The Journal of Family Practice

Maternal immunization in the early third trimester (from 28 weeks’ gestation) may protect premature infants from pertussis, study results found.

This was the finding of an observational substudy of a larger multicenter, randomized, controlled vaccination trial of premature infants (the PUNS trial), which compared pertussis antibody concentrations before and after primary immunization in premature infants born to mothers who were or were not vaccinated with Repevax. Dr. Alison Kent of St George’s, University of London, and colleagues assessed the levels of the five vaccine antigens present in the maternal combination Repevax vaccine (pertussis toxoid, filamentous hemagglutinin, fimbriae types 2 and 3, diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, and inactivated poliovirus) in premature infants born to mothers who either received or did not receive Repevax from 28 weeks’ gestation. Antigen quantifications were conducted in these premature infants at approximately 2, 5, and 12 months of age.

©Jacopo Werther/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons Attribution 2.0

Thirty-one (19%) of the 160 premature infants in the substudy were born to mothers who had been vaccinated. Two months after their premature birth, infants born to vaccinated mothers had significantly higher concentrations of all five measured antigens, compared with those born to unvaccinated mothers (all P values less than .001). Although fewer infants were sampled at 5 months of age, significantly higher concentrations of filamentous hemagglutinin and diphtheria toxoid were still found in those born to vaccinated mothers (both P = .003). Data collected at the 12-month assessment indicated that only tetanus antibody concentrations remained significantly higher in those born to vaccinated mothers (P = .015). A positive correlation between the number of days from maternal vaccination to delivery was found for all measured antigens, with the exception of fimbriae types 2 and 3.

“The emergency introduction of a maternal immunization program to control a national pertussis outbreak serendipitously provided an opportunity to assess antibody concentrations to maternal vaccine antigens in premature infants,” Dr. Kent and associates noted in Pediatrics (June 2016 doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-3854). This unexpected opportunity resulted in evidence supporting a protective effect against pertussis in the early lives of infants born prematurely to mothers immunized in their early third trimester.

Pfizer and the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network funded the study. Professor Heath and Dr. Ladhani disclosed conducting studies on behalf of St George’s, University of London funded by vaccine manufacturers without receiving personal payments or travel support. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Maternal immunization in the early third trimester (from 28 weeks’ gestation) may protect premature infants from pertussis, study results found.

This was the finding of an observational substudy of a larger multicenter, randomized, controlled vaccination trial of premature infants (the PUNS trial), which compared pertussis antibody concentrations before and after primary immunization in premature infants born to mothers who were or were not vaccinated with Repevax. Dr. Alison Kent of St George’s, University of London, and colleagues assessed the levels of the five vaccine antigens present in the maternal combination Repevax vaccine (pertussis toxoid, filamentous hemagglutinin, fimbriae types 2 and 3, diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, and inactivated poliovirus) in premature infants born to mothers who either received or did not receive Repevax from 28 weeks’ gestation. Antigen quantifications were conducted in these premature infants at approximately 2, 5, and 12 months of age.

©Jacopo Werther/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons Attribution 2.0

Thirty-one (19%) of the 160 premature infants in the substudy were born to mothers who had been vaccinated. Two months after their premature birth, infants born to vaccinated mothers had significantly higher concentrations of all five measured antigens, compared with those born to unvaccinated mothers (all P values less than .001). Although fewer infants were sampled at 5 months of age, significantly higher concentrations of filamentous hemagglutinin and diphtheria toxoid were still found in those born to vaccinated mothers (both P = .003). Data collected at the 12-month assessment indicated that only tetanus antibody concentrations remained significantly higher in those born to vaccinated mothers (P = .015). A positive correlation between the number of days from maternal vaccination to delivery was found for all measured antigens, with the exception of fimbriae types 2 and 3.

“The emergency introduction of a maternal immunization program to control a national pertussis outbreak serendipitously provided an opportunity to assess antibody concentrations to maternal vaccine antigens in premature infants,” Dr. Kent and associates noted in Pediatrics (June 2016 doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-3854). This unexpected opportunity resulted in evidence supporting a protective effect against pertussis in the early lives of infants born prematurely to mothers immunized in their early third trimester.

Pfizer and the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network funded the study. Professor Heath and Dr. Ladhani disclosed conducting studies on behalf of St George’s, University of London funded by vaccine manufacturers without receiving personal payments or travel support. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Maternal immunization in the early third trimester (from 28 weeks’ gestation) may protect premature infants from pertussis, study results found.

This was the finding of an observational substudy of a larger multicenter, randomized, controlled vaccination trial of premature infants (the PUNS trial), which compared pertussis antibody concentrations before and after primary immunization in premature infants born to mothers who were or were not vaccinated with Repevax. Dr. Alison Kent of St George’s, University of London, and colleagues assessed the levels of the five vaccine antigens present in the maternal combination Repevax vaccine (pertussis toxoid, filamentous hemagglutinin, fimbriae types 2 and 3, diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, and inactivated poliovirus) in premature infants born to mothers who either received or did not receive Repevax from 28 weeks’ gestation. Antigen quantifications were conducted in these premature infants at approximately 2, 5, and 12 months of age.

©Jacopo Werther/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons Attribution 2.0

Thirty-one (19%) of the 160 premature infants in the substudy were born to mothers who had been vaccinated. Two months after their premature birth, infants born to vaccinated mothers had significantly higher concentrations of all five measured antigens, compared with those born to unvaccinated mothers (all P values less than .001). Although fewer infants were sampled at 5 months of age, significantly higher concentrations of filamentous hemagglutinin and diphtheria toxoid were still found in those born to vaccinated mothers (both P = .003). Data collected at the 12-month assessment indicated that only tetanus antibody concentrations remained significantly higher in those born to vaccinated mothers (P = .015). A positive correlation between the number of days from maternal vaccination to delivery was found for all measured antigens, with the exception of fimbriae types 2 and 3.

“The emergency introduction of a maternal immunization program to control a national pertussis outbreak serendipitously provided an opportunity to assess antibody concentrations to maternal vaccine antigens in premature infants,” Dr. Kent and associates noted in Pediatrics (June 2016 doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-3854). This unexpected opportunity resulted in evidence supporting a protective effect against pertussis in the early lives of infants born prematurely to mothers immunized in their early third trimester.

Pfizer and the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network funded the study. Professor Heath and Dr. Ladhani disclosed conducting studies on behalf of St George’s, University of London funded by vaccine manufacturers without receiving personal payments or travel support. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

The FP diagnosed molluscum contagiosum and recognized that some of the larger lesions on the scalp were related to the patient’s altered immune status. Molluscum contagiosum is a viral skin infection that produces pearly papules that often have central umbilication. This skin infection is most commonly seen in children, but can also be transmitted sexually among adults. The number of cases in adults increased in the 1980s in the United States, probably as a result of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Since the introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), the number of molluscum contagiosum cases in HIV/AIDS patients has decreased substantially. However, the prevalence of molluscum contagiosum in patients who are HIV-positive may still be as high as 5% to 18%.

The FP encouraged the patient to take her antiretroviral medication as prescribed and suggested that she return to her HIV specialist to see if her therapeutic regimen required any adjustments. He also offered her cryotherapy, with a follow-up appointment one month later. The patient agreed to the cryotherapy, which was performed with a cryogun using a bent tip spray. The patient’s eye was protected using a tongue depressor, while her eyelid was sprayed with liquid nitrogen.

At the follow-up visit, the molluscum lesions had improved and a second round of cryotherapy was performed. Although it was not offered to this patient, topical imiquimod is another treatment option for molluscum contagiosum. This treatment has not, however, been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for this diagnosis.

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Mayeaux, EJ. Molluscum contagiosum. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al, eds. Color Atlas of Family Medicine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:743-748.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com

The FP diagnosed molluscum contagiosum and recognized that some of the larger lesions on the scalp were related to the patient’s altered immune status. Molluscum contagiosum is a viral skin infection that produces pearly papules that often have central umbilication. This skin infection is most commonly seen in children, but can also be transmitted sexually among adults. The number of cases in adults increased in the 1980s in the United States, probably as a result of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Since the introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), the number of molluscum contagiosum cases in HIV/AIDS patients has decreased substantially. However, the prevalence of molluscum contagiosum in patients who are HIV-positive may still be as high as 5% to 18%.

The FP encouraged the patient to take her antiretroviral medication as prescribed and suggested that she return to her HIV specialist to see if her therapeutic regimen required any adjustments. He also offered her cryotherapy, with a follow-up appointment one month later. The patient agreed to the cryotherapy, which was performed with a cryogun using a bent tip spray. The patient’s eye was protected using a tongue depressor, while her eyelid was sprayed with liquid nitrogen.

At the follow-up visit, the molluscum lesions had improved and a second round of cryotherapy was performed. Although it was not offered to this patient, topical imiquimod is another treatment option for molluscum contagiosum. This treatment has not, however, been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for this diagnosis.

