User login
Post COVID-19, Long-term Risk for Autoimmune, Autoinflammatory Skin Disorders Increased, Study Finds
In addition, the authors reported that COVID-19 vaccination appears to reduce these risks.
The study was published in JAMA Dermatology.
‘Compelling Evidence’
“This well-executed study by Heo et al provides compelling evidence to support an association between COVID-19 infection and the development of subsequent autoimmune and autoinflammatory skin diseases,” wrote authors led by Lisa M. Arkin, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison, in an accompanying editorial.
Using databases from Korea’s National Health Insurance Service and the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency, investigators led by Yeon-Woo Heo, MD, a dermatology resident at Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Republic of Korea, compared 3.1 million people who had COVID-19 with 3.8 million controls, all with at least 180 days’ follow-up through December 31, 2022.
At a mean follow-up of 287 days in both cohorts, authors found significantly elevated risks for AA and vitiligo (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.11 for both), AT (aHR, 1.24), Behçet disease (aHR, 1.45), and BP (aHR, 1.62) in the post–COVID-19 cohort. The infection also raised the risk for other conditions such as systemic lupus erythematosus (aHR, 1.14) and Crohn’s disease (aHR, 1.35).
In subgroup analyses, demographic factors were associated with diverse effects: COVID-19 infection was associated with significantly higher odds of developing AA (for both men and women), vitiligo (men), Behçet disease (men and women), Crohn’s disease (men), ulcerative colitis (men), rheumatoid arthritis (men and women), systemic lupus erythematosus (men), ankylosing spondylitis (men), AT (women), and BP (women) than controls.
Those aged under 40 years were more likely to develop AA, primary cicatricial alopecia, Behçet disease, and ulcerative colitis, while those aged 40 years or older were more likely to develop AA, AT, vitiligo, Behçet disease, Crohn’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, ankylosing spondylitis, and BP.
Additionally, severe COVID-19 requiring intensive care unit admission was associated with a significantly increased risk for autoimmune diseases, including AA, psoriasis, BP, and sarcoidosis. By timeframe, risks for AA, AT, and psoriasis were significantly higher during the initial Delta-dominant period.
Vaccination Effect
Moreover, vaccinated individuals were less likely to develop AA, AT, psoriasis, Behçet disease, and various nondermatologic conditions than were those who were unvaccinated. This finding, wrote Heo and colleagues, “may provide evidence to support the hypothesis that COVID-19 vaccines can help prevent autoimmune diseases.”
“That’s the part we all need to take into our offices tomorrow,” said Brett King, MD, PhD, a Fairfield, Connecticut–based dermatologist in private practice. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.
Overall, King said, the study carries two main messages. “The first is that COVID-19 infection increases the likelihood of developing an autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease in a large population.” The second and very important message is that being vaccinated against COVID-19 provides protection against developing an autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease.
“My concern is that the popular media highlights the first part,” said King, “and everybody who develops alopecia areata, vitiligo, or sarcoidosis blames COVID-19. That’s not what this work says.”
The foregoing distinction is especially important during the fall and winter, he added, when people getting influenza vaccines are routinely offered COVID-19 vaccines. “Many patients have said, ‘I got the COVID vaccine and developed alopecia areata 6 months later.’ Nearly everybody who has developed a new or worsening health condition in the last almost 5 years has had the perfect fall guy — the COVID vaccine or infection.”
With virtually all patients asking if they should get an updated COVID-19 vaccine or booster, he added, many report having heard that such vaccines cause AA, vitiligo, or other diseases. “To anchor these conversations in real data and not just anecdotes from a blog or Facebook is very useful,” said King, “and now we have very good data saying that the COVID vaccine is protective against these disorders.”
George Han, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, applauds investigators’ use of a large, robust database but suggests interpreting results cautiously. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.
“You could do a large, well-done study,” Han said, “but it could still not necessarily be generalizable. These autoimmune conditions they’re looking at have clear ethnic and racial biases.” Heo and colleagues acknowledged shortcomings including their study population’s monomorphic nature.
Additional issues that limit the study’s impact, said Han, include the difficulty of conceptualizing a 10%-20% increase in conditions that at baseline are rare. And many of the findings reflected natural patterns, he said. For instance, BP more commonly affects older people, COVID-19 notwithstanding.
Han said that for him, the study’s main value going forward is helping to explain a rash of worsening inflammatory skin disease that many dermatologists saw early in the pandemic. “We would regularly see patients who were well controlled with, for example, psoriasis or eczema. But after COVID-19 infection or a vaccine (usually mRNA-type), in some cases they would come in flaring badly.” This happened at least a dozen times during the first year of post-shutdown appointments, he said.
“We’ve seen patients who have flared multiple times — they get the booster, then flare again,” Han added. Similar patterns occurred with pyoderma gangrenosum and other inflammatory skin diseases, he said.
Given the modest effect sizes of the associations reported in the Korean study, Arkin and colleagues wrote in their JAMA Dermatology editorial that surveillance for autoimmune disease is probably not warranted without new examination findings or symptoms. “For certain,” King said, “we should not go hunting for things that aren’t obviously there.”
Rather, Arkin and colleagues wrote, the higher autoimmunity rates seen among the unvaccinated, as well as during the Delta phase (when patients were sicker and hospitalizations were more likely) and in patients requiring intensive care, suggest that “interventions that reduce disease severity could also potentially reduce long-term risk of subsequent autoimmune sequelae.”
Future research addressing whether people with preexisting autoimmune conditions are at greater risk for flares or developing new autoimmune diseases following COVID-19 infection “would help to frame an evidence-based approach for patients with autoimmune disorders who develop COVID-19 infection, including the role for antiviral treatments,” they added.
The study was supported by grants from the Research Program of the Korea Medical Institute, the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, and the National Research Foundation of Korea. Han and King reported no relevant financial relationships. Arkin disclosed receiving research grants to her institution from Amgen and Eli Lilly, personal fees from Sanofi/Regeneron for consulting, and personal consulting fees from Merck outside the submitted work. Another author reported personal consulting fees from Dexcel Pharma and Honeydew outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In addition, the authors reported that COVID-19 vaccination appears to reduce these risks.
The study was published in JAMA Dermatology.
‘Compelling Evidence’
“This well-executed study by Heo et al provides compelling evidence to support an association between COVID-19 infection and the development of subsequent autoimmune and autoinflammatory skin diseases,” wrote authors led by Lisa M. Arkin, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison, in an accompanying editorial.
Using databases from Korea’s National Health Insurance Service and the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency, investigators led by Yeon-Woo Heo, MD, a dermatology resident at Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Republic of Korea, compared 3.1 million people who had COVID-19 with 3.8 million controls, all with at least 180 days’ follow-up through December 31, 2022.
At a mean follow-up of 287 days in both cohorts, authors found significantly elevated risks for AA and vitiligo (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.11 for both), AT (aHR, 1.24), Behçet disease (aHR, 1.45), and BP (aHR, 1.62) in the post–COVID-19 cohort. The infection also raised the risk for other conditions such as systemic lupus erythematosus (aHR, 1.14) and Crohn’s disease (aHR, 1.35).
In subgroup analyses, demographic factors were associated with diverse effects: COVID-19 infection was associated with significantly higher odds of developing AA (for both men and women), vitiligo (men), Behçet disease (men and women), Crohn’s disease (men), ulcerative colitis (men), rheumatoid arthritis (men and women), systemic lupus erythematosus (men), ankylosing spondylitis (men), AT (women), and BP (women) than controls.
Those aged under 40 years were more likely to develop AA, primary cicatricial alopecia, Behçet disease, and ulcerative colitis, while those aged 40 years or older were more likely to develop AA, AT, vitiligo, Behçet disease, Crohn’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, ankylosing spondylitis, and BP.
Additionally, severe COVID-19 requiring intensive care unit admission was associated with a significantly increased risk for autoimmune diseases, including AA, psoriasis, BP, and sarcoidosis. By timeframe, risks for AA, AT, and psoriasis were significantly higher during the initial Delta-dominant period.
Vaccination Effect
Moreover, vaccinated individuals were less likely to develop AA, AT, psoriasis, Behçet disease, and various nondermatologic conditions than were those who were unvaccinated. This finding, wrote Heo and colleagues, “may provide evidence to support the hypothesis that COVID-19 vaccines can help prevent autoimmune diseases.”
“That’s the part we all need to take into our offices tomorrow,” said Brett King, MD, PhD, a Fairfield, Connecticut–based dermatologist in private practice. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.
Overall, King said, the study carries two main messages. “The first is that COVID-19 infection increases the likelihood of developing an autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease in a large population.” The second and very important message is that being vaccinated against COVID-19 provides protection against developing an autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease.
“My concern is that the popular media highlights the first part,” said King, “and everybody who develops alopecia areata, vitiligo, or sarcoidosis blames COVID-19. That’s not what this work says.”
The foregoing distinction is especially important during the fall and winter, he added, when people getting influenza vaccines are routinely offered COVID-19 vaccines. “Many patients have said, ‘I got the COVID vaccine and developed alopecia areata 6 months later.’ Nearly everybody who has developed a new or worsening health condition in the last almost 5 years has had the perfect fall guy — the COVID vaccine or infection.”
With virtually all patients asking if they should get an updated COVID-19 vaccine or booster, he added, many report having heard that such vaccines cause AA, vitiligo, or other diseases. “To anchor these conversations in real data and not just anecdotes from a blog or Facebook is very useful,” said King, “and now we have very good data saying that the COVID vaccine is protective against these disorders.”
George Han, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, applauds investigators’ use of a large, robust database but suggests interpreting results cautiously. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.
“You could do a large, well-done study,” Han said, “but it could still not necessarily be generalizable. These autoimmune conditions they’re looking at have clear ethnic and racial biases.” Heo and colleagues acknowledged shortcomings including their study population’s monomorphic nature.
Additional issues that limit the study’s impact, said Han, include the difficulty of conceptualizing a 10%-20% increase in conditions that at baseline are rare. And many of the findings reflected natural patterns, he said. For instance, BP more commonly affects older people, COVID-19 notwithstanding.
Han said that for him, the study’s main value going forward is helping to explain a rash of worsening inflammatory skin disease that many dermatologists saw early in the pandemic. “We would regularly see patients who were well controlled with, for example, psoriasis or eczema. But after COVID-19 infection or a vaccine (usually mRNA-type), in some cases they would come in flaring badly.” This happened at least a dozen times during the first year of post-shutdown appointments, he said.
“We’ve seen patients who have flared multiple times — they get the booster, then flare again,” Han added. Similar patterns occurred with pyoderma gangrenosum and other inflammatory skin diseases, he said.
Given the modest effect sizes of the associations reported in the Korean study, Arkin and colleagues wrote in their JAMA Dermatology editorial that surveillance for autoimmune disease is probably not warranted without new examination findings or symptoms. “For certain,” King said, “we should not go hunting for things that aren’t obviously there.”
Rather, Arkin and colleagues wrote, the higher autoimmunity rates seen among the unvaccinated, as well as during the Delta phase (when patients were sicker and hospitalizations were more likely) and in patients requiring intensive care, suggest that “interventions that reduce disease severity could also potentially reduce long-term risk of subsequent autoimmune sequelae.”
Future research addressing whether people with preexisting autoimmune conditions are at greater risk for flares or developing new autoimmune diseases following COVID-19 infection “would help to frame an evidence-based approach for patients with autoimmune disorders who develop COVID-19 infection, including the role for antiviral treatments,” they added.
The study was supported by grants from the Research Program of the Korea Medical Institute, the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, and the National Research Foundation of Korea. Han and King reported no relevant financial relationships. Arkin disclosed receiving research grants to her institution from Amgen and Eli Lilly, personal fees from Sanofi/Regeneron for consulting, and personal consulting fees from Merck outside the submitted work. Another author reported personal consulting fees from Dexcel Pharma and Honeydew outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In addition, the authors reported that COVID-19 vaccination appears to reduce these risks.
The study was published in JAMA Dermatology.
‘Compelling Evidence’
“This well-executed study by Heo et al provides compelling evidence to support an association between COVID-19 infection and the development of subsequent autoimmune and autoinflammatory skin diseases,” wrote authors led by Lisa M. Arkin, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison, in an accompanying editorial.
Using databases from Korea’s National Health Insurance Service and the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency, investigators led by Yeon-Woo Heo, MD, a dermatology resident at Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Republic of Korea, compared 3.1 million people who had COVID-19 with 3.8 million controls, all with at least 180 days’ follow-up through December 31, 2022.
At a mean follow-up of 287 days in both cohorts, authors found significantly elevated risks for AA and vitiligo (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.11 for both), AT (aHR, 1.24), Behçet disease (aHR, 1.45), and BP (aHR, 1.62) in the post–COVID-19 cohort. The infection also raised the risk for other conditions such as systemic lupus erythematosus (aHR, 1.14) and Crohn’s disease (aHR, 1.35).
In subgroup analyses, demographic factors were associated with diverse effects: COVID-19 infection was associated with significantly higher odds of developing AA (for both men and women), vitiligo (men), Behçet disease (men and women), Crohn’s disease (men), ulcerative colitis (men), rheumatoid arthritis (men and women), systemic lupus erythematosus (men), ankylosing spondylitis (men), AT (women), and BP (women) than controls.
Those aged under 40 years were more likely to develop AA, primary cicatricial alopecia, Behçet disease, and ulcerative colitis, while those aged 40 years or older were more likely to develop AA, AT, vitiligo, Behçet disease, Crohn’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, ankylosing spondylitis, and BP.
Additionally, severe COVID-19 requiring intensive care unit admission was associated with a significantly increased risk for autoimmune diseases, including AA, psoriasis, BP, and sarcoidosis. By timeframe, risks for AA, AT, and psoriasis were significantly higher during the initial Delta-dominant period.
Vaccination Effect
Moreover, vaccinated individuals were less likely to develop AA, AT, psoriasis, Behçet disease, and various nondermatologic conditions than were those who were unvaccinated. This finding, wrote Heo and colleagues, “may provide evidence to support the hypothesis that COVID-19 vaccines can help prevent autoimmune diseases.”
“That’s the part we all need to take into our offices tomorrow,” said Brett King, MD, PhD, a Fairfield, Connecticut–based dermatologist in private practice. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.
Overall, King said, the study carries two main messages. “The first is that COVID-19 infection increases the likelihood of developing an autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease in a large population.” The second and very important message is that being vaccinated against COVID-19 provides protection against developing an autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease.
“My concern is that the popular media highlights the first part,” said King, “and everybody who develops alopecia areata, vitiligo, or sarcoidosis blames COVID-19. That’s not what this work says.”
The foregoing distinction is especially important during the fall and winter, he added, when people getting influenza vaccines are routinely offered COVID-19 vaccines. “Many patients have said, ‘I got the COVID vaccine and developed alopecia areata 6 months later.’ Nearly everybody who has developed a new or worsening health condition in the last almost 5 years has had the perfect fall guy — the COVID vaccine or infection.”
With virtually all patients asking if they should get an updated COVID-19 vaccine or booster, he added, many report having heard that such vaccines cause AA, vitiligo, or other diseases. “To anchor these conversations in real data and not just anecdotes from a blog or Facebook is very useful,” said King, “and now we have very good data saying that the COVID vaccine is protective against these disorders.”
George Han, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, applauds investigators’ use of a large, robust database but suggests interpreting results cautiously. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.
“You could do a large, well-done study,” Han said, “but it could still not necessarily be generalizable. These autoimmune conditions they’re looking at have clear ethnic and racial biases.” Heo and colleagues acknowledged shortcomings including their study population’s monomorphic nature.
Additional issues that limit the study’s impact, said Han, include the difficulty of conceptualizing a 10%-20% increase in conditions that at baseline are rare. And many of the findings reflected natural patterns, he said. For instance, BP more commonly affects older people, COVID-19 notwithstanding.
Han said that for him, the study’s main value going forward is helping to explain a rash of worsening inflammatory skin disease that many dermatologists saw early in the pandemic. “We would regularly see patients who were well controlled with, for example, psoriasis or eczema. But after COVID-19 infection or a vaccine (usually mRNA-type), in some cases they would come in flaring badly.” This happened at least a dozen times during the first year of post-shutdown appointments, he said.
“We’ve seen patients who have flared multiple times — they get the booster, then flare again,” Han added. Similar patterns occurred with pyoderma gangrenosum and other inflammatory skin diseases, he said.
Given the modest effect sizes of the associations reported in the Korean study, Arkin and colleagues wrote in their JAMA Dermatology editorial that surveillance for autoimmune disease is probably not warranted without new examination findings or symptoms. “For certain,” King said, “we should not go hunting for things that aren’t obviously there.”
Rather, Arkin and colleagues wrote, the higher autoimmunity rates seen among the unvaccinated, as well as during the Delta phase (when patients were sicker and hospitalizations were more likely) and in patients requiring intensive care, suggest that “interventions that reduce disease severity could also potentially reduce long-term risk of subsequent autoimmune sequelae.”
