Vaccines

Hepatitis B (Hep B) is a liver infection against which vaccination was previously recommended for certain eligible risk groups. However, in 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) switched from recommending vaccination for at-risk persons to recommending universal vaccination for children and adults.

That includes infants, children 18 years of age and younger, adults aged 19-59, and people aged 60 and up with risk factors for this viral infection. Even those aged 60 and older without known risk factors for hepatitis B may receive Hep B vaccines.

Risk factors under prior recommendations included potential criminal or stigmatizing behaviors such as injection-drug use, incarceration, or multiple sex partners, which limited risk assessment by providers. The CDC points out that universal adult Hep B vaccination through age 59 obviates the need for the previous approach of risk-factor screening and sensitive disclosures to determine eligibility and could increase vaccination coverage and reduce cases.

“A universal recommendation for Hep B vaccination could increase the number of persons who receive vaccination before the onset of chronic liver disease and other comorbidities (e.g., obesity or diabetes) that might make vaccination less effective,” the CDC stated, noting that patients with chronic liver disease have a reduced immune response to Hep B vaccination. Hep B vaccination also protects against hepatitis D.

“Most people born in the US are vaccinated during infancy, beginning on the first day of life,” Lauren D. Block, MD, an internist at Northwell Health and an assistant professor in the Institute of Health System Science at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research at sites in metropolitan New York City, said in an interview.

Feinstein Institute for Medical Research

Typically, Dr. Block added, at-risk persons will have titers drawn to make sure they are immune to Hep B. “Titers can wane over the decades in healthy people, in which case a booster shot may be needed, or a restart of the three-part vaccination series if a person is not sure if they were vaccinated previously.” Those at greater risk include people with weakened immune systems, people with diabetes or on immunosuppressives, healthcare workers, travelers to higher-risk countries, people with multiple sexual partners, and IV drug users.

Although Hep B vaccines have demonstrated safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy during the past four decades, coverage among US adults has been suboptimal, limiting further reduction in infections, the CDC noted.

Hepatitis A

Though not widely endemic to North America, Hep A can be acquired during travel abroad, particularly to developing countries, or through exposure to unsanitary conditions and contaminated food or water.

The CDC recommends routine Hep A vaccination for all children aged 12-23 months, all unvaccinated children and adolescents 2-18 years, and all persons, including those who are pregnant, with increased risk factors for this orally and fecally transmitted infection or at risk for severe disease from it. At-risk groups include international travelers to affected regions, men who have sex with men, incarcerated individuals or group-home residents, injection and non-injection drug users, and homeless persons.
 

Hepatitis C and E

There is no vaccine for Hep C, and no FDA-approved vaccine in the United States for hepatitis E, although a vaccine for the latter was approved in China in 2012.

As with Hep A, observing strict water, food, and sanitation standards is essential for preventing infection with hepatitis E.

Dr. Block disclosed no competing interests relevant to her comments.

Hepatitis B (Hep B) is a liver infection against which vaccination was previously recommended for certain eligible risk groups. However, in 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) switched from recommending vaccination for at-risk persons to recommending universal vaccination for children and adults.

That includes infants, children 18 years of age and younger, adults aged 19-59, and people aged 60 and up with risk factors for this viral infection. Even those aged 60 and older without known risk factors for hepatitis B may receive Hep B vaccines.

Risk factors under prior recommendations included potential criminal or stigmatizing behaviors such as injection-drug use, incarceration, or multiple sex partners, which limited risk assessment by providers. The CDC points out that universal adult Hep B vaccination through age 59 obviates the need for the previous approach of risk-factor screening and sensitive disclosures to determine eligibility and could increase vaccination coverage and reduce cases.

“A universal recommendation for Hep B vaccination could increase the number of persons who receive vaccination before the onset of chronic liver disease and other comorbidities (e.g., obesity or diabetes) that might make vaccination less effective,” the CDC stated, noting that patients with chronic liver disease have a reduced immune response to Hep B vaccination. Hep B vaccination also protects against hepatitis D.

“Most people born in the US are vaccinated during infancy, beginning on the first day of life,” Lauren D. Block, MD, an internist at Northwell Health and an assistant professor in the Institute of Health System Science at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research at sites in metropolitan New York City, said in an interview.

Feinstein Institute for Medical Research

Typically, Dr. Block added, at-risk persons will have titers drawn to make sure they are immune to Hep B. “Titers can wane over the decades in healthy people, in which case a booster shot may be needed, or a restart of the three-part vaccination series if a person is not sure if they were vaccinated previously.” Those at greater risk include people with weakened immune systems, people with diabetes or on immunosuppressives, healthcare workers, travelers to higher-risk countries, people with multiple sexual partners, and IV drug users.

Although Hep B vaccines have demonstrated safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy during the past four decades, coverage among US adults has been suboptimal, limiting further reduction in infections, the CDC noted.

Hepatitis A

Though not widely endemic to North America, Hep A can be acquired during travel abroad, particularly to developing countries, or through exposure to unsanitary conditions and contaminated food or water.

The CDC recommends routine Hep A vaccination for all children aged 12-23 months, all unvaccinated children and adolescents 2-18 years, and all persons, including those who are pregnant, with increased risk factors for this orally and fecally transmitted infection or at risk for severe disease from it. At-risk groups include international travelers to affected regions, men who have sex with men, incarcerated individuals or group-home residents, injection and non-injection drug users, and homeless persons.
 

Hepatitis C and E

There is no vaccine for Hep C, and no FDA-approved vaccine in the United States for hepatitis E, although a vaccine for the latter was approved in China in 2012.

As with Hep A, observing strict water, food, and sanitation standards is essential for preventing infection with hepatitis E.

Dr. Block disclosed no competing interests relevant to her comments.

Hepatitis B (Hep B) is a liver infection against which vaccination was previously recommended for certain eligible risk groups. However, in 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) switched from recommending vaccination for at-risk persons to recommending universal vaccination for children and adults.

That includes infants, children 18 years of age and younger, adults aged 19-59, and people aged 60 and up with risk factors for this viral infection. Even those aged 60 and older without known risk factors for hepatitis B may receive Hep B vaccines.

Risk factors under prior recommendations included potential criminal or stigmatizing behaviors such as injection-drug use, incarceration, or multiple sex partners, which limited risk assessment by providers. The CDC points out that universal adult Hep B vaccination through age 59 obviates the need for the previous approach of risk-factor screening and sensitive disclosures to determine eligibility and could increase vaccination coverage and reduce cases.

“A universal recommendation for Hep B vaccination could increase the number of persons who receive vaccination before the onset of chronic liver disease and other comorbidities (e.g., obesity or diabetes) that might make vaccination less effective,” the CDC stated, noting that patients with chronic liver disease have a reduced immune response to Hep B vaccination. Hep B vaccination also protects against hepatitis D.

“Most people born in the US are vaccinated during infancy, beginning on the first day of life,” Lauren D. Block, MD, an internist at Northwell Health and an assistant professor in the Institute of Health System Science at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research at sites in metropolitan New York City, said in an interview.

Feinstein Institute for Medical Research

Typically, Dr. Block added, at-risk persons will have titers drawn to make sure they are immune to Hep B. “Titers can wane over the decades in healthy people, in which case a booster shot may be needed, or a restart of the three-part vaccination series if a person is not sure if they were vaccinated previously.” Those at greater risk include people with weakened immune systems, people with diabetes or on immunosuppressives, healthcare workers, travelers to higher-risk countries, people with multiple sexual partners, and IV drug users.

Although Hep B vaccines have demonstrated safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy during the past four decades, coverage among US adults has been suboptimal, limiting further reduction in infections, the CDC noted.

Hepatitis A

Though not widely endemic to North America, Hep A can be acquired during travel abroad, particularly to developing countries, or through exposure to unsanitary conditions and contaminated food or water.

The CDC recommends routine Hep A vaccination for all children aged 12-23 months, all unvaccinated children and adolescents 2-18 years, and all persons, including those who are pregnant, with increased risk factors for this orally and fecally transmitted infection or at risk for severe disease from it. At-risk groups include international travelers to affected regions, men who have sex with men, incarcerated individuals or group-home residents, injection and non-injection drug users, and homeless persons.
 

Hepatitis C and E

There is no vaccine for Hep C, and no FDA-approved vaccine in the United States for hepatitis E, although a vaccine for the latter was approved in China in 2012.

As with Hep A, observing strict water, food, and sanitation standards is essential for preventing infection with hepatitis E.

Dr. Block disclosed no competing interests relevant to her comments.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There has been a large amount of news lately about dating online and dating apps. Probably the most common way younger people find potential partners is to go online and see who’s there that they might want to meet. 

Online dating is also notorious for being full of scammers. There are all kinds of people out there that you have to be careful of, who are trying to rip you off by saying, “Send me money, I’m in trouble,” or “Now that we have a relationship, will you support my particular entrepreneurial idea?” Certainly, dangers are there. 

Another danger we don’t talk much about is meeting people who have sexually transmitted diseases. That’s been a problem before websites and before dating apps. I think the opportunity of meeting more people — strangers, people you don’t really know — who may not tell you the truth about their health, and particularly their sexual health, is really out there. 