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Mayeaux, EJ. Molluscum contagiosum. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al, eds. Color Atlas of Family Medicine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:743-748.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com

The FP diagnosed molluscum contagiosum and recognized that some of the larger lesions on the scalp were related to the patient’s altered immune status. Molluscum contagiosum is a viral skin infection that produces pearly papules that often have central umbilication. This skin infection is most commonly seen in children, but can also be transmitted sexually among adults. The number of cases in adults increased in the 1980s in the United States, probably as a result of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Since the introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), the number of molluscum contagiosum cases in HIV/AIDS patients has decreased substantially. However, the prevalence of molluscum contagiosum in patients who are HIV-positive may still be as high as 5% to 18%.

The FP encouraged the patient to take her antiretroviral medication as prescribed and suggested that she return to her HIV specialist to see if her therapeutic regimen required any adjustments. He also offered her cryotherapy, with a follow-up appointment one month later. The patient agreed to the cryotherapy, which was performed with a cryogun using a bent tip spray. The patient’s eye was protected using a tongue depressor, while her eyelid was sprayed with liquid nitrogen.

At the follow-up visit, the molluscum lesions had improved and a second round of cryotherapy was performed. Although it was not offered to this patient, topical imiquimod is another treatment option for molluscum contagiosum. This treatment has not, however, been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for this diagnosis.

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Mayeaux, EJ. Molluscum contagiosum. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al, eds. Color Atlas of Family Medicine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013:743-748.

To learn more about the Color Atlas of Family Medicine, see: www.amazon.com/Color-Family-Medicine-Richard-Usatine/dp/0071769641/

You can now get the second edition of the Color Atlas of Family Medicine as an app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com

In most children, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a curable disease that responds to surgical treatment with adenotonsillectomy. But recent research suggests that a higher-than-realized number of children may grow out of their OSA. In fact, a recent study in CHEST identified factors associated with spontaneous resolution of sleep apnea that can help physicians identify children who can avoid surgery. For more on childhood OSA, see the article from Chest Physician, available at http://www.chestphysician.org/news-from-chest/article/sleep-strategies-treating-childhood-osa/d0566fd44f306901e0a1f3a3de7e57b2.html

In most children, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a curable disease that responds to surgical treatment with adenotonsillectomy. But recent research suggests that a higher-than-realized number of children may grow out of their OSA. In fact, a recent study in CHEST identified factors associated with spontaneous resolution of sleep apnea that can help physicians identify children who can avoid surgery. For more on childhood OSA, see the article from Chest Physician, available at http://www.chestphysician.org/news-from-chest/article/sleep-strategies-treating-childhood-osa/d0566fd44f306901e0a1f3a3de7e57b2.html

In most children, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a curable disease that responds to surgical treatment with adenotonsillectomy. But recent research suggests that a higher-than-realized number of children may grow out of their OSA. In fact, a recent study in CHEST identified factors associated with spontaneous resolution of sleep apnea that can help physicians identify children who can avoid surgery. For more on childhood OSA, see the article from Chest Physician, available at http://www.chestphysician.org/news-from-chest/article/sleep-strategies-treating-childhood-osa/d0566fd44f306901e0a1f3a3de7e57b2.html

The United States has the “opportunity and responsibility” to lead a global action against the hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV), according to a report published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. While there is no vaccine for HCV, new therapies do offer a cure for most patients. But eradicating HCV requires a multipronged approach: ending transmission, eliminating chronic HCV, and reducing morbidity and mortality associated with the disease. For more information on the strategies that could meet these goals, go to Federal Practitioner: http://www.fedprac.com/specialty-focus/hepatitis-c/article/can-hepatitis-b-and-c-be-eliminated/cc5f56c697746870f8da1c44dc7de26e.html.

The United States has the “opportunity and responsibility” to lead a global action against the hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV), according to a report published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. While there is no vaccine for HCV, new therapies do offer a cure for most patients. But eradicating HCV requires a multipronged approach: ending transmission, eliminating chronic HCV, and reducing morbidity and mortality associated with the disease. For more information on the strategies that could meet these goals, go to Federal Practitioner: http://www.fedprac.com/specialty-focus/hepatitis-c/article/can-hepatitis-b-and-c-be-eliminated/cc5f56c697746870f8da1c44dc7de26e.html.

The United States has the “opportunity and responsibility” to lead a global action against the hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV), according to a report published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. While there is no vaccine for HCV, new therapies do offer a cure for most patients. But eradicating HCV requires a multipronged approach: ending transmission, eliminating chronic HCV, and reducing morbidity and mortality associated with the disease. For more information on the strategies that could meet these goals, go to Federal Practitioner: http://www.fedprac.com/specialty-focus/hepatitis-c/article/can-hepatitis-b-and-c-be-eliminated/cc5f56c697746870f8da1c44dc7de26e.html.

The American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA) recently issued joint recommendations on 2 new medications for stage C heart failure patients with a reduced ejection fraction. Valsartan/sacubitril, a combination angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor, and ivabradine, a sinoatrial node modulator, were both approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015, but ivabradine has been licensed for a decade in Europe. Although a comprehensive update to ACC/AHA/HSFA heart failure guidelines is still being developed, the focused update is intended to coincide with the release of new European Society of Cardiology heart failure guidelines. Find out what the guideline authors recommend at Cardiology News: http://www.ecardiologynews.com/specialty-focus/heart-failure/single-article-page/guidelines-add-two-new-heart-failure-treatments/98c0b0a2a2e77dac550cdd52953033ea.html.

The American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA) recently issued joint recommendations on 2 new medications for stage C heart failure patients with a reduced ejection fraction. Valsartan/sacubitril, a combination angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor, and ivabradine, a sinoatrial node modulator, were both approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015, but ivabradine has been licensed for a decade in Europe. Although a comprehensive update to ACC/AHA/HSFA heart failure guidelines is still being developed, the focused update is intended to coincide with the release of new European Society of Cardiology heart failure guidelines. Find out what the guideline authors recommend at Cardiology News: http://www.ecardiologynews.com/specialty-focus/heart-failure/single-article-page/guidelines-add-two-new-heart-failure-treatments/98c0b0a2a2e77dac550cdd52953033ea.html.

The American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA) recently issued joint recommendations on 2 new medications for stage C heart failure patients with a reduced ejection fraction. Valsartan/sacubitril, a combination angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor, and ivabradine, a sinoatrial node modulator, were both approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015, but ivabradine has been licensed for a decade in Europe. Although a comprehensive update to ACC/AHA/HSFA heart failure guidelines is still being developed, the focused update is intended to coincide with the release of new European Society of Cardiology heart failure guidelines. Find out what the guideline authors recommend at Cardiology News: http://www.ecardiologynews.com/specialty-focus/heart-failure/single-article-page/guidelines-add-two-new-heart-failure-treatments/98c0b0a2a2e77dac550cdd52953033ea.html.

It may be time to revise guidelines when it comes to initial treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) complicated by exacerbations, based on data from a phase III trial reported at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society. The trial, known as FLAME, undertook a head-to-head comparison of 2 inhaled drug combinations (indacaterol and glycopyrronium vs salmeterol and fluticasone) among more than 3300 patients from 43 countries. After a year, the annual rate of exacerbations was 11% lower with indacaterol-glycopyrronium than with salmeterol-fluticasone. More on the results of the trial is available at Family Practice News: http://www.familypracticenews.com/specialty-focus/pulmonary-sleep-medicine/single-article-page/dual-bronchodilator-combination-shines-in-patients-with-high-risk-copd/60032e8e9b0393af639f41566f165d80.html.

It may be time to revise guidelines when it comes to initial treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) complicated by exacerbations, based on data from a phase III trial reported at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society. The trial, known as FLAME, undertook a head-to-head comparison of 2 inhaled drug combinations (indacaterol and glycopyrronium vs salmeterol and fluticasone) among more than 3300 patients from 43 countries. After a year, the annual rate of exacerbations was 11% lower with indacaterol-glycopyrronium than with salmeterol-fluticasone. More on the results of the trial is available at Family Practice News: http://www.familypracticenews.com/specialty-focus/pulmonary-sleep-medicine/single-article-page/dual-bronchodilator-combination-shines-in-patients-with-high-risk-copd/60032e8e9b0393af639f41566f165d80.html.

It may be time to revise guidelines when it comes to initial treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) complicated by exacerbations, based on data from a phase III trial reported at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society. The trial, known as FLAME, undertook a head-to-head comparison of 2 inhaled drug combinations (indacaterol and glycopyrronium vs salmeterol and fluticasone) among more than 3300 patients from 43 countries. After a year, the annual rate of exacerbations was 11% lower with indacaterol-glycopyrronium than with salmeterol-fluticasone. More on the results of the trial is available at Family Practice News: http://www.familypracticenews.com/specialty-focus/pulmonary-sleep-medicine/single-article-page/dual-bronchodilator-combination-shines-in-patients-with-high-risk-copd/60032e8e9b0393af639f41566f165d80.html.

