Vaccines

TOPLINE:

Recently immunized febrile infants aged 6-12 weeks exhibited a low risk for invasive bacterial infections (IBIs), with a significantly lower risk for non-IBI within the first 24 hours after immunization versus nonrecently immunized infants.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated 508 infants aged 6-12 weeks who presented with a fever of 38 °C or greater at two US military academic emergency departments (EDs) over a span of 4 years.
• The infants were categorized as “recently immunized” if they had received immunizations within 72 hours before ED presentation and “not recently immunized” if they had not. Among the 508 infants, 114 were immunized recently.
• The primary outcome was the prevalence of a serious bacterial infection (SBI), categorized into IBI and non-IBI on the basis of culture and radiography findings.

TAKEAWAY:

• The prevalence of SBI was 3.5% in the recently immunized febrile infants and 13.7% in not recently immunized febrile infants.
• Among the recently immunized infants, the prevalence of SBI was lower in those immunized within the first 24 hours than those immunized more than 24 hours before ED presentation (2% vs 14.3%, respectively).
• Almost all identified SBI cases were of urinary tract infection (UTI), with the only non-UTI case being pneumonia in an infant who exhibited respiratory symptoms within 24 hours of receiving immunization.

IN PRACTICE:

Physicians should discuss the possibilities of a less invasive approach for evaluating recently immunized febrile infants. The study findings support the general recommendation to obtain a urinalysis for all recently immunized infants over 60 days presenting with fever, including those presenting less than 24 hours post immunization.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Kyla Casey, MD, Department of Emergency Medicine, Naval Medical Center San Diego, was published online in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size and retrospective design might have resulted in an overestimation of outcomes like IBIs within 24 hours after immunization. As the study was conducted in a specific clinical setting with febrile infants from military medical centers, the findings may have limited generalizability. Moreover, the inclusion of premature infants without age correction for prematurity could have impacted the prevalence of IBIs. Factors like missing vaccination history, healthcare referral patterns, and immunization practices in the military system may have introduced bias.

DISCLOSURE:

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not for profit sectors. The authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Recently immunized febrile infants aged 6-12 weeks exhibited a low risk for invasive bacterial infections (IBIs), with a significantly lower risk for non-IBI within the first 24 hours after immunization versus nonrecently immunized infants.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated 508 infants aged 6-12 weeks who presented with a fever of 38 °C or greater at two US military academic emergency departments (EDs) over a span of 4 years.
• The infants were categorized as “recently immunized” if they had received immunizations within 72 hours before ED presentation and “not recently immunized” if they had not. Among the 508 infants, 114 were immunized recently.
• The primary outcome was the prevalence of a serious bacterial infection (SBI), categorized into IBI and non-IBI on the basis of culture and radiography findings.

TAKEAWAY:

• The prevalence of SBI was 3.5% in the recently immunized febrile infants and 13.7% in not recently immunized febrile infants.
• Among the recently immunized infants, the prevalence of SBI was lower in those immunized within the first 24 hours than those immunized more than 24 hours before ED presentation (2% vs 14.3%, respectively).
• Almost all identified SBI cases were of urinary tract infection (UTI), with the only non-UTI case being pneumonia in an infant who exhibited respiratory symptoms within 24 hours of receiving immunization.

IN PRACTICE:

Physicians should discuss the possibilities of a less invasive approach for evaluating recently immunized febrile infants. The study findings support the general recommendation to obtain a urinalysis for all recently immunized infants over 60 days presenting with fever, including those presenting less than 24 hours post immunization.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Kyla Casey, MD, Department of Emergency Medicine, Naval Medical Center San Diego, was published online in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size and retrospective design might have resulted in an overestimation of outcomes like IBIs within 24 hours after immunization. As the study was conducted in a specific clinical setting with febrile infants from military medical centers, the findings may have limited generalizability. Moreover, the inclusion of premature infants without age correction for prematurity could have impacted the prevalence of IBIs. Factors like missing vaccination history, healthcare referral patterns, and immunization practices in the military system may have introduced bias.

DISCLOSURE:

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not for profit sectors. The authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Recently immunized febrile infants aged 6-12 weeks exhibited a low risk for invasive bacterial infections (IBIs), with a significantly lower risk for non-IBI within the first 24 hours after immunization versus nonrecently immunized infants.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated 508 infants aged 6-12 weeks who presented with a fever of 38 °C or greater at two US military academic emergency departments (EDs) over a span of 4 years.
• The infants were categorized as “recently immunized” if they had received immunizations within 72 hours before ED presentation and “not recently immunized” if they had not. Among the 508 infants, 114 were immunized recently.
• The primary outcome was the prevalence of a serious bacterial infection (SBI), categorized into IBI and non-IBI on the basis of culture and radiography findings.

TAKEAWAY:

• The prevalence of SBI was 3.5% in the recently immunized febrile infants and 13.7% in not recently immunized febrile infants.
• Among the recently immunized infants, the prevalence of SBI was lower in those immunized within the first 24 hours than those immunized more than 24 hours before ED presentation (2% vs 14.3%, respectively).
• Almost all identified SBI cases were of urinary tract infection (UTI), with the only non-UTI case being pneumonia in an infant who exhibited respiratory symptoms within 24 hours of receiving immunization.

IN PRACTICE:

Physicians should discuss the possibilities of a less invasive approach for evaluating recently immunized febrile infants. The study findings support the general recommendation to obtain a urinalysis for all recently immunized infants over 60 days presenting with fever, including those presenting less than 24 hours post immunization.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Kyla Casey, MD, Department of Emergency Medicine, Naval Medical Center San Diego, was published online in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size and retrospective design might have resulted in an overestimation of outcomes like IBIs within 24 hours after immunization. As the study was conducted in a specific clinical setting with febrile infants from military medical centers, the findings may have limited generalizability. Moreover, the inclusion of premature infants without age correction for prematurity could have impacted the prevalence of IBIs. Factors like missing vaccination history, healthcare referral patterns, and immunization practices in the military system may have introduced bias.

DISCLOSURE:

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not for profit sectors. The authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Just over 2 months into 2024, measles cases in the United States aren’t looking great. 

The recent rise in cases across the U.S. is linked to unvaccinated travelers, lower than ideal vaccination rates, and misinformation, experts said. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified 45 cases of measles in 17 jurisdictions across the U.S. As of March 7, the federal health agency reported measles cases in Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York City, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington.

As for the 45 cases, “that’s almost as many as we had for the entire calendar year of 2023,” said Sarah Lim, MD, a medical specialist at the Minnesota Department of Health. “So we’re really not off to a great start.” (For context, there were 58 officially reported measles cases last year.) 

Chicago is having a measles outbreak — with eight cases reported so far. All but one case has been linked to a migrant child at a city shelter. Given the potential for rapid spread — measles is relatively rare here but potentially very serious — the CDC sent a team of experts to investigate and to help keep this outbreak from growing further.


 

Sometimes Deadly

About 30% of children have measles symptoms and about 25% end up hospitalized. Complications include diarrhea, a whole-body rash, ear infections that can lead to permanent deafness, and pneumonia. Pneumonia with measles can be so serious that 1 in 20 affected children die. Measles can also cause inflammation of the brain called encephalitis in about 1 in 1,000 children, sometimes causing epilepsy or permanent brain damage.

As with long COVID, some effects can last beyond the early infection. For example, measles “can wipe out immune memory that protects you against other bacterial and viral pathogens,” Dr. Lim said at a media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. This vulnerability to other infections can last up to 3 years after the early infection, she noted. 

Overall, measles kills between 1 and 3 people infected per thousand, mostly children.
 

Vaccine Misinformation Playing a Role

Vaccine misinformation is partly behind the uptick, and while many cases are mild, “this can be a devastating disease,” said Joshua Barocas, MD, associate professor of medicine in the divisions of General Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases at the University of Colorado School of Medicine.

“I’m a parent myself. Parents are flooded with tons of information, some of that time being misinformation,” he said at the media briefing. “If you are a parent who’s been on the fence [about vaccination], now is the time, given the outbreak potential and the outbreaks that we’re seeing.” 

Vaccine misinformation “is about as old as vaccines themselves,” Dr. Lim said. Concerns about the MMR vaccine, which includes measles protection, are not new.

“It does seem to change periodically — new things bubble up, new ideas bubble up, and the problem is that it is like the old saying that ‘a lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.’ ” Social media helps to amplify vaccine misinformation, she said. 

“You don’t want to scare people unnecessarily — but reminding people what these childhood diseases really look like and what they do is incredibly important,” Dr. Lim said. “It’s so much easier to see stories about potential side effects of vaccines than it is to see stories about parents whose children were in intensive care for 2 weeks with pneumonia because of a severe case of measles.”

Dr. Barocas said misinformation is sometimes deliberate, sometimes not. Regardless, “our job as infectious disease physicians and public health professionals is not necessarily to put the counternarrative out there, but to continue to advocate for what we know works based on the best science and the best evidence.”

“And there is no reason to believe that vaccines are anything but helpful when it comes to preventing measles,” he noted. 
 

Lifelong Protection in Most Cases

The MMR vaccine, typically given as two doses in childhood, offers 93% and then 97% protection against the highly contagious virus. During the 2022-to-2023 school year, the measles vaccination rate among kindergarten children nationwide was 92%. That sounds like a high rate, Dr. Lim said, “but because measles is so contagious, vaccination rates need to be 95% or higher to contain transmission.”

One person with measles can infect anywhere from 12 to 18 other people, she said. When an infected person coughs or sneezes, tiny droplets spread through the air. “And if someone is unvaccinated and exposed, 9 times out of 10, that person will go on to develop the disease.” She said given the high transmission rate, measles often spreads within families to infect multiple children. 

If you know you’re not vaccinated but exposed, the advice is to get the measles shot as quickly as possible. “There is a recommendation to receive the MMR vaccine within 72 hours as post-exposure prophylaxis,” Dr. Lim said. “That’s a tight time window, but if you can do that, it reduces the risk of developing measles significantly.”

If you’re unsure or do not remember getting vaccinated against measles as a young child, your health care provider may be able to search state registries for an answer. If that doesn’t work, getting revaccinated with the MMR vaccine as an adult is an option. “There is no shame in getting caught up now,” Dr. Barocas said.

Dr. Lim agreed. “There is really no downside to getting additional doses.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Just over 2 months into 2024, measles cases in the United States aren’t looking great. 

The recent rise in cases across the U.S. is linked to unvaccinated travelers, lower than ideal vaccination rates, and misinformation, experts said. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified 45 cases of measles in 17 jurisdictions across the U.S. As of March 7, the federal health agency reported measles cases in Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York City, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington.

As for the 45 cases, “that’s almost as many as we had for the entire calendar year of 2023,” said Sarah Lim, MD, a medical specialist at the Minnesota Department of Health. “So we’re really not off to a great start.” (For context, there were 58 officially reported measles cases last year.) 

Chicago is having a measles outbreak — with eight cases reported so far. All but one case has been linked to a migrant child at a city shelter. Given the potential for rapid spread — measles is relatively rare here but potentially very serious — the CDC sent a team of experts to investigate and to help keep this outbreak from growing further.


 

Sometimes Deadly

About 30% of children have measles symptoms and about 25% end up hospitalized. Complications include diarrhea, a whole-body rash, ear infections that can lead to permanent deafness, and pneumonia. Pneumonia with measles can be so serious that 1 in 20 affected children die. Measles can also cause inflammation of the brain called encephalitis in about 1 in 1,000 children, sometimes causing epilepsy or permanent brain damage.

As with long COVID, some effects can last beyond the early infection. For example, measles “can wipe out immune memory that protects you against other bacterial and viral pathogens,” Dr. Lim said at a media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. This vulnerability to other infections can last up to 3 years after the early infection, she noted. 

Overall, measles kills between 1 and 3 people infected per thousand, mostly children.
 

Vaccine Misinformation Playing a Role

Vaccine misinformation is partly behind the uptick, and while many cases are mild, “this can be a devastating disease,” said Joshua Barocas, MD, associate professor of medicine in the divisions of General Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases at the University of Colorado School of Medicine.

“I’m a parent myself. Parents are flooded with tons of information, some of that time being misinformation,” he said at the media briefing. “If you are a parent who’s been on the fence [about vaccination], now is the time, given the outbreak potential and the outbreaks that we’re seeing.” 