Future research addressing whether people with preexisting autoimmune conditions are at greater risk for flares or developing new autoimmune diseases following COVID-19 infection “would help to frame an evidence-based approach for patients with autoimmune disorders who develop COVID-19 infection, including the role for antiviral treatments,” they added.
The study was supported by grants from the Research Program of the Korea Medical Institute, the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, and the National Research Foundation of Korea. Han and King reported no relevant financial relationships. Arkin disclosed receiving research grants to her institution from Amgen and Eli Lilly, personal fees from Sanofi/Regeneron for consulting, and personal consulting fees from Merck outside the submitted work. Another author reported personal consulting fees from Dexcel Pharma and Honeydew outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA DERMATOLOGY
Holding RA, SpA Drugs Did Not Improve Antibody Response to COVID Vaccine
WASHINGTON — There is no benefit to interrupting treatment with many of the available targeted synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA) at the time of a repeat COVID-19 vaccine dose, new research found.
In the multicenter, randomized controlled COVID Vaccine Response (COVER) trial of 577 patients with RA or SpA taking either abatacept, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors, or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, holding those drugs for 2 weeks at the time of COVID-19 vaccination supplemental doses didn’t improve antibody response to the vaccine but did lead to disease flares. Most participants had significant antibody responses to the vaccine, regardless of whether their medication had been held or continued, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, the Harbert-Ball Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Computer Science at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).
Guidelines issued by ACR in 2023 recommended holding abatacept for the COVID vaccine but said that “the task force failed to reach consensus” on whether or not to temporarily interrupt the other medications following primary vaccination or supplemental/booster dosing.
Curtis, who was an author on those guidelines, said in an interview, “to date, we haven’t known whether it might be a good idea to hold certain drugs at the time patients receive their next dose of the COVID vaccine. ... That’s because without direct evidence, you have people trading opinions based on extrapolated data.”
The inability to measure cell-mediated immunity and only humoral (ie, antibody-based) immunity is a limitation in COVER. “Nevertheless, based on what we know now, it isn’t advisable to hold any of the four drug classes that we studied at the time patients receive their next COVID vaccine dose. This finding is in contrast to data from a different trial showing that holding methotrexate for 2 weeks does appear to help in response to COVID-19 vaccination, as well as influenza vaccine,” Curtis said.
Asked to comment, session moderator Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and director of the Inflammatory Arthritis Clinic at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said in an interview: “This has been an area of clinical uncertainty. It raises a lot of questions from patients and from physicians alike as to whether or not to hold the medication because the implications are flares, and that’s impactful for patients. Patients care about their RA status and how it is controlled, and if there is no difference, then there is no reason to change the medication regimen.”
To Hold or Not to Hold: COVER Shows It Makes Little Difference to Vaccine Response
In COVER, 128 patients were taking abatacept, 96 IL-17 inhibitors, 237 JAK inhibitors, and 116 TNF inhibitors. The study was conducted within 30 sites of the Excellence Network in Rheumatology, a rheumatology practice–based research network launched in 2021. Participants were identified and enrolled at clinic visits immediately prior to receiving their COVID-19 boosters (in routine settings).
All had previously received two or more doses of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer or Moderna. Blood was drawn, and they were randomized 1:1 to either continue or hold their disease medication for 2 weeks following the booster. Blood was collected again at 6 weeks post vaccine.
Anti–receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG antibody titers increased significantly in all drug categories across both study arms, with no differences between the hold vs continue medication groups, even after adjustments for age, sex, body mass index, methotrexate use, steroid use, and time from booster to measurement. All groups also showed increases in geometric mean fold rise of more than 3%.
Subgroup analyses showed no major differences between antibody responses in the hold vs continue groups. The anti-RBD IgG response was lower for abatacept and JAK inhibitors than for the other two drugs, but there was still no significant benefit to holding them for 2 weeks post vaccination.
Holding Drugs Leads to Disease Flares
On the flip side, there were significant differences between the two groups in their responses to the question: “Did you experience any flare or worsening of your autoimmune disease following your recent COVID-19 booster dose?” Overall, 27% of the hold group responded that they had, compared with just 13% of the continue group (P < .05). This difference was greatest in the JAK inhibitor group (33% vs 9%; P < .05).
Among those reporting flares or worsening disease, both the severity and the duration of the flares were about the same. “Interestingly, the duration is beyond a week for the majority of patients. The reason that’s important is, any symptoms that are so-called flare might simply be reactogenicity symptoms, and that might be confused for flare or disease worsening, but you see that a majority of patients actually have those symptoms extending beyond the week. Most of them are worsening in arthritis, as you might expect,” Curtis said in his presentation.
Asked what they did about the flare, only a minority of patients reported contacting a healthcare provider. In all, 68% of the hold group and 78% of the continue group took no action. That’s good in the sense that most of the flares weren’t severe, but it has implications for research, Curtis pointed out.
“A lot of times in the vaccine literature, people do retrospective chart review by looking to see what the doctor said as to whether the patient had a flare. And what this would tell you is patients may be reporting a lot of flares that their doctor doesn’t know anything about. So if you really want to know whether people are having a flare, even a mild flare, you really have to collect prospective data.”
COVID is Not the Last Pandemic
“These results are reassuring, although I think we need a bit more data on abatacept,” Myasoedova said, adding, “I was also interested in the outcomes, such as severe infections, that actually happened to these patients. What we see in the labs in their immune response is one thing, but then also important is what actually evolves in terms of the outcomes, especially with abatacept.”
Overall, she said, “I think it’s reassuring and definitely informs clinical practice going forward. But then probably we’ll learn more. What we’re hearing is COVID is not the last pandemic.”
The COVER trial receives support from AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer. Curtis has received research grants and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. Myasoedova has no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
WASHINGTON — There is no benefit to interrupting treatment with many of the available targeted synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA) at the time of a repeat COVID-19 vaccine dose, new research found.
In the multicenter, randomized controlled COVID Vaccine Response (COVER) trial of 577 patients with RA or SpA taking either abatacept, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors, or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, holding those drugs for 2 weeks at the time of COVID-19 vaccination supplemental doses didn’t improve antibody response to the vaccine but did lead to disease flares. Most participants had significant antibody responses to the vaccine, regardless of whether their medication had been held or continued, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, the Harbert-Ball Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Computer Science at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).
Guidelines issued by ACR in 2023 recommended holding abatacept for the COVID vaccine but said that “the task force failed to reach consensus” on whether or not to temporarily interrupt the other medications following primary vaccination or supplemental/booster dosing.
Curtis, who was an author on those guidelines, said in an interview, “to date, we haven’t known whether it might be a good idea to hold certain drugs at the time patients receive their next dose of the COVID vaccine. ... That’s because without direct evidence, you have people trading opinions based on extrapolated data.”
The inability to measure cell-mediated immunity and only humoral (ie, antibody-based) immunity is a limitation in COVER. “Nevertheless, based on what we know now, it isn’t advisable to hold any of the four drug classes that we studied at the time patients receive their next COVID vaccine dose. This finding is in contrast to data from a different trial showing that holding methotrexate for 2 weeks does appear to help in response to COVID-19 vaccination, as well as influenza vaccine,” Curtis said.
Asked to comment, session moderator Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and director of the Inflammatory Arthritis Clinic at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said in an interview: “This has been an area of clinical uncertainty. It raises a lot of questions from patients and from physicians alike as to whether or not to hold the medication because the implications are flares, and that’s impactful for patients. Patients care about their RA status and how it is controlled, and if there is no difference, then there is no reason to change the medication regimen.”
To Hold or Not to Hold: COVER Shows It Makes Little Difference to Vaccine Response
In COVER, 128 patients were taking abatacept, 96 IL-17 inhibitors, 237 JAK inhibitors, and 116 TNF inhibitors. The study was conducted within 30 sites of the Excellence Network in Rheumatology, a rheumatology practice–based research network launched in 2021. Participants were identified and enrolled at clinic visits immediately prior to receiving their COVID-19 boosters (in routine settings).
All had previously received two or more doses of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer or Moderna. Blood was drawn, and they were randomized 1:1 to either continue or hold their disease medication for 2 weeks following the booster. Blood was collected again at 6 weeks post vaccine.
Anti–receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG antibody titers increased significantly in all drug categories across both study arms, with no differences between the hold vs continue medication groups, even after adjustments for age, sex, body mass index, methotrexate use, steroid use, and time from booster to measurement. All groups also showed increases in geometric mean fold rise of more than 3%.
Subgroup analyses showed no major differences between antibody responses in the hold vs continue groups. The anti-RBD IgG response was lower for abatacept and JAK inhibitors than for the other two drugs, but there was still no significant benefit to holding them for 2 weeks post vaccination.
Holding Drugs Leads to Disease Flares
On the flip side, there were significant differences between the two groups in their responses to the question: “Did you experience any flare or worsening of your autoimmune disease following your recent COVID-19 booster dose?” Overall, 27% of the hold group responded that they had, compared with just 13% of the continue group (P < .05). This difference was greatest in the JAK inhibitor group (33% vs 9%; P < .05).
Among those reporting flares or worsening disease, both the severity and the duration of the flares were about the same. “Interestingly, the duration is beyond a week for the majority of patients. The reason that’s important is, any symptoms that are so-called flare might simply be reactogenicity symptoms, and that might be confused for flare or disease worsening, but you see that a majority of patients actually have those symptoms extending beyond the week. Most of them are worsening in arthritis, as you might expect,” Curtis said in his presentation.
Asked what they did about the flare, only a minority of patients reported contacting a healthcare provider. In all, 68% of the hold group and 78% of the continue group took no action. That’s good in the sense that most of the flares weren’t severe, but it has implications for research, Curtis pointed out.
“A lot of times in the vaccine literature, people do retrospective chart review by looking to see what the doctor said as to whether the patient had a flare. And what this would tell you is patients may be reporting a lot of flares that their doctor doesn’t know anything about. So if you really want to know whether people are having a flare, even a mild flare, you really have to collect prospective data.”
COVID is Not the Last Pandemic
“These results are reassuring, although I think we need a bit more data on abatacept,” Myasoedova said, adding, “I was also interested in the outcomes, such as severe infections, that actually happened to these patients. What we see in the labs in their immune response is one thing, but then also important is what actually evolves in terms of the outcomes, especially with abatacept.”
Overall, she said, “I think it’s reassuring and definitely informs clinical practice going forward. But then probably we’ll learn more. What we’re hearing is COVID is not the last pandemic.”
The COVER trial receives support from AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer. Curtis has received research grants and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. Myasoedova has no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
WASHINGTON — There is no benefit to interrupting treatment with many of the available targeted synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA) at the time of a repeat COVID-19 vaccine dose, new research found.
In the multicenter, randomized controlled COVID Vaccine Response (COVER) trial of 577 patients with RA or SpA taking either abatacept, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors, or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, holding those drugs for 2 weeks at the time of COVID-19 vaccination supplemental doses didn’t improve antibody response to the vaccine but did lead to disease flares. Most participants had significant antibody responses to the vaccine, regardless of whether their medication had been held or continued, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, the Harbert-Ball Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Computer Science at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).
Guidelines issued by ACR in 2023 recommended holding abatacept for the COVID vaccine but said that “the task force failed to reach consensus” on whether or not to temporarily interrupt the other medications following primary vaccination or supplemental/booster dosing.
Curtis, who was an author on those guidelines, said in an interview, “to date, we haven’t known whether it might be a good idea to hold certain drugs at the time patients receive their next dose of the COVID vaccine. ... That’s because without direct evidence, you have people trading opinions based on extrapolated data.”
The inability to measure cell-mediated immunity and only humoral (ie, antibody-based) immunity is a limitation in COVER. “Nevertheless, based on what we know now, it isn’t advisable to hold any of the four drug classes that we studied at the time patients receive their next COVID vaccine dose. This finding is in contrast to data from a different trial showing that holding methotrexate for 2 weeks does appear to help in response to COVID-19 vaccination, as well as influenza vaccine,” Curtis said.
Asked to comment, session moderator Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and director of the Inflammatory Arthritis Clinic at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said in an interview: “This has been an area of clinical uncertainty. It raises a lot of questions from patients and from physicians alike as to whether or not to hold the medication because the implications are flares, and that’s impactful for patients. Patients care about their RA status and how it is controlled, and if there is no difference, then there is no reason to change the medication regimen.”
To Hold or Not to Hold: COVER Shows It Makes Little Difference to Vaccine Response
In COVER, 128 patients were taking abatacept, 96 IL-17 inhibitors, 237 JAK inhibitors, and 116 TNF inhibitors. The study was conducted within 30 sites of the Excellence Network in Rheumatology, a rheumatology practice–based research network launched in 2021. Participants were identified and enrolled at clinic visits immediately prior to receiving their COVID-19 boosters (in routine settings).
All had previously received two or more doses of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer or Moderna. Blood was drawn, and they were randomized 1:1 to either continue or hold their disease medication for 2 weeks following the booster. Blood was collected again at 6 weeks post vaccine.
Anti–receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG antibody titers increased significantly in all drug categories across both study arms, with no differences between the hold vs continue medication groups, even after adjustments for age, sex, body mass index, methotrexate use, steroid use, and time from booster to measurement. All groups also showed increases in geometric mean fold rise of more than 3%.
Subgroup analyses showed no major differences between antibody responses in the hold vs continue groups. The anti-RBD IgG response was lower for abatacept and JAK inhibitors than for the other two drugs, but there was still no significant benefit to holding them for 2 weeks post vaccination.
Holding Drugs Leads to Disease Flares
On the flip side, there were significant differences between the two groups in their responses to the question: “Did you experience any flare or worsening of your autoimmune disease following your recent COVID-19 booster dose?” Overall, 27% of the hold group responded that they had, compared with just 13% of the continue group (P < .05). This difference was greatest in the JAK inhibitor group (33% vs 9%; P < .05).
Among those reporting flares or worsening disease, both the severity and the duration of the flares were about the same. “Interestingly, the duration is beyond a week for the majority of patients. The reason that’s important is, any symptoms that are so-called flare might simply be reactogenicity symptoms, and that might be confused for flare or disease worsening, but you see that a majority of patients actually have those symptoms extending beyond the week. Most of them are worsening in arthritis, as you might expect,” Curtis said in his presentation.
Asked what they did about the flare, only a minority of patients reported contacting a healthcare provider. In all, 68% of the hold group and 78% of the continue group took no action. That’s good in the sense that most of the flares weren’t severe, but it has implications for research, Curtis pointed out.
“A lot of times in the vaccine literature, people do retrospective chart review by looking to see what the doctor said as to whether the patient had a flare. And what this would tell you is patients may be reporting a lot of flares that their doctor doesn’t know anything about. So if you really want to know whether people are having a flare, even a mild flare, you really have to collect prospective data.”
COVID is Not the Last Pandemic
“These results are reassuring, although I think we need a bit more data on abatacept,” Myasoedova said, adding, “I was also interested in the outcomes, such as severe infections, that actually happened to these patients. What we see in the labs in their immune response is one thing, but then also important is what actually evolves in terms of the outcomes, especially with abatacept.”
Overall, she said, “I think it’s reassuring and definitely informs clinical practice going forward. But then probably we’ll learn more. What we’re hearing is COVID is not the last pandemic.”
The COVER trial receives support from AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer. Curtis has received research grants and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. Myasoedova has no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACR 2024
Pemphigus, Bullous Pemphigoid Risk Increased After COVID-19 Infection
TOPLINE:
according to a study that also found that vaccination against COVID-19 is associated with a reduced risk for these conditions.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study using data from the TriNetX Analytics Network, encompassing over 112 million electronic health records in the United States.
- The study compared the risk for AIBD within 3 months among individuals who had COVID-19 infection and no COVID-19 vaccination 6 months prior to the infection (n = 4,787,106), individuals who had COVID-19 vaccination but did not have COVID-19 infection (n = 3,466,536), and individuals who did not have COVID-19 infection or vaccination (n = 5,609,197).
- The mean age of the three groups was 44.9, 52.3, and 49.3 years, respectively.
- Propensity score matching included 4,408,748 individuals each for the comparison between COVID-19 infection and controls, 3,465,420 for COVID-19 vaccination and controls, and 3,362,850 for COVID-19 infection and vaccination. The mean follow-up ranged from 72.2 to 76.3 days.
TAKEAWAY:
- Individuals with COVID-19 infection showed a 50.8% increased risk for AIBD within 3 months (P < .001) compared with those without infection or vaccination. The risk was more pronounced for pemphigus (hazard ratio [HR], 2.432; P < .001) than bullous pemphigoid (HR, 1.376; P = .036).
- On the contrary, individuals who had the COVID-19 vaccination showed almost half the risk for AIBD (HR, 0.514; P < .001). The risk reduction was significant for pemphigus (HR, 0.477; P = .030), but not for bullous pemphigoid (HR, 0.846).