Advanced age, as well as coexisting medical conditions, medications, and the timing and intensity of therapy are all factors that increase the risk of bleeding in patients taking anticoagulants. This article from the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine lists scoring tools that can help identify patients at heightened risk and describes considerations that come into play when determining whether the risk of bleeding outweighs the benefits of anticoagulation. Read more at http://www.ccjm.org/current-issue/issue-single-view/how-can-i-predict-bleeding-in-my-elderly-patient-taking-anticoagulants/f0c1ece959ee916bee40669ae636c38a.html.

Advanced age, as well as coexisting medical conditions, medications, and the timing and intensity of therapy are all factors that increase the risk of bleeding in patients taking anticoagulants. This article from the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine lists scoring tools that can help identify patients at heightened risk and describes considerations that come into play when determining whether the risk of bleeding outweighs the benefits of anticoagulation. Read more at http://www.ccjm.org/current-issue/issue-single-view/how-can-i-predict-bleeding-in-my-elderly-patient-taking-anticoagulants/f0c1ece959ee916bee40669ae636c38a.html.

Advanced age, as well as coexisting medical conditions, medications, and the timing and intensity of therapy are all factors that increase the risk of bleeding in patients taking anticoagulants. This article from the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine lists scoring tools that can help identify patients at heightened risk and describes considerations that come into play when determining whether the risk of bleeding outweighs the benefits of anticoagulation. Read more at http://www.ccjm.org/current-issue/issue-single-view/how-can-i-predict-bleeding-in-my-elderly-patient-taking-anticoagulants/f0c1ece959ee916bee40669ae636c38a.html.

Evidence summary

A 2013 meta-analysis of 26 RCTs with 8020 patients evaluated topical treatments for scalp psoriasis as part of a subanalysis of a larger Cochrane review of psoriasis therapy.¹ Only 20 studies reported the severity of disease: 13 studies looked at moderate to severe scalp psoriasis and the others examined mild to severe disease.

Results were reported as standardized mean differences (SMD) and also converted to a 6-point global improvement scale created by the authors to provide a combined endpoint of provider- or patient-assessed improvement in symptoms such as redness, thickness, and scaling. Higher scores indicate more improvement.

Compared with placebo, the very potent corticosteroid clobetasol propionate improved psoriasis by 1.9 points on the 6-point scale (4 trials, 788 patients; SMD= −1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], −1.8 to −1.3). The potent steroid betamethasone diproprionate improved symptoms by 1.3 points compared with placebo (2 trials, 712 patients; SMD= −1.1; 95% CI, −1.3 to −0.90).

The topical corticosteroids clobetasol, betamethasone diproprionate, and betamethasone valerate improved symptoms more than the vitamin D₃ analogue calcipotriol in head-to-head trials. The corticosteroid improvement scores exceeded calcipotriol scores by 0.5 points (1 trial, 151 patients; SMD=0.37; 95% CI, 0.05-0.69), 0.6 points (1 trial, 1676 patients; SMD=0.48; 95% CI, 0.32-0.64), and 0.5 points (1 trial, 510 patients; SMD=0.37; 95% CI, 0.20-0.55), respectively.

A very potent or potent topical corticosteroid seems to work better than other topical agents, including vitamin D₃ analogues, for treating scalp psoriasis.

Combination therapy with a vitamin D₃ analogue and a corticosteroid yielded approximately 0.2 points of improvement over corticosteroid alone (6 trials, 2444 patients; SMD= −0.18; 95% CI, −0.26 to −0.10). Four trials of combination therapy (2581 patients) resulted in 0.5 to 1.2 points of improvement compared with vitamin D₃ analogues alone (SMD=0.64; 95% CI, 0.44-0.84). Specific strengths and dosing regimens weren’t reported.

The Cochrane systematic review, using the same outcome reporting methods, provided data on the vitamin D₃ analogue calcipotriol compared with placebo for treating scalp psoriasis.² Calcipotriol resulted in 0.9 points of improvement on the 6-point global improvement scale (2 trials, 457 patients; SMD= −0.72; 95% CI, −1.3 to −0.16).

Very potent corticosteroids show a better response than potent agents

In 2013, a meta-analysis of 13 placebo-controlled RCTs (5640 patients) evaluated topical therapies for scalp psoriasis licensed in the United Kingdom. This meta-analysis included the same placebo-controlled studies as the Cochrane review but added one study published after the search date of the review.³

The outcome reporting was different from the Cochrane review. The primary outcome was percentage of patients with at least moderate scalp psoriasis who achieved clear or nearly clear status on provider assessment scales. All treatments were compared to twice-daily placebo with a response rate of 11%.

Very potent steroids had response rates of 78% for twice-daily application (risk ratio [RR]=7.0; 95% CI, 5.6-8.0) and 69% for once-daily application (RR=6.2; 95% CI, 3.0-8.3). The combination of a vitamin D₃ analogue and a potent corticosteroid showed a response rate of 64% (RR=5.7; 95% CI, 2.4-8.0) whereas response rates for potent corticosteroids alone were 57% (RR=5.0; 95% CI, 1.6-7.8) for once-daily application and 49% (RR=4.4; 95% CI, 2.2-6.7) for twice-daily administration. The authors suggested patient satisfaction at using once daily vs twice daily application as a possible explanation for the difference in response rate.

Vitamin D₃ analogues showed response rates of approximately 34%, which is nonsignificant for once-daily application (RR=3.1; 95% CI, 0.71-6.6) but significant for twice-daily administration (RR=3.1; 95% CI, 1.3-5.9). Exact numbers of studies and participants, as well as specific agents and preparation information, were not included.

Evidence summary

A 2013 meta-analysis of 26 RCTs with 8020 patients evaluated topical treatments for scalp psoriasis as part of a subanalysis of a larger Cochrane review of psoriasis therapy.¹ Only 20 studies reported the severity of disease: 13 studies looked at moderate to severe scalp psoriasis and the others examined mild to severe disease.

Results were reported as standardized mean differences (SMD) and also converted to a 6-point global improvement scale created by the authors to provide a combined endpoint of provider- or patient-assessed improvement in symptoms such as redness, thickness, and scaling. Higher scores indicate more improvement.

Compared with placebo, the very potent corticosteroid clobetasol propionate improved psoriasis by 1.9 points on the 6-point scale (4 trials, 788 patients; SMD= −1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], −1.8 to −1.3). The potent steroid betamethasone diproprionate improved symptoms by 1.3 points compared with placebo (2 trials, 712 patients; SMD= −1.1; 95% CI, −1.3 to −0.90).

The topical corticosteroids clobetasol, betamethasone diproprionate, and betamethasone valerate improved symptoms more than the vitamin D₃ analogue calcipotriol in head-to-head trials. The corticosteroid improvement scores exceeded calcipotriol scores by 0.5 points (1 trial, 151 patients; SMD=0.37; 95% CI, 0.05-0.69), 0.6 points (1 trial, 1676 patients; SMD=0.48; 95% CI, 0.32-0.64), and 0.5 points (1 trial, 510 patients; SMD=0.37; 95% CI, 0.20-0.55), respectively.

A very potent or potent topical corticosteroid seems to work better than other topical agents, including vitamin D₃ analogues, for treating scalp psoriasis.

Combination therapy with a vitamin D₃ analogue and a corticosteroid yielded approximately 0.2 points of improvement over corticosteroid alone (6 trials, 2444 patients; SMD= −0.18; 95% CI, −0.26 to −0.10). Four trials of combination therapy (2581 patients) resulted in 0.5 to 1.2 points of improvement compared with vitamin D₃ analogues alone (SMD=0.64; 95% CI, 0.44-0.84). Specific strengths and dosing regimens weren’t reported.

The Cochrane systematic review, using the same outcome reporting methods, provided data on the vitamin D₃ analogue calcipotriol compared with placebo for treating scalp psoriasis.² Calcipotriol resulted in 0.9 points of improvement on the 6-point global improvement scale (2 trials, 457 patients; SMD= −0.72; 95% CI, −1.3 to −0.16).

Very potent corticosteroids show a better response than potent agents

In 2013, a meta-analysis of 13 placebo-controlled RCTs (5640 patients) evaluated topical therapies for scalp psoriasis licensed in the United Kingdom. This meta-analysis included the same placebo-controlled studies as the Cochrane review but added one study published after the search date of the review.³

The outcome reporting was different from the Cochrane review. The primary outcome was percentage of patients with at least moderate scalp psoriasis who achieved clear or nearly clear status on provider assessment scales. All treatments were compared to twice-daily placebo with a response rate of 11%.

Very potent steroids had response rates of 78% for twice-daily application (risk ratio [RR]=7.0; 95% CI, 5.6-8.0) and 69% for once-daily application (RR=6.2; 95% CI, 3.0-8.3). The combination of a vitamin D₃ analogue and a potent corticosteroid showed a response rate of 64% (RR=5.7; 95% CI, 2.4-8.0) whereas response rates for potent corticosteroids alone were 57% (RR=5.0; 95% CI, 1.6-7.8) for once-daily application and 49% (RR=4.4; 95% CI, 2.2-6.7) for twice-daily administration. The authors suggested patient satisfaction at using once daily vs twice daily application as a possible explanation for the difference in response rate.