It’s always good medical advice to tell people to practice safe sex, and that often involves a man wearing a condom. It certainly is the case that we want to attend not just to the prevention of unwanted pregnancy but also to the transmission of diseases. I think it’s very important to tell women of reproductive age to get their HPV shot to try to reduce cancers in their reproductive systems, or sometimes in men — anal cancers, or even being a transmitter of disease. 

Even then, certainly one wants to recommend that, in an age where some people are going to meet many partners that they don’t know well or don’t have much background with, it’s wise to try to prevent diseases using the vaccines we’ve got, using the contraceptive methods that will prevent disease transmission, and reminding people to ask about sex life. 

I did come across a website that just startled me. It’s called HeHealth, and basically it says to men, if you are conscientious about your sex life, take a picture of your penis, send it to us, and we have doctors — I presume they’re US doctors but I don’t know — who will diagnose venereal diseases based on that picture. I presume women could also say, “Before we have sex, or now that we’re approaching that possibility, I want you to send a picture to this company on this website.” 

Now, a couple of reminders. I think we all know this, but just because you’re not manifesting symptoms on your reproductive organs doesn’t mean you don’t have a sexual disease. It’s not a reliable measure. Yes, maybe you could have somebody say: “Oh, that looks nasty. I’m not sure you ought to have sex right now, and maybe you should go get some treatment.” This is going to miss many cases and is not a reliable indicator that your partner is safe in terms of not transmitting diseases to you. 

It also isn’t clear what they do with these images. Do they keep them? Who can see them? Could they resell them? What sort of privacy protection have you got if you decide to use this? 

There’s another issue here, which is, if they misdiagnose someone and you do catch a sexual disease, who’s liable? Can you go after them for using doctors who weren’t competent or transmitting images that weren’t really adequate because you didn’t know how to take that picture properly when you sent that off to them? There are many unknowns. 

The bottom line is that we’re in a different world, I think, of romance. We’re in a world where some people are going to meet more partners. Some people are going to meet more strangers. One approach is to have us take pictures of ourselves, send them off to who knows where, and ask for a green light to go ahead and have sexual relations. I don’t think we’re anywhere close to being able to rely on that as a way to avoid the risks of unprotected sexual behavior. 

We do know what to do in dealing with patients who are sexually active. First, we have to ask them. Then we’ve got to recommend available vaccinations to prevent the transmission of some cancers, the HPV vaccine. Then they need that reminder about safe sexual practices not only to protect against unwanted pregnancy, but still, in this day and age, to protect against syphilis, which is on the rise, plus HIV, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and other sexually transmissible diseases. 

I’m not going to rely on the penis picture to make the world safe for sex. I think we have to still use the old-fashioned techniques of education and prevention to do the best we can.

Dr. Caplan is director of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He reported conflicts of interest with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There has been a large amount of news lately about dating online and dating apps. Probably the most common way younger people find potential partners is to go online and see who’s there that they might want to meet. 

Online dating is also notorious for being full of scammers. There are all kinds of people out there that you have to be careful of, who are trying to rip you off by saying, “Send me money, I’m in trouble,” or “Now that we have a relationship, will you support my particular entrepreneurial idea?” Certainly, dangers are there. 

Another danger we don’t talk much about is meeting people who have sexually transmitted diseases. That’s been a problem before websites and before dating apps. I think the opportunity of meeting more people — strangers, people you don’t really know — who may not tell you the truth about their health, and particularly their sexual health, is really out there. 

It’s always good medical advice to tell people to practice safe sex, and that often involves a man wearing a condom. It certainly is the case that we want to attend not just to the prevention of unwanted pregnancy but also to the transmission of diseases. I think it’s very important to tell women of reproductive age to get their HPV shot to try to reduce cancers in their reproductive systems, or sometimes in men — anal cancers, or even being a transmitter of disease. 

Even then, certainly one wants to recommend that, in an age where some people are going to meet many partners that they don’t know well or don’t have much background with, it’s wise to try to prevent diseases using the vaccines we’ve got, using the contraceptive methods that will prevent disease transmission, and reminding people to ask about sex life. 

I did come across a website that just startled me. It’s called HeHealth, and basically it says to men, if you are conscientious about your sex life, take a picture of your penis, send it to us, and we have doctors — I presume they’re US doctors but I don’t know — who will diagnose venereal diseases based on that picture. I presume women could also say, “Before we have sex, or now that we’re approaching that possibility, I want you to send a picture to this company on this website.” 

Now, a couple of reminders. I think we all know this, but just because you’re not manifesting symptoms on your reproductive organs doesn’t mean you don’t have a sexual disease. It’s not a reliable measure. Yes, maybe you could have somebody say: “Oh, that looks nasty. I’m not sure you ought to have sex right now, and maybe you should go get some treatment.” This is going to miss many cases and is not a reliable indicator that your partner is safe in terms of not transmitting diseases to you. 

It also isn’t clear what they do with these images. Do they keep them? Who can see them? Could they resell them? What sort of privacy protection have you got if you decide to use this? 

There’s another issue here, which is, if they misdiagnose someone and you do catch a sexual disease, who’s liable? Can you go after them for using doctors who weren’t competent or transmitting images that weren’t really adequate because you didn’t know how to take that picture properly when you sent that off to them? There are many unknowns. 

The bottom line is that we’re in a different world, I think, of romance. We’re in a world where some people are going to meet more partners. Some people are going to meet more strangers. One approach is to have us take pictures of ourselves, send them off to who knows where, and ask for a green light to go ahead and have sexual relations. I don’t think we’re anywhere close to being able to rely on that as a way to avoid the risks of unprotected sexual behavior. 

We do know what to do in dealing with patients who are sexually active. First, we have to ask them. Then we’ve got to recommend available vaccinations to prevent the transmission of some cancers, the HPV vaccine. Then they need that reminder about safe sexual practices not only to protect against unwanted pregnancy, but still, in this day and age, to protect against syphilis, which is on the rise, plus HIV, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and other sexually transmissible diseases. 

I’m not going to rely on the penis picture to make the world safe for sex. I think we have to still use the old-fashioned techniques of education and prevention to do the best we can.

Dr. Caplan is director of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He reported conflicts of interest with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There has been a large amount of news lately about dating online and dating apps. Probably the most common way younger people find potential partners is to go online and see who’s there that they might want to meet. 

Online dating is also notorious for being full of scammers. There are all kinds of people out there that you have to be careful of, who are trying to rip you off by saying, “Send me money, I’m in trouble,” or “Now that we have a relationship, will you support my particular entrepreneurial idea?” Certainly, dangers are there. 

Another danger we don’t talk much about is meeting people who have sexually transmitted diseases. That’s been a problem before websites and before dating apps. I think the opportunity of meeting more people — strangers, people you don’t really know — who may not tell you the truth about their health, and particularly their sexual health, is really out there. 

It’s always good medical advice to tell people to practice safe sex, and that often involves a man wearing a condom. It certainly is the case that we want to attend not just to the prevention of unwanted pregnancy but also to the transmission of diseases. I think it’s very important to tell women of reproductive age to get their HPV shot to try to reduce cancers in their reproductive systems, or sometimes in men — anal cancers, or even being a transmitter of disease. 

Even then, certainly one wants to recommend that, in an age where some people are going to meet many partners that they don’t know well or don’t have much background with, it’s wise to try to prevent diseases using the vaccines we’ve got, using the contraceptive methods that will prevent disease transmission, and reminding people to ask about sex life. 

I did come across a website that just startled me. It’s called HeHealth, and basically it says to men, if you are conscientious about your sex life, take a picture of your penis, send it to us, and we have doctors — I presume they’re US doctors but I don’t know — who will diagnose venereal diseases based on that picture. I presume women could also say, “Before we have sex, or now that we’re approaching that possibility, I want you to send a picture to this company on this website.” 

Now, a couple of reminders. I think we all know this, but just because you’re not manifesting symptoms on your reproductive organs doesn’t mean you don’t have a sexual disease. It’s not a reliable measure. Yes, maybe you could have somebody say: “Oh, that looks nasty. I’m not sure you ought to have sex right now, and maybe you should go get some treatment.” This is going to miss many cases and is not a reliable indicator that your partner is safe in terms of not transmitting diseases to you. 

It also isn’t clear what they do with these images. Do they keep them? Who can see them? Could they resell them? What sort of privacy protection have you got if you decide to use this? 

There’s another issue here, which is, if they misdiagnose someone and you do catch a sexual disease, who’s liable? Can you go after them for using doctors who weren’t competent or transmitting images that weren’t really adequate because you didn’t know how to take that picture properly when you sent that off to them? There are many unknowns. 

The bottom line is that we’re in a different world, I think, of romance. We’re in a world where some people are going to meet more partners. Some people are going to meet more strangers. One approach is to have us take pictures of ourselves, send them off to who knows where, and ask for a green light to go ahead and have sexual relations. I don’t think we’re anywhere close to being able to rely on that as a way to avoid the risks of unprotected sexual behavior. 