- When the infection and vaccination groups were compared, COVID-19 infection increased AIBD risk by more than threefold (HR, 3.130; P < .001), with a particularly high risk for pemphigus (HR, 5.508; P < .001). A significant risk was also seen for bullous pemphigoid (HR, 1.587; P = .008).
IN PRACTICE:
“The findings underscore the importance of vaccination not only in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes but also in potentially protecting against autoimmune complications,” the authors wrote, adding that “this potential dual benefit of vaccination should be a key message in public health campaigns and clinical practice to enhance vaccine uptake and ultimately improve health outcomes.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Philip Curman, MD, PhD, of the Dermato-Venereology Clinic at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, and was published online on November 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The retrospective design has inherent biases, there is potential underreporting of COVID-19 cases and vaccinations, and there is misallocation of individuals. Unmeasured confounding factors may be present.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by grant from the State of Schleswig-Holstein. Two authors were employees of TriNetX. Some authors received financial support and travel grants from various sources, including TriNetX. Additional disclosures are noted in the article.
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:
according to a study that also found that vaccination against COVID-19 is associated with a reduced risk for these conditions.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study using data from the TriNetX Analytics Network, encompassing over 112 million electronic health records in the United States.
- The study compared the risk for AIBD within 3 months among individuals who had COVID-19 infection and no COVID-19 vaccination 6 months prior to the infection (n = 4,787,106), individuals who had COVID-19 vaccination but did not have COVID-19 infection (n = 3,466,536), and individuals who did not have COVID-19 infection or vaccination (n = 5,609,197).
- The mean age of the three groups was 44.9, 52.3, and 49.3 years, respectively.
- Propensity score matching included 4,408,748 individuals each for the comparison between COVID-19 infection and controls, 3,465,420 for COVID-19 vaccination and controls, and 3,362,850 for COVID-19 infection and vaccination. The mean follow-up ranged from 72.2 to 76.3 days.
TAKEAWAY:
- Individuals with COVID-19 infection showed a 50.8% increased risk for AIBD within 3 months (P < .001) compared with those without infection or vaccination. The risk was more pronounced for pemphigus (hazard ratio [HR], 2.432; P < .001) than bullous pemphigoid (HR, 1.376; P = .036).
- On the contrary, individuals who had the COVID-19 vaccination showed almost half the risk for AIBD (HR, 0.514; P < .001). The risk reduction was significant for pemphigus (HR, 0.477; P = .030), but not for bullous pemphigoid (HR, 0.846).
- When the infection and vaccination groups were compared, COVID-19 infection increased AIBD risk by more than threefold (HR, 3.130; P < .001), with a particularly high risk for pemphigus (HR, 5.508; P < .001). A significant risk was also seen for bullous pemphigoid (HR, 1.587; P = .008).
IN PRACTICE:
“The findings underscore the importance of vaccination not only in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes but also in potentially protecting against autoimmune complications,” the authors wrote, adding that “this potential dual benefit of vaccination should be a key message in public health campaigns and clinical practice to enhance vaccine uptake and ultimately improve health outcomes.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Philip Curman, MD, PhD, of the Dermato-Venereology Clinic at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, and was published online on November 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The retrospective design has inherent biases, there is potential underreporting of COVID-19 cases and vaccinations, and there is misallocation of individuals. Unmeasured confounding factors may be present.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by grant from the State of Schleswig-Holstein. Two authors were employees of TriNetX. Some authors received financial support and travel grants from various sources, including TriNetX. Additional disclosures are noted in the article.
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:
according to a study that also found that vaccination against COVID-19 is associated with a reduced risk for these conditions.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study using data from the TriNetX Analytics Network, encompassing over 112 million electronic health records in the United States.
- The study compared the risk for AIBD within 3 months among individuals who had COVID-19 infection and no COVID-19 vaccination 6 months prior to the infection (n = 4,787,106), individuals who had COVID-19 vaccination but did not have COVID-19 infection (n = 3,466,536), and individuals who did not have COVID-19 infection or vaccination (n = 5,609,197).
- The mean age of the three groups was 44.9, 52.3, and 49.3 years, respectively.
- Propensity score matching included 4,408,748 individuals each for the comparison between COVID-19 infection and controls, 3,465,420 for COVID-19 vaccination and controls, and 3,362,850 for COVID-19 infection and vaccination. The mean follow-up ranged from 72.2 to 76.3 days.
TAKEAWAY:
- Individuals with COVID-19 infection showed a 50.8% increased risk for AIBD within 3 months (P < .001) compared with those without infection or vaccination. The risk was more pronounced for pemphigus (hazard ratio [HR], 2.432; P < .001) than bullous pemphigoid (HR, 1.376; P = .036).
- On the contrary, individuals who had the COVID-19 vaccination showed almost half the risk for AIBD (HR, 0.514; P < .001). The risk reduction was significant for pemphigus (HR, 0.477; P = .030), but not for bullous pemphigoid (HR, 0.846).
- When the infection and vaccination groups were compared, COVID-19 infection increased AIBD risk by more than threefold (HR, 3.130; P < .001), with a particularly high risk for pemphigus (HR, 5.508; P < .001). A significant risk was also seen for bullous pemphigoid (HR, 1.587; P = .008).
IN PRACTICE:
“The findings underscore the importance of vaccination not only in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes but also in potentially protecting against autoimmune complications,” the authors wrote, adding that “this potential dual benefit of vaccination should be a key message in public health campaigns and clinical practice to enhance vaccine uptake and ultimately improve health outcomes.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Philip Curman, MD, PhD, of the Dermato-Venereology Clinic at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, and was published online on November 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The retrospective design has inherent biases, there is potential underreporting of COVID-19 cases and vaccinations, and there is misallocation of individuals. Unmeasured confounding factors may be present.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by grant from the State of Schleswig-Holstein. Two authors were employees of TriNetX. Some authors received financial support and travel grants from various sources, including TriNetX. Additional disclosures are noted in the article.
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.
Fall Vaccine Updates From the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices: New Recommendations
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
This episode of Medicine Matters reviews highlights from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ (ACIP’s) October 2024 meeting, with new recommendations for pneumococcal, COVID, and meningococcal B (Men B) vaccines, as well as a safety update for maternal RSV vaccination.
Pneumococcal Vaccination and New Lower Age-Based Recommendations
New age-based recommendation. ACIP has lowered the age for routine vaccination with the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) from age 65 down to age 50, but only with PCV. Review of data revealed that more than half of those in the 50- to 64-year-old age group already had a risk indication to receive a PCV dose. In addition, rates of invasive pneumococcal disease peak at younger ages in Black patients compared with White patients. The rate of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) among Black adults aged 50 or older exceeds the average rate of IPD for all adults aged 65 or older. The goal of this age-based change is to reduce disease in demographic groups with the highest burden of disease.
The new expanded age-based recommendation applies only to vaccination with PCV. Conjugate vaccines trigger memory B-cell production and therefore induce greater long-term immunity. New research is now focusing on higher-valent PCV vaccines. Two 24-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines and one 31-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine are now in advanced stages of development.
Risk-based recommendation. A risk-based recommendation for ages 19 through 49 years still applies to those with certain medical conditions, including diabetes; chronic heart, lung, liver, or kidney disease; and also for those with immunocompromising conditions. Risk-based recommendations are harder to implement particularly because many vaccines are now administered in pharmacies and pharmacists don’t know the patients as well as their physicians do, so it’s harder for them to know who should get the vaccine if the recommendation is based on risk.
COVID-19 Vaccines With Additional Dose Recommendations
Everyone 6 months or older is recommended to receive a dose of the updated 2024-2025 COVID vaccine. An additional updated COVID vaccine dose is now recommended for everyone aged 65 or older, and for those aged 6 months or older with immunocompromising (moderate or severe) conditions. Review of data revealed that 1 in 6 patients hospitalized with COVID have an immunocompromising condition, and 70% of COVID hospitalizations are in those aged 65 or older. This older age group also has the highest death rates due to COVID-19. We know that vaccination protection wanes with time. Data from previous studies show that additional vaccine doses provide additional protection. Additional doses are now being recommended for those at highest risk.
Timing of additional doses. This second dose is recommended at 6 months after the last updated COVID-19 vaccine dose. However, the additional dose can be given as early as 2 months after the last dose. Those who recently had COVID-19 can wait 3 months before getting an additional vaccine dose. This flexibility allows patients to maximize additional protection by timing additional doses around travel and life events, such as weddings, family get-togethers, or chemotherapy.
Those with immunocompromising conditions may receive more doses. Patients with immunocompromising conditions can receive even more additional doses, if recommended by their physician, under shared clinical decision-making.
Meningococcal Vaccines
Meningococcal disease is rare but deadly. The disease can progress rapidly. As many as 10%-15% of people with meningococcal infection die, even with appropriate antibiotic therapy. And for those who survive, about 20% suffer long-term sequalae (cognitive deficits, hearing loss, limb amputations).
Aligning Men B vaccine dosing intervals. The new ACIP vote applies only to Men B vaccines, of which there are two: one by GSK (brand name Bexsero), and the other by Wyeth, a Pfizer subsidiary (brand name Trumenba). The two MenB vaccine products are not interchangeable. The same type of MenB vaccine has to be used to complete the series.
The MenB vaccines initially had different dosing schedules and now they don’t. ACIP voted to harmonize and align the dosing schedule for the two different MenB products to mirror recent FDA (Food and Drug Administration) labeling updates. So now the dosing recommendations for both MenB vaccines are the same: either two doses given 6 months apart to healthy adolescents and young adults, or a three-dose series given at zero, 1-2 months, and 6 months for those at high risk or for those who want to optimize rapid protection (for example, if they are starting the series within 6 months of going off to college). But understand that the current recommendation for MenB vaccination for healthy adolescents and young adults is based on shared clinical decision-making, preferably for those aged 16-18.
MenACWY. Two doses of MenACWY are routinely recommended, with the first dose at age 11-12 and a second dose at age 16. The MenACWY vaccines are interchangeable.
Implementation challenges and new pentavalent vaccines. Having to use the same MenB vaccine product for all doses in a patient’s series is difficult. It’s even more difficult when the patient needs both MenACWY and MenB vaccinations.
Adding to the complexity is a new pentavalent vaccine from Pfizer (brand name Penbraya) that combines MenACWY with the MenB vaccine. And another pentavalent vaccine version by GSK is up for regulatory decision in February 2025.
The work group did say that they plan to take a fresh look at the meningococcal vaccination schedule. Let’s hope it gets simpler, so more to come on that.
Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Vaccines
Current RSV vaccine recommendations for older adults. RSV vaccine has both age- and risk-based recommendations. Now, everyone aged 75 or older needs a dose of RSV vaccine. Adults aged 60-75 with risk factors for severe RSV are also recommended to receive a dose of RSV vaccine, but not adults without these risk factors. The conditions associated with increased risk for severe RSV disease include lung disease, heart disease, immune compromise, diabetes, obesity with BMI (body mass index) of 40 or higher, neurologic or neuromuscular conditions, chronic kidney disease, liver disorders, and hematologic disorders. Frailty, as well as living in a nursing home or other long-term care facility, are other risk factors for severe RSV disease. Those aged 60-75 without these risk factors are no longer recommended to receive it.
Three RSV vaccines. We now have three RSV vaccine to choose from. Two are protein subunit vaccines. One is by Pfizer (brand name Abrysvo) that does not contain an adjuvant. The other protein-based RSV vaccine by GSK (brand name Arexvy) does contain an adjuvant. The third RSV vaccine by Moderna (brand name mRESVIA) uses an mRNA platform, and durability of protection is still unclear. However, recent studies now suggest that the RSV protein subunit vaccines confer 36 months of protection rather than only 24 months.
All three RSV vaccines are licensed for those aged 60 or older. The age indication for GSK’s RSV vaccine, Arexvy, has already been lowered by the FDA to age 50. FDA recently lowered the age approval for Abrysvo to age 18 for those at high risk. However, ACIP has not yet expanded its age recommendations for getting these vaccines. One of the main hesitations is vaccine safety concerns. FDA›s safety update presented to ACIP still suggests an increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome with both protein-based RSV vaccines among those aged 65 or older. Fortunately, the risk is rare: less than 10 cases per million vaccinations.
RSV immunization for infant protection. RSV season starts in October and goes through March. We now have two new ways to protect babies. One is a maternal RSV vaccine, given at 32-36 weeks of pregnancy to moms who will deliver their babies during RSV season. But only Pfizer’s RSV vaccine (brand name Abrysvo, without an adjuvant) can be given during pregnancy.
A maternal RSV vaccine safety update, presented at ACIP, was reassuring. Abrysvo was not associated with increased risk for preterm birth or small gestational age at birth.
Nirsevimab, a long-acting monoclonal antibody, can be given to infants. Nirsevimab is indicated for all babies under 8 months of age entering their first RSV season.
People who received a maternal RSV vaccine during a previous pregnancy are not recommended to receive additional doses during subsequent pregnancies. However, infants born to women who were vaccinated during a prior pregnancy should receive nirsevimab.
Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, has disclosed conflicts of interest with the American Medical Association, the Medical Association of Atlanta, ACIP, and Medscape.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
This episode of Medicine Matters reviews highlights from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ (ACIP’s) October 2024 meeting, with new recommendations for pneumococcal, COVID, and meningococcal B (Men B) vaccines, as well as a safety update for maternal RSV vaccination.
Pneumococcal Vaccination and New Lower Age-Based Recommendations
New age-based recommendation. ACIP has lowered the age for routine vaccination with the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) from age 65 down to age 50, but only with PCV. Review of data revealed that more than half of those in the 50- to 64-year-old age group already had a risk indication to receive a PCV dose. In addition, rates of invasive pneumococcal disease peak at younger ages in Black patients compared with White patients. The rate of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) among Black adults aged 50 or older exceeds the average rate of IPD for all adults aged 65 or older. The goal of this age-based change is to reduce disease in demographic groups with the highest burden of disease.
The new expanded age-based recommendation applies only to vaccination with PCV. Conjugate vaccines trigger memory B-cell production and therefore induce greater long-term immunity. New research is now focusing on higher-valent PCV vaccines. Two 24-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines and one 31-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine are now in advanced stages of development.
Risk-based recommendation. A risk-based recommendation for ages 19 through 49 years still applies to those with certain medical conditions, including diabetes; chronic heart, lung, liver, or kidney disease; and also for those with immunocompromising conditions. Risk-based recommendations are harder to implement particularly because many vaccines are now administered in pharmacies and pharmacists don’t know the patients as well as their physicians do, so it’s harder for them to know who should get the vaccine if the recommendation is based on risk.
COVID-19 Vaccines With Additional Dose Recommendations
Everyone 6 months or older is recommended to receive a dose of the updated 2024-2025 COVID vaccine. An additional updated COVID vaccine dose is now recommended for everyone aged 65 or older, and for those aged 6 months or older with immunocompromising (moderate or severe) conditions. Review of data revealed that 1 in 6 patients hospitalized with COVID have an immunocompromising condition, and 70% of COVID hospitalizations are in those aged 65 or older. This older age group also has the highest death rates due to COVID-19. We know that vaccination protection wanes with time. Data from previous studies show that additional vaccine doses provide additional protection. Additional doses are now being recommended for those at highest risk.
Timing of additional doses. This second dose is recommended at 6 months after the last updated COVID-19 vaccine dose. However, the additional dose can be given as early as 2 months after the last dose. Those who recently had COVID-19 can wait 3 months before getting an additional vaccine dose. This flexibility allows patients to maximize additional protection by timing additional doses around travel and life events, such as weddings, family get-togethers, or chemotherapy.
Those with immunocompromising conditions may receive more doses. Patients with immunocompromising conditions can receive even more additional doses, if recommended by their physician, under shared clinical decision-making.
Meningococcal Vaccines
Meningococcal disease is rare but deadly. The disease can progress rapidly. As many as 10%-15% of people with meningococcal infection die, even with appropriate antibiotic therapy. And for those who survive, about 20% suffer long-term sequalae (cognitive deficits, hearing loss, limb amputations).
Aligning Men B vaccine dosing intervals. The new ACIP vote applies only to Men B vaccines, of which there are two: one by GSK (brand name Bexsero), and the other by Wyeth, a Pfizer subsidiary (brand name Trumenba). The two MenB vaccine products are not interchangeable. The same type of MenB vaccine has to be used to complete the series.
The MenB vaccines initially had different dosing schedules and now they don’t. ACIP voted to harmonize and align the dosing schedule for the two different MenB products to mirror recent FDA (Food and Drug Administration) labeling updates. So now the dosing recommendations for both MenB vaccines are the same: either two doses given 6 months apart to healthy adolescents and young adults, or a three-dose series given at zero, 1-2 months, and 6 months for those at high risk or for those who want to optimize rapid protection (for example, if they are starting the series within 6 months of going off to college). But understand that the current recommendation for MenB vaccination for healthy adolescents and young adults is based on shared clinical decision-making, preferably for those aged 16-18.