Vitamin D₃ analogues showed response rates of approximately 34%, which is nonsignificant for once-daily application (RR=3.1; 95% CI, 0.71-6.6) but significant for twice-daily administration (RR=3.1; 95% CI, 1.3-5.9). Exact numbers of studies and participants, as well as specific agents and preparation information, were not included.

Evidence summary

A 2013 meta-analysis of 26 RCTs with 8020 patients evaluated topical treatments for scalp psoriasis as part of a subanalysis of a larger Cochrane review of psoriasis therapy.¹ Only 20 studies reported the severity of disease: 13 studies looked at moderate to severe scalp psoriasis and the others examined mild to severe disease.

Results were reported as standardized mean differences (SMD) and also converted to a 6-point global improvement scale created by the authors to provide a combined endpoint of provider- or patient-assessed improvement in symptoms such as redness, thickness, and scaling. Higher scores indicate more improvement.

Compared with placebo, the very potent corticosteroid clobetasol propionate improved psoriasis by 1.9 points on the 6-point scale (4 trials, 788 patients; SMD= −1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], −1.8 to −1.3). The potent steroid betamethasone diproprionate improved symptoms by 1.3 points compared with placebo (2 trials, 712 patients; SMD= −1.1; 95% CI, −1.3 to −0.90).

The topical corticosteroids clobetasol, betamethasone diproprionate, and betamethasone valerate improved symptoms more than the vitamin D₃ analogue calcipotriol in head-to-head trials. The corticosteroid improvement scores exceeded calcipotriol scores by 0.5 points (1 trial, 151 patients; SMD=0.37; 95% CI, 0.05-0.69), 0.6 points (1 trial, 1676 patients; SMD=0.48; 95% CI, 0.32-0.64), and 0.5 points (1 trial, 510 patients; SMD=0.37; 95% CI, 0.20-0.55), respectively.

A very potent or potent topical corticosteroid seems to work better than other topical agents, including vitamin D₃ analogues, for treating scalp psoriasis.

Combination therapy with a vitamin D₃ analogue and a corticosteroid yielded approximately 0.2 points of improvement over corticosteroid alone (6 trials, 2444 patients; SMD= −0.18; 95% CI, −0.26 to −0.10). Four trials of combination therapy (2581 patients) resulted in 0.5 to 1.2 points of improvement compared with vitamin D₃ analogues alone (SMD=0.64; 95% CI, 0.44-0.84). Specific strengths and dosing regimens weren’t reported.

The Cochrane systematic review, using the same outcome reporting methods, provided data on the vitamin D₃ analogue calcipotriol compared with placebo for treating scalp psoriasis.² Calcipotriol resulted in 0.9 points of improvement on the 6-point global improvement scale (2 trials, 457 patients; SMD= −0.72; 95% CI, −1.3 to −0.16).

Very potent corticosteroids show a better response than potent agents

In 2013, a meta-analysis of 13 placebo-controlled RCTs (5640 patients) evaluated topical therapies for scalp psoriasis licensed in the United Kingdom. This meta-analysis included the same placebo-controlled studies as the Cochrane review but added one study published after the search date of the review.³

The outcome reporting was different from the Cochrane review. The primary outcome was percentage of patients with at least moderate scalp psoriasis who achieved clear or nearly clear status on provider assessment scales. All treatments were compared to twice-daily placebo with a response rate of 11%.

Very potent steroids had response rates of 78% for twice-daily application (risk ratio [RR]=7.0; 95% CI, 5.6-8.0) and 69% for once-daily application (RR=6.2; 95% CI, 3.0-8.3). The combination of a vitamin D₃ analogue and a potent corticosteroid showed a response rate of 64% (RR=5.7; 95% CI, 2.4-8.0) whereas response rates for potent corticosteroids alone were 57% (RR=5.0; 95% CI, 1.6-7.8) for once-daily application and 49% (RR=4.4; 95% CI, 2.2-6.7) for twice-daily administration. The authors suggested patient satisfaction at using once daily vs twice daily application as a possible explanation for the difference in response rate.

Vitamin D₃ analogues showed response rates of approximately 34%, which is nonsignificant for once-daily application (RR=3.1; 95% CI, 0.71-6.6) but significant for twice-daily administration (RR=3.1; 95% CI, 1.3-5.9). Exact numbers of studies and participants, as well as specific agents and preparation information, were not included.

Evidence summary

A 2014 meta-analysis of 4 RCTs including 71,683 patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation evaluated the NOACs dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, for efficacy and safety compared with warfarin.¹ The RCTs analyzed 42,411 patients receiving NOACs and 29,272 patients receiving warfarin. All trials were designed to show noninferiority. Selection criteria for RCTs included all phase 3 trials of available NOACs (edoxaban isn’t available in the United States). Median follow-up was 1.8 to 2.8 years.

Pooled data demonstrated that NOACs were noninferior to warfarin in preventing stroke or systemic embolism (relative risk [RR]=0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-0.91; number needed to treat [NNT]=147). The main benefit was derived from the relatively large decrease in the rate of hemorrhagic stroke (RR=0.49; 95% CI, 0.38-0.64; NNT=97) compared with warfarin. All-cause mortality was lower with NOACs as well (RR=0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.95; NNT=128).

A significant increase in gastrointestinal bleeding occurred with NOACs compared with warfarin (RR=1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6; number needed to harm=185), but NOACs were associated with a decrease in intracranial hemorrhage similar to the reduction in hemorrhagic stroke (RR=0.48; 95% CI, 0.39-0.59; NNT=132).

NOACs show no significant difference in bleeding complications vs warfarin

A 2013 meta-analysis of 5 RCTs including 51,895 patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation compared the efficacy and safety of the NOACs dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and ximelagatran, with the efficacy and safety of warfarin.² This review included the 3 studies of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban from the previously described review, as well as 2 trials of ximelagatran that were not included in the other review (presumably because ximelagatran was no longer available owing to liver toxicity). This review didn’t include the study of edoxaban that was published after the search dates of the literature review.

All trials were designed to show noninferiority. Selection criteria included a study population of at least 3000 patients and use of intention-to-treat analysis. Only 3 of the trials were double-blinded, and 2 were open-label. Mean follow-up was 16 months; median was 24 months.

NOACs were noninferior to vitamin K antagonists in the rate of stroke or systemic embolism (RR=0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.98; NNT=200), the rate of death from any cause (RR=0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.96; NNT=145), and the rate of hemorrhagic strokes (RR=0.51; 95% CI, 0.41-0.64). NOACs showed no significant difference in major bleeding compared with warfarin (RR=0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-1.0), and were noninferior for minor bleeding (RR=0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.97). There was no difference in ischemic stroke (RR=0.87; 95% CI, 0.75-1.06) and major noncerebral bleeding (RR=0.88; 95% CI, 0.73-1.08).

The ACCP weighs in

The American College of Chest Physicians’ 2012 clinical practice guidelines for antithrombotic therapy for atrial fibrillation recommend dabigatran 150 mg twice daily rather than adjusted-dose warfarin therapy for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation requiring thromboembolism prophylaxis (Grade 2B, weak recommendation based on RCTs with important limitations).³

Evidence summary

A 2014 meta-analysis of 4 RCTs including 71,683 patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation evaluated the NOACs dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, for efficacy and safety compared with warfarin.¹ The RCTs analyzed 42,411 patients receiving NOACs and 29,272 patients receiving warfarin. All trials were designed to show noninferiority. Selection criteria for RCTs included all phase 3 trials of available NOACs (edoxaban isn’t available in the United States). Median follow-up was 1.8 to 2.8 years.

Pooled data demonstrated that NOACs were noninferior to warfarin in preventing stroke or systemic embolism (relative risk [RR]=0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-0.91; number needed to treat [NNT]=147). The main benefit was derived from the relatively large decrease in the rate of hemorrhagic stroke (RR=0.49; 95% CI, 0.38-0.64; NNT=97) compared with warfarin. All-cause mortality was lower with NOACs as well (RR=0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.95; NNT=128).

A significant increase in gastrointestinal bleeding occurred with NOACs compared with warfarin (RR=1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6; number needed to harm=185), but NOACs were associated with a decrease in intracranial hemorrhage similar to the reduction in hemorrhagic stroke (RR=0.48; 95% CI, 0.39-0.59; NNT=132).

NOACs show no significant difference in bleeding complications vs warfarin

A 2013 meta-analysis of 5 RCTs including 51,895 patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation compared the efficacy and safety of the NOACs dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and ximelagatran, with the efficacy and safety of warfarin.² This review included the 3 studies of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban from the previously described review, as well as 2 trials of ximelagatran that were not included in the other review (presumably because ximelagatran was no longer available owing to liver toxicity). This review didn’t include the study of edoxaban that was published after the search dates of the literature review.