We do know what to do in dealing with patients who are sexually active. First, we have to ask them. Then we’ve got to recommend available vaccinations to prevent the transmission of some cancers, the HPV vaccine. Then they need that reminder about safe sexual practices not only to protect against unwanted pregnancy, but still, in this day and age, to protect against syphilis, which is on the rise, plus HIV, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and other sexually transmissible diseases. 

I’m not going to rely on the penis picture to make the world safe for sex. I think we have to still use the old-fashioned techniques of education and prevention to do the best we can.

Dr. Caplan is director of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He reported conflicts of interest with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.

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

VIENNA — Pneumococcal vaccination administered 1 month prior to starting methotrexate (MTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) allows a significantly higher immunological response at 1 month and does not affect disease control at 1 year, compared with starting MTX simultaneously with the vaccination, according to data from a randomized trial presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Our patients are more susceptible to infection due to immunosuppressive therapy, and it’s recommended they receive vaccination against pneumococcal infection,” the lead author Jacques Morel, MD, PhD, said in his presentation of results from the VACIMRA study.

Timing the vaccination against pneumococcal disease when initiating MTX in clinical practice has been a point of uncertainty, noted Dr. Morel, a rheumatologist from Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Montpellier, France.

“How can we deal with this in clinical practice where one recommendation is to vaccine before initiation of methotrexate, but it is also recommended to start methotrexate as soon as the diagnosis of RA is made?” he asked.
 

Comparing Humoral Response of MTX Started Immediately or 1 Month Post-Vaccination

The prospective, randomized, multicenter trial aimed to compare the rate of humoral immunological response against pneumococcal 13-valent conjugate vaccine (PCV13) in patients with RA who had a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) > 3.2, never taken MTX, and never been vaccinated against pneumococcus. Patients were vaccinated either 1 month before MTX initiation (n = 126) or simultaneously with MTX (n = 123). Oral glucocorticoids were allowed but only at < 10 mg/d. Following PCV13 vaccination, all patients also received the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) 2 months later.

Concentrations of immunoglobulin (Ig) G antibodies against the 13 serotypes contained within PCV13 were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and opsonophagocytic killing assay (OPA) at baseline and during follow-up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months.

Positive antibody response was defined as a twofold or more increase in the IgG concentration using ELISA. The main outcome was the responder rates at 1 month after PCV13, defined by at least three positive antibody responses out of five of the target PVC13 serotypes (1, 3, 5, 7F, and 19A) using ELISA or OPA. Secondary outcomes included comparisons of the percentage of patients responding to each of the 13 vaccine serotypes at 1 month and after the boost with PPV23 and at 3, 6, and 12 months after vaccination with PCV13. The researchers also measured disease activity, infections, and side effects throughout the study.

Dr. Morel highlighted that all the patients had very early RA of less than 6 months, and that their characteristics at baseline were similar in both groups with 70% women, mean age 55.6 years, RA duration 2 months, 69% positive for anticitrullinated protein antibodies, 21% with erosive disease, and a DAS28 based on C-reactive protein of 4.6.

Response rates in those receiving MTX 1 month after vaccination were significantly higher at 88% with ELISA than those at 75% for immediate vaccination (P < .01) and 96% vs 88% with OPA (P = .02). These responder proportions persisted at the 12-month follow-up measurements, remaining higher in the delayed MTX group for both assays and across the 13 serotypes.

Showing a graph of the antibody responses, Dr. Morel explained that “at 12 months, the curves start to converge, but the difference in antibody titers were still significant for eight of the 13 serotypes.”
 

Disease Activity Not Adversely Affected by Starting MTX 1 Month Later

Regarding medication doses at 12 months, the cumulative glucocorticoid doses were similar between groups during the follow-up. As expected, the 1-year cumulative dose of MTX was higher in those given the drug immediately after vaccination vs delayed (826 vs 734 mg), but the weekly mean doses of MTX were similar at 3, 6, and 12 months between the two groups, and likewise, the use of targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) at 1 year was comparable. The cumulative glucocorticoid dose at 12 months was similar at 1716 mg with delayed MTX and 1613 mg with immediate MTX.

Not unexpectedly, at 1 month, DAS28 scores were higher with delayed vs immediate MTX at 3.95 vs 3.38 for DAS28-ESR and 3.54 vs 3.01 for DAS28-CRP (P < .01), but after the first month, DAS28 scores were similar between the two groups.

No significant differences were found between the groups for adverse event rates within 7 days of receiving PCV13, with local and systemic reactions occurring at 60%-61% and 50%-58%, respectively; fever at 0%-4%; and severe infections at 12%.

Finally, no difference was found in terms of serious adverse events between groups, with one pneumococcal infection with delayed MTX during follow-up, and there were no unexpected side effects observed with the PCV13 and PPV23 vaccinations.
 

Rheumatologists’ Reactions

Ernest Choy, MD, head of rheumatology and translational research at the Institute of Infection and Immunity, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, Wales, asked if any individual showed no humoral response at all rather than a reduced response. “I ask because if there is no humoral response, then they are at very high risk, and there will be clinical relevance to that.”

Dr. Morel replied that “one serotype showed no response, at least according to the assays used, but we don’t know why. We analyzed at the population [level], not at the individual level, so it is difficult to answer the question.”

Another delegate asked what the participants thought about delaying MTX by 1 month. “When we tell the patient we need to vaccinate before we can use methotrexate [because] otherwise, we will reduce the response to the vaccination, then patient accepts it,” said Dr. Morel, adding that, “we allowed a minimal dose of steroids, and we saw from the results that the DAS28 at 1 month had changed.”

Co-moderator Katerina Chatzidionysiou, MD, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist and head of the Clinical Trial Department Rheumatology Unit, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, said that “As a physician, I’d feel uncomfortable delaying MTX if they had very active disease even for a short period of time.”

Dr. Morel replied that, “Today, we have so many drugs that can control the disease, for example, the targeted DMARDs. Progression does not show much variation, and we know x-ray progression with today’s drugs is a lot less than previously.”

Dr. Morel reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Medac, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Servier. Dr. Choy had no relevant financial relationships of relevance to this study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Pneumococcal vaccination administered 1 month prior to starting methotrexate (MTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) allows a significantly higher immunological response at 1 month and does not affect disease control at 1 year, compared with starting MTX simultaneously with the vaccination, according to data from a randomized trial presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Our patients are more susceptible to infection due to immunosuppressive therapy, and it’s recommended they receive vaccination against pneumococcal infection,” the lead author Jacques Morel, MD, PhD, said in his presentation of results from the VACIMRA study.

Timing the vaccination against pneumococcal disease when initiating MTX in clinical practice has been a point of uncertainty, noted Dr. Morel, a rheumatologist from Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Montpellier, France.

“How can we deal with this in clinical practice where one recommendation is to vaccine before initiation of methotrexate, but it is also recommended to start methotrexate as soon as the diagnosis of RA is made?” he asked.
 

Comparing Humoral Response of MTX Started Immediately or 1 Month Post-Vaccination

The prospective, randomized, multicenter trial aimed to compare the rate of humoral immunological response against pneumococcal 13-valent conjugate vaccine (PCV13) in patients with RA who had a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) > 3.2, never taken MTX, and never been vaccinated against pneumococcus. Patients were vaccinated either 1 month before MTX initiation (n = 126) or simultaneously with MTX (n = 123). Oral glucocorticoids were allowed but only at < 10 mg/d. Following PCV13 vaccination, all patients also received the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) 2 months later.

Concentrations of immunoglobulin (Ig) G antibodies against the 13 serotypes contained within PCV13 were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and opsonophagocytic killing assay (OPA) at baseline and during follow-up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months.

Positive antibody response was defined as a twofold or more increase in the IgG concentration using ELISA. The main outcome was the responder rates at 1 month after PCV13, defined by at least three positive antibody responses out of five of the target PVC13 serotypes (1, 3, 5, 7F, and 19A) using ELISA or OPA. Secondary outcomes included comparisons of the percentage of patients responding to each of the 13 vaccine serotypes at 1 month and after the boost with PPV23 and at 3, 6, and 12 months after vaccination with PCV13. The researchers also measured disease activity, infections, and side effects throughout the study.

Dr. Morel highlighted that all the patients had very early RA of less than 6 months, and that their characteristics at baseline were similar in both groups with 70% women, mean age 55.6 years, RA duration 2 months, 69% positive for anticitrullinated protein antibodies, 21% with erosive disease, and a DAS28 based on C-reactive protein of 4.6.

Response rates in those receiving MTX 1 month after vaccination were significantly higher at 88% with ELISA than those at 75% for immediate vaccination (P < .01) and 96% vs 88% with OPA (P = .02). These responder proportions persisted at the 12-month follow-up measurements, remaining higher in the delayed MTX group for both assays and across the 13 serotypes.

Showing a graph of the antibody responses, Dr. Morel explained that “at 12 months, the curves start to converge, but the difference in antibody titers were still significant for eight of the 13 serotypes.”
 