MenACWY. Two doses of MenACWY are routinely recommended, with the first dose at age 11-12 and a second dose at age 16. The MenACWY vaccines are interchangeable.
Implementation challenges and new pentavalent vaccines. Having to use the same MenB vaccine product for all doses in a patient’s series is difficult. It’s even more difficult when the patient needs both MenACWY and MenB vaccinations.
Adding to the complexity is a new pentavalent vaccine from Pfizer (brand name Penbraya) that combines MenACWY with the MenB vaccine. And another pentavalent vaccine version by GSK is up for regulatory decision in February 2025.
The work group did say that they plan to take a fresh look at the meningococcal vaccination schedule. Let’s hope it gets simpler, so more to come on that.
Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Vaccines
Current RSV vaccine recommendations for older adults. RSV vaccine has both age- and risk-based recommendations. Now, everyone aged 75 or older needs a dose of RSV vaccine. Adults aged 60-75 with risk factors for severe RSV are also recommended to receive a dose of RSV vaccine, but not adults without these risk factors. The conditions associated with increased risk for severe RSV disease include lung disease, heart disease, immune compromise, diabetes, obesity with BMI (body mass index) of 40 or higher, neurologic or neuromuscular conditions, chronic kidney disease, liver disorders, and hematologic disorders. Frailty, as well as living in a nursing home or other long-term care facility, are other risk factors for severe RSV disease. Those aged 60-75 without these risk factors are no longer recommended to receive it.
Three RSV vaccines. We now have three RSV vaccine to choose from. Two are protein subunit vaccines. One is by Pfizer (brand name Abrysvo) that does not contain an adjuvant. The other protein-based RSV vaccine by GSK (brand name Arexvy) does contain an adjuvant. The third RSV vaccine by Moderna (brand name mRESVIA) uses an mRNA platform, and durability of protection is still unclear. However, recent studies now suggest that the RSV protein subunit vaccines confer 36 months of protection rather than only 24 months.
All three RSV vaccines are licensed for those aged 60 or older. The age indication for GSK’s RSV vaccine, Arexvy, has already been lowered by the FDA to age 50. FDA recently lowered the age approval for Abrysvo to age 18 for those at high risk. However, ACIP has not yet expanded its age recommendations for getting these vaccines. One of the main hesitations is vaccine safety concerns. FDA›s safety update presented to ACIP still suggests an increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome with both protein-based RSV vaccines among those aged 65 or older. Fortunately, the risk is rare: less than 10 cases per million vaccinations.
RSV immunization for infant protection. RSV season starts in October and goes through March. We now have two new ways to protect babies. One is a maternal RSV vaccine, given at 32-36 weeks of pregnancy to moms who will deliver their babies during RSV season. But only Pfizer’s RSV vaccine (brand name Abrysvo, without an adjuvant) can be given during pregnancy.
A maternal RSV vaccine safety update, presented at ACIP, was reassuring. Abrysvo was not associated with increased risk for preterm birth or small gestational age at birth.
Nirsevimab, a long-acting monoclonal antibody, can be given to infants. Nirsevimab is indicated for all babies under 8 months of age entering their first RSV season.
People who received a maternal RSV vaccine during a previous pregnancy are not recommended to receive additional doses during subsequent pregnancies. However, infants born to women who were vaccinated during a prior pregnancy should receive nirsevimab.
Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, has disclosed conflicts of interest with the American Medical Association, the Medical Association of Atlanta, ACIP, and Medscape.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
This episode of Medicine Matters reviews highlights from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ (ACIP’s) October 2024 meeting, with new recommendations for pneumococcal, COVID, and meningococcal B (Men B) vaccines, as well as a safety update for maternal RSV vaccination.
Pneumococcal Vaccination and New Lower Age-Based Recommendations
New age-based recommendation. ACIP has lowered the age for routine vaccination with the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) from age 65 down to age 50, but only with PCV. Review of data revealed that more than half of those in the 50- to 64-year-old age group already had a risk indication to receive a PCV dose. In addition, rates of invasive pneumococcal disease peak at younger ages in Black patients compared with White patients. The rate of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) among Black adults aged 50 or older exceeds the average rate of IPD for all adults aged 65 or older. The goal of this age-based change is to reduce disease in demographic groups with the highest burden of disease.
The new expanded age-based recommendation applies only to vaccination with PCV. Conjugate vaccines trigger memory B-cell production and therefore induce greater long-term immunity. New research is now focusing on higher-valent PCV vaccines. Two 24-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines and one 31-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine are now in advanced stages of development.
Risk-based recommendation. A risk-based recommendation for ages 19 through 49 years still applies to those with certain medical conditions, including diabetes; chronic heart, lung, liver, or kidney disease; and also for those with immunocompromising conditions. Risk-based recommendations are harder to implement particularly because many vaccines are now administered in pharmacies and pharmacists don’t know the patients as well as their physicians do, so it’s harder for them to know who should get the vaccine if the recommendation is based on risk.
COVID-19 Vaccines With Additional Dose Recommendations
Everyone 6 months or older is recommended to receive a dose of the updated 2024-2025 COVID vaccine. An additional updated COVID vaccine dose is now recommended for everyone aged 65 or older, and for those aged 6 months or older with immunocompromising (moderate or severe) conditions. Review of data revealed that 1 in 6 patients hospitalized with COVID have an immunocompromising condition, and 70% of COVID hospitalizations are in those aged 65 or older. This older age group also has the highest death rates due to COVID-19. We know that vaccination protection wanes with time. Data from previous studies show that additional vaccine doses provide additional protection. Additional doses are now being recommended for those at highest risk.
Timing of additional doses. This second dose is recommended at 6 months after the last updated COVID-19 vaccine dose. However, the additional dose can be given as early as 2 months after the last dose. Those who recently had COVID-19 can wait 3 months before getting an additional vaccine dose. This flexibility allows patients to maximize additional protection by timing additional doses around travel and life events, such as weddings, family get-togethers, or chemotherapy.
Those with immunocompromising conditions may receive more doses. Patients with immunocompromising conditions can receive even more additional doses, if recommended by their physician, under shared clinical decision-making.
Meningococcal Vaccines
Meningococcal disease is rare but deadly. The disease can progress rapidly. As many as 10%-15% of people with meningococcal infection die, even with appropriate antibiotic therapy. And for those who survive, about 20% suffer long-term sequalae (cognitive deficits, hearing loss, limb amputations).
Aligning Men B vaccine dosing intervals. The new ACIP vote applies only to Men B vaccines, of which there are two: one by GSK (brand name Bexsero), and the other by Wyeth, a Pfizer subsidiary (brand name Trumenba). The two MenB vaccine products are not interchangeable. The same type of MenB vaccine has to be used to complete the series.
The MenB vaccines initially had different dosing schedules and now they don’t. ACIP voted to harmonize and align the dosing schedule for the two different MenB products to mirror recent FDA (Food and Drug Administration) labeling updates. So now the dosing recommendations for both MenB vaccines are the same: either two doses given 6 months apart to healthy adolescents and young adults, or a three-dose series given at zero, 1-2 months, and 6 months for those at high risk or for those who want to optimize rapid protection (for example, if they are starting the series within 6 months of going off to college). But understand that the current recommendation for MenB vaccination for healthy adolescents and young adults is based on shared clinical decision-making, preferably for those aged 16-18.
MenACWY. Two doses of MenACWY are routinely recommended, with the first dose at age 11-12 and a second dose at age 16. The MenACWY vaccines are interchangeable.
Implementation challenges and new pentavalent vaccines. Having to use the same MenB vaccine product for all doses in a patient’s series is difficult. It’s even more difficult when the patient needs both MenACWY and MenB vaccinations.
Adding to the complexity is a new pentavalent vaccine from Pfizer (brand name Penbraya) that combines MenACWY with the MenB vaccine. And another pentavalent vaccine version by GSK is up for regulatory decision in February 2025.
The work group did say that they plan to take a fresh look at the meningococcal vaccination schedule. Let’s hope it gets simpler, so more to come on that.
Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Vaccines
Current RSV vaccine recommendations for older adults. RSV vaccine has both age- and risk-based recommendations. Now, everyone aged 75 or older needs a dose of RSV vaccine. Adults aged 60-75 with risk factors for severe RSV are also recommended to receive a dose of RSV vaccine, but not adults without these risk factors. The conditions associated with increased risk for severe RSV disease include lung disease, heart disease, immune compromise, diabetes, obesity with BMI (body mass index) of 40 or higher, neurologic or neuromuscular conditions, chronic kidney disease, liver disorders, and hematologic disorders. Frailty, as well as living in a nursing home or other long-term care facility, are other risk factors for severe RSV disease. Those aged 60-75 without these risk factors are no longer recommended to receive it.
Three RSV vaccines. We now have three RSV vaccine to choose from. Two are protein subunit vaccines. One is by Pfizer (brand name Abrysvo) that does not contain an adjuvant. The other protein-based RSV vaccine by GSK (brand name Arexvy) does contain an adjuvant. The third RSV vaccine by Moderna (brand name mRESVIA) uses an mRNA platform, and durability of protection is still unclear. However, recent studies now suggest that the RSV protein subunit vaccines confer 36 months of protection rather than only 24 months.
All three RSV vaccines are licensed for those aged 60 or older. The age indication for GSK’s RSV vaccine, Arexvy, has already been lowered by the FDA to age 50. FDA recently lowered the age approval for Abrysvo to age 18 for those at high risk. However, ACIP has not yet expanded its age recommendations for getting these vaccines. One of the main hesitations is vaccine safety concerns. FDA›s safety update presented to ACIP still suggests an increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome with both protein-based RSV vaccines among those aged 65 or older. Fortunately, the risk is rare: less than 10 cases per million vaccinations.
RSV immunization for infant protection. RSV season starts in October and goes through March. We now have two new ways to protect babies. One is a maternal RSV vaccine, given at 32-36 weeks of pregnancy to moms who will deliver their babies during RSV season. But only Pfizer’s RSV vaccine (brand name Abrysvo, without an adjuvant) can be given during pregnancy.
A maternal RSV vaccine safety update, presented at ACIP, was reassuring. Abrysvo was not associated with increased risk for preterm birth or small gestational age at birth.
Nirsevimab, a long-acting monoclonal antibody, can be given to infants. Nirsevimab is indicated for all babies under 8 months of age entering their first RSV season.
People who received a maternal RSV vaccine during a previous pregnancy are not recommended to receive additional doses during subsequent pregnancies. However, infants born to women who were vaccinated during a prior pregnancy should receive nirsevimab.
Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, has disclosed conflicts of interest with the American Medical Association, the Medical Association of Atlanta, ACIP, and Medscape.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Gardasil 9 at 10 Years: Vaccine Protects Against Multiple Cancers
Vaccination against human papilloma virus (HPV), a group of more than 200 viruses infecting at least 50% of sexually active people over their lifetimes, has proved more than 90% effective for preventing several diseases caused by high-risk HPV types.
Gardasil 4: 2006
It started in 2006 with the approval of Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent, types 6, 11, 16, and 18 (Gardasil 4). Merck’s vaccine began to lower rates of cervical cancer, a major global killer of women.
“It’s fair to say the vaccine has been an American and a global public health success story in reducing rates of cervical cancer,” Paula M. Cuccaro, PhD, assistant professor of health promotion and behavioral sciences at University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, said in an interview.
How does a common virus trigger such a lethal gynecologic malignancy? “It knocks out two important cancer suppressor genes in cells,” explained Christina Annunziata,MD, PhD, a medical oncologist and senior vice president of extramural discovery science for the American Cancer Society. HPV oncoproteins are encoded by the E6 and E7 genes. As in other DNA tumor viruses, the E6 and E7 proteins functionally inactivate the tumor suppressor proteins p53 and pRB, respectively.
US Prevalence
Despite screening and vaccination, cervical cancer is still very much around. This year, 13,820 new cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States, and approximately 4360 women will die of it, according to the American Cancer Society. Even before the advent of Gardasil 4, incidence rates had already decreased by more than half from the mid-1970s to the mid-2000s, thanks largely to Pap smear screening programs for treatable premalignant lesions. “The US rate had dropped to about 20 per 100,000 women even before Gardasil 4,” said Annunziata. “After the introduction of the first vaccine, it decreased to 7 per 100,000, a decrease of about 30%, but it remains plateaued now at about the same level.”
Although the past decade has seen rates generally stabilize, there have been some changes in different age groups. In women ages 30-44, rates increased 1.7% each year from 2012 to 2019, while rates declined 11% each year for women ages 20-24— probably reflecting the impact of the first wave of prevention from Gardasil 4.
In one 2021 population-based study of US cancer registry data from 1999 to 2017, rates of both cervical squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma dropped. The largest declines occurred in females 15-20 years old, the age group most likely to be vaccinated against HPV but not typically screened, suggesting a vaccine-related effect.
Gardasil 9: 2014
With the 2014 approval of the vaccine’s second iteration, Gardasil 9, which replaced Gardasil 4 and targeted 9 HPV strains, immunization has taken broader aim. The strains covered by Gardasil 9 protect against oropharyngeal and other head and neck cancers — as well as penile, anal, vulvar, and vaginal malignancies and premalignancies, and genital warts in both sexes ages 9-45.
It may be years, however, before the impact of the newer polyvalent formulation is felt. “While the first vaccine has been successful against the prevalent strains of HPV linked to cervical cancer, it’s a little early to call it for the newer vaccine since oropharyngeal cancers tend to develop later in older men,” Cuccaro said. “But the types of HPV linked to mouth and throat cancers and covered by the newer vaccines are much less prevalent in those who are vaccinated. The strains not covered in the vaccine you see are equally present in the vaccinated and non-vaccinated.”
Angela L. Myers, MD, MPH, division director of infectious diseases and medical director of the Center for Wellbeing at Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Missouri, added, “Unlike for cervical cancer, there are no screening programs for oropharyngeal lesions, so you have to wait to see rates until actual cancer develops.”
A 2023 review reported that HPV vaccination reduced levels of oropharyngeal HPV positivity in men, strengthening the case for pangender immunization.
And in a recent phase 3 doubled-blind trial, GARDASIL 9 reduced the incidence of anogenital persistent infection caused by nine types of HPV compared with a placebo.
Increasing Uptake
The current public health aim is to have 80% of young people in the targeted age group vaccinated with two doses. Today, uptake among those 9-26 years old stands at about 78% of girls and 75% of boys for the first dose, said Annunziata. “But it’s only about 61% for the two doses in the current series, and we want to improve that.”
Some parents may still harbor fears that immunizing teens and tweens — both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society recommend immunization at age 9 — will open the door to precocious sexual activity.
“But overall, uptake in tweens and young teens has increased because the messaging has changed,” said Myers, with the rationale now focusing on cancer prevention not sexual-infection prophylaxis. “This is similar to the hepatitis B vaccine, which used to be given to young adults and is now given to newborns to prevent cancer.”
Cuccaro added that a proactive presentation by healthcare professionals has a significant effect on vaccine uptake and increases the odds of vaccination ninefold. “Providers should take a presumptive approach and avoid just offering the vaccine as an option. It should be included with regular childhood vaccinations,” she said. “And the advantage of starting early at age 9 is that you can spread the doses out across other regular childhood vaccinations, whereas if you start at age 11, you need to add the HPV vaccine to three other vaccines that are given at that time.”
After age 15, three doses are necessary. “Providers should stress to parents that it’s most effective when given before young people become sexually active and exposed to HPV,” Cuccaro said. And Myers stressed that despite the vaccine’s effectiveness, routine screening for cervical premalignancies is still important.
Despite increasing coverage, vaccination rates have some distance to go before the public health target of at least 80% uptake of the series in the targeted age group, Cuccaro cautioned.
On the global stage, barriers to immunization remain, but the World Health Organization has endorsed a campaign to eradicate cervical cancer through HPV vaccination. It has predicted that the 21st century may be the last to experience HPV-associated cancers, currently responsible for more than 300,000 annual deaths worldwide.
A Brief History of HPV Vaccines
- 1951. Cervical cancer patient Henrietta Lacks’ rapidly dividing cervical cells are collected by George Otto Gey at Johns Hopkins Hospital. They create the first immortal cell line (HeLa) used to study cancers and vaccines worldwide.
- 1976. Harald zur Hausen suggests that genital wart-associated HPV, not herpes simplex, is the probable cause of cervical cancer.
- 1983. HPV is confirmed as a cause of cancer.
- 1991. The first HPV vaccine is developed.
- 2002. Proof of principle and protective efficacy for the monovalent HPV 16 are shown.
- 2006. Merck’s Gardasil 4 (HPV 4) is FDA approved in girls ages 9-26 for protection against strains 6, 11, 16, and 18 — the cause of more than 70% of cervical cancer cases.
- 2009. Approval of Gardasil 4 is expanded to boys ages 9-26 for the prevention of genital warts.