All trials were designed to show noninferiority. Selection criteria included a study population of at least 3000 patients and use of intention-to-treat analysis. Only 3 of the trials were double-blinded, and 2 were open-label. Mean follow-up was 16 months; median was 24 months.

NOACs were noninferior to vitamin K antagonists in the rate of stroke or systemic embolism (RR=0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.98; NNT=200), the rate of death from any cause (RR=0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.96; NNT=145), and the rate of hemorrhagic strokes (RR=0.51; 95% CI, 0.41-0.64). NOACs showed no significant difference in major bleeding compared with warfarin (RR=0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-1.0), and were noninferior for minor bleeding (RR=0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.97). There was no difference in ischemic stroke (RR=0.87; 95% CI, 0.75-1.06) and major noncerebral bleeding (RR=0.88; 95% CI, 0.73-1.08).

The ACCP weighs in

The American College of Chest Physicians’ 2012 clinical practice guidelines for antithrombotic therapy for atrial fibrillation recommend dabigatran 150 mg twice daily rather than adjusted-dose warfarin therapy for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation requiring thromboembolism prophylaxis (Grade 2B, weak recommendation based on RCTs with important limitations).³

Evidence summary

A 2014 meta-analysis of 4 RCTs including 71,683 patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation evaluated the NOACs dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, for efficacy and safety compared with warfarin.¹ The RCTs analyzed 42,411 patients receiving NOACs and 29,272 patients receiving warfarin. All trials were designed to show noninferiority. Selection criteria for RCTs included all phase 3 trials of available NOACs (edoxaban isn’t available in the United States). Median follow-up was 1.8 to 2.8 years.

Pooled data demonstrated that NOACs were noninferior to warfarin in preventing stroke or systemic embolism (relative risk [RR]=0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-0.91; number needed to treat [NNT]=147). The main benefit was derived from the relatively large decrease in the rate of hemorrhagic stroke (RR=0.49; 95% CI, 0.38-0.64; NNT=97) compared with warfarin. All-cause mortality was lower with NOACs as well (RR=0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.95; NNT=128).

A significant increase in gastrointestinal bleeding occurred with NOACs compared with warfarin (RR=1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6; number needed to harm=185), but NOACs were associated with a decrease in intracranial hemorrhage similar to the reduction in hemorrhagic stroke (RR=0.48; 95% CI, 0.39-0.59; NNT=132).

NOACs show no significant difference in bleeding complications vs warfarin

A 2013 meta-analysis of 5 RCTs including 51,895 patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation compared the efficacy and safety of the NOACs dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and ximelagatran, with the efficacy and safety of warfarin.² This review included the 3 studies of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban from the previously described review, as well as 2 trials of ximelagatran that were not included in the other review (presumably because ximelagatran was no longer available owing to liver toxicity). This review didn’t include the study of edoxaban that was published after the search dates of the literature review.

All trials were designed to show noninferiority. Selection criteria included a study population of at least 3000 patients and use of intention-to-treat analysis. Only 3 of the trials were double-blinded, and 2 were open-label. Mean follow-up was 16 months; median was 24 months.

NOACs were noninferior to vitamin K antagonists in the rate of stroke or systemic embolism (RR=0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.98; NNT=200), the rate of death from any cause (RR=0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.96; NNT=145), and the rate of hemorrhagic strokes (RR=0.51; 95% CI, 0.41-0.64). NOACs showed no significant difference in major bleeding compared with warfarin (RR=0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-1.0), and were noninferior for minor bleeding (RR=0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.97). There was no difference in ischemic stroke (RR=0.87; 95% CI, 0.75-1.06) and major noncerebral bleeding (RR=0.88; 95% CI, 0.73-1.08).

The ACCP weighs in

The American College of Chest Physicians’ 2012 clinical practice guidelines for antithrombotic therapy for atrial fibrillation recommend dabigatran 150 mg twice daily rather than adjusted-dose warfarin therapy for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation requiring thromboembolism prophylaxis (Grade 2B, weak recommendation based on RCTs with important limitations).³

STREPTOCOCCUS PNEUMONIAE (the “pneumococcus”) causes a variety of clinical syndromes that range from otitis media to bacteremia, meningitis, and pneumonia. Hardest hit are immunocompromised people and those at the extremes of age. Therefore, preventing disease through pneumococcal vaccination is very important in these groups.

This review summarizes the current guidelines from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for pneumococcal immunization in adults.

STRIKES THE VERY YOUNG, VERY OLD, AND IMMUNOCOMPROMISED

Invasive pneumococcal disease is defined as infection in which S pneumoniae can be found in a normally sterile site such as the cerebrospinal fluid or blood, and it includes bacteremic pneumonia.¹ By far the most common type of pneumococcal disease is pneumonia, followed by bacteremia and meningitis (Figure 1);^2,3 about 25% of patients with pneumococcal pneumonia also have bacteremia.²

Invasive pneumococcal disease most often occurs in children age 2 and younger, adults age 65 and older, and people who are immunocompromised. In 2010, the incidence was 3.8 per 100,000 in people ages 18 to 34 but was 10 times higher in the elderly and those with compromised immunity.¹

Even now that vaccines are available, invasive pneumococcal disease continues to cause 4,000 deaths per year in the United States.¹

TWO INACTIVATED VACCINES

S pneumoniae is a gram-positive coccus with an outer capsule composed of polysaccharides that protect the bacterium from being ingested and killed by host phagocytic cells. Some 91 serotypes of this organism have been identified on the basis of genetic differences in capsular polysaccharide composition.

Currently, two inactivated vaccines are available that elicit antibody responses to the most common pneumococcal serotypes that infect humans.

• PPSV23 (pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine-23, or Pneumovax 23) contains purified capsular polysaccharides from 23 pneumococcal serotypes.
• PCV13 (pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13, or Prevnar 13) contains purified capsular polysaccharides from 13 serotypes that are covalently bound to (conjugated with) a carrier protein.

PPSV23 AND PCV13 ARE NOT THE SAME

Apart from the number of serotypes covered, the two vaccines differ in important ways. Both of them elicit a B-cell-mediated immune response, but only PCV13 produces a T-cell-dependent response, which is essential for maturation of the B-cell response and development of immune memory.

PPSV23 generally provides 3 to 5 years of immunity, and repeat doses do not offer additive or “boosted” protection. It is ineffective in children under 2 years of age.

Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine has been available since 2000 for children starting at 2 months of age. Since then it has directly reduced the incidence of invasive pneumococcal disease in children and indirectly in adults. The impact on pneumococcal disease rates in adults has probably been related to reduction in rates of pneumococcal nasopharyngeal carriage in children, another unique benefit of conjugated vaccines.³

In December 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved PCV13 for adults on the basis of immunologic studies and anticipation that clinical efficacy would be similar to that observed in children.

HOW EFFECTIVE ARE THEY?

The efficacy and safety of PPSV23 and PCV13 have been studied in a variety of patient populations. Though antibody responses to PCV13 were similar to or better than those with PPSV23, no studies of specific correlations between immunologic responses and disease outcomes are available.^4,5

In large studies in healthy adults, both vaccines reduced the incidence of invasive pneumococcal disease. A study in more than 47,000 adults age 65 and older showed a significant reduction in pneumococcal bacteremia (hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.33–0.93) in those who received PPSV23 compared with those who received placebo.⁶ However, PPSV23 was not effective in preventing nonbacteremic and noninvasive pneumococcal community-acquired pneumonia when all bacterial serotypes were considered.⁶

In a placebo-controlled trial in more than 84,000 people age 65 and older, PCV13 prevented both nonbacteremic and bacteremic community-acquired pneumococcal pneumonia due to serotypes included in the vaccine (relative risk reduction 45%, P < .007) and overall invasive pneumococcal disease due to serotypes included in the vaccine (relative risk reduction 70%, P < .001).⁷

Both vaccines have also demonstrated efficacy in immunocompromised adults. Several studies showed an equivalent or superior antibody response to a seven-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV7, which has been replaced by PCV13) compared with PPSV23 in adults with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection.^8,9 While specific clinical studies of the efficacy of PCV13 among immunocompromised people are not available, a study of vaccination with PCV7 in 496 people in Malawi, of whom 88% were infected with HIV, found that the vaccine was effective in preventing invasive pneumococcal disease (hazard ratio 26%, 95% confidence interval 0.10–0.70).¹⁰

AT-RISK PATIENT POPULATIONS

Since both PPSV23 and PCV13 are approved for use in adults, it is important to understand appropriate indications for their use. The ACIP recommends pneumococcal vaccination in adults at an increased risk of invasive pneumococcal disease: ie, people age 65 and older, at-risk people ages 19 to 64, and people who are immunocompromised or asplenic.