Disease Activity Not Adversely Affected by Starting MTX 1 Month Later

Regarding medication doses at 12 months, the cumulative glucocorticoid doses were similar between groups during the follow-up. As expected, the 1-year cumulative dose of MTX was higher in those given the drug immediately after vaccination vs delayed (826 vs 734 mg), but the weekly mean doses of MTX were similar at 3, 6, and 12 months between the two groups, and likewise, the use of targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) at 1 year was comparable. The cumulative glucocorticoid dose at 12 months was similar at 1716 mg with delayed MTX and 1613 mg with immediate MTX.

Not unexpectedly, at 1 month, DAS28 scores were higher with delayed vs immediate MTX at 3.95 vs 3.38 for DAS28-ESR and 3.54 vs 3.01 for DAS28-CRP (P < .01), but after the first month, DAS28 scores were similar between the two groups.

No significant differences were found between the groups for adverse event rates within 7 days of receiving PCV13, with local and systemic reactions occurring at 60%-61% and 50%-58%, respectively; fever at 0%-4%; and severe infections at 12%.

Finally, no difference was found in terms of serious adverse events between groups, with one pneumococcal infection with delayed MTX during follow-up, and there were no unexpected side effects observed with the PCV13 and PPV23 vaccinations.
 

Rheumatologists’ Reactions

Ernest Choy, MD, head of rheumatology and translational research at the Institute of Infection and Immunity, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, Wales, asked if any individual showed no humoral response at all rather than a reduced response. “I ask because if there is no humoral response, then they are at very high risk, and there will be clinical relevance to that.”

Dr. Morel replied that “one serotype showed no response, at least according to the assays used, but we don’t know why. We analyzed at the population [level], not at the individual level, so it is difficult to answer the question.”

Another delegate asked what the participants thought about delaying MTX by 1 month. “When we tell the patient we need to vaccinate before we can use methotrexate [because] otherwise, we will reduce the response to the vaccination, then patient accepts it,” said Dr. Morel, adding that, “we allowed a minimal dose of steroids, and we saw from the results that the DAS28 at 1 month had changed.”

Co-moderator Katerina Chatzidionysiou, MD, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist and head of the Clinical Trial Department Rheumatology Unit, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, said that “As a physician, I’d feel uncomfortable delaying MTX if they had very active disease even for a short period of time.”

Dr. Morel replied that, “Today, we have so many drugs that can control the disease, for example, the targeted DMARDs. Progression does not show much variation, and we know x-ray progression with today’s drugs is a lot less than previously.”

Dr. Morel reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Medac, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Servier. Dr. Choy had no relevant financial relationships of relevance to this study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Pneumococcal vaccination administered 1 month prior to starting methotrexate (MTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) allows a significantly higher immunological response at 1 month and does not affect disease control at 1 year, compared with starting MTX simultaneously with the vaccination, according to data from a randomized trial presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Our patients are more susceptible to infection due to immunosuppressive therapy, and it’s recommended they receive vaccination against pneumococcal infection,” the lead author Jacques Morel, MD, PhD, said in his presentation of results from the VACIMRA study.

Timing the vaccination against pneumococcal disease when initiating MTX in clinical practice has been a point of uncertainty, noted Dr. Morel, a rheumatologist from Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Montpellier, France.

“How can we deal with this in clinical practice where one recommendation is to vaccine before initiation of methotrexate, but it is also recommended to start methotrexate as soon as the diagnosis of RA is made?” he asked.
 

Comparing Humoral Response of MTX Started Immediately or 1 Month Post-Vaccination

The prospective, randomized, multicenter trial aimed to compare the rate of humoral immunological response against pneumococcal 13-valent conjugate vaccine (PCV13) in patients with RA who had a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) > 3.2, never taken MTX, and never been vaccinated against pneumococcus. Patients were vaccinated either 1 month before MTX initiation (n = 126) or simultaneously with MTX (n = 123). Oral glucocorticoids were allowed but only at < 10 mg/d. Following PCV13 vaccination, all patients also received the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) 2 months later.

Concentrations of immunoglobulin (Ig) G antibodies against the 13 serotypes contained within PCV13 were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and opsonophagocytic killing assay (OPA) at baseline and during follow-up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months.

Positive antibody response was defined as a twofold or more increase in the IgG concentration using ELISA. The main outcome was the responder rates at 1 month after PCV13, defined by at least three positive antibody responses out of five of the target PVC13 serotypes (1, 3, 5, 7F, and 19A) using ELISA or OPA. Secondary outcomes included comparisons of the percentage of patients responding to each of the 13 vaccine serotypes at 1 month and after the boost with PPV23 and at 3, 6, and 12 months after vaccination with PCV13. The researchers also measured disease activity, infections, and side effects throughout the study.

Dr. Morel highlighted that all the patients had very early RA of less than 6 months, and that their characteristics at baseline were similar in both groups with 70% women, mean age 55.6 years, RA duration 2 months, 69% positive for anticitrullinated protein antibodies, 21% with erosive disease, and a DAS28 based on C-reactive protein of 4.6.

Response rates in those receiving MTX 1 month after vaccination were significantly higher at 88% with ELISA than those at 75% for immediate vaccination (P < .01) and 96% vs 88% with OPA (P = .02). These responder proportions persisted at the 12-month follow-up measurements, remaining higher in the delayed MTX group for both assays and across the 13 serotypes.

Showing a graph of the antibody responses, Dr. Morel explained that “at 12 months, the curves start to converge, but the difference in antibody titers were still significant for eight of the 13 serotypes.”
 

Disease Activity Not Adversely Affected by Starting MTX 1 Month Later

Regarding medication doses at 12 months, the cumulative glucocorticoid doses were similar between groups during the follow-up. As expected, the 1-year cumulative dose of MTX was higher in those given the drug immediately after vaccination vs delayed (826 vs 734 mg), but the weekly mean doses of MTX were similar at 3, 6, and 12 months between the two groups, and likewise, the use of targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) at 1 year was comparable. The cumulative glucocorticoid dose at 12 months was similar at 1716 mg with delayed MTX and 1613 mg with immediate MTX.

Not unexpectedly, at 1 month, DAS28 scores were higher with delayed vs immediate MTX at 3.95 vs 3.38 for DAS28-ESR and 3.54 vs 3.01 for DAS28-CRP (P < .01), but after the first month, DAS28 scores were similar between the two groups.

No significant differences were found between the groups for adverse event rates within 7 days of receiving PCV13, with local and systemic reactions occurring at 60%-61% and 50%-58%, respectively; fever at 0%-4%; and severe infections at 12%.

Finally, no difference was found in terms of serious adverse events between groups, with one pneumococcal infection with delayed MTX during follow-up, and there were no unexpected side effects observed with the PCV13 and PPV23 vaccinations.
 

Rheumatologists’ Reactions

Ernest Choy, MD, head of rheumatology and translational research at the Institute of Infection and Immunity, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, Wales, asked if any individual showed no humoral response at all rather than a reduced response. “I ask because if there is no humoral response, then they are at very high risk, and there will be clinical relevance to that.”

Dr. Morel replied that “one serotype showed no response, at least according to the assays used, but we don’t know why. We analyzed at the population [level], not at the individual level, so it is difficult to answer the question.”

Another delegate asked what the participants thought about delaying MTX by 1 month. “When we tell the patient we need to vaccinate before we can use methotrexate [because] otherwise, we will reduce the response to the vaccination, then patient accepts it,” said Dr. Morel, adding that, “we allowed a minimal dose of steroids, and we saw from the results that the DAS28 at 1 month had changed.”

Co-moderator Katerina Chatzidionysiou, MD, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist and head of the Clinical Trial Department Rheumatology Unit, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, said that “As a physician, I’d feel uncomfortable delaying MTX if they had very active disease even for a short period of time.”

Dr. Morel replied that, “Today, we have so many drugs that can control the disease, for example, the targeted DMARDs. Progression does not show much variation, and we know x-ray progression with today’s drugs is a lot less than previously.”

Dr. Morel reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Medac, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Servier. Dr. Choy had no relevant financial relationships of relevance to this study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In this column, I recently discussed the impact of the microbiome on childhood vaccine responses. My group has been expanding our research on the topic of childhood vaccine response and its relationship to infection proneness. Therefore, I want to share new research findings.

Immune responsiveness to vaccines varies among children, leaving some susceptible to infections. We also have evidence that the immune deficiencies that contribute to poor vaccine responsiveness also manifest in children as respiratory infection proneness.
 

Predicting Vaccine Response in the Neonatal Period

The first 100 days of life is an amazing transition time in early life. During that time, the immune system is highly influenced by environmental factors that generate epigenetic changes affecting vaccine responsiveness. Some publications have used the term “window of opportunity,” because it is thought that interventions to change a negative trajectory to a positive one for vaccine responsiveness have a better potential to be effective. Predicting which children will be poorly responsive to vaccines would be desirable, so those children could be specifically identified for intervention. Doing so in the neonatal age time frame using easy-to-obtain clinical samples would be a bonus.