- 2009. The FDA approves GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix (HPV 16 and 18) for girls and young women. The vaccine was withdrawn from the US market in 2016 following the success of Gardasil 9 but is used abroad for HPV cancer prevention.
- 2014. The 9-valent recombinant vaccine Gardasil 9 is FDA approved for protection against several low-risk, wart-causing HPV strains as well as the high-risk cancer strains targeted by HPV 4.
- 2018. The FDA expands approval to include females and males 27-45 years old.
- 2020. The FDA extends approval of Gardasil 9 to include prevention not only of cervical cancer but also, vaginal, vulvar, anal, oropharyngeal, and other head and neck cancers.
Annunziata, Cuccaro, and Myers had no competing interests to declare.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Vaccination against human papilloma virus (HPV), a group of more than 200 viruses infecting at least 50% of sexually active people over their lifetimes, has proved more than 90% effective for preventing several diseases caused by high-risk HPV types.
Gardasil 4: 2006
It started in 2006 with the approval of Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent, types 6, 11, 16, and 18 (Gardasil 4). Merck’s vaccine began to lower rates of cervical cancer, a major global killer of women.
“It’s fair to say the vaccine has been an American and a global public health success story in reducing rates of cervical cancer,” Paula M. Cuccaro, PhD, assistant professor of health promotion and behavioral sciences at University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, said in an interview.
How does a common virus trigger such a lethal gynecologic malignancy? “It knocks out two important cancer suppressor genes in cells,” explained Christina Annunziata,MD, PhD, a medical oncologist and senior vice president of extramural discovery science for the American Cancer Society. HPV oncoproteins are encoded by the E6 and E7 genes. As in other DNA tumor viruses, the E6 and E7 proteins functionally inactivate the tumor suppressor proteins p53 and pRB, respectively.
US Prevalence
Despite screening and vaccination, cervical cancer is still very much around. This year, 13,820 new cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States, and approximately 4360 women will die of it, according to the American Cancer Society. Even before the advent of Gardasil 4, incidence rates had already decreased by more than half from the mid-1970s to the mid-2000s, thanks largely to Pap smear screening programs for treatable premalignant lesions. “The US rate had dropped to about 20 per 100,000 women even before Gardasil 4,” said Annunziata. “After the introduction of the first vaccine, it decreased to 7 per 100,000, a decrease of about 30%, but it remains plateaued now at about the same level.”
Although the past decade has seen rates generally stabilize, there have been some changes in different age groups. In women ages 30-44, rates increased 1.7% each year from 2012 to 2019, while rates declined 11% each year for women ages 20-24— probably reflecting the impact of the first wave of prevention from Gardasil 4.
In one 2021 population-based study of US cancer registry data from 1999 to 2017, rates of both cervical squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma dropped. The largest declines occurred in females 15-20 years old, the age group most likely to be vaccinated against HPV but not typically screened, suggesting a vaccine-related effect.
Gardasil 9: 2014
With the 2014 approval of the vaccine’s second iteration, Gardasil 9, which replaced Gardasil 4 and targeted 9 HPV strains, immunization has taken broader aim. The strains covered by Gardasil 9 protect against oropharyngeal and other head and neck cancers — as well as penile, anal, vulvar, and vaginal malignancies and premalignancies, and genital warts in both sexes ages 9-45.
It may be years, however, before the impact of the newer polyvalent formulation is felt. “While the first vaccine has been successful against the prevalent strains of HPV linked to cervical cancer, it’s a little early to call it for the newer vaccine since oropharyngeal cancers tend to develop later in older men,” Cuccaro said. “But the types of HPV linked to mouth and throat cancers and covered by the newer vaccines are much less prevalent in those who are vaccinated. The strains not covered in the vaccine you see are equally present in the vaccinated and non-vaccinated.”
Angela L. Myers, MD, MPH, division director of infectious diseases and medical director of the Center for Wellbeing at Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Missouri, added, “Unlike for cervical cancer, there are no screening programs for oropharyngeal lesions, so you have to wait to see rates until actual cancer develops.”
A 2023 review reported that HPV vaccination reduced levels of oropharyngeal HPV positivity in men, strengthening the case for pangender immunization.
And in a recent phase 3 doubled-blind trial, GARDASIL 9 reduced the incidence of anogenital persistent infection caused by nine types of HPV compared with a placebo.
Increasing Uptake
The current public health aim is to have 80% of young people in the targeted age group vaccinated with two doses. Today, uptake among those 9-26 years old stands at about 78% of girls and 75% of boys for the first dose, said Annunziata. “But it’s only about 61% for the two doses in the current series, and we want to improve that.”
Some parents may still harbor fears that immunizing teens and tweens — both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society recommend immunization at age 9 — will open the door to precocious sexual activity.
“But overall, uptake in tweens and young teens has increased because the messaging has changed,” said Myers, with the rationale now focusing on cancer prevention not sexual-infection prophylaxis. “This is similar to the hepatitis B vaccine, which used to be given to young adults and is now given to newborns to prevent cancer.”
Cuccaro added that a proactive presentation by healthcare professionals has a significant effect on vaccine uptake and increases the odds of vaccination ninefold. “Providers should take a presumptive approach and avoid just offering the vaccine as an option. It should be included with regular childhood vaccinations,” she said. “And the advantage of starting early at age 9 is that you can spread the doses out across other regular childhood vaccinations, whereas if you start at age 11, you need to add the HPV vaccine to three other vaccines that are given at that time.”
After age 15, three doses are necessary. “Providers should stress to parents that it’s most effective when given before young people become sexually active and exposed to HPV,” Cuccaro said. And Myers stressed that despite the vaccine’s effectiveness, routine screening for cervical premalignancies is still important.
Despite increasing coverage, vaccination rates have some distance to go before the public health target of at least 80% uptake of the series in the targeted age group, Cuccaro cautioned.
On the global stage, barriers to immunization remain, but the World Health Organization has endorsed a campaign to eradicate cervical cancer through HPV vaccination. It has predicted that the 21st century may be the last to experience HPV-associated cancers, currently responsible for more than 300,000 annual deaths worldwide.
A Brief History of HPV Vaccines
- 1951. Cervical cancer patient Henrietta Lacks’ rapidly dividing cervical cells are collected by George Otto Gey at Johns Hopkins Hospital. They create the first immortal cell line (HeLa) used to study cancers and vaccines worldwide.
- 1976. Harald zur Hausen suggests that genital wart-associated HPV, not herpes simplex, is the probable cause of cervical cancer.
- 1983. HPV is confirmed as a cause of cancer.
- 1991. The first HPV vaccine is developed.
- 2002. Proof of principle and protective efficacy for the monovalent HPV 16 are shown.
- 2006. Merck’s Gardasil 4 (HPV 4) is FDA approved in girls ages 9-26 for protection against strains 6, 11, 16, and 18 — the cause of more than 70% of cervical cancer cases.
- 2009. Approval of Gardasil 4 is expanded to boys ages 9-26 for the prevention of genital warts.
- 2009. The FDA approves GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix (HPV 16 and 18) for girls and young women. The vaccine was withdrawn from the US market in 2016 following the success of Gardasil 9 but is used abroad for HPV cancer prevention.
- 2014. The 9-valent recombinant vaccine Gardasil 9 is FDA approved for protection against several low-risk, wart-causing HPV strains as well as the high-risk cancer strains targeted by HPV 4.
- 2018. The FDA expands approval to include females and males 27-45 years old.
- 2020. The FDA extends approval of Gardasil 9 to include prevention not only of cervical cancer but also, vaginal, vulvar, anal, oropharyngeal, and other head and neck cancers.
Annunziata, Cuccaro, and Myers had no competing interests to declare.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Vaccination against human papilloma virus (HPV), a group of more than 200 viruses infecting at least 50% of sexually active people over their lifetimes, has proved more than 90% effective for preventing several diseases caused by high-risk HPV types.
Gardasil 4: 2006
It started in 2006 with the approval of Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent, types 6, 11, 16, and 18 (Gardasil 4). Merck’s vaccine began to lower rates of cervical cancer, a major global killer of women.
“It’s fair to say the vaccine has been an American and a global public health success story in reducing rates of cervical cancer,” Paula M. Cuccaro, PhD, assistant professor of health promotion and behavioral sciences at University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, said in an interview.
How does a common virus trigger such a lethal gynecologic malignancy? “It knocks out two important cancer suppressor genes in cells,” explained Christina Annunziata,MD, PhD, a medical oncologist and senior vice president of extramural discovery science for the American Cancer Society. HPV oncoproteins are encoded by the E6 and E7 genes. As in other DNA tumor viruses, the E6 and E7 proteins functionally inactivate the tumor suppressor proteins p53 and pRB, respectively.
US Prevalence
Despite screening and vaccination, cervical cancer is still very much around. This year, 13,820 new cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States, and approximately 4360 women will die of it, according to the American Cancer Society. Even before the advent of Gardasil 4, incidence rates had already decreased by more than half from the mid-1970s to the mid-2000s, thanks largely to Pap smear screening programs for treatable premalignant lesions. “The US rate had dropped to about 20 per 100,000 women even before Gardasil 4,” said Annunziata. “After the introduction of the first vaccine, it decreased to 7 per 100,000, a decrease of about 30%, but it remains plateaued now at about the same level.”
Although the past decade has seen rates generally stabilize, there have been some changes in different age groups. In women ages 30-44, rates increased 1.7% each year from 2012 to 2019, while rates declined 11% each year for women ages 20-24— probably reflecting the impact of the first wave of prevention from Gardasil 4.
In one 2021 population-based study of US cancer registry data from 1999 to 2017, rates of both cervical squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma dropped. The largest declines occurred in females 15-20 years old, the age group most likely to be vaccinated against HPV but not typically screened, suggesting a vaccine-related effect.
Gardasil 9: 2014
With the 2014 approval of the vaccine’s second iteration, Gardasil 9, which replaced Gardasil 4 and targeted 9 HPV strains, immunization has taken broader aim. The strains covered by Gardasil 9 protect against oropharyngeal and other head and neck cancers — as well as penile, anal, vulvar, and vaginal malignancies and premalignancies, and genital warts in both sexes ages 9-45.
It may be years, however, before the impact of the newer polyvalent formulation is felt. “While the first vaccine has been successful against the prevalent strains of HPV linked to cervical cancer, it’s a little early to call it for the newer vaccine since oropharyngeal cancers tend to develop later in older men,” Cuccaro said. “But the types of HPV linked to mouth and throat cancers and covered by the newer vaccines are much less prevalent in those who are vaccinated. The strains not covered in the vaccine you see are equally present in the vaccinated and non-vaccinated.”
Angela L. Myers, MD, MPH, division director of infectious diseases and medical director of the Center for Wellbeing at Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Missouri, added, “Unlike for cervical cancer, there are no screening programs for oropharyngeal lesions, so you have to wait to see rates until actual cancer develops.”
A 2023 review reported that HPV vaccination reduced levels of oropharyngeal HPV positivity in men, strengthening the case for pangender immunization.
And in a recent phase 3 doubled-blind trial, GARDASIL 9 reduced the incidence of anogenital persistent infection caused by nine types of HPV compared with a placebo.
Increasing Uptake
The current public health aim is to have 80% of young people in the targeted age group vaccinated with two doses. Today, uptake among those 9-26 years old stands at about 78% of girls and 75% of boys for the first dose, said Annunziata. “But it’s only about 61% for the two doses in the current series, and we want to improve that.”
Some parents may still harbor fears that immunizing teens and tweens — both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society recommend immunization at age 9 — will open the door to precocious sexual activity.
“But overall, uptake in tweens and young teens has increased because the messaging has changed,” said Myers, with the rationale now focusing on cancer prevention not sexual-infection prophylaxis. “This is similar to the hepatitis B vaccine, which used to be given to young adults and is now given to newborns to prevent cancer.”
Cuccaro added that a proactive presentation by healthcare professionals has a significant effect on vaccine uptake and increases the odds of vaccination ninefold. “Providers should take a presumptive approach and avoid just offering the vaccine as an option. It should be included with regular childhood vaccinations,” she said. “And the advantage of starting early at age 9 is that you can spread the doses out across other regular childhood vaccinations, whereas if you start at age 11, you need to add the HPV vaccine to three other vaccines that are given at that time.”
After age 15, three doses are necessary. “Providers should stress to parents that it’s most effective when given before young people become sexually active and exposed to HPV,” Cuccaro said. And Myers stressed that despite the vaccine’s effectiveness, routine screening for cervical premalignancies is still important.
Despite increasing coverage, vaccination rates have some distance to go before the public health target of at least 80% uptake of the series in the targeted age group, Cuccaro cautioned.
On the global stage, barriers to immunization remain, but the World Health Organization has endorsed a campaign to eradicate cervical cancer through HPV vaccination. It has predicted that the 21st century may be the last to experience HPV-associated cancers, currently responsible for more than 300,000 annual deaths worldwide.
A Brief History of HPV Vaccines
- 1951. Cervical cancer patient Henrietta Lacks’ rapidly dividing cervical cells are collected by George Otto Gey at Johns Hopkins Hospital. They create the first immortal cell line (HeLa) used to study cancers and vaccines worldwide.
- 1976. Harald zur Hausen suggests that genital wart-associated HPV, not herpes simplex, is the probable cause of cervical cancer.
- 1983. HPV is confirmed as a cause of cancer.
- 1991. The first HPV vaccine is developed.
- 2002. Proof of principle and protective efficacy for the monovalent HPV 16 are shown.
- 2006. Merck’s Gardasil 4 (HPV 4) is FDA approved in girls ages 9-26 for protection against strains 6, 11, 16, and 18 — the cause of more than 70% of cervical cancer cases.
- 2009. Approval of Gardasil 4 is expanded to boys ages 9-26 for the prevention of genital warts.
- 2009. The FDA approves GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix (HPV 16 and 18) for girls and young women. The vaccine was withdrawn from the US market in 2016 following the success of Gardasil 9 but is used abroad for HPV cancer prevention.
- 2014. The 9-valent recombinant vaccine Gardasil 9 is FDA approved for protection against several low-risk, wart-causing HPV strains as well as the high-risk cancer strains targeted by HPV 4.
- 2018. The FDA expands approval to include females and males 27-45 years old.
- 2020. The FDA extends approval of Gardasil 9 to include prevention not only of cervical cancer but also, vaginal, vulvar, anal, oropharyngeal, and other head and neck cancers.
Annunziata, Cuccaro, and Myers had no competing interests to declare.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New mRNA Vaccine May Shield Against C difficile Infections
A group of researchers from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, has developed a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine, delivered via lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) — the same type as the COVID-19 vaccine produced by Moderna and Pfizer — targeting Clostridioides difficile (formerly Clostridium difficile). According to the authors, the results of their preclinical study, published in Science, demonstrated this technology as a promising platform for C difficile vaccine development and could be the starting point for curbing intestinal infections that, in their most severe forms (pseudomembranous colitis, toxic megacolon), can be fatal.
An Increasingly Pressing Issue
C difficile is the leading cause of infectious diarrhea acquired in healthcare settings.
A 2019 study reported a global incidence of C difficile infections at 2.2 per 1000 hospital admissions per year and 3.5 per 10,000 patient-days per year.
The Vaccine Candidate
Vaccine candidates tested so far have used toxoids or recombinant proteins targeting the combined repetitive oligopeptide (CROP) or receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the two primary C difficile toxins, TcdA and TcdB. The US researchers are now exploring the mRNA-LNP vaccine approach to target multiple antigens simultaneously. They developed a bivalent vaccine (including the CROP and RBD domains of both toxins) and a trivalent vaccine (with an additional virulence factor, the metalloprotease Pro-Pro endopeptidase-1).
Mice vaccinated with the bivalent and trivalent vaccines produced immunoglobulin G antibody titers two to four times higher than those elicited by recombinant protein with an adjuvant. The vaccination stimulated the proliferation of follicular T helper cells and the antigen-specific response of B lymphocytes, laying the foundation for a strong and long-lasting humoral response. The vaccines were also immunogenic in hamsters.
Vaccinated mice not only survived a toxin dose five times higher than the 100% lethal dose but also demonstrated the vaccine’s protective effect through serum transfer; unvaccinated mice given serum from vaccinated mice survived the lethal challenge. More importantly, when exposed to a lethal dose of the bacterium itself, all vaccinated mice survived.
To demonstrate the vaccine’s efficacy in patients with a history of C difficile infection and high recurrence risk — ideal candidates for vaccination — the researchers vaccinated mice that had previously survived a sublethal infection. Six months after the initial infection and vaccination, these mice remained protected against mortality when reexposed to the bacterium.
Additionally, a quadrivalent vaccine that included an immunogen targeting C difficile spores — key agents in transmission — also proved effective. Low levels of bacteria and toxins in the feces of mice vaccinated in this way suggested that spore vaccination could limit initial colonization.
In tests with nonhuman primates, two doses of the vaccines targeting either the vegetative form or the spores elicited strong immune responses against bacterial toxins and virulence factors. Human trials may indeed be on the horizon.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy 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.