A more robust antibody response has been shown with PCV13 compared to PPSV23 in healthy people.⁵ Of note, when PPSV23 is given before PCV13, there is a diminished immune response to PCV13.^11,12 Therefore, unvaccinated people who will receive both PCV13 and PPSV23 should be given the conjugate vaccine PCV13 first. (See Commonly asked questions.)

ADULTS AGE 65 AND OLDER: ONE DOSE EACH OF PCV13 AND PPSV23

Before September 2014, the ACIP recommended one dose of PPSV23 for adults age 65 and older to prevent invasive pneumococcal disease.¹³ With evidence that PCV13 also produces an antibody response and is clinically effective against pneumococcal pneumonia in older people, the ACIP now recommends that all adults age 65 and older receive one dose of PCV13 and one dose of PPSV23.^3,14

Based on antibody studies, the ACIP recommends giving PCV13 first and PPSV23 12 months after.^11,12 Patients who received PPSV23 at age 65 or older should receive PCV13 at least 1 year after PPSV23 (Figure 2).^3,14 Patients who had previously received one dose of PPSV23 before age 65 who are now age 65 or older should receive one dose of PCV13 at least 1 year after PPSV23 and an additional dose of PPSV23 at least 5 years after the first dose of PPSV23 and at least 1 year after the dose of PCV13.³ Patients who received a dose of PCV13 before age 65 do not need an additional dose after age 65.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have updated the reimbursement for pneumococcal vaccines to include both PCV13 and PPSV23. Patients can receive one dose of pneumococcal vaccine followed by a different, second pneumococcal vaccine at least 11 full months after the month in which the first pneumococcal vaccine was administered.¹⁵

AT-RISK PATIENTS AGES 19 TO 64

Before 2012, the ACIP recommended that patients at risk, including immunocompromised patients and those without a spleen, with cerebrospinal fluid leaks, or with cochlear implants, receive only PPSV23 before age 65.¹³ In 2010, 50% of cases of invasive pneumococcal disease in immunocompromised adults were due to serotypes contained in PCV13.¹⁶ Additionally, according to CDC data from 2013, in adults ages 19 to 64 at risk of pneumococcal disease, only 21.2% had received pneumococcal vaccine.¹⁷ With information on epidemiology, safety, and efficacy, as well as expanded FDA approval of PCV13 for adults in 2011, the ACIP updated its guidelines for pneumococcal immunization of adults with immunocompromising conditions in October 2012.¹⁶ The updated guidelines now include giving PCV13 to adults at increased risk of invasive pneumococcal disease.¹⁶

Adults under age 65 at risk of invasive pneumococcal disease can be further divided into those who are immunocompetent with comorbid conditions, and those with cochlear implants or cerebrospinal fluid leak (Table 1).¹⁶

Patients with cochlear implants or cerebrospinal fluid leaks should receive one dose of PCV13 followed by one dose of PPSV23 8 weeks later. If PPSV23 is given first in this group, PCV13 can be given 1 year later.

Immunocompetent patients with comorbid conditions, including cigarette smoking, chronic heart, liver, or lung disease, asthma, cirrhosis, and diabetes mellitus, should receive one dose of PPSV23 before age 65 (Table 1).¹⁶

IMMUNOCOMPROMISED AND ASPLENIC PATIENTS

Immunocompromised patients at risk for invasive pneumococcal disease include patients with functional or anatomic asplenia or immunocompromising conditions such as HIV infection, chronic renal failure, generalized malignancy, solid organ transplant, iatrogenic immunosuppression (eg, due to corticosteroid therapy), and other immunocompromising conditions.¹⁶ Patients on corticosteroid therapy are considered immunosuppressed if they take 20 mg or more of prednisone daily (or an equivalent corticosteroid dose) for at least 14 days.¹⁶ These immunocompromised patients should receive one dose of PCV13, followed by a PPSV23 dose 8 weeks later and a second PPSV23 dose 5 years after the first.¹⁶

The time between vaccinations is also important. If PCV13 is given first, PPSV23 can be given after at least 8 weeks. If PPSV23 is given first, PCV13 should be given after 12 months. The time between PPSV23 doses is 5 years (Figure 3).¹⁶

ADDRESSING BARRIERS TO PNEUMOCOCCAL VACCINATION

In 2013, only 59.7% of adults age 65 and older and 21.1% of younger, at-risk adults with immunocompromising conditions had received pneumococcal vaccination.¹⁷ Healthcare providers have the opportunity to improve pneumococcal vaccination rates. The National Foundation for Infectious Diseases (www.nfid.org) summarized challenges in vaccinating at-risk patients and recommended strategies to overcome barriers.¹⁸

Challenges include the cost of vaccine coverage, limited time (with competing priorities during office appointments or hospitalizations), patient refusal, and knowledge gaps.

Strategies to overcome barriers include incorporating vaccination into protocols and procedures; educating healthcare providers and patients about pneumococcal disease, vaccines, costs, and reimbursement; engaging nonclinical staff members; and monitoring local vaccination rates. However, the most important factor affecting whether adults are vaccinated is whether the healthcare provider recommends it.

AN OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE

In the last 30 years, great strides have been made in recognizing and preventing pneumococcal disease, but challenges remain. Adherence to the new ACIP guidelines for pneumococcal vaccination in immunocompromised, at risk and elderly patients is important in reducing invasive pneumococcal disease.

Healthcare providers have the opportunity to improve pneumococcal vaccination rates at outpatient appointments to decrease the burden of invasive pneumococcal disease in at-risk populations. A comprehensive understanding of the guideline recommendations for pneumococcal vaccination can aid the provider in identifying patients who are eligible for vaccination.

Adult pneumococcal immunization rates are low due to missed opportunities. Healthcare providers can improve these rates by viewing every patient encounter as a chance to provide vaccination.

TAKE THE POST-TEST AND COMPLETE THE CME PROCESS

STREPTOCOCCUS PNEUMONIAE (the “pneumococcus”) causes a variety of clinical syndromes that range from otitis media to bacteremia, meningitis, and pneumonia. Hardest hit are immunocompromised people and those at the extremes of age. Therefore, preventing disease through pneumococcal vaccination is very important in these groups.

This review summarizes the current guidelines from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for pneumococcal immunization in adults.

STRIKES THE VERY YOUNG, VERY OLD, AND IMMUNOCOMPROMISED

Invasive pneumococcal disease is defined as infection in which S pneumoniae can be found in a normally sterile site such as the cerebrospinal fluid or blood, and it includes bacteremic pneumonia.¹ By far the most common type of pneumococcal disease is pneumonia, followed by bacteremia and meningitis (Figure 1);^2,3 about 25% of patients with pneumococcal pneumonia also have bacteremia.²

Invasive pneumococcal disease most often occurs in children age 2 and younger, adults age 65 and older, and people who are immunocompromised. In 2010, the incidence was 3.8 per 100,000 in people ages 18 to 34 but was 10 times higher in the elderly and those with compromised immunity.¹

Even now that vaccines are available, invasive pneumococcal disease continues to cause 4,000 deaths per year in the United States.¹

TWO INACTIVATED VACCINES

S pneumoniae is a gram-positive coccus with an outer capsule composed of polysaccharides that protect the bacterium from being ingested and killed by host phagocytic cells. Some 91 serotypes of this organism have been identified on the basis of genetic differences in capsular polysaccharide composition.

Currently, two inactivated vaccines are available that elicit antibody responses to the most common pneumococcal serotypes that infect humans.

• PPSV23 (pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine-23, or Pneumovax 23) contains purified capsular polysaccharides from 23 pneumococcal serotypes.
• PCV13 (pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13, or Prevnar 13) contains purified capsular polysaccharides from 13 serotypes that are covalently bound to (conjugated with) a carrier protein.

PPSV23 AND PCV13 ARE NOT THE SAME

Apart from the number of serotypes covered, the two vaccines differ in important ways. Both of them elicit a B-cell-mediated immune response, but only PCV13 produces a T-cell-dependent response, which is essential for maturation of the B-cell response and development of immune memory.

PPSV23 generally provides 3 to 5 years of immunity, and repeat doses do not offer additive or “boosted” protection. It is ineffective in children under 2 years of age.

Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine has been available since 2000 for children starting at 2 months of age. Since then it has directly reduced the incidence of invasive pneumococcal disease in children and indirectly in adults. The impact on pneumococcal disease rates in adults has probably been related to reduction in rates of pneumococcal nasopharyngeal carriage in children, another unique benefit of conjugated vaccines.³

In December 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved PCV13 for adults on the basis of immunologic studies and anticipation that clinical efficacy would be similar to that observed in children.

HOW EFFECTIVE ARE THEY?