In our most recent study, we sought to identify cytokine biosignatures in the neonatal period, measured in convenient nasopharyngeal secretions, that predict vaccine responses, measured as antibody levels to various vaccines at 1 year of life. Secondly, we assessed the effect of antibiotic exposures on vaccine responses in the study cohort. Third, we tested for induction of CD4+ T-cell vaccine-specific immune memory at infant age 1 year. Fourth, we studied antigen presenting cells (APCs) at rest and in response to an adjuvant called R848, known to stimulate toll-like receptor (TLR) 7/8 agonist, to assess its effects on the immune cells of low vaccine responder children, compared with other children.¹

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute, at Rochester (New York) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

1. Pichichero ME et al. Variability of Vaccine Responsiveness in Young Children. J Infect Dis. 2023 Nov 22:jiad524. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiad524.

2. Pichichero ME et al. Functional Immune Cell Differences Associated with Low Vaccine Responses in Infants. J Infect Dis. 2016 Jun 15;213(12):2014-2019. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiw053.

In this column, I recently discussed the impact of the microbiome on childhood vaccine responses. My group has been expanding our research on the topic of childhood vaccine response and its relationship to infection proneness. Therefore, I want to share new research findings.

Immune responsiveness to vaccines varies among children, leaving some susceptible to infections. We also have evidence that the immune deficiencies that contribute to poor vaccine responsiveness also manifest in children as respiratory infection proneness.
 

Predicting Vaccine Response in the Neonatal Period

The first 100 days of life is an amazing transition time in early life. During that time, the immune system is highly influenced by environmental factors that generate epigenetic changes affecting vaccine responsiveness. Some publications have used the term “window of opportunity,” because it is thought that interventions to change a negative trajectory to a positive one for vaccine responsiveness have a better potential to be effective. Predicting which children will be poorly responsive to vaccines would be desirable, so those children could be specifically identified for intervention. Doing so in the neonatal age time frame using easy-to-obtain clinical samples would be a bonus.

In our most recent study, we sought to identify cytokine biosignatures in the neonatal period, measured in convenient nasopharyngeal secretions, that predict vaccine responses, measured as antibody levels to various vaccines at 1 year of life. Secondly, we assessed the effect of antibiotic exposures on vaccine responses in the study cohort. Third, we tested for induction of CD4+ T-cell vaccine-specific immune memory at infant age 1 year. Fourth, we studied antigen presenting cells (APCs) at rest and in response to an adjuvant called R848, known to stimulate toll-like receptor (TLR) 7/8 agonist, to assess its effects on the immune cells of low vaccine responder children, compared with other children.¹

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute, at Rochester (New York) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

1. Pichichero ME et al. Variability of Vaccine Responsiveness in Young Children. J Infect Dis. 2023 Nov 22:jiad524. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiad524.

2. Pichichero ME et al. Functional Immune Cell Differences Associated with Low Vaccine Responses in Infants. J Infect Dis. 2016 Jun 15;213(12):2014-2019. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiw053.

In this column, I recently discussed the impact of the microbiome on childhood vaccine responses. My group has been expanding our research on the topic of childhood vaccine response and its relationship to infection proneness. Therefore, I want to share new research findings.

Immune responsiveness to vaccines varies among children, leaving some susceptible to infections. We also have evidence that the immune deficiencies that contribute to poor vaccine responsiveness also manifest in children as respiratory infection proneness.
 

Predicting Vaccine Response in the Neonatal Period

The first 100 days of life is an amazing transition time in early life. During that time, the immune system is highly influenced by environmental factors that generate epigenetic changes affecting vaccine responsiveness. Some publications have used the term “window of opportunity,” because it is thought that interventions to change a negative trajectory to a positive one for vaccine responsiveness have a better potential to be effective. Predicting which children will be poorly responsive to vaccines would be desirable, so those children could be specifically identified for intervention. Doing so in the neonatal age time frame using easy-to-obtain clinical samples would be a bonus.

In our most recent study, we sought to identify cytokine biosignatures in the neonatal period, measured in convenient nasopharyngeal secretions, that predict vaccine responses, measured as antibody levels to various vaccines at 1 year of life. Secondly, we assessed the effect of antibiotic exposures on vaccine responses in the study cohort. Third, we tested for induction of CD4+ T-cell vaccine-specific immune memory at infant age 1 year. Fourth, we studied antigen presenting cells (APCs) at rest and in response to an adjuvant called R848, known to stimulate toll-like receptor (TLR) 7/8 agonist, to assess its effects on the immune cells of low vaccine responder children, compared with other children.¹

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute, at Rochester (New York) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

1. Pichichero ME et al. Variability of Vaccine Responsiveness in Young Children. J Infect Dis. 2023 Nov 22:jiad524. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiad524.

2. Pichichero ME et al. Functional Immune Cell Differences Associated with Low Vaccine Responses in Infants. J Infect Dis. 2016 Jun 15;213(12):2014-2019. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiw053.

British Columbia (BC) could eliminate cervical cancer within the next 20 years if the province shifts from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV)–based screening before the end of the decade, data suggested. To achieve this goal, the province will also need to reach historically underscreened, equity-seeking populations (ie, Black, indigenous, immigrant, LGBTQ, and disabled patients, and those with sexual trauma) through mailed self-screening HPV tests.

The adoption of both these strategies is essential, according to a modeling study that was published on June 3 in CMAJ, especially because the true impact of HPV vaccination has yet to be fully realized.

“In BC, we have a school-based program to increase vaccine coverage in boys and girls starting in grade 6,” study author Reka Pataky, PhD, a senior research health economist at the Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control and BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. Dr. Pataky noted that this immunization program was launched in 2008 and that some of the initial cohorts haven›t yet reached the average age of diagnosis, which is between 30 and 59 years.

Three’s a Charm

The investigators undertook a modeling study to determine when and how BC might achieve the elimination of cervical cancer following a transition to HPV-based screening. Elimination was defined as an annual age-standardized incidence rate of < 4.0 per 100,000 women.

Modeling scenarios were developed using the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s priority targets, which include increasing HPV vaccination through school-based coverage from 70% to 90%, increasing the probability of ever receiving a screening test from 90% to 95%, increasing the rate of on-time screening from 70% to 90%, and improving follow-up to 95% for colposcopy (currently 88%) and HPV testing (currently 80%). Modeling simulated HPV transmission and the natural history of cervical cancer in the Canadian population and relied upon two reference scenarios: One using BC’s cytology-based screening at the time of analysis, and the other an HPV base-case scenario.

The researchers found that with the status quo (ie, cytology-based screening and no change to vaccination or screening participation rates), BC would not eliminate cervical cancer until 2045. Implementation of HPV-based screening at the current 70% participation rate would achieve elimination in 2034 and prevent 942 cases compared with cytology screening. Increasing the proportion of patients who were ever screened or increasing vaccination coverage would result in cervical cancer elimination by 2033. The time line would be shortened even further (to 2031) through a combination of three strategies (ie, improving recruitment, on-time screening, and follow-up compliance).

Low Incidence, Strained System

The incidence of cervical cancer in Canada is relatively low, accounting for 1.3% of all new female cancers and 1.1% of all female cancer deaths.

“The reason that we have such low rates is because we have organized screening programs,” explained Rachel Kupets, MD, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto. She was not involved in the study.

“We’re starting to see what happens when the system gets strained with lower participation rates. I am starting to see a lot more women with invasive cervical cancer. They’re younger, and their cancers are less curable and less treatable,” she said.

Difficulties with access, interest, and education have contributed to low cervical screening rates among equity-seeking populations, according to Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets.

“Self-screening is another tool that can incrementally benefit those folks who wouldn’t otherwise undergo screening or don’t want an invasive test,” said Dr. Kupets. It can also play an increasing role, while current access to primary care services in Canada is at an all-time low. Community outreach through centers, mobile coaches, and nursing stations might help ensure participation by at-risk populations. These measures also could boost follow-up for and education about positive results, said Dr. Kupets.

In a related editorial, Shannon Charlebois, MD, medical editor of CMAJ, and Sarah Kean, MD, assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, emphasized the need for mailed HPV self-screening kits to be paid for and integrated into provincial cervical cancer screening programs across Canada to support earlier cervical cancer detection and lower invasive cancer rates.

Dr. Pataky concurred. “There have been discussions about making the big transition from traditional cytology to implementing HPV self-screening,” she said. “We have really effective tools for preventing cervical cancer, and it’s important to not lose sight of that goal.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

British Columbia (BC) could eliminate cervical cancer within the next 20 years if the province shifts from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV)–based screening before the end of the decade, data suggested. To achieve this goal, the province will also need to reach historically underscreened, equity-seeking populations (ie, Black, indigenous, immigrant, LGBTQ, and disabled patients, and those with sexual trauma) through mailed self-screening HPV tests.

The adoption of both these strategies is essential, according to a modeling study that was published on June 3 in CMAJ, especially because the true impact of HPV vaccination has yet to be fully realized.

“In BC, we have a school-based program to increase vaccine coverage in boys and girls starting in grade 6,” study author Reka Pataky, PhD, a senior research health economist at the Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control and BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. Dr. Pataky noted that this immunization program was launched in 2008 and that some of the initial cohorts haven›t yet reached the average age of diagnosis, which is between 30 and 59 years.