Vaccine misinformation “is about as old as vaccines themselves,” Dr. Lim said. Concerns about the MMR vaccine, which includes measles protection, are not new.

“It does seem to change periodically — new things bubble up, new ideas bubble up, and the problem is that it is like the old saying that ‘a lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.’ ” Social media helps to amplify vaccine misinformation, she said. 

“You don’t want to scare people unnecessarily — but reminding people what these childhood diseases really look like and what they do is incredibly important,” Dr. Lim said. “It’s so much easier to see stories about potential side effects of vaccines than it is to see stories about parents whose children were in intensive care for 2 weeks with pneumonia because of a severe case of measles.”

Dr. Barocas said misinformation is sometimes deliberate, sometimes not. Regardless, “our job as infectious disease physicians and public health professionals is not necessarily to put the counternarrative out there, but to continue to advocate for what we know works based on the best science and the best evidence.”

“And there is no reason to believe that vaccines are anything but helpful when it comes to preventing measles,” he noted. 
 

Lifelong Protection in Most Cases

The MMR vaccine, typically given as two doses in childhood, offers 93% and then 97% protection against the highly contagious virus. During the 2022-to-2023 school year, the measles vaccination rate among kindergarten children nationwide was 92%. That sounds like a high rate, Dr. Lim said, “but because measles is so contagious, vaccination rates need to be 95% or higher to contain transmission.”

One person with measles can infect anywhere from 12 to 18 other people, she said. When an infected person coughs or sneezes, tiny droplets spread through the air. “And if someone is unvaccinated and exposed, 9 times out of 10, that person will go on to develop the disease.” She said given the high transmission rate, measles often spreads within families to infect multiple children. 

If you know you’re not vaccinated but exposed, the advice is to get the measles shot as quickly as possible. “There is a recommendation to receive the MMR vaccine within 72 hours as post-exposure prophylaxis,” Dr. Lim said. “That’s a tight time window, but if you can do that, it reduces the risk of developing measles significantly.”

If you’re unsure or do not remember getting vaccinated against measles as a young child, your health care provider may be able to search state registries for an answer. If that doesn’t work, getting revaccinated with the MMR vaccine as an adult is an option. “There is no shame in getting caught up now,” Dr. Barocas said.

Dr. Lim agreed. “There is really no downside to getting additional doses.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Just over 2 months into 2024, measles cases in the United States aren’t looking great. 

The recent rise in cases across the U.S. is linked to unvaccinated travelers, lower than ideal vaccination rates, and misinformation, experts said. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified 45 cases of measles in 17 jurisdictions across the U.S. As of March 7, the federal health agency reported measles cases in Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York City, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington.

As for the 45 cases, “that’s almost as many as we had for the entire calendar year of 2023,” said Sarah Lim, MD, a medical specialist at the Minnesota Department of Health. “So we’re really not off to a great start.” (For context, there were 58 officially reported measles cases last year.) 

Chicago is having a measles outbreak — with eight cases reported so far. All but one case has been linked to a migrant child at a city shelter. Given the potential for rapid spread — measles is relatively rare here but potentially very serious — the CDC sent a team of experts to investigate and to help keep this outbreak from growing further.


 

Sometimes Deadly

About 30% of children have measles symptoms and about 25% end up hospitalized. Complications include diarrhea, a whole-body rash, ear infections that can lead to permanent deafness, and pneumonia. Pneumonia with measles can be so serious that 1 in 20 affected children die. Measles can also cause inflammation of the brain called encephalitis in about 1 in 1,000 children, sometimes causing epilepsy or permanent brain damage.

As with long COVID, some effects can last beyond the early infection. For example, measles “can wipe out immune memory that protects you against other bacterial and viral pathogens,” Dr. Lim said at a media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. This vulnerability to other infections can last up to 3 years after the early infection, she noted. 

Overall, measles kills between 1 and 3 people infected per thousand, mostly children.
 

Vaccine Misinformation Playing a Role

Vaccine misinformation is partly behind the uptick, and while many cases are mild, “this can be a devastating disease,” said Joshua Barocas, MD, associate professor of medicine in the divisions of General Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases at the University of Colorado School of Medicine.

“I’m a parent myself. Parents are flooded with tons of information, some of that time being misinformation,” he said at the media briefing. “If you are a parent who’s been on the fence [about vaccination], now is the time, given the outbreak potential and the outbreaks that we’re seeing.” 

Vaccine misinformation “is about as old as vaccines themselves,” Dr. Lim said. Concerns about the MMR vaccine, which includes measles protection, are not new.

“It does seem to change periodically — new things bubble up, new ideas bubble up, and the problem is that it is like the old saying that ‘a lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.’ ” Social media helps to amplify vaccine misinformation, she said. 

“You don’t want to scare people unnecessarily — but reminding people what these childhood diseases really look like and what they do is incredibly important,” Dr. Lim said. “It’s so much easier to see stories about potential side effects of vaccines than it is to see stories about parents whose children were in intensive care for 2 weeks with pneumonia because of a severe case of measles.”

Dr. Barocas said misinformation is sometimes deliberate, sometimes not. Regardless, “our job as infectious disease physicians and public health professionals is not necessarily to put the counternarrative out there, but to continue to advocate for what we know works based on the best science and the best evidence.”

“And there is no reason to believe that vaccines are anything but helpful when it comes to preventing measles,” he noted. 
 

Lifelong Protection in Most Cases

The MMR vaccine, typically given as two doses in childhood, offers 93% and then 97% protection against the highly contagious virus. During the 2022-to-2023 school year, the measles vaccination rate among kindergarten children nationwide was 92%. That sounds like a high rate, Dr. Lim said, “but because measles is so contagious, vaccination rates need to be 95% or higher to contain transmission.”

One person with measles can infect anywhere from 12 to 18 other people, she said. When an infected person coughs or sneezes, tiny droplets spread through the air. “And if someone is unvaccinated and exposed, 9 times out of 10, that person will go on to develop the disease.” She said given the high transmission rate, measles often spreads within families to infect multiple children. 

If you know you’re not vaccinated but exposed, the advice is to get the measles shot as quickly as possible. “There is a recommendation to receive the MMR vaccine within 72 hours as post-exposure prophylaxis,” Dr. Lim said. “That’s a tight time window, but if you can do that, it reduces the risk of developing measles significantly.”

If you’re unsure or do not remember getting vaccinated against measles as a young child, your health care provider may be able to search state registries for an answer. If that doesn’t work, getting revaccinated with the MMR vaccine as an adult is an option. “There is no shame in getting caught up now,” Dr. Barocas said.

Dr. Lim agreed. “There is really no downside to getting additional doses.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

No matter how much we’d like to leave it in the dust, COVID-19 remains prevalent and potent. Tens of thousands of people still contract COVID per week in the United States. Hundreds die. And those who don’t may still develop long COVID.

Pleas from public health officials for people to get a COVID vaccine or booster shot have been ignored by many people. About 80% of eligible Americans haven’t taken any kind of COVID booster. Meantime, the virus continues to mutate, eroding the efficacy of the vaccine’s past versions.

How to get more people to get the jab? Vaccine hesitancy, said infectious disease specialist William Schaffner, MD, is likely rooted in a lack of trust in authority, whether it’s public health officials or politicians.

Dr. Schaffner, professor of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, and former medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, recommended five strategies physicians can try when discussing the importance of staying up to date on COVID vaccines with patients.
 

#1: Be Patient With Your Patient

First and foremost, if doctors are feeling reluctance from their patients, they need to know “what they shouldn’t do,” Dr. Schaffner said.

When a patient initially doesn’t want the vaccine, doctors shouldn’t express surprise. “Do not scold or berate or belittle. Do not give the impression the patient is somehow wrong or has failed a test of some sort,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Step back and affirm that they understand what the patient is saying so they feel reassured, even if they don’t agree or it’s based on falsehoods about the vaccine.

He said patients need to feel “the doctor heard them; it’s okay to tell the doctor this.” When you affirm what the patient says, it puts them at ease and provides a smoother road to eventually getting them to say “yes.”

But if there’s still a roadblock, don’t bulldoze them. “You don’t want to punish the patient ... let them know you’ll continue to hear them,” Dr. Schaffner said.
 

#2: Always Acknowledge a Concern

Fear of side effects is great among some patients, even if the risks are low, Dr. Schaffner said. Patients may be hesitant because they’re afraid they’ll become one of the “two or three in a million” who suffer extremely rare side effects from the vaccine, Dr. Schaffner said.

In that case, doctors should acknowledge their concern is valid, he said. Never be dismissive. Ask the patients how they feel about the vaccine, listen to their responses, and let them know “I hear you. This is a new mRNA vaccine…you have concern about that,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Doctors can segue into how there’s little reason to wait for some elusive perfectly risk-free vaccine when they can help themselves right now.

“The adverse events that occur with vaccines occur within 2 months [and are typically mild]. I don’t know of a single vaccine that has genuinely long-term implications,” Dr. Schaffner said. “We should remember that old French philosopher Voltaire. He admonished us: Waiting for perfection is the great enemy of the current good.”
 

#3: Make a Strong Recommendation

Here’s something that may seem obvious: Don’t treat the vaccine as an afterthought. “Survey after survey tells us this ... it has everything to do with the strength of the recommendation,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Doctors typically make strong treatment recommendations such conditions as diabetes or high blood pressure, but “when it comes to vaccines, they’re often rather nonchalant,” he said.

If a patient is eligible for a vaccine, doctors should tell the patient they need to get it — not that you think they should get it. “Doctors have to make a firm recommendation: ‘You’re eligible for a vaccine ... and you need to get it ... you’ll receive it on your way out.’ It then becomes a distinct and strong recommendation,” he said.
 

#4: Appeal to Patients’ Hearts, Not Their Minds

In the opening of Charles Dickens’s novel “Hard Times,” the stern school superintendent, Mr. Gradgrind, scolds his students by beating their brow with the notion that, “Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else and root out everything else.”

The idea that facts alone can sway a vaccine-resistant patient is wrong. “It often doesn’t happen that way,” Dr. Schaffner said. “I don’t think facts do that. Psychologists tell us, yes, information is important, but it’s rarely sufficient to change behavior.”

Data and studies are foundational to medicine, but the key is to change how a patient feels about the data they’re presented with, not how they think about it. “Don’t attack their brain so much but their heart,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Dr. Schaffner has stressed with his patients that the COVID vaccine has become “the social norm,” suggesting virtually everyone he knows has received it and had no problem.

Once questions have been answered about whether the vaccine works and its various side effects, doctors could remind the patient, “You know, everyone in my office is getting the vaccine, and we’re trying to provide this protection to every patient,” he said.

You’re then delving deeper into their emotions and crossing a barrier that facts alone can’t breach.
 

#5: Make it Personal

Lead by example and personalize the fight against the virus. This allows doctors to act as if they’re building an alliance with their patients by framing the vaccine not as something that only affects them but can also confer benefits to a broader social circle.

Even after using these methods, patients may remain resistant, apprehensive, or even indifferent. In cases like these, Dr. Schaffner said it’s a good idea to let it go for the time being.

Let the patient know they “have access to you and can keep speaking with you about it” in the future, he said. “It takes more time, and you have to be cognizant of the nature of the conversation.”

Everybody is unique, but with trust, patience, and awareness of the patient’s feelings, doctors have a better shot at finding common ground with their patients and convincing them the vaccine is in their best interest, he said.

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

No matter how much we’d like to leave it in the dust, COVID-19 remains prevalent and potent. Tens of thousands of people still contract COVID per week in the United States. Hundreds die. And those who don’t may still develop long COVID.

Pleas from public health officials for people to get a COVID vaccine or booster shot have been ignored by many people. About 80% of eligible Americans haven’t taken any kind of COVID booster. Meantime, the virus continues to mutate, eroding the efficacy of the vaccine’s past versions.

How to get more people to get the jab? Vaccine hesitancy, said infectious disease specialist William Schaffner, MD, is likely rooted in a lack of trust in authority, whether it’s public health officials or politicians.

Dr. Schaffner, professor of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, and former medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, recommended five strategies physicians can try when discussing the importance of staying up to date on COVID vaccines with patients.
 