The efficacy and safety of PPSV23 and PCV13 have been studied in a variety of patient populations. Though antibody responses to PCV13 were similar to or better than those with PPSV23, no studies of specific correlations between immunologic responses and disease outcomes are available.^4,5

In large studies in healthy adults, both vaccines reduced the incidence of invasive pneumococcal disease. A study in more than 47,000 adults age 65 and older showed a significant reduction in pneumococcal bacteremia (hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.33–0.93) in those who received PPSV23 compared with those who received placebo.⁶ However, PPSV23 was not effective in preventing nonbacteremic and noninvasive pneumococcal community-acquired pneumonia when all bacterial serotypes were considered.⁶

In a placebo-controlled trial in more than 84,000 people age 65 and older, PCV13 prevented both nonbacteremic and bacteremic community-acquired pneumococcal pneumonia due to serotypes included in the vaccine (relative risk reduction 45%, P < .007) and overall invasive pneumococcal disease due to serotypes included in the vaccine (relative risk reduction 70%, P < .001).⁷

Both vaccines have also demonstrated efficacy in immunocompromised adults. Several studies showed an equivalent or superior antibody response to a seven-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV7, which has been replaced by PCV13) compared with PPSV23 in adults with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection.^8,9 While specific clinical studies of the efficacy of PCV13 among immunocompromised people are not available, a study of vaccination with PCV7 in 496 people in Malawi, of whom 88% were infected with HIV, found that the vaccine was effective in preventing invasive pneumococcal disease (hazard ratio 26%, 95% confidence interval 0.10–0.70).¹⁰

AT-RISK PATIENT POPULATIONS

Since both PPSV23 and PCV13 are approved for use in adults, it is important to understand appropriate indications for their use. The ACIP recommends pneumococcal vaccination in adults at an increased risk of invasive pneumococcal disease: ie, people age 65 and older, at-risk people ages 19 to 64, and people who are immunocompromised or asplenic.

A more robust antibody response has been shown with PCV13 compared to PPSV23 in healthy people.⁵ Of note, when PPSV23 is given before PCV13, there is a diminished immune response to PCV13.^11,12 Therefore, unvaccinated people who will receive both PCV13 and PPSV23 should be given the conjugate vaccine PCV13 first. (See Commonly asked questions.)

ADULTS AGE 65 AND OLDER: ONE DOSE EACH OF PCV13 AND PPSV23

Before September 2014, the ACIP recommended one dose of PPSV23 for adults age 65 and older to prevent invasive pneumococcal disease.¹³ With evidence that PCV13 also produces an antibody response and is clinically effective against pneumococcal pneumonia in older people, the ACIP now recommends that all adults age 65 and older receive one dose of PCV13 and one dose of PPSV23.^3,14

Based on antibody studies, the ACIP recommends giving PCV13 first and PPSV23 12 months after.^11,12 Patients who received PPSV23 at age 65 or older should receive PCV13 at least 1 year after PPSV23 (Figure 2).^3,14 Patients who had previously received one dose of PPSV23 before age 65 who are now age 65 or older should receive one dose of PCV13 at least 1 year after PPSV23 and an additional dose of PPSV23 at least 5 years after the first dose of PPSV23 and at least 1 year after the dose of PCV13.³ Patients who received a dose of PCV13 before age 65 do not need an additional dose after age 65.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have updated the reimbursement for pneumococcal vaccines to include both PCV13 and PPSV23. Patients can receive one dose of pneumococcal vaccine followed by a different, second pneumococcal vaccine at least 11 full months after the month in which the first pneumococcal vaccine was administered.¹⁵

AT-RISK PATIENTS AGES 19 TO 64

Before 2012, the ACIP recommended that patients at risk, including immunocompromised patients and those without a spleen, with cerebrospinal fluid leaks, or with cochlear implants, receive only PPSV23 before age 65.¹³ In 2010, 50% of cases of invasive pneumococcal disease in immunocompromised adults were due to serotypes contained in PCV13.¹⁶ Additionally, according to CDC data from 2013, in adults ages 19 to 64 at risk of pneumococcal disease, only 21.2% had received pneumococcal vaccine.¹⁷ With information on epidemiology, safety, and efficacy, as well as expanded FDA approval of PCV13 for adults in 2011, the ACIP updated its guidelines for pneumococcal immunization of adults with immunocompromising conditions in October 2012.¹⁶ The updated guidelines now include giving PCV13 to adults at increased risk of invasive pneumococcal disease.¹⁶

Adults under age 65 at risk of invasive pneumococcal disease can be further divided into those who are immunocompetent with comorbid conditions, and those with cochlear implants or cerebrospinal fluid leak (Table 1).¹⁶

Patients with cochlear implants or cerebrospinal fluid leaks should receive one dose of PCV13 followed by one dose of PPSV23 8 weeks later. If PPSV23 is given first in this group, PCV13 can be given 1 year later.

Immunocompetent patients with comorbid conditions, including cigarette smoking, chronic heart, liver, or lung disease, asthma, cirrhosis, and diabetes mellitus, should receive one dose of PPSV23 before age 65 (Table 1).¹⁶

IMMUNOCOMPROMISED AND ASPLENIC PATIENTS

Immunocompromised patients at risk for invasive pneumococcal disease include patients with functional or anatomic asplenia or immunocompromising conditions such as HIV infection, chronic renal failure, generalized malignancy, solid organ transplant, iatrogenic immunosuppression (eg, due to corticosteroid therapy), and other immunocompromising conditions.¹⁶ Patients on corticosteroid therapy are considered immunosuppressed if they take 20 mg or more of prednisone daily (or an equivalent corticosteroid dose) for at least 14 days.¹⁶ These immunocompromised patients should receive one dose of PCV13, followed by a PPSV23 dose 8 weeks later and a second PPSV23 dose 5 years after the first.¹⁶

The time between vaccinations is also important. If PCV13 is given first, PPSV23 can be given after at least 8 weeks. If PPSV23 is given first, PCV13 should be given after 12 months. The time between PPSV23 doses is 5 years (Figure 3).¹⁶

ADDRESSING BARRIERS TO PNEUMOCOCCAL VACCINATION

In 2013, only 59.7% of adults age 65 and older and 21.1% of younger, at-risk adults with immunocompromising conditions had received pneumococcal vaccination.¹⁷ Healthcare providers have the opportunity to improve pneumococcal vaccination rates. The National Foundation for Infectious Diseases (www.nfid.org) summarized challenges in vaccinating at-risk patients and recommended strategies to overcome barriers.¹⁸

Challenges include the cost of vaccine coverage, limited time (with competing priorities during office appointments or hospitalizations), patient refusal, and knowledge gaps.

Strategies to overcome barriers include incorporating vaccination into protocols and procedures; educating healthcare providers and patients about pneumococcal disease, vaccines, costs, and reimbursement; engaging nonclinical staff members; and monitoring local vaccination rates. However, the most important factor affecting whether adults are vaccinated is whether the healthcare provider recommends it.

AN OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE

In the last 30 years, great strides have been made in recognizing and preventing pneumococcal disease, but challenges remain. Adherence to the new ACIP guidelines for pneumococcal vaccination in immunocompromised, at risk and elderly patients is important in reducing invasive pneumococcal disease.

Healthcare providers have the opportunity to improve pneumococcal vaccination rates at outpatient appointments to decrease the burden of invasive pneumococcal disease in at-risk populations. A comprehensive understanding of the guideline recommendations for pneumococcal vaccination can aid the provider in identifying patients who are eligible for vaccination.

Adult pneumococcal immunization rates are low due to missed opportunities. Healthcare providers can improve these rates by viewing every patient encounter as a chance to provide vaccination.

TAKE THE POST-TEST AND COMPLETE THE CME PROCESS

STREPTOCOCCUS PNEUMONIAE (the “pneumococcus”) causes a variety of clinical syndromes that range from otitis media to bacteremia, meningitis, and pneumonia. Hardest hit are immunocompromised people and those at the extremes of age. Therefore, preventing disease through pneumococcal vaccination is very important in these groups.

This review summarizes the current guidelines from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for pneumococcal immunization in adults.

STRIKES THE VERY YOUNG, VERY OLD, AND IMMUNOCOMPROMISED

Invasive pneumococcal disease is defined as infection in which S pneumoniae can be found in a normally sterile site such as the cerebrospinal fluid or blood, and it includes bacteremic pneumonia.¹ By far the most common type of pneumococcal disease is pneumonia, followed by bacteremia and meningitis (Figure 1);^2,3 about 25% of patients with pneumococcal pneumonia also have bacteremia.²

Invasive pneumococcal disease most often occurs in children age 2 and younger, adults age 65 and older, and people who are immunocompromised. In 2010, the incidence was 3.8 per 100,000 in people ages 18 to 34 but was 10 times higher in the elderly and those with compromised immunity.¹

Even now that vaccines are available, invasive pneumococcal disease continues to cause 4,000 deaths per year in the United States.¹

TWO INACTIVATED VACCINES

S pneumoniae is a gram-positive coccus with an outer capsule composed of polysaccharides that protect the bacterium from being ingested and killed by host phagocytic cells. Some 91 serotypes of this organism have been identified on the basis of genetic differences in capsular polysaccharide composition.

Currently, two inactivated vaccines are available that elicit antibody responses to the most common pneumococcal serotypes that infect humans.