A group of researchers from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, has developed a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine, delivered via lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) — the same type as the COVID-19 vaccine produced by Moderna and Pfizer — targeting Clostridioides difficile (formerly Clostridium difficile). According to the authors, the results of their preclinical study, published in Science, demonstrated this technology as a promising platform for C difficile vaccine development and could be the starting point for curbing intestinal infections that, in their most severe forms (pseudomembranous colitis, toxic megacolon), can be fatal.
An Increasingly Pressing Issue
C difficile is the leading cause of infectious diarrhea acquired in healthcare settings.
A 2019 study reported a global incidence of C difficile infections at 2.2 per 1000 hospital admissions per year and 3.5 per 10,000 patient-days per year.
The Vaccine Candidate
Vaccine candidates tested so far have used toxoids or recombinant proteins targeting the combined repetitive oligopeptide (CROP) or receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the two primary C difficile toxins, TcdA and TcdB. The US researchers are now exploring the mRNA-LNP vaccine approach to target multiple antigens simultaneously. They developed a bivalent vaccine (including the CROP and RBD domains of both toxins) and a trivalent vaccine (with an additional virulence factor, the metalloprotease Pro-Pro endopeptidase-1).
Mice vaccinated with the bivalent and trivalent vaccines produced immunoglobulin G antibody titers two to four times higher than those elicited by recombinant protein with an adjuvant. The vaccination stimulated the proliferation of follicular T helper cells and the antigen-specific response of B lymphocytes, laying the foundation for a strong and long-lasting humoral response. The vaccines were also immunogenic in hamsters.
Vaccinated mice not only survived a toxin dose five times higher than the 100% lethal dose but also demonstrated the vaccine’s protective effect through serum transfer; unvaccinated mice given serum from vaccinated mice survived the lethal challenge. More importantly, when exposed to a lethal dose of the bacterium itself, all vaccinated mice survived.
To demonstrate the vaccine’s efficacy in patients with a history of C difficile infection and high recurrence risk — ideal candidates for vaccination — the researchers vaccinated mice that had previously survived a sublethal infection. Six months after the initial infection and vaccination, these mice remained protected against mortality when reexposed to the bacterium.
Additionally, a quadrivalent vaccine that included an immunogen targeting C difficile spores — key agents in transmission — also proved effective. Low levels of bacteria and toxins in the feces of mice vaccinated in this way suggested that spore vaccination could limit initial colonization.
In tests with nonhuman primates, two doses of the vaccines targeting either the vegetative form or the spores elicited strong immune responses against bacterial toxins and virulence factors. Human trials may indeed be on the horizon.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy 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.
A group of researchers from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, has developed a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine, delivered via lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) — the same type as the COVID-19 vaccine produced by Moderna and Pfizer — targeting Clostridioides difficile (formerly Clostridium difficile). According to the authors, the results of their preclinical study, published in Science, demonstrated this technology as a promising platform for C difficile vaccine development and could be the starting point for curbing intestinal infections that, in their most severe forms (pseudomembranous colitis, toxic megacolon), can be fatal.
An Increasingly Pressing Issue
C difficile is the leading cause of infectious diarrhea acquired in healthcare settings.
A 2019 study reported a global incidence of C difficile infections at 2.2 per 1000 hospital admissions per year and 3.5 per 10,000 patient-days per year.
The Vaccine Candidate
Vaccine candidates tested so far have used toxoids or recombinant proteins targeting the combined repetitive oligopeptide (CROP) or receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the two primary C difficile toxins, TcdA and TcdB. The US researchers are now exploring the mRNA-LNP vaccine approach to target multiple antigens simultaneously. They developed a bivalent vaccine (including the CROP and RBD domains of both toxins) and a trivalent vaccine (with an additional virulence factor, the metalloprotease Pro-Pro endopeptidase-1).
Mice vaccinated with the bivalent and trivalent vaccines produced immunoglobulin G antibody titers two to four times higher than those elicited by recombinant protein with an adjuvant. The vaccination stimulated the proliferation of follicular T helper cells and the antigen-specific response of B lymphocytes, laying the foundation for a strong and long-lasting humoral response. The vaccines were also immunogenic in hamsters.
Vaccinated mice not only survived a toxin dose five times higher than the 100% lethal dose but also demonstrated the vaccine’s protective effect through serum transfer; unvaccinated mice given serum from vaccinated mice survived the lethal challenge. More importantly, when exposed to a lethal dose of the bacterium itself, all vaccinated mice survived.
To demonstrate the vaccine’s efficacy in patients with a history of C difficile infection and high recurrence risk — ideal candidates for vaccination — the researchers vaccinated mice that had previously survived a sublethal infection. Six months after the initial infection and vaccination, these mice remained protected against mortality when reexposed to the bacterium.
Additionally, a quadrivalent vaccine that included an immunogen targeting C difficile spores — key agents in transmission — also proved effective. Low levels of bacteria and toxins in the feces of mice vaccinated in this way suggested that spore vaccination could limit initial colonization.
In tests with nonhuman primates, two doses of the vaccines targeting either the vegetative form or the spores elicited strong immune responses against bacterial toxins and virulence factors. Human trials may indeed be on the horizon.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy 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.
ACIP Recommends Pneumococcal Vaccine for Adults 50 Years or Older
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) now recommends a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) for all PCV-naive adults aged 50 years or older. The new recommendation, which passed with an ACIP member vote of 14 for and one against, expands the current age-based recommendations, which include children younger than 5 years and adults older than 65 years, as well as adults aged 19-64 years with underlying conditions or risk factors who have not received a PCV and certain adults who have received PCV13 but not PCV20.
The decision was based in part on economic analyses of the use of PCV in adults aged 50-64 years in the United States. Miwako Kobayashi, MD, presented the summary of the Pneumococcal Vaccines Work Group’s interpretation of the evidence and the proposed recommendation in a meeting of the ACIP on October 23, 2024, when the ACIP voting occurred.
Data from the CDC show an increase in the relative burden of pneumococcal disease in adults aged 50-64 years based in part on the success of the pediatric PCV program, she said.
Health equity was another main factor in the Work Group’s decision to recommend vaccination for adults aged 50 years or older. “Disparities in pneumococcal vaccine coverage by race and ethnicity exist for both age-based and risk-based indications,” Kobayashi noted in her presentation. The Work Group acknowledged that the overall effect of a vaccine recommendation on health equity is complex, but the majority agreed that the update would improve health equity by increasing vaccine coverage for those with known or unknown risk factors and providing protection at an earlier age when some populations already experience elevated disease rates, she said.
As for safety, the Work Group concluded that the undesirable anticipated effects of PCVs are minimal, despite the potential signal for Guillain-Barré Syndrome, and the CDC and US Food and Drug Administration will continue to monitor post-licensure safety of PCVs.
Support Not Universal
A majority of the ACIP Pneumococcal Vaccines Work Group supported the approved option, but agreed that a future booster dose may be needed, Work Group Chair James Loehr, MD, said in his introductory presentation.
Overall, key uncertainties remain, including indirect effects of new pediatric pneumococcal vaccines on adults, data on the duration of protection with adult vaccinations, and the impact new higher-valency vaccines have on adults, several of which are in development, Loehr said.
A new 21-valent PCV, known as PCV 21, was approved by the FDA for adults aged 18 years or older in June 2024, said Loehr. “PCV21 is not PCV20 with one additional serotype” and provides additional protection, he emphasized. The Work Group examined models involving PCV21 and the existing PCV20. However, a majority of the Work Group agreed that having age-based recommendations based on vaccine product would be more challenging to implement and that insurance coverage may be a factor given the recent approval of PCV21. Therefore, the proposal submitted to the full ACIP was not for a specific PCV.
Notably, Loehr said that, although as Work Group Chair he was tasked with making the motion in favor of the recommendation, he voted against it as a voting member because of his strong opinion that only the PCV21 vaccine is needed for vaccine-naive adults aged 50 or older. “I think that PCV21 is a better vaccine that targets more serotypes,” he said during the discussion. Data presented at the February 2024 ACIP meeting showed more than 80% coverage vs less than 60% coverage for invasive pneumococcal disease with PCV21 vs PCV20 among adults aged 65 years or older and those aged 19-64 years with a risk-based indication, Loehr said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) now recommends a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) for all PCV-naive adults aged 50 years or older. The new recommendation, which passed with an ACIP member vote of 14 for and one against, expands the current age-based recommendations, which include children younger than 5 years and adults older than 65 years, as well as adults aged 19-64 years with underlying conditions or risk factors who have not received a PCV and certain adults who have received PCV13 but not PCV20.
The decision was based in part on economic analyses of the use of PCV in adults aged 50-64 years in the United States. Miwako Kobayashi, MD, presented the summary of the Pneumococcal Vaccines Work Group’s interpretation of the evidence and the proposed recommendation in a meeting of the ACIP on October 23, 2024, when the ACIP voting occurred.
Data from the CDC show an increase in the relative burden of pneumococcal disease in adults aged 50-64 years based in part on the success of the pediatric PCV program, she said.
Health equity was another main factor in the Work Group’s decision to recommend vaccination for adults aged 50 years or older. “Disparities in pneumococcal vaccine coverage by race and ethnicity exist for both age-based and risk-based indications,” Kobayashi noted in her presentation. The Work Group acknowledged that the overall effect of a vaccine recommendation on health equity is complex, but the majority agreed that the update would improve health equity by increasing vaccine coverage for those with known or unknown risk factors and providing protection at an earlier age when some populations already experience elevated disease rates, she said.
As for safety, the Work Group concluded that the undesirable anticipated effects of PCVs are minimal, despite the potential signal for Guillain-Barré Syndrome, and the CDC and US Food and Drug Administration will continue to monitor post-licensure safety of PCVs.
Support Not Universal
A majority of the ACIP Pneumococcal Vaccines Work Group supported the approved option, but agreed that a future booster dose may be needed, Work Group Chair James Loehr, MD, said in his introductory presentation.
Overall, key uncertainties remain, including indirect effects of new pediatric pneumococcal vaccines on adults, data on the duration of protection with adult vaccinations, and the impact new higher-valency vaccines have on adults, several of which are in development, Loehr said.
A new 21-valent PCV, known as PCV 21, was approved by the FDA for adults aged 18 years or older in June 2024, said Loehr. “PCV21 is not PCV20 with one additional serotype” and provides additional protection, he emphasized. The Work Group examined models involving PCV21 and the existing PCV20. However, a majority of the Work Group agreed that having age-based recommendations based on vaccine product would be more challenging to implement and that insurance coverage may be a factor given the recent approval of PCV21. Therefore, the proposal submitted to the full ACIP was not for a specific PCV.
Notably, Loehr said that, although as Work Group Chair he was tasked with making the motion in favor of the recommendation, he voted against it as a voting member because of his strong opinion that only the PCV21 vaccine is needed for vaccine-naive adults aged 50 or older. “I think that PCV21 is a better vaccine that targets more serotypes,” he said during the discussion. Data presented at the February 2024 ACIP meeting showed more than 80% coverage vs less than 60% coverage for invasive pneumococcal disease with PCV21 vs PCV20 among adults aged 65 years or older and those aged 19-64 years with a risk-based indication, Loehr said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) now recommends a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) for all PCV-naive adults aged 50 years or older. The new recommendation, which passed with an ACIP member vote of 14 for and one against, expands the current age-based recommendations, which include children younger than 5 years and adults older than 65 years, as well as adults aged 19-64 years with underlying conditions or risk factors who have not received a PCV and certain adults who have received PCV13 but not PCV20.
The decision was based in part on economic analyses of the use of PCV in adults aged 50-64 years in the United States. Miwako Kobayashi, MD, presented the summary of the Pneumococcal Vaccines Work Group’s interpretation of the evidence and the proposed recommendation in a meeting of the ACIP on October 23, 2024, when the ACIP voting occurred.
Data from the CDC show an increase in the relative burden of pneumococcal disease in adults aged 50-64 years based in part on the success of the pediatric PCV program, she said.
Health equity was another main factor in the Work Group’s decision to recommend vaccination for adults aged 50 years or older. “Disparities in pneumococcal vaccine coverage by race and ethnicity exist for both age-based and risk-based indications,” Kobayashi noted in her presentation. The Work Group acknowledged that the overall effect of a vaccine recommendation on health equity is complex, but the majority agreed that the update would improve health equity by increasing vaccine coverage for those with known or unknown risk factors and providing protection at an earlier age when some populations already experience elevated disease rates, she said.
As for safety, the Work Group concluded that the undesirable anticipated effects of PCVs are minimal, despite the potential signal for Guillain-Barré Syndrome, and the CDC and US Food and Drug Administration will continue to monitor post-licensure safety of PCVs.
Support Not Universal
A majority of the ACIP Pneumococcal Vaccines Work Group supported the approved option, but agreed that a future booster dose may be needed, Work Group Chair James Loehr, MD, said in his introductory presentation.
Overall, key uncertainties remain, including indirect effects of new pediatric pneumococcal vaccines on adults, data on the duration of protection with adult vaccinations, and the impact new higher-valency vaccines have on adults, several of which are in development, Loehr said.
A new 21-valent PCV, known as PCV 21, was approved by the FDA for adults aged 18 years or older in June 2024, said Loehr. “PCV21 is not PCV20 with one additional serotype” and provides additional protection, he emphasized. The Work Group examined models involving PCV21 and the existing PCV20. However, a majority of the Work Group agreed that having age-based recommendations based on vaccine product would be more challenging to implement and that insurance coverage may be a factor given the recent approval of PCV21. Therefore, the proposal submitted to the full ACIP was not for a specific PCV.
Notably, Loehr said that, although as Work Group Chair he was tasked with making the motion in favor of the recommendation, he voted against it as a voting member because of his strong opinion that only the PCV21 vaccine is needed for vaccine-naive adults aged 50 or older. “I think that PCV21 is a better vaccine that targets more serotypes,” he said during the discussion. Data presented at the February 2024 ACIP meeting showed more than 80% coverage vs less than 60% coverage for invasive pneumococcal disease with PCV21 vs PCV20 among adults aged 65 years or older and those aged 19-64 years with a risk-based indication, Loehr said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Home HPV Testing: A New Frontier in Primary Care
Human papillomavirus (HPV) is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections and persistent infection with high-risk strains is the leading cause of cervical cancer. Fortunately, vaccines are available to prevent many HPV-related diseases, but they haven’t fully eliminated the risks. Cervical cancer screening remains essential for early detection and prevention.
The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) currently recommends regular cervical cancer screenings for women aged 21-65. These screenings can include a Pap test every 3 years, a combination of HPV testing and Pap smear every 5 years, or high-risk HPV testing alone every 5 years, depending on age and individual risk factors.
Although these guidelines are currently under review, routine screenings have been instrumental in reducing cervical cancer rates. However, many patients still face barriers that prevent them from accessing these services. Common challenges include discomfort with pelvic exams, lack of time, and limited access to healthcare services. In recent years, advancements in home-based diagnostic testing have opened new avenues for preventative care.
Home HPV testing is one such advancement, offering an alternative to traditional in-office screening methods. While the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not yet approved home HPV testing, self-collection in clinical settings is available and gaining traction. Primary care physicians can integrate this self-collection method into their practices, helping to close the screening gap, especially for underserved populations.
If approved, home HPV testing could be a game-changer for patients who have difficulty attending in-person visits. Geographical barriers, transportation issues, and personal discomfort with in-office exams can prevent patients from receiving the care they need. Home testing eliminates many of these hurdles, enabling patients to perform the test in the comfort of their own homes at a time that works for them. This flexibility is particularly beneficial for rural and underserved populations, where access to healthcare is limited.
Similarly, in-office self-collection offers a comfortable alternative for those who find traditional pelvic exams uncomfortable or distressing. Self-administered HPV tests allow patients to take control of their cervical cancer screening, fostering empowerment and personal responsibility for their health. By reducing the discomfort and inconvenience of traditional screening, self-collection can improve adherence to screening guidelines, leading to earlier detection and prevention of cervical cancer.
Primary care physicians may soon offer both in-office and at-home testing options, tailoring the approach to each patient’s unique needs. Virtual appointments provide an excellent opportunity to educate patients about the importance of cervical cancer screening and offer guidance on using home HPV testing kits. This personalized care ensures patients feel supported even without in-person visits. If home testing becomes FDA approved, patients could receive test kits by mail, perform the test, and send it back to the lab for analysis. For those with positive results, primary care physicians can ensure timely follow-up, including Pap smears or colposcopies, to further evaluate cervical health.
Although home HPV testing offers many benefits, there are valid concerns about accuracy and follow-up care. Studies show that self-collected samples for HPV testing are highly accurate, with sensitivity and specificity comparable with clinician-collected samples, echoing the success of self-swabbing for other sexually transmitted infections.