#1: Be Patient With Your Patient

First and foremost, if doctors are feeling reluctance from their patients, they need to know “what they shouldn’t do,” Dr. Schaffner said.

When a patient initially doesn’t want the vaccine, doctors shouldn’t express surprise. “Do not scold or berate or belittle. Do not give the impression the patient is somehow wrong or has failed a test of some sort,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Step back and affirm that they understand what the patient is saying so they feel reassured, even if they don’t agree or it’s based on falsehoods about the vaccine.

He said patients need to feel “the doctor heard them; it’s okay to tell the doctor this.” When you affirm what the patient says, it puts them at ease and provides a smoother road to eventually getting them to say “yes.”

But if there’s still a roadblock, don’t bulldoze them. “You don’t want to punish the patient ... let them know you’ll continue to hear them,” Dr. Schaffner said.
 

#2: Always Acknowledge a Concern

Fear of side effects is great among some patients, even if the risks are low, Dr. Schaffner said. Patients may be hesitant because they’re afraid they’ll become one of the “two or three in a million” who suffer extremely rare side effects from the vaccine, Dr. Schaffner said.

In that case, doctors should acknowledge their concern is valid, he said. Never be dismissive. Ask the patients how they feel about the vaccine, listen to their responses, and let them know “I hear you. This is a new mRNA vaccine…you have concern about that,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Doctors can segue into how there’s little reason to wait for some elusive perfectly risk-free vaccine when they can help themselves right now.

“The adverse events that occur with vaccines occur within 2 months [and are typically mild]. I don’t know of a single vaccine that has genuinely long-term implications,” Dr. Schaffner said. “We should remember that old French philosopher Voltaire. He admonished us: Waiting for perfection is the great enemy of the current good.”
 

#3: Make a Strong Recommendation

Here’s something that may seem obvious: Don’t treat the vaccine as an afterthought. “Survey after survey tells us this ... it has everything to do with the strength of the recommendation,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Doctors typically make strong treatment recommendations such conditions as diabetes or high blood pressure, but “when it comes to vaccines, they’re often rather nonchalant,” he said.

If a patient is eligible for a vaccine, doctors should tell the patient they need to get it — not that you think they should get it. “Doctors have to make a firm recommendation: ‘You’re eligible for a vaccine ... and you need to get it ... you’ll receive it on your way out.’ It then becomes a distinct and strong recommendation,” he said.
 

#4: Appeal to Patients’ Hearts, Not Their Minds

In the opening of Charles Dickens’s novel “Hard Times,” the stern school superintendent, Mr. Gradgrind, scolds his students by beating their brow with the notion that, “Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else and root out everything else.”

The idea that facts alone can sway a vaccine-resistant patient is wrong. “It often doesn’t happen that way,” Dr. Schaffner said. “I don’t think facts do that. Psychologists tell us, yes, information is important, but it’s rarely sufficient to change behavior.”

Data and studies are foundational to medicine, but the key is to change how a patient feels about the data they’re presented with, not how they think about it. “Don’t attack their brain so much but their heart,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Dr. Schaffner has stressed with his patients that the COVID vaccine has become “the social norm,” suggesting virtually everyone he knows has received it and had no problem.

Once questions have been answered about whether the vaccine works and its various side effects, doctors could remind the patient, “You know, everyone in my office is getting the vaccine, and we’re trying to provide this protection to every patient,” he said.

You’re then delving deeper into their emotions and crossing a barrier that facts alone can’t breach.
 

#5: Make it Personal

Lead by example and personalize the fight against the virus. This allows doctors to act as if they’re building an alliance with their patients by framing the vaccine not as something that only affects them but can also confer benefits to a broader social circle.

Even after using these methods, patients may remain resistant, apprehensive, or even indifferent. In cases like these, Dr. Schaffner said it’s a good idea to let it go for the time being.

Let the patient know they “have access to you and can keep speaking with you about it” in the future, he said. “It takes more time, and you have to be cognizant of the nature of the conversation.”

Everybody is unique, but with trust, patience, and awareness of the patient’s feelings, doctors have a better shot at finding common ground with their patients and convincing them the vaccine is in their best interest, he said.

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

No matter how much we’d like to leave it in the dust, COVID-19 remains prevalent and potent. Tens of thousands of people still contract COVID per week in the United States. Hundreds die. And those who don’t may still develop long COVID.

Pleas from public health officials for people to get a COVID vaccine or booster shot have been ignored by many people. About 80% of eligible Americans haven’t taken any kind of COVID booster. Meantime, the virus continues to mutate, eroding the efficacy of the vaccine’s past versions.

How to get more people to get the jab? Vaccine hesitancy, said infectious disease specialist William Schaffner, MD, is likely rooted in a lack of trust in authority, whether it’s public health officials or politicians.

Dr. Schaffner, professor of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, and former medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, recommended five strategies physicians can try when discussing the importance of staying up to date on COVID vaccines with patients.
 

#1: Be Patient With Your Patient

First and foremost, if doctors are feeling reluctance from their patients, they need to know “what they shouldn’t do,” Dr. Schaffner said.

When a patient initially doesn’t want the vaccine, doctors shouldn’t express surprise. “Do not scold or berate or belittle. Do not give the impression the patient is somehow wrong or has failed a test of some sort,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Step back and affirm that they understand what the patient is saying so they feel reassured, even if they don’t agree or it’s based on falsehoods about the vaccine.

He said patients need to feel “the doctor heard them; it’s okay to tell the doctor this.” When you affirm what the patient says, it puts them at ease and provides a smoother road to eventually getting them to say “yes.”

But if there’s still a roadblock, don’t bulldoze them. “You don’t want to punish the patient ... let them know you’ll continue to hear them,” Dr. Schaffner said.
 

#2: Always Acknowledge a Concern

Fear of side effects is great among some patients, even if the risks are low, Dr. Schaffner said. Patients may be hesitant because they’re afraid they’ll become one of the “two or three in a million” who suffer extremely rare side effects from the vaccine, Dr. Schaffner said.

In that case, doctors should acknowledge their concern is valid, he said. Never be dismissive. Ask the patients how they feel about the vaccine, listen to their responses, and let them know “I hear you. This is a new mRNA vaccine…you have concern about that,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Doctors can segue into how there’s little reason to wait for some elusive perfectly risk-free vaccine when they can help themselves right now.

“The adverse events that occur with vaccines occur within 2 months [and are typically mild]. I don’t know of a single vaccine that has genuinely long-term implications,” Dr. Schaffner said. “We should remember that old French philosopher Voltaire. He admonished us: Waiting for perfection is the great enemy of the current good.”
 

#3: Make a Strong Recommendation

Here’s something that may seem obvious: Don’t treat the vaccine as an afterthought. “Survey after survey tells us this ... it has everything to do with the strength of the recommendation,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Doctors typically make strong treatment recommendations such conditions as diabetes or high blood pressure, but “when it comes to vaccines, they’re often rather nonchalant,” he said.

If a patient is eligible for a vaccine, doctors should tell the patient they need to get it — not that you think they should get it. “Doctors have to make a firm recommendation: ‘You’re eligible for a vaccine ... and you need to get it ... you’ll receive it on your way out.’ It then becomes a distinct and strong recommendation,” he said.
 

#4: Appeal to Patients’ Hearts, Not Their Minds

In the opening of Charles Dickens’s novel “Hard Times,” the stern school superintendent, Mr. Gradgrind, scolds his students by beating their brow with the notion that, “Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else and root out everything else.”

The idea that facts alone can sway a vaccine-resistant patient is wrong. “It often doesn’t happen that way,” Dr. Schaffner said. “I don’t think facts do that. Psychologists tell us, yes, information is important, but it’s rarely sufficient to change behavior.”

Data and studies are foundational to medicine, but the key is to change how a patient feels about the data they’re presented with, not how they think about it. “Don’t attack their brain so much but their heart,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Dr. Schaffner has stressed with his patients that the COVID vaccine has become “the social norm,” suggesting virtually everyone he knows has received it and had no problem.

Once questions have been answered about whether the vaccine works and its various side effects, doctors could remind the patient, “You know, everyone in my office is getting the vaccine, and we’re trying to provide this protection to every patient,” he said.

You’re then delving deeper into their emotions and crossing a barrier that facts alone can’t breach.
 

#5: Make it Personal

Lead by example and personalize the fight against the virus. This allows doctors to act as if they’re building an alliance with their patients by framing the vaccine not as something that only affects them but can also confer benefits to a broader social circle.

Even after using these methods, patients may remain resistant, apprehensive, or even indifferent. In cases like these, Dr. Schaffner said it’s a good idea to let it go for the time being.

Let the patient know they “have access to you and can keep speaking with you about it” in the future, he said. “It takes more time, and you have to be cognizant of the nature of the conversation.”

Everybody is unique, but with trust, patience, and awareness of the patient’s feelings, doctors have a better shot at finding common ground with their patients and convincing them the vaccine is in their best interest, he said.

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

The new RSV antibody treatment for babies has been highly effective in its first season, according to a first look at data from four children’s hospitals.

Babies who received the new preventive treatment for RSV shortly after birth were 90% less likely to be severely sickened with the potentially deadly respiratory illness, according to the new estimate published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is the first real-world evaluation of Beyfortus (the generic name is nirsevimab), which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration last July.

RSV is a seasonal illness that affects more people — particularly infants and the elderly — in the fall and winter. Symptoms are usually mild in healthy adults, but infants are particularly at risk of getting bronchiolitis, which results in exhausting wheezing and coughing in babies due to swelling in their airways and lungs. Babies who are hospitalized may need fluids and medical devices to help them breathe.

RSV peaked this season from November to January, with more than 10,000 monthly diagnoses reported to the CDC. 

The new CDC analysis was conducted among about 700 babies hospitalized for severe respiratory problems from October to the end of February. Among the babies in the study, 407 were diagnosed with RSV and 292 tested negative. The researchers found that 1% of babies in the study who were diagnosed with RSV had received Beyfortus, while the remaining babies who were positive for the virus had not. 

Among the babies hospitalized for other severe respiratory problems, 18% had received Beyfortus. Overall, just 59 babies among the nearly 700 in the study received Beyfortus, perhaps reflecting the short supply of the medicine the first season it was available. The report authors noted that babies in the study who did receive Beyfortus also tended to have high-risk medical conditions.

The number of babies nationwide who received Beyfortus during this first season of availability is unclear, but a January CDC survey showed that 4 in 10 parents said their babies under 8 months old had received the treatment. The Wall Street Journal reported recently that a shortage last fall resulted from underestimated demand and from production plans that were set before the CDC decided to recommend that all infants under 8 months old receive Beyfortus if their mothers did not get a maternal vaccine that can protect infants from RSV.

Both the antibody treatment for infants and the maternal vaccine were shown in clinical trials to be about 80% effective at preventing severe illness stemming from RSV.

The authors of the latest CDC report concluded that “this early estimate supports the current nirsevimab recommendation for the prevention of severe RSV disease in infants. Infants should be protected by maternal RSV vaccination or infant receipt of nirsevimab.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

The new RSV antibody treatment for babies has been highly effective in its first season, according to a first look at data from four children’s hospitals.

Babies who received the new preventive treatment for RSV shortly after birth were 90% less likely to be severely sickened with the potentially deadly respiratory illness, according to the new estimate published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is the first real-world evaluation of Beyfortus (the generic name is nirsevimab), which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration last July.

RSV is a seasonal illness that affects more people — particularly infants and the elderly — in the fall and winter. Symptoms are usually mild in healthy adults, but infants are particularly at risk of getting bronchiolitis, which results in exhausting wheezing and coughing in babies due to swelling in their airways and lungs. Babies who are hospitalized may need fluids and medical devices to help them breathe.

RSV peaked this season from November to January, with more than 10,000 monthly diagnoses reported to the CDC. 

The new CDC analysis was conducted among about 700 babies hospitalized for severe respiratory problems from October to the end of February. Among the babies in the study, 407 were diagnosed with RSV and 292 tested negative. The researchers found that 1% of babies in the study who were diagnosed with RSV had received Beyfortus, while the remaining babies who were positive for the virus had not. 

Among the babies hospitalized for other severe respiratory problems, 18% had received Beyfortus. Overall, just 59 babies among the nearly 700 in the study received Beyfortus, perhaps reflecting the short supply of the medicine the first season it was available. The report authors noted that babies in the study who did receive Beyfortus also tended to have high-risk medical conditions.