• PPSV23 (pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine-23, or Pneumovax 23) contains purified capsular polysaccharides from 23 pneumococcal serotypes.
• PCV13 (pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13, or Prevnar 13) contains purified capsular polysaccharides from 13 serotypes that are covalently bound to (conjugated with) a carrier protein.

PPSV23 AND PCV13 ARE NOT THE SAME

Apart from the number of serotypes covered, the two vaccines differ in important ways. Both of them elicit a B-cell-mediated immune response, but only PCV13 produces a T-cell-dependent response, which is essential for maturation of the B-cell response and development of immune memory.

PPSV23 generally provides 3 to 5 years of immunity, and repeat doses do not offer additive or “boosted” protection. It is ineffective in children under 2 years of age.

Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine has been available since 2000 for children starting at 2 months of age. Since then it has directly reduced the incidence of invasive pneumococcal disease in children and indirectly in adults. The impact on pneumococcal disease rates in adults has probably been related to reduction in rates of pneumococcal nasopharyngeal carriage in children, another unique benefit of conjugated vaccines.³

In December 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved PCV13 for adults on the basis of immunologic studies and anticipation that clinical efficacy would be similar to that observed in children.

HOW EFFECTIVE ARE THEY?

The efficacy and safety of PPSV23 and PCV13 have been studied in a variety of patient populations. Though antibody responses to PCV13 were similar to or better than those with PPSV23, no studies of specific correlations between immunologic responses and disease outcomes are available.^4,5

In large studies in healthy adults, both vaccines reduced the incidence of invasive pneumococcal disease. A study in more than 47,000 adults age 65 and older showed a significant reduction in pneumococcal bacteremia (hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.33–0.93) in those who received PPSV23 compared with those who received placebo.⁶ However, PPSV23 was not effective in preventing nonbacteremic and noninvasive pneumococcal community-acquired pneumonia when all bacterial serotypes were considered.⁶

In a placebo-controlled trial in more than 84,000 people age 65 and older, PCV13 prevented both nonbacteremic and bacteremic community-acquired pneumococcal pneumonia due to serotypes included in the vaccine (relative risk reduction 45%, P < .007) and overall invasive pneumococcal disease due to serotypes included in the vaccine (relative risk reduction 70%, P < .001).⁷

Both vaccines have also demonstrated efficacy in immunocompromised adults. Several studies showed an equivalent or superior antibody response to a seven-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV7, which has been replaced by PCV13) compared with PPSV23 in adults with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection.^8,9 While specific clinical studies of the efficacy of PCV13 among immunocompromised people are not available, a study of vaccination with PCV7 in 496 people in Malawi, of whom 88% were infected with HIV, found that the vaccine was effective in preventing invasive pneumococcal disease (hazard ratio 26%, 95% confidence interval 0.10–0.70).¹⁰

AT-RISK PATIENT POPULATIONS

Since both PPSV23 and PCV13 are approved for use in adults, it is important to understand appropriate indications for their use. The ACIP recommends pneumococcal vaccination in adults at an increased risk of invasive pneumococcal disease: ie, people age 65 and older, at-risk people ages 19 to 64, and people who are immunocompromised or asplenic.

A more robust antibody response has been shown with PCV13 compared to PPSV23 in healthy people.⁵ Of note, when PPSV23 is given before PCV13, there is a diminished immune response to PCV13.^11,12 Therefore, unvaccinated people who will receive both PCV13 and PPSV23 should be given the conjugate vaccine PCV13 first. (See Commonly asked questions.)

ADULTS AGE 65 AND OLDER: ONE DOSE EACH OF PCV13 AND PPSV23

Before September 2014, the ACIP recommended one dose of PPSV23 for adults age 65 and older to prevent invasive pneumococcal disease.¹³ With evidence that PCV13 also produces an antibody response and is clinically effective against pneumococcal pneumonia in older people, the ACIP now recommends that all adults age 65 and older receive one dose of PCV13 and one dose of PPSV23.^3,14

Based on antibody studies, the ACIP recommends giving PCV13 first and PPSV23 12 months after.^11,12 Patients who received PPSV23 at age 65 or older should receive PCV13 at least 1 year after PPSV23 (Figure 2).^3,14 Patients who had previously received one dose of PPSV23 before age 65 who are now age 65 or older should receive one dose of PCV13 at least 1 year after PPSV23 and an additional dose of PPSV23 at least 5 years after the first dose of PPSV23 and at least 1 year after the dose of PCV13.³ Patients who received a dose of PCV13 before age 65 do not need an additional dose after age 65.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have updated the reimbursement for pneumococcal vaccines to include both PCV13 and PPSV23. Patients can receive one dose of pneumococcal vaccine followed by a different, second pneumococcal vaccine at least 11 full months after the month in which the first pneumococcal vaccine was administered.¹⁵

AT-RISK PATIENTS AGES 19 TO 64

Before 2012, the ACIP recommended that patients at risk, including immunocompromised patients and those without a spleen, with cerebrospinal fluid leaks, or with cochlear implants, receive only PPSV23 before age 65.¹³ In 2010, 50% of cases of invasive pneumococcal disease in immunocompromised adults were due to serotypes contained in PCV13.¹⁶ Additionally, according to CDC data from 2013, in adults ages 19 to 64 at risk of pneumococcal disease, only 21.2% had received pneumococcal vaccine.¹⁷ With information on epidemiology, safety, and efficacy, as well as expanded FDA approval of PCV13 for adults in 2011, the ACIP updated its guidelines for pneumococcal immunization of adults with immunocompromising conditions in October 2012.¹⁶ The updated guidelines now include giving PCV13 to adults at increased risk of invasive pneumococcal disease.¹⁶

Adults under age 65 at risk of invasive pneumococcal disease can be further divided into those who are immunocompetent with comorbid conditions, and those with cochlear implants or cerebrospinal fluid leak (Table 1).¹⁶

Patients with cochlear implants or cerebrospinal fluid leaks should receive one dose of PCV13 followed by one dose of PPSV23 8 weeks later. If PPSV23 is given first in this group, PCV13 can be given 1 year later.

Immunocompetent patients with comorbid conditions, including cigarette smoking, chronic heart, liver, or lung disease, asthma, cirrhosis, and diabetes mellitus, should receive one dose of PPSV23 before age 65 (Table 1).¹⁶

IMMUNOCOMPROMISED AND ASPLENIC PATIENTS

Immunocompromised patients at risk for invasive pneumococcal disease include patients with functional or anatomic asplenia or immunocompromising conditions such as HIV infection, chronic renal failure, generalized malignancy, solid organ transplant, iatrogenic immunosuppression (eg, due to corticosteroid therapy), and other immunocompromising conditions.¹⁶ Patients on corticosteroid therapy are considered immunosuppressed if they take 20 mg or more of prednisone daily (or an equivalent corticosteroid dose) for at least 14 days.¹⁶ These immunocompromised patients should receive one dose of PCV13, followed by a PPSV23 dose 8 weeks later and a second PPSV23 dose 5 years after the first.¹⁶

The time between vaccinations is also important. If PCV13 is given first, PPSV23 can be given after at least 8 weeks. If PPSV23 is given first, PCV13 should be given after 12 months. The time between PPSV23 doses is 5 years (Figure 3).¹⁶

ADDRESSING BARRIERS TO PNEUMOCOCCAL VACCINATION

In 2013, only 59.7% of adults age 65 and older and 21.1% of younger, at-risk adults with immunocompromising conditions had received pneumococcal vaccination.¹⁷ Healthcare providers have the opportunity to improve pneumococcal vaccination rates. The National Foundation for Infectious Diseases (www.nfid.org) summarized challenges in vaccinating at-risk patients and recommended strategies to overcome barriers.¹⁸

Challenges include the cost of vaccine coverage, limited time (with competing priorities during office appointments or hospitalizations), patient refusal, and knowledge gaps.

Strategies to overcome barriers include incorporating vaccination into protocols and procedures; educating healthcare providers and patients about pneumococcal disease, vaccines, costs, and reimbursement; engaging nonclinical staff members; and monitoring local vaccination rates. However, the most important factor affecting whether adults are vaccinated is whether the healthcare provider recommends it.

AN OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE

In the last 30 years, great strides have been made in recognizing and preventing pneumococcal disease, but challenges remain. Adherence to the new ACIP guidelines for pneumococcal vaccination in immunocompromised, at risk and elderly patients is important in reducing invasive pneumococcal disease.

Healthcare providers have the opportunity to improve pneumococcal vaccination rates at outpatient appointments to decrease the burden of invasive pneumococcal disease in at-risk populations. A comprehensive understanding of the guideline recommendations for pneumococcal vaccination can aid the provider in identifying patients who are eligible for vaccination.

Adult pneumococcal immunization rates are low due to missed opportunities. Healthcare providers can improve these rates by viewing every patient encounter as a chance to provide vaccination.

TAKE THE POST-TEST AND COMPLETE THE CME PROCESS