The research from Petrova et al. begins to answer that question.

Among the observations he found most interesting was how “post-measles memory cells were more diverse than the pre-measles memory pool,” despite expectations that measles immunity would be dominant. He speculated that the void in memory cells is filled by a set of clones binding to unidentified or nonnative antigens, which may bring polyclonal diversity into B memory cells.

More research is needed to determine just what these findings mean, including looking beyond memory cell depletion and focusing on the impact of immature immunoglobulin repertoires in naive cells. But his broad takeaway is that measles remains both a public health concern and an opportunity to understand how the human body counters disease.

“The unique relationship measles has with the human immune system,” he said, “can illuminate aspects of its inner workings.”

The study was funded by grants to the investigators the Indonesian Endowment Fund for Education, the Wellcome Trust, the German Centre for Infection Research, the Collaborative Research Centre of the German Research Foundation, the German Ministry of Health, and the Royal Society. The authors declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Wesemann reported receiving support from National Institutes of Health grants and an award from the Burroughs Wellcome Fund; he also reports being a consultant for OpenBiome.

SOURCE: Petrova VN et al. Sci Immunol. 2019 Nov 1. doi: 10.1126/sciimmunol.aay6125; Wesemann DR. Sci Immunol. 2019 Nov 1. doi: 10.1126/sciimmunol.aaz4195.

A new study has uncovered how the measles virus (MeV) can induce immunosuppression by delaying the reconstitution of B cells.

CDC/ Cynthia S. Goldsmith; William Bellini, Ph.D.

“Our findings provide a biological explanation for the observed increase in childhood mortality and secondary infections several years after an episode of measles,” said Velislava N. Petrova, PhD, of the Wellcome Sanger Institute in Cambridge, England, and coauthors. The study was published in Science Immunology.

To determine if B-cell impairment can lead to measles-associated immunosuppression, the researchers investigated genetic changes in 26 unvaccinated children from the Netherlands who previously had measles. Their antibody genes were sequenced before any symptoms of measles developed and roughly 40 days after rash. Two control groups also were sequenced accordingly: vaccinated adults and three unvaccinated children from the same community who were not infected with measles.

Naive B cells from individuals in the vaccinated and uninfected control groups showed high correlation of immunoglobulin heavy chain (IGHV-J) gene frequencies across time periods (R² = 0.96 and 0.92, respectively) but no significant differences in gene expression (P greater than .05). At the same time, although B cell frequencies in measles patients recovered to levels before infection, they had significant changes in IGHV-J gene frequencies (P = .01) and decreased correlation in gene expression (R² = 0.78).

In addition, individuals in the control groups had “a stable genetic composition of B memory cells” but no significant changes in the third complementarity-determining region (CDR3) lengths or mutational frequency of IGHV genes (P greater than .05). B memory cells in measles patients, however, showed increases in mutational frequency (P = .0008) and a reduction in CDR3 length (P = .017) of IGHV genes, Dr. Petrova and associates said.

Finally, the researchers confirmed a hypothesis about the depletion of B memory cell clones during measles and a repopulation of new cells with less clonal expansion. The frequency of individual IGHV-J gene combinations before infection was correlated with a reduction after infection, “with the most frequent combinations undergoing the most marked depletion” and the result being an increase in genetic diversity.

To further test their findings, the researchers vaccinated two groups of four ferrets with live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) and at 4 weeks infected one of the groups with canine distemper virus (CDV), a surrogate for MeV. At 14 weeks after vaccination, the uninfected group maintained high levels of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies while the infected group saw impaired B cells and a subsequent reduction in neutralizing antibodies.
 

Understanding the impact of measles on the immune system

“How measles infection has such a long-lasting deleterious effect on the immune system while allowing robust immunity against itself has been a burning immunological question,” Duane R. Wesemann, MD, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in an accompanying editorial. The research from Petrova et al. begins to answer that question.

Among the observations he found most interesting was how “post-measles memory cells were more diverse than the pre-measles memory pool,” despite expectations that measles immunity would be dominant. He speculated that the void in memory cells is filled by a set of clones binding to unidentified or nonnative antigens, which may bring polyclonal diversity into B memory cells.

More research is needed to determine just what these findings mean, including looking beyond memory cell depletion and focusing on the impact of immature immunoglobulin repertoires in naive cells. But his broad takeaway is that measles remains both a public health concern and an opportunity to understand how the human body counters disease.