The number of babies nationwide who received Beyfortus during this first season of availability is unclear, but a January CDC survey showed that 4 in 10 parents said their babies under 8 months old had received the treatment. The Wall Street Journal reported recently that a shortage last fall resulted from underestimated demand and from production plans that were set before the CDC decided to recommend that all infants under 8 months old receive Beyfortus if their mothers did not get a maternal vaccine that can protect infants from RSV.

Both the antibody treatment for infants and the maternal vaccine were shown in clinical trials to be about 80% effective at preventing severe illness stemming from RSV.

The authors of the latest CDC report concluded that “this early estimate supports the current nirsevimab recommendation for the prevention of severe RSV disease in infants. Infants should be protected by maternal RSV vaccination or infant receipt of nirsevimab.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

The new RSV antibody treatment for babies has been highly effective in its first season, according to a first look at data from four children’s hospitals.

Babies who received the new preventive treatment for RSV shortly after birth were 90% less likely to be severely sickened with the potentially deadly respiratory illness, according to the new estimate published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is the first real-world evaluation of Beyfortus (the generic name is nirsevimab), which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration last July.

RSV is a seasonal illness that affects more people — particularly infants and the elderly — in the fall and winter. Symptoms are usually mild in healthy adults, but infants are particularly at risk of getting bronchiolitis, which results in exhausting wheezing and coughing in babies due to swelling in their airways and lungs. Babies who are hospitalized may need fluids and medical devices to help them breathe.

RSV peaked this season from November to January, with more than 10,000 monthly diagnoses reported to the CDC. 

The new CDC analysis was conducted among about 700 babies hospitalized for severe respiratory problems from October to the end of February. Among the babies in the study, 407 were diagnosed with RSV and 292 tested negative. The researchers found that 1% of babies in the study who were diagnosed with RSV had received Beyfortus, while the remaining babies who were positive for the virus had not. 

Among the babies hospitalized for other severe respiratory problems, 18% had received Beyfortus. Overall, just 59 babies among the nearly 700 in the study received Beyfortus, perhaps reflecting the short supply of the medicine the first season it was available. The report authors noted that babies in the study who did receive Beyfortus also tended to have high-risk medical conditions.

The number of babies nationwide who received Beyfortus during this first season of availability is unclear, but a January CDC survey showed that 4 in 10 parents said their babies under 8 months old had received the treatment. The Wall Street Journal reported recently that a shortage last fall resulted from underestimated demand and from production plans that were set before the CDC decided to recommend that all infants under 8 months old receive Beyfortus if their mothers did not get a maternal vaccine that can protect infants from RSV.

Both the antibody treatment for infants and the maternal vaccine were shown in clinical trials to be about 80% effective at preventing severe illness stemming from RSV.

The authors of the latest CDC report concluded that “this early estimate supports the current nirsevimab recommendation for the prevention of severe RSV disease in infants. Infants should be protected by maternal RSV vaccination or infant receipt of nirsevimab.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

The first pentavalent vaccine approved against all five major serogroups of meningococcal disease has clinicians evaluating the optimal timing for vaccination, according to a new analysis.

Vaccines have helped greatly reduce the rate of invasive meningococcal disease among adolescents over the past 20 years, and the new formulation that covers all main types of the bacteria could help improve vaccination coverage and drive infection rates even lower, reported the research led by senior author Gregory Zimet from the department of pediatrics at the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana.

The five main serogroups — labeled A, B, C, W, and Y — cause most of the disease set off by the bacteria Neisseria meningitidis. It is a rare but serious illness that mostly affects adolescents and young adults.

Meningitis often presents with nonspecific symptoms and can progress to serious illness and even death within hours.

“Clinical features of invasive meningococcal disease, coupled with its unpredictable epidemiology, suggest that vaccination is the best strategy for preventing associated adverse outcomes,” the researchers reported.

Before the introduction of vaccines in 2005, the incidence of disease in the United States ranged from 0.5 to 1.1 cases per 100,000 people, with ≥ 10% of cases being fatal.
 

The Quadrivalent Vaccine

In 2005, the first quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine, covering serogroups A, C, W, and Y, was approved in the United States and recommended for routine use in 11- and 12-year-olds, followed by a 2010 booster recommendation at age 16 years.

Between 2006 and 2017, the estimated incidence among 11- to 15-year-olds dropped by > 26% each year.

For those aged 16-22 years, the incidence dropped even further by > 35% per year between 2011 and 2017 after the booster was introduced.

Rates also fell in other groups that had not been vaccinated, such as in infants and adults, suggesting possible herd protection after the vaccines.
 

With Serogroup B

By 2015, a vaccine covering serogroup B was also approved. However, it was not added to the routine vaccination schedule and was subject to shared clinical decision-making between clinicians and patients.

The B vaccine has been less successful, reported the researchers, who said this is likely because uptake was much lower due to it not being part of the routine schedule.

Today, serogroup B makes up a greater proportion of meningitis cases. Before the vaccines were introduced, it accounted for about one third of cases, and now it is the cause of about half of all cases.
 

Two Doses With a Boost?

In October, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the first pentavalent vaccine against all five major serogroups, which the authors of the analysis said, “may help optimize the existing US adolescent meningococcal vaccination platform”.

A modeling study suggested that the current vaccination schedule of two doses each of the vaccines would prevent 165 cases of meningitis over 10 years. However, a two-dose pentavalent vaccine at age 11 years plus a booster at age 16 years would not only simplify the process and reduce the number of injections required but would also increase the number of cases prevented to 256.

“Use of pentavalent vaccines yields the potential to build on the success of the incumbent program, raising B vaccination coverage by simplifying existing recommendations and decreasing the number of injections required,” the researchers reported, thus “…reducing the clinical and economic burden of meningococcal disease.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The first pentavalent vaccine approved against all five major serogroups of meningococcal disease has clinicians evaluating the optimal timing for vaccination, according to a new analysis.

Vaccines have helped greatly reduce the rate of invasive meningococcal disease among adolescents over the past 20 years, and the new formulation that covers all main types of the bacteria could help improve vaccination coverage and drive infection rates even lower, reported the research led by senior author Gregory Zimet from the department of pediatrics at the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana.

The five main serogroups — labeled A, B, C, W, and Y — cause most of the disease set off by the bacteria Neisseria meningitidis. It is a rare but serious illness that mostly affects adolescents and young adults.

Meningitis often presents with nonspecific symptoms and can progress to serious illness and even death within hours.

“Clinical features of invasive meningococcal disease, coupled with its unpredictable epidemiology, suggest that vaccination is the best strategy for preventing associated adverse outcomes,” the researchers reported.

Before the introduction of vaccines in 2005, the incidence of disease in the United States ranged from 0.5 to 1.1 cases per 100,000 people, with ≥ 10% of cases being fatal.
 

The Quadrivalent Vaccine

In 2005, the first quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine, covering serogroups A, C, W, and Y, was approved in the United States and recommended for routine use in 11- and 12-year-olds, followed by a 2010 booster recommendation at age 16 years.

Between 2006 and 2017, the estimated incidence among 11- to 15-year-olds dropped by > 26% each year.

For those aged 16-22 years, the incidence dropped even further by > 35% per year between 2011 and 2017 after the booster was introduced.

Rates also fell in other groups that had not been vaccinated, such as in infants and adults, suggesting possible herd protection after the vaccines.
 

With Serogroup B

By 2015, a vaccine covering serogroup B was also approved. However, it was not added to the routine vaccination schedule and was subject to shared clinical decision-making between clinicians and patients.

The B vaccine has been less successful, reported the researchers, who said this is likely because uptake was much lower due to it not being part of the routine schedule.

Today, serogroup B makes up a greater proportion of meningitis cases. Before the vaccines were introduced, it accounted for about one third of cases, and now it is the cause of about half of all cases.
 

Two Doses With a Boost?

In October, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the first pentavalent vaccine against all five major serogroups, which the authors of the analysis said, “may help optimize the existing US adolescent meningococcal vaccination platform”.

A modeling study suggested that the current vaccination schedule of two doses each of the vaccines would prevent 165 cases of meningitis over 10 years. However, a two-dose pentavalent vaccine at age 11 years plus a booster at age 16 years would not only simplify the process and reduce the number of injections required but would also increase the number of cases prevented to 256.

“Use of pentavalent vaccines yields the potential to build on the success of the incumbent program, raising B vaccination coverage by simplifying existing recommendations and decreasing the number of injections required,” the researchers reported, thus “…reducing the clinical and economic burden of meningococcal disease.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The first pentavalent vaccine approved against all five major serogroups of meningococcal disease has clinicians evaluating the optimal timing for vaccination, according to a new analysis.

Vaccines have helped greatly reduce the rate of invasive meningococcal disease among adolescents over the past 20 years, and the new formulation that covers all main types of the bacteria could help improve vaccination coverage and drive infection rates even lower, reported the research led by senior author Gregory Zimet from the department of pediatrics at the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana.

The five main serogroups — labeled A, B, C, W, and Y — cause most of the disease set off by the bacteria Neisseria meningitidis. It is a rare but serious illness that mostly affects adolescents and young adults.

Meningitis often presents with nonspecific symptoms and can progress to serious illness and even death within hours.

“Clinical features of invasive meningococcal disease, coupled with its unpredictable epidemiology, suggest that vaccination is the best strategy for preventing associated adverse outcomes,” the researchers reported.

Before the introduction of vaccines in 2005, the incidence of disease in the United States ranged from 0.5 to 1.1 cases per 100,000 people, with ≥ 10% of cases being fatal.
 

The Quadrivalent Vaccine

In 2005, the first quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine, covering serogroups A, C, W, and Y, was approved in the United States and recommended for routine use in 11- and 12-year-olds, followed by a 2010 booster recommendation at age 16 years.

Between 2006 and 2017, the estimated incidence among 11- to 15-year-olds dropped by > 26% each year.

For those aged 16-22 years, the incidence dropped even further by > 35% per year between 2011 and 2017 after the booster was introduced.

Rates also fell in other groups that had not been vaccinated, such as in infants and adults, suggesting possible herd protection after the vaccines.
 

With Serogroup B

By 2015, a vaccine covering serogroup B was also approved. However, it was not added to the routine vaccination schedule and was subject to shared clinical decision-making between clinicians and patients.

The B vaccine has been less successful, reported the researchers, who said this is likely because uptake was much lower due to it not being part of the routine schedule.

Today, serogroup B makes up a greater proportion of meningitis cases. Before the vaccines were introduced, it accounted for about one third of cases, and now it is the cause of about half of all cases.
 

Two Doses With a Boost?

In October, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the first pentavalent vaccine against all five major serogroups, which the authors of the analysis said, “may help optimize the existing US adolescent meningococcal vaccination platform”.

A modeling study suggested that the current vaccination schedule of two doses each of the vaccines would prevent 165 cases of meningitis over 10 years. However, a two-dose pentavalent vaccine at age 11 years plus a booster at age 16 years would not only simplify the process and reduce the number of injections required but would also increase the number of cases prevented to 256.

“Use of pentavalent vaccines yields the potential to build on the success of the incumbent program, raising B vaccination coverage by simplifying existing recommendations and decreasing the number of injections required,” the researchers reported, thus “…reducing the clinical and economic burden of meningococcal disease.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A phase 3 trial of a maternal vaccine candidate for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) has been stopped early because the risk for preterm births is higher in the candidate vaccine group than in the placebo group.

By the time enrollment was stopped on February 25, 2022 because of the safety signal of preterm birth, 5328 pregnant women had been vaccinated, about half of the intended 10,000 enrollees. Of these, 3557 received the candidate vaccine RSV prefusion F protein–based maternal vaccine, and another 1771 received a placebo.

Data from the trial, sponsored by GSK, were immediately made available when recruitment and vaccination were stopped, and investigation of the preterm birth risk followed. Results of that analysis, led by Ilse Dieussaert, IR, vice president for vaccine development at GSK in Wavre, Belgium, are published online on March 13 in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

“We have discontinued our work on this RSV maternal candidate vaccine, and we are closing out all ongoing trials with the exception of the MAT-015 follow-on study to monitor subsequent pregnancies,” a GSK spokesperson said in an interview.