Three’s a Charm

The investigators undertook a modeling study to determine when and how BC might achieve the elimination of cervical cancer following a transition to HPV-based screening. Elimination was defined as an annual age-standardized incidence rate of < 4.0 per 100,000 women.

Modeling scenarios were developed using the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s priority targets, which include increasing HPV vaccination through school-based coverage from 70% to 90%, increasing the probability of ever receiving a screening test from 90% to 95%, increasing the rate of on-time screening from 70% to 90%, and improving follow-up to 95% for colposcopy (currently 88%) and HPV testing (currently 80%). Modeling simulated HPV transmission and the natural history of cervical cancer in the Canadian population and relied upon two reference scenarios: One using BC’s cytology-based screening at the time of analysis, and the other an HPV base-case scenario.

The researchers found that with the status quo (ie, cytology-based screening and no change to vaccination or screening participation rates), BC would not eliminate cervical cancer until 2045. Implementation of HPV-based screening at the current 70% participation rate would achieve elimination in 2034 and prevent 942 cases compared with cytology screening. Increasing the proportion of patients who were ever screened or increasing vaccination coverage would result in cervical cancer elimination by 2033. The time line would be shortened even further (to 2031) through a combination of three strategies (ie, improving recruitment, on-time screening, and follow-up compliance).

Low Incidence, Strained System

The incidence of cervical cancer in Canada is relatively low, accounting for 1.3% of all new female cancers and 1.1% of all female cancer deaths.

“The reason that we have such low rates is because we have organized screening programs,” explained Rachel Kupets, MD, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto. She was not involved in the study.

“We’re starting to see what happens when the system gets strained with lower participation rates. I am starting to see a lot more women with invasive cervical cancer. They’re younger, and their cancers are less curable and less treatable,” she said.

Difficulties with access, interest, and education have contributed to low cervical screening rates among equity-seeking populations, according to Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets.

“Self-screening is another tool that can incrementally benefit those folks who wouldn’t otherwise undergo screening or don’t want an invasive test,” said Dr. Kupets. It can also play an increasing role, while current access to primary care services in Canada is at an all-time low. Community outreach through centers, mobile coaches, and nursing stations might help ensure participation by at-risk populations. These measures also could boost follow-up for and education about positive results, said Dr. Kupets.

In a related editorial, Shannon Charlebois, MD, medical editor of CMAJ, and Sarah Kean, MD, assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, emphasized the need for mailed HPV self-screening kits to be paid for and integrated into provincial cervical cancer screening programs across Canada to support earlier cervical cancer detection and lower invasive cancer rates.

Dr. Pataky concurred. “There have been discussions about making the big transition from traditional cytology to implementing HPV self-screening,” she said. “We have really effective tools for preventing cervical cancer, and it’s important to not lose sight of that goal.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

British Columbia (BC) could eliminate cervical cancer within the next 20 years if the province shifts from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV)–based screening before the end of the decade, data suggested. To achieve this goal, the province will also need to reach historically underscreened, equity-seeking populations (ie, Black, indigenous, immigrant, LGBTQ, and disabled patients, and those with sexual trauma) through mailed self-screening HPV tests.

The adoption of both these strategies is essential, according to a modeling study that was published on June 3 in CMAJ, especially because the true impact of HPV vaccination has yet to be fully realized.

“In BC, we have a school-based program to increase vaccine coverage in boys and girls starting in grade 6,” study author Reka Pataky, PhD, a senior research health economist at the Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control and BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. Dr. Pataky noted that this immunization program was launched in 2008 and that some of the initial cohorts haven›t yet reached the average age of diagnosis, which is between 30 and 59 years.

Three’s a Charm

The investigators undertook a modeling study to determine when and how BC might achieve the elimination of cervical cancer following a transition to HPV-based screening. Elimination was defined as an annual age-standardized incidence rate of < 4.0 per 100,000 women.

Modeling scenarios were developed using the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s priority targets, which include increasing HPV vaccination through school-based coverage from 70% to 90%, increasing the probability of ever receiving a screening test from 90% to 95%, increasing the rate of on-time screening from 70% to 90%, and improving follow-up to 95% for colposcopy (currently 88%) and HPV testing (currently 80%). Modeling simulated HPV transmission and the natural history of cervical cancer in the Canadian population and relied upon two reference scenarios: One using BC’s cytology-based screening at the time of analysis, and the other an HPV base-case scenario.

The researchers found that with the status quo (ie, cytology-based screening and no change to vaccination or screening participation rates), BC would not eliminate cervical cancer until 2045. Implementation of HPV-based screening at the current 70% participation rate would achieve elimination in 2034 and prevent 942 cases compared with cytology screening. Increasing the proportion of patients who were ever screened or increasing vaccination coverage would result in cervical cancer elimination by 2033. The time line would be shortened even further (to 2031) through a combination of three strategies (ie, improving recruitment, on-time screening, and follow-up compliance).

Low Incidence, Strained System

The incidence of cervical cancer in Canada is relatively low, accounting for 1.3% of all new female cancers and 1.1% of all female cancer deaths.

“The reason that we have such low rates is because we have organized screening programs,” explained Rachel Kupets, MD, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto. She was not involved in the study.

“We’re starting to see what happens when the system gets strained with lower participation rates. I am starting to see a lot more women with invasive cervical cancer. They’re younger, and their cancers are less curable and less treatable,” she said.

Difficulties with access, interest, and education have contributed to low cervical screening rates among equity-seeking populations, according to Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets.

“Self-screening is another tool that can incrementally benefit those folks who wouldn’t otherwise undergo screening or don’t want an invasive test,” said Dr. Kupets. It can also play an increasing role, while current access to primary care services in Canada is at an all-time low. Community outreach through centers, mobile coaches, and nursing stations might help ensure participation by at-risk populations. These measures also could boost follow-up for and education about positive results, said Dr. Kupets.

In a related editorial, Shannon Charlebois, MD, medical editor of CMAJ, and Sarah Kean, MD, assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, emphasized the need for mailed HPV self-screening kits to be paid for and integrated into provincial cervical cancer screening programs across Canada to support earlier cervical cancer detection and lower invasive cancer rates.

Dr. Pataky concurred. “There have been discussions about making the big transition from traditional cytology to implementing HPV self-screening,” she said. “We have really effective tools for preventing cervical cancer, and it’s important to not lose sight of that goal.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do drugs work better if taken by the clock?

A new analysis published in The Lancet journal’s eClinicalMedicine suggests: Yes, they do — if you consider the patient’s individual body clock. The study is the first to find that timing blood pressure drugs to a person’s personal “chronotype” — that is, whether they are a night owl or an early bird — may reduce the risk for a heart attack.

The findings represent a significant advance in the field of circadian medicine or “chronotherapy” — timing drug administration to circadian rhythms. A growing stack of research suggests this approach could reduce side effects and improve the effectiveness of a wide range of therapies, including vaccines, cancer treatments, and drugs for depression, glaucoma, pain, seizures, and other conditions. Still, despite decades of research, time of day is rarely considered in writing prescriptions.

“We are really just at the beginning of an exciting new way of looking at patient care,” said Kenneth A. Dyar, PhD, whose lab at Helmholtz Zentrum München’s Institute for Diabetes and Cancer focuses on metabolic physiology. Dr. Dyar is co-lead author of the new blood pressure analysis.

“Chronotherapy is a rapidly growing field,” he said, “and I suspect we are soon going to see more and more studies focused on ‘personalized chronotherapy,’ not only in hypertension but also potentially in other clinical areas.”
 

The ‘Missing Piece’ in Chronotherapy Research

Blood pressure drugs have long been chronotherapy’s battleground. After all, blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm, peaking in the morning and dropping at night.

That healthy overnight dip can disappear in people with diabetes, kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea. Some physicians have suggested a bed-time dose to restore that dip. But studies have had mixed results, so “take at bedtime” has become a less common recommendation in recent years.

But the debate continued. After a large 2019 Spanish study found that bedtime doses had benefits so big that the results drew questions, an even larger, 2022 randomized, controlled trial from the University of Dundee in Dundee, Scotland — called the TIME study — aimed to settle the question.

Researchers assigned over 21,000 people to take morning or night hypertension drugs for several years and found no difference in cardiovascular outcomes.

“We did this study thinking nocturnal blood pressure tablets might be better,” said Thomas MacDonald, MD, professor emeritus of clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee and principal investigator for the TIME study and the recent chronotype analysis. “But there was no difference for heart attacks, strokes, or vascular death.”

So, the researchers then looked at participants’ chronotypes, sorting outcomes based on whether the participants were late-to-bed, late-to-rise “night owls” or early-to-bed, early-to-rise “morning larks.”

Their analysis of these 5358 TIME participants found the following results: Risk for hospitalization for a heart attack was at least 34% lower for “owls” who took their drugs at bedtime. By contrast, owls’ heart attack risk was at least 62% higher with morning doses. For “larks,” the opposite was true. Morning doses were associated with an 11% lower heart attack risk and night doses with an 11% higher risk, according to supplemental data.