“The unique relationship measles has with the human immune system,” he said, “can illuminate aspects of its inner workings.”

The study was funded by grants to the investigators the Indonesian Endowment Fund for Education, the Wellcome Trust, the German Centre for Infection Research, the Collaborative Research Centre of the German Research Foundation, the German Ministry of Health, and the Royal Society. The authors declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Wesemann reported receiving support from National Institutes of Health grants and an award from the Burroughs Wellcome Fund; he also reports being a consultant for OpenBiome.

SOURCE: Petrova VN et al. Sci Immunol. 2019 Nov 1. doi: 10.1126/sciimmunol.aay6125; Wesemann DR. Sci Immunol. 2019 Nov 1. doi: 10.1126/sciimmunol.aaz4195.

Religious exemptions for vaccination in kindergartners are lower in states with personal belief exemptions, and they appear to go up when personal belief exemptions go away, which might be caused by a replacement effect, researchers hypothesized in Pediatrics.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

“Put differently, state-level religious exemption rates appear to be a function of personal belief exemption availability, decreasing significantly when states offer a personal belief exemption alternative,” the researchers explained.

Led by Joshua T.B. Williams, MD, of the department of pediatrics at the Denver Health Medical Center, the researchers sought to update state-level analyses of vaccination exemption rates by performing a cross-sectional, retrospective investigation of publicly available aggregated yearly vaccine reports for kindergartners from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They were specifically interested in the school years of 2011-2012 through 2017-2018 “to extend and provide meaningful comparisons to a previous study of exemption data” that had ended its study period in 2015-2016 (Open Forum Infect Dis. 2017 Nov 15. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofx244). The researchers adjusted for heterogeneous exemption processes by coding for “difficulty” of obtaining such exemptions in accordance with that previous study’s methods because studies have suggested that nonmedical exemption rates are lower in states with more difficult exemption policies. They also looked at how rates of religious exemptions changed in Vermont after the state eliminated personal, or philosophical, exemptions in 2016. The final analysis included 295 state-years from among the 45 states and the District of Columbia that all allow religious exemptions and the 15 states that permit personal belief exemptions.

The unadjusted analysis showed that the mean proportion of kindergartners with religious exemptions was lower where personal belief exemptions were available (0.41%; 95% confidence interval, 0.28%-0.53%) than they were where only religious exemptions were an option (1.63%; 95% CI, 1.30%-1.97%). In the adjusted analysis, states with both religious and personal belief exemptions were only a quarter as likely to have kindergartners with religious exemptions than those without personal belief exemptions (adjusted risk ratio, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.16-0.38). Furthermore, the proportion of kindergartners in Vermont with religious exemptions went from 0.5% in the years 2011-2012 through 2015-2016 when personal belief exemptions were still an option, to 3.7% in 2016-2017 through 2017-2018, after they went away.

One of the study’s limitations is that not all states used the same methods of data collection; however, the authors felt that, given about three-quarters of states included performed censuses with at least 80% of children counted, the effects on the study’s results should be minimal.

After discussing the role of religious exemptions and some of their history, as well as citing the seemingly paradoxical reported decline in religiosity and rise in religious exemptions, the researchers wrote in their conclusion that these “may be an increasingly problematic or outdated exemption category, and researchers and policy makers must work together to determine how best to balance a respect for religious liberty and the need to protect public health.”

cpalmer@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Williams JTB et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Nov. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2710.

Religious exemptions for vaccination in kindergartners are lower in states with personal belief exemptions, and they appear to go up when personal belief exemptions go away, which might be caused by a replacement effect, researchers hypothesized in Pediatrics.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

“Put differently, state-level religious exemption rates appear to be a function of personal belief exemption availability, decreasing significantly when states offer a personal belief exemption alternative,” the researchers explained.

Led by Joshua T.B. Williams, MD, of the department of pediatrics at the Denver Health Medical Center, the researchers sought to update state-level analyses of vaccination exemption rates by performing a cross-sectional, retrospective investigation of publicly available aggregated yearly vaccine reports for kindergartners from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They were specifically interested in the school years of 2011-2012 through 2017-2018 “to extend and provide meaningful comparisons to a previous study of exemption data” that had ended its study period in 2015-2016 (Open Forum Infect Dis. 2017 Nov 15. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofx244). The researchers adjusted for heterogeneous exemption processes by coding for “difficulty” of obtaining such exemptions in accordance with that previous study’s methods because studies have suggested that nonmedical exemption rates are lower in states with more difficult exemption policies. They also looked at how rates of religious exemptions changed in Vermont after the state eliminated personal, or philosophical, exemptions in 2016. The final analysis included 295 state-years from among the 45 states and the District of Columbia that all allow religious exemptions and the 15 states that permit personal belief exemptions.