The trial was conducted in pregnant women aged 18-49 years to assess the efficacy and safety of the vaccine. The women were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive the candidate vaccine or placebo between 24 and 34 weeks’ gestation.
 

Preterm Births

The primary outcomes were any or severe medically assessed RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection in infants from birth to 6 months and safety in infants from birth to 12 months.

According to the data, preterm birth occurred in 6.8% of the infants in the vaccine group and in 4.9% of those in the placebo group (relative risk [RR], 1.37; 95% CI, 1.08-1.74; P = .01). Neonatal death occurred in 0.4% in the vaccine group and 0.2% in the placebo group (RR, 2.16; 95% CI, 0.62-7.56; P = .23).

To date, only one RSV vaccine (Abrysvo, Pfizer) has been approved for use during pregnancy to protect infants from RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection.

“It was a very big deal that this trial was stopped, and the new candidate won’t get approval.” said Aaron E. Glatt, MD, chair of the Department of Medicine and chief of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiologist at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, New York.
 

Only One RSV Vaccine Approved in Pregnancy

Dr. Glatt pointed out the GSK vaccine is like the maternal vaccine that did get approved. “The data clearly show that there was a slight but increased risk in preterm labor,” Dr. Glatt said, “and while not as clearly shown, there was an increase in neonatal death in the group of very small numbers, but any neonatal death is of concern.”

The implications were disturbing, he added, “You’re giving this vaccine to prevent neonatal death.” Though the Pfizer vaccine that was granted approval had a very slight increase in premature birth, the risk wasn’t statistically significant, he pointed out, “and it showed similar benefits in preventing neonatal illness, which can be fatal.”

Dr. Glatt said that there is still a lingering concern with the approved vaccine, and he explained that most clinicians will give it closer to the end of the recommended time window of 34 weeks. “This way, even if there is a slight increase in premature term labor, you’re probably not going to have a serious outcome because the baby will be far enough along.”

A difference in the incidence of preterm birth between the experimental vaccine and placebo groups was predominantly found in low- and middle-income countries, according to Dieussaert’s team, “where approximately 50% of the trial population was enrolled and where the medical need for maternal RSV vaccines is the greatest.”

The RR was 1.56 (95% CI, 1.17-2.10) for low- and middle-income countries and 1.04 (95% CI, 0.68-1.58) for high-income countries. 

“If a smaller percentage of participants from low- and middle-income countries had been enrolled in our trial, the RR for preterm birth in the vaccine group as compared with the placebo group might have been reduced in the overall trial population,” they reported.

The authors explained that the data do not reveal the cause of the higher risk for preterm birth in the vaccine group.

“We do not know what caused the signal,” the company’s spokesperson added. “GSK completed all the necessary steps of product development including preclinical toxicology studies and clinical studies in nonpregnant women prior to starting the studies in pregnant women. There were no safety signals identified in any of the earlier parts of the clinical testing. There have been no safety signals identified in the other phase 3 trials for this vaccine candidate.”

Researchers did not find a correlation between preterm births in the treatment vs control groups with gestational age at the time of vaccination or with particular vaccine clinical trial material lots, race, ethnicity, maternal smoking, alcohol consumption, body mass index, or time between study vaccination and delivery, the GSK spokesperson said.

The spokesperson noted that the halted vaccine is different from GSK’s currently approved adjuvanted RSV vaccine (Arexvy) for adults aged 60 years or older.

What’s Next for Other Vaccines

Maternal vaccines have been effective in preventing other diseases in infants, such as tetanus, influenza, and pertussis, but RSV is a very hard virus to make a vaccine for, Dr. Glatt shared.

The need is great to have more than one option for a maternal RSV vaccine, he added, to address any potential supply concerns.

“People have to realize how serious RSV can be in infants,” he said. “It can be a fatal disease. This can be a serious illness even in healthy children.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A phase 3 trial of a maternal vaccine candidate for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) has been stopped early because the risk for preterm births is higher in the candidate vaccine group than in the placebo group.

By the time enrollment was stopped on February 25, 2022 because of the safety signal of preterm birth, 5328 pregnant women had been vaccinated, about half of the intended 10,000 enrollees. Of these, 3557 received the candidate vaccine RSV prefusion F protein–based maternal vaccine, and another 1771 received a placebo.

Data from the trial, sponsored by GSK, were immediately made available when recruitment and vaccination were stopped, and investigation of the preterm birth risk followed. Results of that analysis, led by Ilse Dieussaert, IR, vice president for vaccine development at GSK in Wavre, Belgium, are published online on March 13 in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

“We have discontinued our work on this RSV maternal candidate vaccine, and we are closing out all ongoing trials with the exception of the MAT-015 follow-on study to monitor subsequent pregnancies,” a GSK spokesperson said in an interview.

The trial was conducted in pregnant women aged 18-49 years to assess the efficacy and safety of the vaccine. The women were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive the candidate vaccine or placebo between 24 and 34 weeks’ gestation.
 

Preterm Births

The primary outcomes were any or severe medically assessed RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection in infants from birth to 6 months and safety in infants from birth to 12 months.

According to the data, preterm birth occurred in 6.8% of the infants in the vaccine group and in 4.9% of those in the placebo group (relative risk [RR], 1.37; 95% CI, 1.08-1.74; P = .01). Neonatal death occurred in 0.4% in the vaccine group and 0.2% in the placebo group (RR, 2.16; 95% CI, 0.62-7.56; P = .23).

To date, only one RSV vaccine (Abrysvo, Pfizer) has been approved for use during pregnancy to protect infants from RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection.

“It was a very big deal that this trial was stopped, and the new candidate won’t get approval.” said Aaron E. Glatt, MD, chair of the Department of Medicine and chief of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiologist at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, New York.
 

Only One RSV Vaccine Approved in Pregnancy

Dr. Glatt pointed out the GSK vaccine is like the maternal vaccine that did get approved. “The data clearly show that there was a slight but increased risk in preterm labor,” Dr. Glatt said, “and while not as clearly shown, there was an increase in neonatal death in the group of very small numbers, but any neonatal death is of concern.”

The implications were disturbing, he added, “You’re giving this vaccine to prevent neonatal death.” Though the Pfizer vaccine that was granted approval had a very slight increase in premature birth, the risk wasn’t statistically significant, he pointed out, “and it showed similar benefits in preventing neonatal illness, which can be fatal.”

Dr. Glatt said that there is still a lingering concern with the approved vaccine, and he explained that most clinicians will give it closer to the end of the recommended time window of 34 weeks. “This way, even if there is a slight increase in premature term labor, you’re probably not going to have a serious outcome because the baby will be far enough along.”

A difference in the incidence of preterm birth between the experimental vaccine and placebo groups was predominantly found in low- and middle-income countries, according to Dieussaert’s team, “where approximately 50% of the trial population was enrolled and where the medical need for maternal RSV vaccines is the greatest.”

The RR was 1.56 (95% CI, 1.17-2.10) for low- and middle-income countries and 1.04 (95% CI, 0.68-1.58) for high-income countries. 

“If a smaller percentage of participants from low- and middle-income countries had been enrolled in our trial, the RR for preterm birth in the vaccine group as compared with the placebo group might have been reduced in the overall trial population,” they reported.

The authors explained that the data do not reveal the cause of the higher risk for preterm birth in the vaccine group.

“We do not know what caused the signal,” the company’s spokesperson added. “GSK completed all the necessary steps of product development including preclinical toxicology studies and clinical studies in nonpregnant women prior to starting the studies in pregnant women. There were no safety signals identified in any of the earlier parts of the clinical testing. There have been no safety signals identified in the other phase 3 trials for this vaccine candidate.”

Researchers did not find a correlation between preterm births in the treatment vs control groups with gestational age at the time of vaccination or with particular vaccine clinical trial material lots, race, ethnicity, maternal smoking, alcohol consumption, body mass index, or time between study vaccination and delivery, the GSK spokesperson said.

The spokesperson noted that the halted vaccine is different from GSK’s currently approved adjuvanted RSV vaccine (Arexvy) for adults aged 60 years or older.

What’s Next for Other Vaccines

Maternal vaccines have been effective in preventing other diseases in infants, such as tetanus, influenza, and pertussis, but RSV is a very hard virus to make a vaccine for, Dr. Glatt shared.

The need is great to have more than one option for a maternal RSV vaccine, he added, to address any potential supply concerns.

“People have to realize how serious RSV can be in infants,” he said. “It can be a fatal disease. This can be a serious illness even in healthy children.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A phase 3 trial of a maternal vaccine candidate for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) has been stopped early because the risk for preterm births is higher in the candidate vaccine group than in the placebo group.

By the time enrollment was stopped on February 25, 2022 because of the safety signal of preterm birth, 5328 pregnant women had been vaccinated, about half of the intended 10,000 enrollees. Of these, 3557 received the candidate vaccine RSV prefusion F protein–based maternal vaccine, and another 1771 received a placebo.

Data from the trial, sponsored by GSK, were immediately made available when recruitment and vaccination were stopped, and investigation of the preterm birth risk followed. Results of that analysis, led by Ilse Dieussaert, IR, vice president for vaccine development at GSK in Wavre, Belgium, are published online on March 13 in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

“We have discontinued our work on this RSV maternal candidate vaccine, and we are closing out all ongoing trials with the exception of the MAT-015 follow-on study to monitor subsequent pregnancies,” a GSK spokesperson said in an interview.

The trial was conducted in pregnant women aged 18-49 years to assess the efficacy and safety of the vaccine. The women were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive the candidate vaccine or placebo between 24 and 34 weeks’ gestation.
 

Preterm Births

The primary outcomes were any or severe medically assessed RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection in infants from birth to 6 months and safety in infants from birth to 12 months.

According to the data, preterm birth occurred in 6.8% of the infants in the vaccine group and in 4.9% of those in the placebo group (relative risk [RR], 1.37; 95% CI, 1.08-1.74; P = .01). Neonatal death occurred in 0.4% in the vaccine group and 0.2% in the placebo group (RR, 2.16; 95% CI, 0.62-7.56; P = .23).

To date, only one RSV vaccine (Abrysvo, Pfizer) has been approved for use during pregnancy to protect infants from RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection.

“It was a very big deal that this trial was stopped, and the new candidate won’t get approval.” said Aaron E. Glatt, MD, chair of the Department of Medicine and chief of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiologist at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, New York.
 

Only One RSV Vaccine Approved in Pregnancy

Dr. Glatt pointed out the GSK vaccine is like the maternal vaccine that did get approved. “The data clearly show that there was a slight but increased risk in preterm labor,” Dr. Glatt said, “and while not as clearly shown, there was an increase in neonatal death in the group of very small numbers, but any neonatal death is of concern.”

The implications were disturbing, he added, “You’re giving this vaccine to prevent neonatal death.” Though the Pfizer vaccine that was granted approval had a very slight increase in premature birth, the risk wasn’t statistically significant, he pointed out, “and it showed similar benefits in preventing neonatal illness, which can be fatal.”

Dr. Glatt said that there is still a lingering concern with the approved vaccine, and he explained that most clinicians will give it closer to the end of the recommended time window of 34 weeks. “This way, even if there is a slight increase in premature term labor, you’re probably not going to have a serious outcome because the baby will be far enough along.”

A difference in the incidence of preterm birth between the experimental vaccine and placebo groups was predominantly found in low- and middle-income countries, according to Dieussaert’s team, “where approximately 50% of the trial population was enrolled and where the medical need for maternal RSV vaccines is the greatest.”

The RR was 1.56 (95% CI, 1.17-2.10) for low- and middle-income countries and 1.04 (95% CI, 0.68-1.58) for high-income countries. 

“If a smaller percentage of participants from low- and middle-income countries had been enrolled in our trial, the RR for preterm birth in the vaccine group as compared with the placebo group might have been reduced in the overall trial population,” they reported.

The authors explained that the data do not reveal the cause of the higher risk for preterm birth in the vaccine group.

“We do not know what caused the signal,” the company’s spokesperson added. “GSK completed all the necessary steps of product development including preclinical toxicology studies and clinical studies in nonpregnant women prior to starting the studies in pregnant women. There were no safety signals identified in any of the earlier parts of the clinical testing. There have been no safety signals identified in the other phase 3 trials for this vaccine candidate.”