It is crucial, however, that patients receive clear instructions on proper sample collection to maintain this accuracy. Follow-up care is another essential aspect of the screening process. While many HPV infections resolve on their own, high-risk strains require closer monitoring to prevent progression to cervical cancer. Primary care physicians must establish clear protocols for notifying patients of their results and ensuring appropriate follow-up appointments.
Additionally, there may be concerns about the cost and insurance coverage of home HPV tests. However, home testing could prove more cost-effective than multiple in-office visits, especially when factoring in travel expenses and missed work. Physicians should work to make home testing accessible to all patients, including those in low-income and rural communities.
Should these options become more widely available, it will be important to communicate that this does not fully eliminate the need for pelvic exams. As primary care physicians, we will still need to advise patients that they should bring up concerns of vaginal bleeding, vaginal discharge, and other symptoms. Pelvic exams will still be necessary for diagnosis when symptoms are present. Home HPV tests also will not replace in-office clinician collected exams for those who do not feel comfortable with self-collection.
Home and in-office self-collection for HPV testing are promising tools for improving cervical cancer screening rates and patient satisfaction. By offering a convenient, private, and accessible option, primary care physicians can help more patients stay on track with their preventive care and reduce their risk of cervical cancer. As this technology continues to evolve, embracing both in-office and home HPV testing will be essential to ensuring all patients benefit from these innovations.
Dr. Wheat is Vice Chair of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Department of Family and Community Medicine and Associate Professor, Family and Community Medicine Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago. She serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.
References
Daponte N et al. HPV-Based Self-Sampling in Cervical Cancer Screening: An Updated Review of the Current Evidence in the Literature. Cancers (Basel). 2023 Mar 8;15(6):1669.
Di Gennaro G et al. Does self-sampling for human papilloma virus testing have the potential to increase cervical cancer screening? An updated meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized clinical trials. Front Public Health. 2022 Dec 8;10:1003461.
US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Cervical Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2018;320(7):674-686.
Human papillomavirus (HPV) is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections and persistent infection with high-risk strains is the leading cause of cervical cancer. Fortunately, vaccines are available to prevent many HPV-related diseases, but they haven’t fully eliminated the risks. Cervical cancer screening remains essential for early detection and prevention.
The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) currently recommends regular cervical cancer screenings for women aged 21-65. These screenings can include a Pap test every 3 years, a combination of HPV testing and Pap smear every 5 years, or high-risk HPV testing alone every 5 years, depending on age and individual risk factors.
Although these guidelines are currently under review, routine screenings have been instrumental in reducing cervical cancer rates. However, many patients still face barriers that prevent them from accessing these services. Common challenges include discomfort with pelvic exams, lack of time, and limited access to healthcare services. In recent years, advancements in home-based diagnostic testing have opened new avenues for preventative care.
Home HPV testing is one such advancement, offering an alternative to traditional in-office screening methods. While the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not yet approved home HPV testing, self-collection in clinical settings is available and gaining traction. Primary care physicians can integrate this self-collection method into their practices, helping to close the screening gap, especially for underserved populations.
If approved, home HPV testing could be a game-changer for patients who have difficulty attending in-person visits. Geographical barriers, transportation issues, and personal discomfort with in-office exams can prevent patients from receiving the care they need. Home testing eliminates many of these hurdles, enabling patients to perform the test in the comfort of their own homes at a time that works for them. This flexibility is particularly beneficial for rural and underserved populations, where access to healthcare is limited.
Similarly, in-office self-collection offers a comfortable alternative for those who find traditional pelvic exams uncomfortable or distressing. Self-administered HPV tests allow patients to take control of their cervical cancer screening, fostering empowerment and personal responsibility for their health. By reducing the discomfort and inconvenience of traditional screening, self-collection can improve adherence to screening guidelines, leading to earlier detection and prevention of cervical cancer.
Primary care physicians may soon offer both in-office and at-home testing options, tailoring the approach to each patient’s unique needs. Virtual appointments provide an excellent opportunity to educate patients about the importance of cervical cancer screening and offer guidance on using home HPV testing kits. This personalized care ensures patients feel supported even without in-person visits. If home testing becomes FDA approved, patients could receive test kits by mail, perform the test, and send it back to the lab for analysis. For those with positive results, primary care physicians can ensure timely follow-up, including Pap smears or colposcopies, to further evaluate cervical health.
Although home HPV testing offers many benefits, there are valid concerns about accuracy and follow-up care. Studies show that self-collected samples for HPV testing are highly accurate, with sensitivity and specificity comparable with clinician-collected samples, echoing the success of self-swabbing for other sexually transmitted infections.
It is crucial, however, that patients receive clear instructions on proper sample collection to maintain this accuracy. Follow-up care is another essential aspect of the screening process. While many HPV infections resolve on their own, high-risk strains require closer monitoring to prevent progression to cervical cancer. Primary care physicians must establish clear protocols for notifying patients of their results and ensuring appropriate follow-up appointments.
Additionally, there may be concerns about the cost and insurance coverage of home HPV tests. However, home testing could prove more cost-effective than multiple in-office visits, especially when factoring in travel expenses and missed work. Physicians should work to make home testing accessible to all patients, including those in low-income and rural communities.
Should these options become more widely available, it will be important to communicate that this does not fully eliminate the need for pelvic exams. As primary care physicians, we will still need to advise patients that they should bring up concerns of vaginal bleeding, vaginal discharge, and other symptoms. Pelvic exams will still be necessary for diagnosis when symptoms are present. Home HPV tests also will not replace in-office clinician collected exams for those who do not feel comfortable with self-collection.
Home and in-office self-collection for HPV testing are promising tools for improving cervical cancer screening rates and patient satisfaction. By offering a convenient, private, and accessible option, primary care physicians can help more patients stay on track with their preventive care and reduce their risk of cervical cancer. As this technology continues to evolve, embracing both in-office and home HPV testing will be essential to ensuring all patients benefit from these innovations.
Dr. Wheat is Vice Chair of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Department of Family and Community Medicine and Associate Professor, Family and Community Medicine Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago. She serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.
References
Daponte N et al. HPV-Based Self-Sampling in Cervical Cancer Screening: An Updated Review of the Current Evidence in the Literature. Cancers (Basel). 2023 Mar 8;15(6):1669.
Di Gennaro G et al. Does self-sampling for human papilloma virus testing have the potential to increase cervical cancer screening? An updated meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized clinical trials. Front Public Health. 2022 Dec 8;10:1003461.
US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Cervical Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2018;320(7):674-686.
Human papillomavirus (HPV) is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections and persistent infection with high-risk strains is the leading cause of cervical cancer. Fortunately, vaccines are available to prevent many HPV-related diseases, but they haven’t fully eliminated the risks. Cervical cancer screening remains essential for early detection and prevention.
The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) currently recommends regular cervical cancer screenings for women aged 21-65. These screenings can include a Pap test every 3 years, a combination of HPV testing and Pap smear every 5 years, or high-risk HPV testing alone every 5 years, depending on age and individual risk factors.
Although these guidelines are currently under review, routine screenings have been instrumental in reducing cervical cancer rates. However, many patients still face barriers that prevent them from accessing these services. Common challenges include discomfort with pelvic exams, lack of time, and limited access to healthcare services. In recent years, advancements in home-based diagnostic testing have opened new avenues for preventative care.
Home HPV testing is one such advancement, offering an alternative to traditional in-office screening methods. While the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not yet approved home HPV testing, self-collection in clinical settings is available and gaining traction. Primary care physicians can integrate this self-collection method into their practices, helping to close the screening gap, especially for underserved populations.
If approved, home HPV testing could be a game-changer for patients who have difficulty attending in-person visits. Geographical barriers, transportation issues, and personal discomfort with in-office exams can prevent patients from receiving the care they need. Home testing eliminates many of these hurdles, enabling patients to perform the test in the comfort of their own homes at a time that works for them. This flexibility is particularly beneficial for rural and underserved populations, where access to healthcare is limited.
Similarly, in-office self-collection offers a comfortable alternative for those who find traditional pelvic exams uncomfortable or distressing. Self-administered HPV tests allow patients to take control of their cervical cancer screening, fostering empowerment and personal responsibility for their health. By reducing the discomfort and inconvenience of traditional screening, self-collection can improve adherence to screening guidelines, leading to earlier detection and prevention of cervical cancer.
Primary care physicians may soon offer both in-office and at-home testing options, tailoring the approach to each patient’s unique needs. Virtual appointments provide an excellent opportunity to educate patients about the importance of cervical cancer screening and offer guidance on using home HPV testing kits. This personalized care ensures patients feel supported even without in-person visits. If home testing becomes FDA approved, patients could receive test kits by mail, perform the test, and send it back to the lab for analysis. For those with positive results, primary care physicians can ensure timely follow-up, including Pap smears or colposcopies, to further evaluate cervical health.
Although home HPV testing offers many benefits, there are valid concerns about accuracy and follow-up care. Studies show that self-collected samples for HPV testing are highly accurate, with sensitivity and specificity comparable with clinician-collected samples, echoing the success of self-swabbing for other sexually transmitted infections.
It is crucial, however, that patients receive clear instructions on proper sample collection to maintain this accuracy. Follow-up care is another essential aspect of the screening process. While many HPV infections resolve on their own, high-risk strains require closer monitoring to prevent progression to cervical cancer. Primary care physicians must establish clear protocols for notifying patients of their results and ensuring appropriate follow-up appointments.
Additionally, there may be concerns about the cost and insurance coverage of home HPV tests. However, home testing could prove more cost-effective than multiple in-office visits, especially when factoring in travel expenses and missed work. Physicians should work to make home testing accessible to all patients, including those in low-income and rural communities.
Should these options become more widely available, it will be important to communicate that this does not fully eliminate the need for pelvic exams. As primary care physicians, we will still need to advise patients that they should bring up concerns of vaginal bleeding, vaginal discharge, and other symptoms. Pelvic exams will still be necessary for diagnosis when symptoms are present. Home HPV tests also will not replace in-office clinician collected exams for those who do not feel comfortable with self-collection.
Home and in-office self-collection for HPV testing are promising tools for improving cervical cancer screening rates and patient satisfaction. By offering a convenient, private, and accessible option, primary care physicians can help more patients stay on track with their preventive care and reduce their risk of cervical cancer. As this technology continues to evolve, embracing both in-office and home HPV testing will be essential to ensuring all patients benefit from these innovations.
Dr. Wheat is Vice Chair of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Department of Family and Community Medicine and Associate Professor, Family and Community Medicine Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago. She serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.
References
Daponte N et al. HPV-Based Self-Sampling in Cervical Cancer Screening: An Updated Review of the Current Evidence in the Literature. Cancers (Basel). 2023 Mar 8;15(6):1669.
Di Gennaro G et al. Does self-sampling for human papilloma virus testing have the potential to increase cervical cancer screening? An updated meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized clinical trials. Front Public Health. 2022 Dec 8;10:1003461.
US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Cervical Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2018;320(7):674-686.
Groups With Highest Unmet Need for PrEP Highlighted in Analysis
LOS ANGELES — Use of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV is increasing overall, but both the rate of increase for starting PrEP and the rate of unmet need differ widely by demographic group, according to new data from a large study.
An analysis by Li Tao, MD, MS, PhD, director of real-world evidence at Gilead Sciences, and colleagues looked at statistical trends from 2019 to 2023 and found that Black, Hispanic, and Medicaid-insured populations continue to lack equitable access to PrEP.
Among the findings were that most new PrEP users were men with HIV risk factors who are commercially insured and live in predominantly non-Hispanic White areas (53% in 2019 and 43% in 2023). For comparison, men living in predominantly Black or Hispanic neighborhoods, or who are insured by Medicaid, saw lower proportions of PrEP use (16% in 2019 and 17% in 2023) despite higher annual increases in PrEP use (11% per year) and higher unmet needs.
Half a Million Real-World Participants
Tao presented her team’s findings at the Infectious Disease Week (IDWeek) 2024 Annual Meeting. The study included “more than half a million real-world PrEP users over the past 5 years,” she said.
The group with the lowest growth in initiation of PrEP in the study period (an annual percentage increase of 2%) and the lowest unmet need included men with HIV risk factors, who were using commercial insurance and living in White-dominant neighborhoods.
HIV risk factors included diagnosis of any sexually transmitted disease, contact with and exposure to communicable diseases, high-risk sexual behavior, contact with a hypodermic needle, long-term prophylaxis, HIV prevention counseling, and HIV screening.
Other men with HIV risk factors (those who were commercially insured, living in Black/Hispanic neighborhoods, or those on Medicaid across all neighborhoods) had a moderate increase in PrEP initiation (an annual percentage increase of 11%-16%) and higher unmet needs.
Researchers gathered data on PrEP prescriptions and new HIV diagnoses (from 2019 to 2023) through the IQVIA pharmacy claims database. PrEP-to-need ratio (PNR) is the number of individuals using PrEP in a year divided by new HIV diagnoses in the previous year. It was calculated for subgroups defined by five PNR-associated factors: Sex, insurance, recorded HIV risk factors (identified by diagnosis or procedure codes), “Ending the HIV Epidemic” jurisdictions, and neighborhood race/ethnicity mix.
Disparities Persist
While PrEP use improved across all the groups studied in the 5 years, “disparities still persist and the need remains very significant,” Tao said. “It’s very crucial for guiding the future HIV prevention options.”
“Long-acting PrEP options may help to address some social determinants structural factors in HIV acquisition,” she added.
What Programs Are Helping?
Some guidelines and programs are helping increase uptake, Tao said.
The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines “reinforce more accessible PrEP programs to individuals like zero-cost sharing or same-day dispensing,” Tao said in a press briefing. “Those kinds of policies are really effective. We can see that after the implementation of the USPSTF guidelines, the copay sharing is really decreasing and is coinciding with the HIV rates declining.”
The Medicaid coverage expansion in 40 states “has been really effective” in PrEP uptake, she added.
Colleen Kelley, MD, MPH, with the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, in Atlanta, who was not part of the research, said there has been a slow but improving uptake of PrEP across the board in the United States, “but the issue is that the uptake has been inequitable.”
Large Study With Recent Data
“This is an extremely large study with very recent data,” Kelley said. “Additionally, they were able to couple (the uptake) with unmet need. People who are at higher risk of acquiring HIV or who live in high-risk areas for HIV should have greater access to PrEP. They have a greater need for PrEP. What we really need to do from an equity perspective is match the PrEP use with the PrEP need and we have not been successful in doing that.”
Kelley added that the finding that the group that had the highest unmet need for PrEP in the study also had no recorded HIV risk factors. “It’s an interesting time to start thinking about beyond risk factor coverage for PrEP,” she said.
Another issue, Kelley said, is that “people are using (PrEP) but they’re also stopping it. People will need to take PrEP many years for protection, but about half discontinue in the first 6-12 months.
“We need to look at how people will persist on PrEP over the long term. That’s the next frontier,” she said. “We hope the long-acting injectables will help overcome some of the PrEP fatigue. But some may just tire of taking medication repeatedly for an infection they don’t have,” she said.
The study was funded by Gilead Sciences. Tao is employed by and is a shareholder of Gilead Sciences. All relevant financial disclosures have been mitigated, according to the paper. Kelley has research grants to her institution from Gilead, Moderna, Novavax, ViiV, and Humanigen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
LOS ANGELES — Use of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV is increasing overall, but both the rate of increase for starting PrEP and the rate of unmet need differ widely by demographic group, according to new data from a large study.
An analysis by Li Tao, MD, MS, PhD, director of real-world evidence at Gilead Sciences, and colleagues looked at statistical trends from 2019 to 2023 and found that Black, Hispanic, and Medicaid-insured populations continue to lack equitable access to PrEP.
Among the findings were that most new PrEP users were men with HIV risk factors who are commercially insured and live in predominantly non-Hispanic White areas (53% in 2019 and 43% in 2023). For comparison, men living in predominantly Black or Hispanic neighborhoods, or who are insured by Medicaid, saw lower proportions of PrEP use (16% in 2019 and 17% in 2023) despite higher annual increases in PrEP use (11% per year) and higher unmet needs.
Half a Million Real-World Participants
Tao presented her team’s findings at the Infectious Disease Week (IDWeek) 2024 Annual Meeting. The study included “more than half a million real-world PrEP users over the past 5 years,” she said.
The group with the lowest growth in initiation of PrEP in the study period (an annual percentage increase of 2%) and the lowest unmet need included men with HIV risk factors, who were using commercial insurance and living in White-dominant neighborhoods.
HIV risk factors included diagnosis of any sexually transmitted disease, contact with and exposure to communicable diseases, high-risk sexual behavior, contact with a hypodermic needle, long-term prophylaxis, HIV prevention counseling, and HIV screening.
Other men with HIV risk factors (those who were commercially insured, living in Black/Hispanic neighborhoods, or those on Medicaid across all neighborhoods) had a moderate increase in PrEP initiation (an annual percentage increase of 11%-16%) and higher unmet needs.