The personalized approach could explain why some previous chronotherapy studies have failed to show a benefit. Those studies did not individualize drug timing as this one did. But personalization could be key to circadian medicine’s success.

“Our ‘internal personal time’ appears to be an important variable to consider when dosing antihypertensives,” said co-lead author Filippo Pigazzani, MD, PhD, clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Dundee School of Medicine. “Chronotherapy research has been going on for decades. We knew there was something important with time of day. But researchers haven’t considered the internal time of individual people. I think that is the missing piece.”

The analysis has several important limitations, the researchers said. A total of 95% of participants were White. And it was an observational study, not a true randomized comparison. “We started it late in the original TIME study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “You could argue we were reporting on those who survived long enough to get into the analysis.” More research is needed, they concluded.
 

Looking Beyond Blood Pressure

What about the rest of the body? “Almost all the cells of our body contain ‘circadian clocks’ that are synchronized by daily environmental cues, including light-dark, activity-rest, and feeding-fasting cycles,” said Dr. Dyar.

An estimated 50% of prescription drugs hit targets in the body that have circadian patterns. So, experts suspect that syncing a drug with a person’s body clock might increase effectiveness of many drugs.

A handful of US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs already have time-of-day recommendations on the label for effectiveness or to limit side effects, including bedtime or evening for the insomnia drug Ambien, the HIV antiviral Atripla, and cholesterol-lowering Zocor. Others are intended to be taken with or after your last meal of the day, such as the long-acting insulin Levemir and the cardiovascular drug Xarelto. A morning recommendation comes with the proton pump inhibitor Nexium and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drug Ritalin.

Interest is expanding. About one third of the papers published about chronotherapy in the past 25 years have come out in the past 5 years. The May 2024 meeting of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms featured a day-long session aimed at bringing clinicians up to speed. An organization called the International Association of Circadian Health Clinics is trying to bring circadian medicine findings to clinicians and their patients and to support research.

Moreover, while recent research suggests minding the clock could have benefits for a wide range of treatments, ignoring it could cause problems.

In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study published in April in Science Advances, researchers looked at engineered livers made from human donor cells and found more than 300 genes that operate on a circadian schedule, many with roles in drug metabolism. They also found that circadian patterns affected the toxicity of acetaminophen and atorvastatin. Identifying the time of day to take these drugs could maximize effectiveness and minimize adverse effects, the researchers said.
 

Timing and the Immune System

Circadian rhythms are also seen in immune processes. In a 2023 study in The Journal of Clinical Investigation of vaccine data from 1.5 million people in Israel, researchers found that children and older adults who got their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine earlier in the day were about 36% less likely to be hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection than those who got an evening shot.

“The sweet spot in our data was somewhere around late morning to late afternoon,” said lead researcher Jeffrey Haspel, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

In a multicenter, 2024 analysis of 13 studies of immunotherapy for advanced cancers in 1663 people, researchers found treatment earlier in the day was associated with longer survival time and longer survival without cancer progression.

“Patients with selected metastatic cancers seemed to largely benefit from early [time of day] infusions, which is consistent with circadian mechanisms in immune-cell functions and trafficking,” the researchers noted. But “retrospective randomized trials are needed to establish recommendations for optimal circadian timing.”

Other research suggests or is investigating possible chronotherapy benefits for depression, glaucoma, respiratory diseases, stroke treatment, epilepsy, and sedatives used in surgery. So why aren’t healthcare providers adding time of day to more prescriptions? “What’s missing is more reliable data,” Dr. Dyar said.
 

Should You Use Chronotherapy Now?

Experts emphasize that more research is needed before doctors use chronotherapy and before medical organizations include it in treatment recommendations. But for some patients, circadian dosing may be worth a try:

Night owls whose blood pressure isn’t well controlled. Dr. Dyar and Dr. Pigazzani said night-time blood pressure drugs may be helpful for people with a “late chronotype.” Of course, patients shouldn’t change their medication schedule on their own, they said. And doctors may want to consider other concerns, like more overnight bathroom visits with evening diuretics.

In their study, the researchers determined participants’ chronotype with a few questions from the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire about what time they fell asleep and woke up on workdays and days off and whether they considered themselves “morning types” or “evening types.” (The questions can be found in supplementary data for the study.)

If a physician thinks matching the timing of a dose with chronotype would help, they can consider it, Dr. Pigazzani said. “However, I must add that this was an observational study, so I would advise healthcare practitioners to wait for our data to be confirmed in new RCTs of personalized chronotherapy of hypertension.”

Children and older adults getting vaccines. Timing COVID shots and possibly other vaccines from late morning to mid-afternoon could have a small benefit for individuals and a bigger public-health benefit, Dr. Haspel said. But the most important thing is getting vaccinated. “If you can only get one in the evening, it’s still worthwhile. Timing may add oomph at a public-health level for more vulnerable groups.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do drugs work better if taken by the clock?

A new analysis published in The Lancet journal’s eClinicalMedicine suggests: Yes, they do — if you consider the patient’s individual body clock. The study is the first to find that timing blood pressure drugs to a person’s personal “chronotype” — that is, whether they are a night owl or an early bird — may reduce the risk for a heart attack.

The findings represent a significant advance in the field of circadian medicine or “chronotherapy” — timing drug administration to circadian rhythms. A growing stack of research suggests this approach could reduce side effects and improve the effectiveness of a wide range of therapies, including vaccines, cancer treatments, and drugs for depression, glaucoma, pain, seizures, and other conditions. Still, despite decades of research, time of day is rarely considered in writing prescriptions.

“We are really just at the beginning of an exciting new way of looking at patient care,” said Kenneth A. Dyar, PhD, whose lab at Helmholtz Zentrum München’s Institute for Diabetes and Cancer focuses on metabolic physiology. Dr. Dyar is co-lead author of the new blood pressure analysis.

“Chronotherapy is a rapidly growing field,” he said, “and I suspect we are soon going to see more and more studies focused on ‘personalized chronotherapy,’ not only in hypertension but also potentially in other clinical areas.”
 

The ‘Missing Piece’ in Chronotherapy Research

Blood pressure drugs have long been chronotherapy’s battleground. After all, blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm, peaking in the morning and dropping at night.

That healthy overnight dip can disappear in people with diabetes, kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea. Some physicians have suggested a bed-time dose to restore that dip. But studies have had mixed results, so “take at bedtime” has become a less common recommendation in recent years.

But the debate continued. After a large 2019 Spanish study found that bedtime doses had benefits so big that the results drew questions, an even larger, 2022 randomized, controlled trial from the University of Dundee in Dundee, Scotland — called the TIME study — aimed to settle the question.

Researchers assigned over 21,000 people to take morning or night hypertension drugs for several years and found no difference in cardiovascular outcomes.

“We did this study thinking nocturnal blood pressure tablets might be better,” said Thomas MacDonald, MD, professor emeritus of clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee and principal investigator for the TIME study and the recent chronotype analysis. “But there was no difference for heart attacks, strokes, or vascular death.”

So, the researchers then looked at participants’ chronotypes, sorting outcomes based on whether the participants were late-to-bed, late-to-rise “night owls” or early-to-bed, early-to-rise “morning larks.”

Their analysis of these 5358 TIME participants found the following results: Risk for hospitalization for a heart attack was at least 34% lower for “owls” who took their drugs at bedtime. By contrast, owls’ heart attack risk was at least 62% higher with morning doses. For “larks,” the opposite was true. Morning doses were associated with an 11% lower heart attack risk and night doses with an 11% higher risk, according to supplemental data.

The personalized approach could explain why some previous chronotherapy studies have failed to show a benefit. Those studies did not individualize drug timing as this one did. But personalization could be key to circadian medicine’s success.

“Our ‘internal personal time’ appears to be an important variable to consider when dosing antihypertensives,” said co-lead author Filippo Pigazzani, MD, PhD, clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Dundee School of Medicine. “Chronotherapy research has been going on for decades. We knew there was something important with time of day. But researchers haven’t considered the internal time of individual people. I think that is the missing piece.”

The analysis has several important limitations, the researchers said. A total of 95% of participants were White. And it was an observational study, not a true randomized comparison. “We started it late in the original TIME study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “You could argue we were reporting on those who survived long enough to get into the analysis.” More research is needed, they concluded.
 

Looking Beyond Blood Pressure

What about the rest of the body? “Almost all the cells of our body contain ‘circadian clocks’ that are synchronized by daily environmental cues, including light-dark, activity-rest, and feeding-fasting cycles,” said Dr. Dyar.

An estimated 50% of prescription drugs hit targets in the body that have circadian patterns. So, experts suspect that syncing a drug with a person’s body clock might increase effectiveness of many drugs.

A handful of US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs already have time-of-day recommendations on the label for effectiveness or to limit side effects, including bedtime or evening for the insomnia drug Ambien, the HIV antiviral Atripla, and cholesterol-lowering Zocor. Others are intended to be taken with or after your last meal of the day, such as the long-acting insulin Levemir and the cardiovascular drug Xarelto. A morning recommendation comes with the proton pump inhibitor Nexium and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drug Ritalin.