Researchers did not find a correlation between preterm births in the treatment vs control groups with gestational age at the time of vaccination or with particular vaccine clinical trial material lots, race, ethnicity, maternal smoking, alcohol consumption, body mass index, or time between study vaccination and delivery, the GSK spokesperson said.

The spokesperson noted that the halted vaccine is different from GSK’s currently approved adjuvanted RSV vaccine (Arexvy) for adults aged 60 years or older.

What’s Next for Other Vaccines

Maternal vaccines have been effective in preventing other diseases in infants, such as tetanus, influenza, and pertussis, but RSV is a very hard virus to make a vaccine for, Dr. Glatt shared.

The need is great to have more than one option for a maternal RSV vaccine, he added, to address any potential supply concerns.

“People have to realize how serious RSV can be in infants,” he said. “It can be a fatal disease. This can be a serious illness even in healthy children.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When the world needed a COVID vaccine, leading HIV investigators answered the call to intervene in the coronavirus pandemic. Now, efforts to discover the world’s first HIV vaccine are revitalized.

“The body is capable of making antibodies to protect us from HIV,” says Yunda Huang, PhD, from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington, who sat down with me before her talk today at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.

Dr. Huang spoke about the path forward for neutralizing antibody protection after the last attempt in a generation of HIV vaccine development ended in disappointment.

The past two decades marked the rise in HIV broadly neutralizing antibodies, with vaccine strategies to induce them. Promising advances include germline approaches, mRNA, and nanoparticle technologies.

The PrEP vaccine trial testing two experimental prevention regimens in Africa was stopped after investigators reported there is “little to no chance” the trial will show the vaccines are effective.
 

A Shape-Shifting Virus

HIV has been called the shape-shifting virus because it disguises itself so that even when people are able to make antibodies to it, the virus changes to escape.

But Dr. Huang and others are optimistic that an effective vaccine is still possible.

“We cannot and will not lose hope that the world will have an effective HIV vaccine that is accessible by all who need it, anywhere,” International AIDS Society (IAS) Executive Director Birgit Poniatowski said in a statement in December, when the trial was stopped.

HIV is a still persistent problem in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that reports it has affected an estimated 1.2 million people.

With new people infected every day around the globe, Dr. Huang says she feels a sense of urgency to help. “I think about all the people around the globe and the large number of young girls being hurt and I know our big pool of talent can intervene to change what we see happening.” 

Dr. Huang says the clinical trial failures we’ve seen so far will help guide next steps in HIV research as much as successes typically do.
 

Advances in the Field

With significant advances in protein nanoparticle science, mRNA technology, adjuvant development, and B-cell and antibody analyses, a new wave of clinical trials are on the way.

And with so many new approaches in the works, the HIV Vaccine Trials Network is retooling how it operates to navigate a burgeoning field and identify the most promising regimens.

A new Discovery Medicine Program will help the network assess new vaccine candidates. It will also aim to rule out others earlier on.

For COVID-19 and the flu, multimeric nanoparticles are an important alternative under investigation that could also be adapted for HIV.

Dr. Huang says she is particularly excited to watch the progress in cocktails of combination monoclonals. “I’ve been working in this field for 20 years now and there is a misconception that with pre-exposure prophylaxis, our job is done, but HIV is so far from away from being solved.”

But you just never know, Dr. Huang says. With new research, “we could bump on something at any point that changes everything.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When the world needed a COVID vaccine, leading HIV investigators answered the call to intervene in the coronavirus pandemic. Now, efforts to discover the world’s first HIV vaccine are revitalized.

“The body is capable of making antibodies to protect us from HIV,” says Yunda Huang, PhD, from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington, who sat down with me before her talk today at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.

Dr. Huang spoke about the path forward for neutralizing antibody protection after the last attempt in a generation of HIV vaccine development ended in disappointment.

The past two decades marked the rise in HIV broadly neutralizing antibodies, with vaccine strategies to induce them. Promising advances include germline approaches, mRNA, and nanoparticle technologies.

The PrEP vaccine trial testing two experimental prevention regimens in Africa was stopped after investigators reported there is “little to no chance” the trial will show the vaccines are effective.
 

A Shape-Shifting Virus

HIV has been called the shape-shifting virus because it disguises itself so that even when people are able to make antibodies to it, the virus changes to escape.

But Dr. Huang and others are optimistic that an effective vaccine is still possible.

“We cannot and will not lose hope that the world will have an effective HIV vaccine that is accessible by all who need it, anywhere,” International AIDS Society (IAS) Executive Director Birgit Poniatowski said in a statement in December, when the trial was stopped.

HIV is a still persistent problem in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that reports it has affected an estimated 1.2 million people.

With new people infected every day around the globe, Dr. Huang says she feels a sense of urgency to help. “I think about all the people around the globe and the large number of young girls being hurt and I know our big pool of talent can intervene to change what we see happening.” 

Dr. Huang says the clinical trial failures we’ve seen so far will help guide next steps in HIV research as much as successes typically do.
 

Advances in the Field

With significant advances in protein nanoparticle science, mRNA technology, adjuvant development, and B-cell and antibody analyses, a new wave of clinical trials are on the way.

And with so many new approaches in the works, the HIV Vaccine Trials Network is retooling how it operates to navigate a burgeoning field and identify the most promising regimens.

A new Discovery Medicine Program will help the network assess new vaccine candidates. It will also aim to rule out others earlier on.

For COVID-19 and the flu, multimeric nanoparticles are an important alternative under investigation that could also be adapted for HIV.

Dr. Huang says she is particularly excited to watch the progress in cocktails of combination monoclonals. “I’ve been working in this field for 20 years now and there is a misconception that with pre-exposure prophylaxis, our job is done, but HIV is so far from away from being solved.”

But you just never know, Dr. Huang says. With new research, “we could bump on something at any point that changes everything.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When the world needed a COVID vaccine, leading HIV investigators answered the call to intervene in the coronavirus pandemic. Now, efforts to discover the world’s first HIV vaccine are revitalized.

“The body is capable of making antibodies to protect us from HIV,” says Yunda Huang, PhD, from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington, who sat down with me before her talk today at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.

Dr. Huang spoke about the path forward for neutralizing antibody protection after the last attempt in a generation of HIV vaccine development ended in disappointment.

The past two decades marked the rise in HIV broadly neutralizing antibodies, with vaccine strategies to induce them. Promising advances include germline approaches, mRNA, and nanoparticle technologies.

The PrEP vaccine trial testing two experimental prevention regimens in Africa was stopped after investigators reported there is “little to no chance” the trial will show the vaccines are effective.
 

A Shape-Shifting Virus

HIV has been called the shape-shifting virus because it disguises itself so that even when people are able to make antibodies to it, the virus changes to escape.

But Dr. Huang and others are optimistic that an effective vaccine is still possible.

“We cannot and will not lose hope that the world will have an effective HIV vaccine that is accessible by all who need it, anywhere,” International AIDS Society (IAS) Executive Director Birgit Poniatowski said in a statement in December, when the trial was stopped.

HIV is a still persistent problem in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that reports it has affected an estimated 1.2 million people.

With new people infected every day around the globe, Dr. Huang says she feels a sense of urgency to help. “I think about all the people around the globe and the large number of young girls being hurt and I know our big pool of talent can intervene to change what we see happening.” 

Dr. Huang says the clinical trial failures we’ve seen so far will help guide next steps in HIV research as much as successes typically do.
 

Advances in the Field

With significant advances in protein nanoparticle science, mRNA technology, adjuvant development, and B-cell and antibody analyses, a new wave of clinical trials are on the way.

And with so many new approaches in the works, the HIV Vaccine Trials Network is retooling how it operates to navigate a burgeoning field and identify the most promising regimens.

A new Discovery Medicine Program will help the network assess new vaccine candidates. It will also aim to rule out others earlier on.

For COVID-19 and the flu, multimeric nanoparticles are an important alternative under investigation that could also be adapted for HIV.

Dr. Huang says she is particularly excited to watch the progress in cocktails of combination monoclonals. “I’ve been working in this field for 20 years now and there is a misconception that with pre-exposure prophylaxis, our job is done, but HIV is so far from away from being solved.”

But you just never know, Dr. Huang says. With new research, “we could bump on something at any point that changes everything.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan, at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine.

Very recently, a homeopathic midwife in New York was fined $300,000 for giving out phony injections for kids who were looking to get immunized in order to go to school. She gave pellets, which are sometimes called nosodes, I believe, with homeopathic ingredients, meaning next to nothing in them, and then basically certified that these children — and there were over 1500 of them — were compliant with New York State requirements to be vaccinated to go to school.

However, homeopathy is straight-up bunk. We have seen it again and again discredited as just something that doesn’t work. It has a tradition, but it’s basically nonsense. It certainly doesn’t work as a way to vaccinate anybody.

This midwife basically lied and gave phony certification to the parents of these kids. I’m not talking about the COVID-19 vaccine. I’m talking measles, mumps, rubella, flu, and polio — the childhood immunization schedule. For whatever reason, they put their faith in her and she went along with this fraud.

I think the fine is appropriate, but I think she should be penalized further. Why? When you send 1500 kids to school, mostly in Long Island, New York, but to schools all over the place, you are setting up conditions to bring back epidemic diseases like measles.

We’re already seeing measles outbreaks. At least five states have them. There’s a significant measles outbreak in Philadelphia. Although I can’t say for sure, I believe those outbreaks are directly linked to parents, post–COVID-19, becoming vaccine hesitant and either not vaccinating and lying or going to alternative practitioners like this midwife and claiming that they have been vaccinated.

You’re doing harm not only to the children who you allow to go to school under phony pretenses, but also you’re putting their classmates at risk. We all know that measles is very, very contagious. You’re risking the return of a disease that leads to hospitalization and sometimes even death. That is basically unconscionable.

I think her license should be taken away and she should not be practicing anymore. I believe that anyone who is involved in this kind of phony, dangerous, fraudulent practice ought to be severely punished.

Pre–COVID-19, we had just about gotten rid of measles and mumps. We didn’t see these diseases. Sometimes parents got a bit lazy in childhood vaccination basically because we had used immunization to get rid of the diseases.

Going to alternative healers and allowing people to get away with fraudulent nonsense risks bringing back disabling and deadly killers is not fair to you, me, and other people who are put at risk. It’s not fair to the kids who go to school with other kids who they think are vaccinated but aren’t.

I’m Art Caplan, at the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine. Thanks for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position); serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan, at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine.

Very recently, a homeopathic midwife in New York was fined $300,000 for giving out phony injections for kids who were looking to get immunized in order to go to school. She gave pellets, which are sometimes called nosodes, I believe, with homeopathic ingredients, meaning next to nothing in them, and then basically certified that these children — and there were over 1500 of them — were compliant with New York State requirements to be vaccinated to go to school.

However, homeopathy is straight-up bunk. We have seen it again and again discredited as just something that doesn’t work. It has a tradition, but it’s basically nonsense. It certainly doesn’t work as a way to vaccinate anybody.

This midwife basically lied and gave phony certification to the parents of these kids. I’m not talking about the COVID-19 vaccine. I’m talking measles, mumps, rubella, flu, and polio — the childhood immunization schedule. For whatever reason, they put their faith in her and she went along with this fraud.

I think the fine is appropriate, but I think she should be penalized further. Why? When you send 1500 kids to school, mostly in Long Island, New York, but to schools all over the place, you are setting up conditions to bring back epidemic diseases like measles.

We’re already seeing measles outbreaks. At least five states have them. There’s a significant measles outbreak in Philadelphia. Although I can’t say for sure, I believe those outbreaks are directly linked to parents, post–COVID-19, becoming vaccine hesitant and either not vaccinating and lying or going to alternative practitioners like this midwife and claiming that they have been vaccinated.

You’re doing harm not only to the children who you allow to go to school under phony pretenses, but also you’re putting their classmates at risk. We all know that measles is very, very contagious. You’re risking the return of a disease that leads to hospitalization and sometimes even death. That is basically unconscionable.

I think her license should be taken away and she should not be practicing anymore. I believe that anyone who is involved in this kind of phony, dangerous, fraudulent practice ought to be severely punished.

Pre–COVID-19, we had just about gotten rid of measles and mumps. We didn’t see these diseases. Sometimes parents got a bit lazy in childhood vaccination basically because we had used immunization to get rid of the diseases.