Researchers gathered data on PrEP prescriptions and new HIV diagnoses (from 2019 to 2023) through the IQVIA pharmacy claims database. PrEP-to-need ratio (PNR) is the number of individuals using PrEP in a year divided by new HIV diagnoses in the previous year. It was calculated for subgroups defined by five PNR-associated factors: Sex, insurance, recorded HIV risk factors (identified by diagnosis or procedure codes), “Ending the HIV Epidemic” jurisdictions, and neighborhood race/ethnicity mix.
Disparities Persist
While PrEP use improved across all the groups studied in the 5 years, “disparities still persist and the need remains very significant,” Tao said. “It’s very crucial for guiding the future HIV prevention options.”
“Long-acting PrEP options may help to address some social determinants structural factors in HIV acquisition,” she added.
What Programs Are Helping?
Some guidelines and programs are helping increase uptake, Tao said.
The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines “reinforce more accessible PrEP programs to individuals like zero-cost sharing or same-day dispensing,” Tao said in a press briefing. “Those kinds of policies are really effective. We can see that after the implementation of the USPSTF guidelines, the copay sharing is really decreasing and is coinciding with the HIV rates declining.”
The Medicaid coverage expansion in 40 states “has been really effective” in PrEP uptake, she added.
Colleen Kelley, MD, MPH, with the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, in Atlanta, who was not part of the research, said there has been a slow but improving uptake of PrEP across the board in the United States, “but the issue is that the uptake has been inequitable.”
Large Study With Recent Data
“This is an extremely large study with very recent data,” Kelley said. “Additionally, they were able to couple (the uptake) with unmet need. People who are at higher risk of acquiring HIV or who live in high-risk areas for HIV should have greater access to PrEP. They have a greater need for PrEP. What we really need to do from an equity perspective is match the PrEP use with the PrEP need and we have not been successful in doing that.”
Kelley added that the finding that the group that had the highest unmet need for PrEP in the study also had no recorded HIV risk factors. “It’s an interesting time to start thinking about beyond risk factor coverage for PrEP,” she said.
Another issue, Kelley said, is that “people are using (PrEP) but they’re also stopping it. People will need to take PrEP many years for protection, but about half discontinue in the first 6-12 months.
“We need to look at how people will persist on PrEP over the long term. That’s the next frontier,” she said. “We hope the long-acting injectables will help overcome some of the PrEP fatigue. But some may just tire of taking medication repeatedly for an infection they don’t have,” she said.
The study was funded by Gilead Sciences. Tao is employed by and is a shareholder of Gilead Sciences. All relevant financial disclosures have been mitigated, according to the paper. Kelley has research grants to her institution from Gilead, Moderna, Novavax, ViiV, and Humanigen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
LOS ANGELES — Use of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV is increasing overall, but both the rate of increase for starting PrEP and the rate of unmet need differ widely by demographic group, according to new data from a large study.
An analysis by Li Tao, MD, MS, PhD, director of real-world evidence at Gilead Sciences, and colleagues looked at statistical trends from 2019 to 2023 and found that Black, Hispanic, and Medicaid-insured populations continue to lack equitable access to PrEP.
Among the findings were that most new PrEP users were men with HIV risk factors who are commercially insured and live in predominantly non-Hispanic White areas (53% in 2019 and 43% in 2023). For comparison, men living in predominantly Black or Hispanic neighborhoods, or who are insured by Medicaid, saw lower proportions of PrEP use (16% in 2019 and 17% in 2023) despite higher annual increases in PrEP use (11% per year) and higher unmet needs.
Half a Million Real-World Participants
Tao presented her team’s findings at the Infectious Disease Week (IDWeek) 2024 Annual Meeting. The study included “more than half a million real-world PrEP users over the past 5 years,” she said.
The group with the lowest growth in initiation of PrEP in the study period (an annual percentage increase of 2%) and the lowest unmet need included men with HIV risk factors, who were using commercial insurance and living in White-dominant neighborhoods.
HIV risk factors included diagnosis of any sexually transmitted disease, contact with and exposure to communicable diseases, high-risk sexual behavior, contact with a hypodermic needle, long-term prophylaxis, HIV prevention counseling, and HIV screening.
Other men with HIV risk factors (those who were commercially insured, living in Black/Hispanic neighborhoods, or those on Medicaid across all neighborhoods) had a moderate increase in PrEP initiation (an annual percentage increase of 11%-16%) and higher unmet needs.
Researchers gathered data on PrEP prescriptions and new HIV diagnoses (from 2019 to 2023) through the IQVIA pharmacy claims database. PrEP-to-need ratio (PNR) is the number of individuals using PrEP in a year divided by new HIV diagnoses in the previous year. It was calculated for subgroups defined by five PNR-associated factors: Sex, insurance, recorded HIV risk factors (identified by diagnosis or procedure codes), “Ending the HIV Epidemic” jurisdictions, and neighborhood race/ethnicity mix.
Disparities Persist
While PrEP use improved across all the groups studied in the 5 years, “disparities still persist and the need remains very significant,” Tao said. “It’s very crucial for guiding the future HIV prevention options.”
“Long-acting PrEP options may help to address some social determinants structural factors in HIV acquisition,” she added.
What Programs Are Helping?
Some guidelines and programs are helping increase uptake, Tao said.
The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines “reinforce more accessible PrEP programs to individuals like zero-cost sharing or same-day dispensing,” Tao said in a press briefing. “Those kinds of policies are really effective. We can see that after the implementation of the USPSTF guidelines, the copay sharing is really decreasing and is coinciding with the HIV rates declining.”
The Medicaid coverage expansion in 40 states “has been really effective” in PrEP uptake, she added.
Colleen Kelley, MD, MPH, with the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, in Atlanta, who was not part of the research, said there has been a slow but improving uptake of PrEP across the board in the United States, “but the issue is that the uptake has been inequitable.”
Large Study With Recent Data
“This is an extremely large study with very recent data,” Kelley said. “Additionally, they were able to couple (the uptake) with unmet need. People who are at higher risk of acquiring HIV or who live in high-risk areas for HIV should have greater access to PrEP. They have a greater need for PrEP. What we really need to do from an equity perspective is match the PrEP use with the PrEP need and we have not been successful in doing that.”
Kelley added that the finding that the group that had the highest unmet need for PrEP in the study also had no recorded HIV risk factors. “It’s an interesting time to start thinking about beyond risk factor coverage for PrEP,” she said.
Another issue, Kelley said, is that “people are using (PrEP) but they’re also stopping it. People will need to take PrEP many years for protection, but about half discontinue in the first 6-12 months.
“We need to look at how people will persist on PrEP over the long term. That’s the next frontier,” she said. “We hope the long-acting injectables will help overcome some of the PrEP fatigue. But some may just tire of taking medication repeatedly for an infection they don’t have,” she said.
The study was funded by Gilead Sciences. Tao is employed by and is a shareholder of Gilead Sciences. All relevant financial disclosures have been mitigated, according to the paper. Kelley has research grants to her institution from Gilead, Moderna, Novavax, ViiV, and Humanigen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM IDWEEK 2024
How Effective Is the High-Dose Flu Vaccine in Older Adults?
How can the immunogenicity and effectiveness of flu vaccines be improved in older adults? Several strategies are available, one being the addition of an adjuvant. For example, the MF59-adjuvanted vaccine has shown superior immunogenicity. However, “we do not have data from controlled and randomized clinical trials showing superior clinical effectiveness versus the standard dose,” Professor Odile Launay, an infectious disease specialist at Cochin Hospital in Paris, France, noted during a press conference. Another option is to increase the antigen dose in the vaccine, creating a high-dose (HD) flu vaccine.
Why is there a need for an HD vaccine? “The elderly population bears the greatest burden from the flu,” explained Launay. “This is due to three factors: An aging immune system, a higher number of comorbidities, and increased frailty.” Standard-dose flu vaccines are seen as offering suboptimal protection for those older than 65 years, which led to the development of a quadrivalent vaccine with four times the antigen dose of standard flu vaccines. This HD vaccine was introduced in France during the 2021/2022 flu season. A real-world cohort study has since been conducted to evaluate its effectiveness in the target population — those aged 65 years or older. The results were recently published in Clinical Microbiology and Infection.
Cohort Study
The study included 405,385 noninstitutionalized people aged 65 years or older matched with 1,621,540 individuals in a 1:4 ratio. The first group received the HD vaccine, while the second group received the standard-dose vaccine. Both the groups had an average age of 77 years, with 56% women, and 51% vaccinated in pharmacies. The majority had been previously vaccinated against flu (91%), and 97% had completed a full COVID-19 vaccination schedule. More than half had at least one chronic illness.
Hospitalization rates for flu — the study’s primary outcome — were 69.5 vs 90.5 per 100,000 person-years in the HD vs standard-dose group. This represented a 23.3% reduction (95% CI, 8.4-35.8; P = .003).
Strengths and Limitations
Among the strengths of the study, Launay highlighted the large number of vaccinated participants older than 65 years — more than 7 million — and the widespread use of polymerase chain reaction flu tests in cases of hospitalization for respiratory infections, which improved flu coding in the database used. Additionally, the results were consistent with those of previous studies.
However, limitations included the retrospective design, which did not randomize participants and introduced potential bias. For example, the HD vaccine may have been prioritized for the oldest people or those with multiple comorbidities. Additionally, the 2021/2022 flu season was atypical, with the simultaneous circulation of the flu virus and SARS-CoV-2, as noted by Launay.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this first evaluation of the HD flu vaccine’s effectiveness in France showed a 25% reduction in hospitalizations, consistent with existing data covering 12 flu seasons. The vaccine has been available for a longer period in the United States and Northern Europe.
“The latest unpublished data from the 2022/23 season show a 27% reduction in hospitalizations with the HD vaccine in people over 65,” added Launay.
Note: Due to a pricing disagreement with the French government, Sanofi’s HD flu vaccine Efluelda, intended for people older than 65 years, will not be available this year. (See: Withdrawal of the Efluelda Influenza Vaccine: The Academy of Medicine Reacts). However, the company has submitted a dossier for a trivalent form for a return in the 2025/2026 season and is working on developing mRNA vaccines. Additionally, a combined flu/COVID-19 vaccine is currently in development.
The study was funded by Sanofi. Several authors are Sanofi employees. Odile Launay reported conflicts of interest with Sanofi, MSD, Pfizer, GSK, and Moderna.
This story was translated from Medscape’s French edition 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.
How can the immunogenicity and effectiveness of flu vaccines be improved in older adults? Several strategies are available, one being the addition of an adjuvant. For example, the MF59-adjuvanted vaccine has shown superior immunogenicity. However, “we do not have data from controlled and randomized clinical trials showing superior clinical effectiveness versus the standard dose,” Professor Odile Launay, an infectious disease specialist at Cochin Hospital in Paris, France, noted during a press conference. Another option is to increase the antigen dose in the vaccine, creating a high-dose (HD) flu vaccine.
Why is there a need for an HD vaccine? “The elderly population bears the greatest burden from the flu,” explained Launay. “This is due to three factors: An aging immune system, a higher number of comorbidities, and increased frailty.” Standard-dose flu vaccines are seen as offering suboptimal protection for those older than 65 years, which led to the development of a quadrivalent vaccine with four times the antigen dose of standard flu vaccines. This HD vaccine was introduced in France during the 2021/2022 flu season. A real-world cohort study has since been conducted to evaluate its effectiveness in the target population — those aged 65 years or older. The results were recently published in Clinical Microbiology and Infection.
Cohort Study
The study included 405,385 noninstitutionalized people aged 65 years or older matched with 1,621,540 individuals in a 1:4 ratio. The first group received the HD vaccine, while the second group received the standard-dose vaccine. Both the groups had an average age of 77 years, with 56% women, and 51% vaccinated in pharmacies. The majority had been previously vaccinated against flu (91%), and 97% had completed a full COVID-19 vaccination schedule. More than half had at least one chronic illness.
Hospitalization rates for flu — the study’s primary outcome — were 69.5 vs 90.5 per 100,000 person-years in the HD vs standard-dose group. This represented a 23.3% reduction (95% CI, 8.4-35.8; P = .003).
Strengths and Limitations
Among the strengths of the study, Launay highlighted the large number of vaccinated participants older than 65 years — more than 7 million — and the widespread use of polymerase chain reaction flu tests in cases of hospitalization for respiratory infections, which improved flu coding in the database used. Additionally, the results were consistent with those of previous studies.
However, limitations included the retrospective design, which did not randomize participants and introduced potential bias. For example, the HD vaccine may have been prioritized for the oldest people or those with multiple comorbidities. Additionally, the 2021/2022 flu season was atypical, with the simultaneous circulation of the flu virus and SARS-CoV-2, as noted by Launay.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this first evaluation of the HD flu vaccine’s effectiveness in France showed a 25% reduction in hospitalizations, consistent with existing data covering 12 flu seasons. The vaccine has been available for a longer period in the United States and Northern Europe.
“The latest unpublished data from the 2022/23 season show a 27% reduction in hospitalizations with the HD vaccine in people over 65,” added Launay.
Note: Due to a pricing disagreement with the French government, Sanofi’s HD flu vaccine Efluelda, intended for people older than 65 years, will not be available this year. (See: Withdrawal of the Efluelda Influenza Vaccine: The Academy of Medicine Reacts). However, the company has submitted a dossier for a trivalent form for a return in the 2025/2026 season and is working on developing mRNA vaccines. Additionally, a combined flu/COVID-19 vaccine is currently in development.
The study was funded by Sanofi. Several authors are Sanofi employees. Odile Launay reported conflicts of interest with Sanofi, MSD, Pfizer, GSK, and Moderna.
This story was translated from Medscape’s French edition 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.
How can the immunogenicity and effectiveness of flu vaccines be improved in older adults? Several strategies are available, one being the addition of an adjuvant. For example, the MF59-adjuvanted vaccine has shown superior immunogenicity. However, “we do not have data from controlled and randomized clinical trials showing superior clinical effectiveness versus the standard dose,” Professor Odile Launay, an infectious disease specialist at Cochin Hospital in Paris, France, noted during a press conference. Another option is to increase the antigen dose in the vaccine, creating a high-dose (HD) flu vaccine.
Why is there a need for an HD vaccine? “The elderly population bears the greatest burden from the flu,” explained Launay. “This is due to three factors: An aging immune system, a higher number of comorbidities, and increased frailty.” Standard-dose flu vaccines are seen as offering suboptimal protection for those older than 65 years, which led to the development of a quadrivalent vaccine with four times the antigen dose of standard flu vaccines. This HD vaccine was introduced in France during the 2021/2022 flu season. A real-world cohort study has since been conducted to evaluate its effectiveness in the target population — those aged 65 years or older. The results were recently published in Clinical Microbiology and Infection.
Cohort Study
The study included 405,385 noninstitutionalized people aged 65 years or older matched with 1,621,540 individuals in a 1:4 ratio. The first group received the HD vaccine, while the second group received the standard-dose vaccine. Both the groups had an average age of 77 years, with 56% women, and 51% vaccinated in pharmacies. The majority had been previously vaccinated against flu (91%), and 97% had completed a full COVID-19 vaccination schedule. More than half had at least one chronic illness.
Hospitalization rates for flu — the study’s primary outcome — were 69.5 vs 90.5 per 100,000 person-years in the HD vs standard-dose group. This represented a 23.3% reduction (95% CI, 8.4-35.8; P = .003).
Strengths and Limitations
Among the strengths of the study, Launay highlighted the large number of vaccinated participants older than 65 years — more than 7 million — and the widespread use of polymerase chain reaction flu tests in cases of hospitalization for respiratory infections, which improved flu coding in the database used. Additionally, the results were consistent with those of previous studies.
However, limitations included the retrospective design, which did not randomize participants and introduced potential bias. For example, the HD vaccine may have been prioritized for the oldest people or those with multiple comorbidities. Additionally, the 2021/2022 flu season was atypical, with the simultaneous circulation of the flu virus and SARS-CoV-2, as noted by Launay.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this first evaluation of the HD flu vaccine’s effectiveness in France showed a 25% reduction in hospitalizations, consistent with existing data covering 12 flu seasons. The vaccine has been available for a longer period in the United States and Northern Europe.
“The latest unpublished data from the 2022/23 season show a 27% reduction in hospitalizations with the HD vaccine in people over 65,” added Launay.
Note: Due to a pricing disagreement with the French government, Sanofi’s HD flu vaccine Efluelda, intended for people older than 65 years, will not be available this year. (See: Withdrawal of the Efluelda Influenza Vaccine: The Academy of Medicine Reacts). However, the company has submitted a dossier for a trivalent form for a return in the 2025/2026 season and is working on developing mRNA vaccines. Additionally, a combined flu/COVID-19 vaccine is currently in development.
The study was funded by Sanofi. Several authors are Sanofi employees. Odile Launay reported conflicts of interest with Sanofi, MSD, Pfizer, GSK, and Moderna.
This story was translated from Medscape’s French edition 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.