The unadjusted analysis showed that the mean proportion of kindergartners with religious exemptions was lower where personal belief exemptions were available (0.41%; 95% confidence interval, 0.28%-0.53%) than they were where only religious exemptions were an option (1.63%; 95% CI, 1.30%-1.97%). In the adjusted analysis, states with both religious and personal belief exemptions were only a quarter as likely to have kindergartners with religious exemptions than those without personal belief exemptions (adjusted risk ratio, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.16-0.38). Furthermore, the proportion of kindergartners in Vermont with religious exemptions went from 0.5% in the years 2011-2012 through 2015-2016 when personal belief exemptions were still an option, to 3.7% in 2016-2017 through 2017-2018, after they went away.

One of the study’s limitations is that not all states used the same methods of data collection; however, the authors felt that, given about three-quarters of states included performed censuses with at least 80% of children counted, the effects on the study’s results should be minimal.

After discussing the role of religious exemptions and some of their history, as well as citing the seemingly paradoxical reported decline in religiosity and rise in religious exemptions, the researchers wrote in their conclusion that these “may be an increasingly problematic or outdated exemption category, and researchers and policy makers must work together to determine how best to balance a respect for religious liberty and the need to protect public health.”

cpalmer@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Williams JTB et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Nov. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2710.

Religious exemptions for vaccination in kindergartners are lower in states with personal belief exemptions, and they appear to go up when personal belief exemptions go away, which might be caused by a replacement effect, researchers hypothesized in Pediatrics.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

“Put differently, state-level religious exemption rates appear to be a function of personal belief exemption availability, decreasing significantly when states offer a personal belief exemption alternative,” the researchers explained.

Led by Joshua T.B. Williams, MD, of the department of pediatrics at the Denver Health Medical Center, the researchers sought to update state-level analyses of vaccination exemption rates by performing a cross-sectional, retrospective investigation of publicly available aggregated yearly vaccine reports for kindergartners from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They were specifically interested in the school years of 2011-2012 through 2017-2018 “to extend and provide meaningful comparisons to a previous study of exemption data” that had ended its study period in 2015-2016 (Open Forum Infect Dis. 2017 Nov 15. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofx244). The researchers adjusted for heterogeneous exemption processes by coding for “difficulty” of obtaining such exemptions in accordance with that previous study’s methods because studies have suggested that nonmedical exemption rates are lower in states with more difficult exemption policies. They also looked at how rates of religious exemptions changed in Vermont after the state eliminated personal, or philosophical, exemptions in 2016. The final analysis included 295 state-years from among the 45 states and the District of Columbia that all allow religious exemptions and the 15 states that permit personal belief exemptions.

The unadjusted analysis showed that the mean proportion of kindergartners with religious exemptions was lower where personal belief exemptions were available (0.41%; 95% confidence interval, 0.28%-0.53%) than they were where only religious exemptions were an option (1.63%; 95% CI, 1.30%-1.97%). In the adjusted analysis, states with both religious and personal belief exemptions were only a quarter as likely to have kindergartners with religious exemptions than those without personal belief exemptions (adjusted risk ratio, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.16-0.38). Furthermore, the proportion of kindergartners in Vermont with religious exemptions went from 0.5% in the years 2011-2012 through 2015-2016 when personal belief exemptions were still an option, to 3.7% in 2016-2017 through 2017-2018, after they went away.

One of the study’s limitations is that not all states used the same methods of data collection; however, the authors felt that, given about three-quarters of states included performed censuses with at least 80% of children counted, the effects on the study’s results should be minimal.

After discussing the role of religious exemptions and some of their history, as well as citing the seemingly paradoxical reported decline in religiosity and rise in religious exemptions, the researchers wrote in their conclusion that these “may be an increasingly problematic or outdated exemption category, and researchers and policy makers must work together to determine how best to balance a respect for religious liberty and the need to protect public health.”

cpalmer@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Williams JTB et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Nov. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2710.