Going to alternative healers and allowing people to get away with fraudulent nonsense risks bringing back disabling and deadly killers is not fair to you, me, and other people who are put at risk. It’s not fair to the kids who go to school with other kids who they think are vaccinated but aren’t.

I’m Art Caplan, at the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine. Thanks for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position); serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan, at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine.

Very recently, a homeopathic midwife in New York was fined $300,000 for giving out phony injections for kids who were looking to get immunized in order to go to school. She gave pellets, which are sometimes called nosodes, I believe, with homeopathic ingredients, meaning next to nothing in them, and then basically certified that these children — and there were over 1500 of them — were compliant with New York State requirements to be vaccinated to go to school.

However, homeopathy is straight-up bunk. We have seen it again and again discredited as just something that doesn’t work. It has a tradition, but it’s basically nonsense. It certainly doesn’t work as a way to vaccinate anybody.

This midwife basically lied and gave phony certification to the parents of these kids. I’m not talking about the COVID-19 vaccine. I’m talking measles, mumps, rubella, flu, and polio — the childhood immunization schedule. For whatever reason, they put their faith in her and she went along with this fraud.

I think the fine is appropriate, but I think she should be penalized further. Why? When you send 1500 kids to school, mostly in Long Island, New York, but to schools all over the place, you are setting up conditions to bring back epidemic diseases like measles.

We’re already seeing measles outbreaks. At least five states have them. There’s a significant measles outbreak in Philadelphia. Although I can’t say for sure, I believe those outbreaks are directly linked to parents, post–COVID-19, becoming vaccine hesitant and either not vaccinating and lying or going to alternative practitioners like this midwife and claiming that they have been vaccinated.

You’re doing harm not only to the children who you allow to go to school under phony pretenses, but also you’re putting their classmates at risk. We all know that measles is very, very contagious. You’re risking the return of a disease that leads to hospitalization and sometimes even death. That is basically unconscionable.

I think her license should be taken away and she should not be practicing anymore. I believe that anyone who is involved in this kind of phony, dangerous, fraudulent practice ought to be severely punished.

Pre–COVID-19, we had just about gotten rid of measles and mumps. We didn’t see these diseases. Sometimes parents got a bit lazy in childhood vaccination basically because we had used immunization to get rid of the diseases.

Going to alternative healers and allowing people to get away with fraudulent nonsense risks bringing back disabling and deadly killers is not fair to you, me, and other people who are put at risk. It’s not fair to the kids who go to school with other kids who they think are vaccinated but aren’t.

I’m Art Caplan, at the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine. Thanks for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position); serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The measles outbreak in Florida, occurring just as health officials announced an official end to Philadelphia’s measles outbreak and rising global cases, has cast attention once again on concerns about vaccine hesitancy. In the midst of Florida’s surgeon general avoiding measles vaccination recommendations for parents, the American Academy of Pediatrics has updated its clinical guidance on vaccine communication.

“Disruption to routine pediatric vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic has left many children vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases and more locations susceptible to outbreaks in the United States and around the world,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado in Aurora, and his colleagues, wrote in the new report, published in the March issue of Pediatrics. “Geographic clustering of vaccine refusal further increases the risk of communicable disease outbreaks in certain communities even when vaccination rates at a state or national level remain high overall.”

University of Colorado

The authors note that disease resurgence may bolster vaccine uptake, with media coverage of recent outbreaks linked to more pro-vaccine discussions and attitudes among parents. But the evidence on that remains inconclusive, and the authors point out the slow uptake in COVID-19 vaccination as parents navigate ongoing spread of both the disease and vaccine misinformation.
 

Conflicting Evidence on Postpandemic Attitudes

It remains unclear how parent attitudes toward vaccines have shifted, if at all, since the pandemic. A study published in Pediatrics from October 2023, which Dr. O’Leary also coauthored, analyzed data from an online survey of Colorado mothers between 2018 and 2021 and found no significant difference in vaccine hesitancy during the pandemic compared with pre-pandemic.

Among 3,553 respondents, 1 in 5 (20.4%) were vaccine hesitant overall. Though parents were twice as likely to feel uncertain in trusting vaccine information after the COVID-19 vaccines were authorized (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.14), they were half as likely to be unsure about hesitancy toward childhood vaccines (aOR 0.48).

Another study in Pediatrics from October 2023 found that common concerns about COVID-19 vaccines among parents included infertility, long-term effects from the vaccines, and effects on preexisting medical conditions. But even then, participants in focus groups “expressed that they would listen to their doctor for information about COVID-19 vaccines,” wrote Aubree Honcoop, MPS, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, and her colleagues.

“I think what we’re seeing, very importantly, is that physicians seem to be the source people rely on,” said Walter Orenstein, MD, professor of medicine and associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center at Emory University in Atlanta. “But we need to give the physicians time and incentives to spend time with families,” such as a billing code for vaccine counseling, he said.

Emory University

Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

Clinical Guidance

The new report reviews previously published evidence on the spectrum of parental vaccine acceptance — from supporters and “go along to get along” parents to cautious acceptors and fence sitters to vaccine refusers — and the determinants that contribute to hesitancy. They also noted the social inequities that have played a role in vaccine uptake disparities.

“Distrust of health systems based on historic and ongoing discrimination and inequitable access to care are intertwined challenges that contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in vaccine uptake,” the authors wrote. “Although there has been progress in reducing racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in childhood vaccination coverage, the COVID-19 pandemic made clear how much work is yet to be done.”

The report also reviewed the societal, individual, payer and pediatric practice costs of vaccine refusal. The 1-year cost to taxpayers from the measles outbreak in New York City in 2018-2019, for example, was $8.4 million, excluding vaccination programs.

The report provides background information to equip pediatricians for conversations with parents about vaccines. Since safety is the top concern for vaccine hesitancy among parents, the authors advised pediatricians to be familiar with the process of vaccine testing, emergency use authorization, licensure, approval, recommendations, and safety monitoring, including the Vaccine Safety Datalink, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the FDA’s Biologics Effectiveness and Safety (BEST) system, and the CDC’s Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project (CISA).

“Because vaccines are generally given to healthy individuals to prevent disease, they are held to a higher safety standard than other medications,” the authors wrote before providing a summary of the process for physicians to reference. The report also includes information on vaccine ingredients and a chart of common misconceptions about vaccines with the corresponding facts.
 

Overcoming Hesitancy

Evidence-based strategies for increasing childhood vaccine uptake begin with a strong vaccine recommendation using a presumptive rather than participatory approach, the authors wrote. “A presumptive format is one in which the clinician asserts a position regarding vaccines using a closed-ended statement, such as ‘Sara is due for several vaccines today’ or ‘Well, we have to do some shots,’ ” the authors wrote. “This strategy is in contrast to a participatory format, in which an open-ended question is used to more explicitly invite the parent to voice an opinion, such as ‘How do you feel about vaccines today?’ ” The presumptive format and a strong recommendation are both associated with greater uptake, evidence shows.

For parents who express hesitancy, the authors provide a summary of additional evidence-based communication strategies, starting with motivational interviewing. Two other strategies they highlight include using language to re-emphasize the importance of adhering to the CDC recommended schedule — “He really needs these shots” — and bundling discussion of all recommended vaccines for a visit at once.

“Finally, clinicians can emphasize their own experiences when discussing the need for vaccination, including personal experience with vaccine-preventable diseases and the fact that they and their families are vaccinated because of their confidence in the safety and efficacy of the vaccines,” the authors wrote.

For families who refuse or delay vaccines, the authors reviewed the “ethical arguments both in favor of and against dismissal policies,” noting that nearly all pediatricians who report dismissing families who refuse vaccination are in private practice, since large systems are often unable to dismiss patients. They also point out that fewer pediatricians dismiss families for spreading out vaccines than outright refusing all vaccines.

”Dismissal of child patients of vaccine-refusing parents can be a difficult decision arrived at after considering multiple factors and documented attempts to counsel vaccine-refusing families,” they wrote. “However, if repeated attempts to help understand and address parental values and vaccine concerns fails to engender trust, move parents toward vaccine acceptance, or strengthen the therapeutic alliance, dismissal can be an acceptable option.”

Finally, the authors reminded pediatricians “that vaccine-hesitant parents are a heterogeneous group and that specific parental vaccine concerns need to be individually identified and addressed.” Working with families to discuss their questions and concerns is an opportunity to “build rapport and trust with a family,” they wrote, ”and, ultimately, protect their children from the scourge of vaccine-preventable diseases.”

The focus groups study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the authors reported having no disclosures. The Colorado attitudes study used no external funding, and the authors reported no disclosures. The new clinical report used no external funding, and the authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Orenstein is an uncompensated member of the Moderna Scientific Advisory Board. Dr. Offit codeveloped a licensed rotavirus vaccine, but he does not receive any royalties or own a patent for that.

The measles outbreak in Florida, occurring just as health officials announced an official end to Philadelphia’s measles outbreak and rising global cases, has cast attention once again on concerns about vaccine hesitancy. In the midst of Florida’s surgeon general avoiding measles vaccination recommendations for parents, the American Academy of Pediatrics has updated its clinical guidance on vaccine communication.

“Disruption to routine pediatric vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic has left many children vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases and more locations susceptible to outbreaks in the United States and around the world,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado in Aurora, and his colleagues, wrote in the new report, published in the March issue of Pediatrics. “Geographic clustering of vaccine refusal further increases the risk of communicable disease outbreaks in certain communities even when vaccination rates at a state or national level remain high overall.”

University of Colorado

The authors note that disease resurgence may bolster vaccine uptake, with media coverage of recent outbreaks linked to more pro-vaccine discussions and attitudes among parents. But the evidence on that remains inconclusive, and the authors point out the slow uptake in COVID-19 vaccination as parents navigate ongoing spread of both the disease and vaccine misinformation.
 

Conflicting Evidence on Postpandemic Attitudes

It remains unclear how parent attitudes toward vaccines have shifted, if at all, since the pandemic. A study published in Pediatrics from October 2023, which Dr. O’Leary also coauthored, analyzed data from an online survey of Colorado mothers between 2018 and 2021 and found no significant difference in vaccine hesitancy during the pandemic compared with pre-pandemic.

Among 3,553 respondents, 1 in 5 (20.4%) were vaccine hesitant overall. Though parents were twice as likely to feel uncertain in trusting vaccine information after the COVID-19 vaccines were authorized (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.14), they were half as likely to be unsure about hesitancy toward childhood vaccines (aOR 0.48).

Another study in Pediatrics from October 2023 found that common concerns about COVID-19 vaccines among parents included infertility, long-term effects from the vaccines, and effects on preexisting medical conditions. But even then, participants in focus groups “expressed that they would listen to their doctor for information about COVID-19 vaccines,” wrote Aubree Honcoop, MPS, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, and her colleagues.

“I think what we’re seeing, very importantly, is that physicians seem to be the source people rely on,” said Walter Orenstein, MD, professor of medicine and associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center at Emory University in Atlanta. “But we need to give the physicians time and incentives to spend time with families,” such as a billing code for vaccine counseling, he said.

Emory University

Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

Clinical Guidance

The new report reviews previously published evidence on the spectrum of parental vaccine acceptance — from supporters and “go along to get along” parents to cautious acceptors and fence sitters to vaccine refusers — and the determinants that contribute to hesitancy. They also noted the social inequities that have played a role in vaccine uptake disparities.

“Distrust of health systems based on historic and ongoing discrimination and inequitable access to care are intertwined challenges that contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in vaccine uptake,” the authors wrote. “Although there has been progress in reducing racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in childhood vaccination coverage, the COVID-19 pandemic made clear how much work is yet to be done.”

The report also reviewed the societal, individual, payer and pediatric practice costs of vaccine refusal. The 1-year cost to taxpayers from the measles outbreak in New York City in 2018-2019, for example, was $8.4 million, excluding vaccination programs.

The report provides background information to equip pediatricians for conversations with parents about vaccines. Since safety is the top concern for vaccine hesitancy among parents, the authors advised pediatricians to be familiar with the process of vaccine testing, emergency use authorization, licensure, approval, recommendations, and safety monitoring, including the Vaccine Safety Datalink, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the FDA’s Biologics Effectiveness and Safety (BEST) system, and the CDC’s Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project (CISA).

“Because vaccines are generally given to healthy individuals to prevent disease, they are held to a higher safety standard than other medications,” the authors wrote before providing a summary of the process for physicians to reference. The report also includes information on vaccine ingredients and a chart of common misconceptions about vaccines with the corresponding facts.
 

Overcoming Hesitancy

Evidence-based strategies for increasing childhood vaccine uptake begin with a strong vaccine recommendation using a presumptive rather than participatory approach, the authors wrote. “A presumptive format is one in which the clinician asserts a position regarding vaccines using a closed-ended statement, such as ‘Sara is due for several vaccines today’ or ‘Well, we have to do some shots,’ ” the authors wrote. “This strategy is in contrast to a participatory format, in which an open-ended question is used to more explicitly invite the parent to voice an opinion, such as ‘How do you feel about vaccines today?’ ” The presumptive format and a strong recommendation are both associated with greater uptake, evidence shows.

For parents who express hesitancy, the authors provide a summary of additional evidence-based communication strategies, starting with motivational interviewing. Two other strategies they highlight include using language to re-emphasize the importance of adhering to the CDC recommended schedule — “He really needs these shots” — and bundling discussion of all recommended vaccines for a visit at once.

“Finally, clinicians can emphasize their own experiences when discussing the need for vaccination, including personal experience with vaccine-preventable diseases and the fact that they and their families are vaccinated because of their confidence in the safety and efficacy of the vaccines,” the authors wrote.

For families who refuse or delay vaccines, the authors reviewed the “ethical arguments both in favor of and against dismissal policies,” noting that nearly all pediatricians who report dismissing families who refuse vaccination are in private practice, since large systems are often unable to dismiss patients. They also point out that fewer pediatricians dismiss families for spreading out vaccines than outright refusing all vaccines.

”Dismissal of child patients of vaccine-refusing parents can be a difficult decision arrived at after considering multiple factors and documented attempts to counsel vaccine-refusing families,” they wrote. “However, if repeated attempts to help understand and address parental values and vaccine concerns fails to engender trust, move parents toward vaccine acceptance, or strengthen the therapeutic alliance, dismissal can be an acceptable option.”

Finally, the authors reminded pediatricians “that vaccine-hesitant parents are a heterogeneous group and that specific parental vaccine concerns need to be individually identified and addressed.” Working with families to discuss their questions and concerns is an opportunity to “build rapport and trust with a family,” they wrote, ”and, ultimately, protect their children from the scourge of vaccine-preventable diseases.”

The focus groups study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the authors reported having no disclosures. The Colorado attitudes study used no external funding, and the authors reported no disclosures. The new clinical report used no external funding, and the authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Orenstein is an uncompensated member of the Moderna Scientific Advisory Board. Dr. Offit codeveloped a licensed rotavirus vaccine, but he does not receive any royalties or own a patent for that.

The measles outbreak in Florida, occurring just as health officials announced an official end to Philadelphia’s measles outbreak and rising global cases, has cast attention once again on concerns about vaccine hesitancy. In the midst of Florida’s surgeon general avoiding measles vaccination recommendations for parents, the American Academy of Pediatrics has updated its clinical guidance on vaccine communication.

“Disruption to routine pediatric vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic has left many children vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases and more locations susceptible to outbreaks in the United States and around the world,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado in Aurora, and his colleagues, wrote in the new report, published in the March issue of Pediatrics. “Geographic clustering of vaccine refusal further increases the risk of communicable disease outbreaks in certain communities even when vaccination rates at a state or national level remain high overall.”

University of Colorado

The authors note that disease resurgence may bolster vaccine uptake, with media coverage of recent outbreaks linked to more pro-vaccine discussions and attitudes among parents. But the evidence on that remains inconclusive, and the authors point out the slow uptake in COVID-19 vaccination as parents navigate ongoing spread of both the disease and vaccine misinformation.
 

Conflicting Evidence on Postpandemic Attitudes

It remains unclear how parent attitudes toward vaccines have shifted, if at all, since the pandemic. A study published in Pediatrics from October 2023, which Dr. O’Leary also coauthored, analyzed data from an online survey of Colorado mothers between 2018 and 2021 and found no significant difference in vaccine hesitancy during the pandemic compared with pre-pandemic.

Among 3,553 respondents, 1 in 5 (20.4%) were vaccine hesitant overall. Though parents were twice as likely to feel uncertain in trusting vaccine information after the COVID-19 vaccines were authorized (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.14), they were half as likely to be unsure about hesitancy toward childhood vaccines (aOR 0.48).

Another study in Pediatrics from October 2023 found that common concerns about COVID-19 vaccines among parents included infertility, long-term effects from the vaccines, and effects on preexisting medical conditions. But even then, participants in focus groups “expressed that they would listen to their doctor for information about COVID-19 vaccines,” wrote Aubree Honcoop, MPS, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, and her colleagues.

“I think what we’re seeing, very importantly, is that physicians seem to be the source people rely on,” said Walter Orenstein, MD, professor of medicine and associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center at Emory University in Atlanta. “But we need to give the physicians time and incentives to spend time with families,” such as a billing code for vaccine counseling, he said.

Emory University

Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

Clinical Guidance

The new report reviews previously published evidence on the spectrum of parental vaccine acceptance — from supporters and “go along to get along” parents to cautious acceptors and fence sitters to vaccine refusers — and the determinants that contribute to hesitancy. They also noted the social inequities that have played a role in vaccine uptake disparities.

“Distrust of health systems based on historic and ongoing discrimination and inequitable access to care are intertwined challenges that contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in vaccine uptake,” the authors wrote. “Although there has been progress in reducing racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in childhood vaccination coverage, the COVID-19 pandemic made clear how much work is yet to be done.”

The report also reviewed the societal, individual, payer and pediatric practice costs of vaccine refusal. The 1-year cost to taxpayers from the measles outbreak in New York City in 2018-2019, for example, was $8.4 million, excluding vaccination programs.

The report provides background information to equip pediatricians for conversations with parents about vaccines. Since safety is the top concern for vaccine hesitancy among parents, the authors advised pediatricians to be familiar with the process of vaccine testing, emergency use authorization, licensure, approval, recommendations, and safety monitoring, including the Vaccine Safety Datalink, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the FDA’s Biologics Effectiveness and Safety (BEST) system, and the CDC’s Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project (CISA).

“Because vaccines are generally given to healthy individuals to prevent disease, they are held to a higher safety standard than other medications,” the authors wrote before providing a summary of the process for physicians to reference. The report also includes information on vaccine ingredients and a chart of common misconceptions about vaccines with the corresponding facts.
 

Overcoming Hesitancy

Evidence-based strategies for increasing childhood vaccine uptake begin with a strong vaccine recommendation using a presumptive rather than participatory approach, the authors wrote. “A presumptive format is one in which the clinician asserts a position regarding vaccines using a closed-ended statement, such as ‘Sara is due for several vaccines today’ or ‘Well, we have to do some shots,’ ” the authors wrote. “This strategy is in contrast to a participatory format, in which an open-ended question is used to more explicitly invite the parent to voice an opinion, such as ‘How do you feel about vaccines today?’ ” The presumptive format and a strong recommendation are both associated with greater uptake, evidence shows.

For parents who express hesitancy, the authors provide a summary of additional evidence-based communication strategies, starting with motivational interviewing. Two other strategies they highlight include using language to re-emphasize the importance of adhering to the CDC recommended schedule — “He really needs these shots” — and bundling discussion of all recommended vaccines for a visit at once.

“Finally, clinicians can emphasize their own experiences when discussing the need for vaccination, including personal experience with vaccine-preventable diseases and the fact that they and their families are vaccinated because of their confidence in the safety and efficacy of the vaccines,” the authors wrote.

For families who refuse or delay vaccines, the authors reviewed the “ethical arguments both in favor of and against dismissal policies,” noting that nearly all pediatricians who report dismissing families who refuse vaccination are in private practice, since large systems are often unable to dismiss patients. They also point out that fewer pediatricians dismiss families for spreading out vaccines than outright refusing all vaccines.

”Dismissal of child patients of vaccine-refusing parents can be a difficult decision arrived at after considering multiple factors and documented attempts to counsel vaccine-refusing families,” they wrote. “However, if repeated attempts to help understand and address parental values and vaccine concerns fails to engender trust, move parents toward vaccine acceptance, or strengthen the therapeutic alliance, dismissal can be an acceptable option.”

Finally, the authors reminded pediatricians “that vaccine-hesitant parents are a heterogeneous group and that specific parental vaccine concerns need to be individually identified and addressed.” Working with families to discuss their questions and concerns is an opportunity to “build rapport and trust with a family,” they wrote, ”and, ultimately, protect their children from the scourge of vaccine-preventable diseases.”

The focus groups study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the authors reported having no disclosures. The Colorado attitudes study used no external funding, and the authors reported no disclosures. The new clinical report used no external funding, and the authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Orenstein is an uncompensated member of the Moderna Scientific Advisory Board. Dr. Offit codeveloped a licensed rotavirus vaccine, but he does not receive any royalties or own a patent for that.

TOPLINE:

A new study shows young children with October birthdays may have better protection against flu. Children tend to receive vaccinations at regular preventive visits the month they were born, and October happens to be an optimal time to get the flu vaccine, the researchers said.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the MarketScan Research Database between 2011 and 2018.
• They focused on 819,223 children aged 2-5 years who were vaccinated against influenza between August 1 and January 31 and whose birthdays fell during that window.

TAKEAWAY:

• Children born in October had the lowest rate of influenza diagnosis, with an average diagnosis rate of 2.7%, whereas those born in August had a diagnosis rate of 3%.
• Compared with children born in August, the adjusted odds ratio for influenza diagnosis in children born in October was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.92).

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings support current recommendations that children be vaccinated in October preceding a typical influenza season,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

Anupam B. Jena, MD, PhD, with Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, was the corresponding author on the study. The research was published online in BMJ .

LIMITATIONS:

The availability of the influenza vaccine and the peak of seasonal flu infections vary by year and region.

DISCLOSURES:

Researchers disclosed consulting fees from pharmaceutical and healthcare companies unrelated to the study.

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new study shows young children with October birthdays may have better protection against flu. Children tend to receive vaccinations at regular preventive visits the month they were born, and October happens to be an optimal time to get the flu vaccine, the researchers said.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the MarketScan Research Database between 2011 and 2018.
• They focused on 819,223 children aged 2-5 years who were vaccinated against influenza between August 1 and January 31 and whose birthdays fell during that window.

TAKEAWAY:

• Children born in October had the lowest rate of influenza diagnosis, with an average diagnosis rate of 2.7%, whereas those born in August had a diagnosis rate of 3%.
• Compared with children born in August, the adjusted odds ratio for influenza diagnosis in children born in October was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.92).

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings support current recommendations that children be vaccinated in October preceding a typical influenza season,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

Anupam B. Jena, MD, PhD, with Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, was the corresponding author on the study. The research was published online in BMJ .

LIMITATIONS:

The availability of the influenza vaccine and the peak of seasonal flu infections vary by year and region.

DISCLOSURES:

Researchers disclosed consulting fees from pharmaceutical and healthcare companies unrelated to the study.

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new study shows young children with October birthdays may have better protection against flu. Children tend to receive vaccinations at regular preventive visits the month they were born, and October happens to be an optimal time to get the flu vaccine, the researchers said.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the MarketScan Research Database between 2011 and 2018.
• They focused on 819,223 children aged 2-5 years who were vaccinated against influenza between August 1 and January 31 and whose birthdays fell during that window.

TAKEAWAY:

• Children born in October had the lowest rate of influenza diagnosis, with an average diagnosis rate of 2.7%, whereas those born in August had a diagnosis rate of 3%.
• Compared with children born in August, the adjusted odds ratio for influenza diagnosis in children born in October was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.92).

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings support current recommendations that children be vaccinated in October preceding a typical influenza season,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

Anupam B. Jena, MD, PhD, with Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, was the corresponding author on the study. The research was published online in BMJ .

LIMITATIONS:

The availability of the influenza vaccine and the peak of seasonal flu infections vary by year and region.

DISCLOSURES:

Researchers disclosed consulting fees from pharmaceutical and healthcare companies unrelated to the study.

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.