Interest is expanding. About one third of the papers published about chronotherapy in the past 25 years have come out in the past 5 years. The May 2024 meeting of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms featured a day-long session aimed at bringing clinicians up to speed. An organization called the International Association of Circadian Health Clinics is trying to bring circadian medicine findings to clinicians and their patients and to support research.

Moreover, while recent research suggests minding the clock could have benefits for a wide range of treatments, ignoring it could cause problems.

In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study published in April in Science Advances, researchers looked at engineered livers made from human donor cells and found more than 300 genes that operate on a circadian schedule, many with roles in drug metabolism. They also found that circadian patterns affected the toxicity of acetaminophen and atorvastatin. Identifying the time of day to take these drugs could maximize effectiveness and minimize adverse effects, the researchers said.
 

Timing and the Immune System

Circadian rhythms are also seen in immune processes. In a 2023 study in The Journal of Clinical Investigation of vaccine data from 1.5 million people in Israel, researchers found that children and older adults who got their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine earlier in the day were about 36% less likely to be hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection than those who got an evening shot.

“The sweet spot in our data was somewhere around late morning to late afternoon,” said lead researcher Jeffrey Haspel, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

In a multicenter, 2024 analysis of 13 studies of immunotherapy for advanced cancers in 1663 people, researchers found treatment earlier in the day was associated with longer survival time and longer survival without cancer progression.

“Patients with selected metastatic cancers seemed to largely benefit from early [time of day] infusions, which is consistent with circadian mechanisms in immune-cell functions and trafficking,” the researchers noted. But “retrospective randomized trials are needed to establish recommendations for optimal circadian timing.”

Other research suggests or is investigating possible chronotherapy benefits for depression, glaucoma, respiratory diseases, stroke treatment, epilepsy, and sedatives used in surgery. So why aren’t healthcare providers adding time of day to more prescriptions? “What’s missing is more reliable data,” Dr. Dyar said.
 

Should You Use Chronotherapy Now?

Experts emphasize that more research is needed before doctors use chronotherapy and before medical organizations include it in treatment recommendations. But for some patients, circadian dosing may be worth a try:

Night owls whose blood pressure isn’t well controlled. Dr. Dyar and Dr. Pigazzani said night-time blood pressure drugs may be helpful for people with a “late chronotype.” Of course, patients shouldn’t change their medication schedule on their own, they said. And doctors may want to consider other concerns, like more overnight bathroom visits with evening diuretics.

In their study, the researchers determined participants’ chronotype with a few questions from the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire about what time they fell asleep and woke up on workdays and days off and whether they considered themselves “morning types” or “evening types.” (The questions can be found in supplementary data for the study.)

If a physician thinks matching the timing of a dose with chronotype would help, they can consider it, Dr. Pigazzani said. “However, I must add that this was an observational study, so I would advise healthcare practitioners to wait for our data to be confirmed in new RCTs of personalized chronotherapy of hypertension.”

Children and older adults getting vaccines. Timing COVID shots and possibly other vaccines from late morning to mid-afternoon could have a small benefit for individuals and a bigger public-health benefit, Dr. Haspel said. But the most important thing is getting vaccinated. “If you can only get one in the evening, it’s still worthwhile. Timing may add oomph at a public-health level for more vulnerable groups.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do drugs work better if taken by the clock?

A new analysis published in The Lancet journal’s eClinicalMedicine suggests: Yes, they do — if you consider the patient’s individual body clock. The study is the first to find that timing blood pressure drugs to a person’s personal “chronotype” — that is, whether they are a night owl or an early bird — may reduce the risk for a heart attack.

The findings represent a significant advance in the field of circadian medicine or “chronotherapy” — timing drug administration to circadian rhythms. A growing stack of research suggests this approach could reduce side effects and improve the effectiveness of a wide range of therapies, including vaccines, cancer treatments, and drugs for depression, glaucoma, pain, seizures, and other conditions. Still, despite decades of research, time of day is rarely considered in writing prescriptions.

“We are really just at the beginning of an exciting new way of looking at patient care,” said Kenneth A. Dyar, PhD, whose lab at Helmholtz Zentrum München’s Institute for Diabetes and Cancer focuses on metabolic physiology. Dr. Dyar is co-lead author of the new blood pressure analysis.

“Chronotherapy is a rapidly growing field,” he said, “and I suspect we are soon going to see more and more studies focused on ‘personalized chronotherapy,’ not only in hypertension but also potentially in other clinical areas.”
 

The ‘Missing Piece’ in Chronotherapy Research

Blood pressure drugs have long been chronotherapy’s battleground. After all, blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm, peaking in the morning and dropping at night.

That healthy overnight dip can disappear in people with diabetes, kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea. Some physicians have suggested a bed-time dose to restore that dip. But studies have had mixed results, so “take at bedtime” has become a less common recommendation in recent years.

But the debate continued. After a large 2019 Spanish study found that bedtime doses had benefits so big that the results drew questions, an even larger, 2022 randomized, controlled trial from the University of Dundee in Dundee, Scotland — called the TIME study — aimed to settle the question.

Researchers assigned over 21,000 people to take morning or night hypertension drugs for several years and found no difference in cardiovascular outcomes.

“We did this study thinking nocturnal blood pressure tablets might be better,” said Thomas MacDonald, MD, professor emeritus of clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee and principal investigator for the TIME study and the recent chronotype analysis. “But there was no difference for heart attacks, strokes, or vascular death.”

So, the researchers then looked at participants’ chronotypes, sorting outcomes based on whether the participants were late-to-bed, late-to-rise “night owls” or early-to-bed, early-to-rise “morning larks.”

Their analysis of these 5358 TIME participants found the following results: Risk for hospitalization for a heart attack was at least 34% lower for “owls” who took their drugs at bedtime. By contrast, owls’ heart attack risk was at least 62% higher with morning doses. For “larks,” the opposite was true. Morning doses were associated with an 11% lower heart attack risk and night doses with an 11% higher risk, according to supplemental data.

The personalized approach could explain why some previous chronotherapy studies have failed to show a benefit. Those studies did not individualize drug timing as this one did. But personalization could be key to circadian medicine’s success.

“Our ‘internal personal time’ appears to be an important variable to consider when dosing antihypertensives,” said co-lead author Filippo Pigazzani, MD, PhD, clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Dundee School of Medicine. “Chronotherapy research has been going on for decades. We knew there was something important with time of day. But researchers haven’t considered the internal time of individual people. I think that is the missing piece.”

The analysis has several important limitations, the researchers said. A total of 95% of participants were White. And it was an observational study, not a true randomized comparison. “We started it late in the original TIME study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “You could argue we were reporting on those who survived long enough to get into the analysis.” More research is needed, they concluded.
 

Looking Beyond Blood Pressure

What about the rest of the body? “Almost all the cells of our body contain ‘circadian clocks’ that are synchronized by daily environmental cues, including light-dark, activity-rest, and feeding-fasting cycles,” said Dr. Dyar.

An estimated 50% of prescription drugs hit targets in the body that have circadian patterns. So, experts suspect that syncing a drug with a person’s body clock might increase effectiveness of many drugs.

A handful of US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs already have time-of-day recommendations on the label for effectiveness or to limit side effects, including bedtime or evening for the insomnia drug Ambien, the HIV antiviral Atripla, and cholesterol-lowering Zocor. Others are intended to be taken with or after your last meal of the day, such as the long-acting insulin Levemir and the cardiovascular drug Xarelto. A morning recommendation comes with the proton pump inhibitor Nexium and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drug Ritalin.

Interest is expanding. About one third of the papers published about chronotherapy in the past 25 years have come out in the past 5 years. The May 2024 meeting of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms featured a day-long session aimed at bringing clinicians up to speed. An organization called the International Association of Circadian Health Clinics is trying to bring circadian medicine findings to clinicians and their patients and to support research.

Moreover, while recent research suggests minding the clock could have benefits for a wide range of treatments, ignoring it could cause problems.

In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study published in April in Science Advances, researchers looked at engineered livers made from human donor cells and found more than 300 genes that operate on a circadian schedule, many with roles in drug metabolism. They also found that circadian patterns affected the toxicity of acetaminophen and atorvastatin. Identifying the time of day to take these drugs could maximize effectiveness and minimize adverse effects, the researchers said.
 

Timing and the Immune System

Circadian rhythms are also seen in immune processes. In a 2023 study in The Journal of Clinical Investigation of vaccine data from 1.5 million people in Israel, researchers found that children and older adults who got their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine earlier in the day were about 36% less likely to be hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection than those who got an evening shot.

“The sweet spot in our data was somewhere around late morning to late afternoon,” said lead researcher Jeffrey Haspel, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

In a multicenter, 2024 analysis of 13 studies of immunotherapy for advanced cancers in 1663 people, researchers found treatment earlier in the day was associated with longer survival time and longer survival without cancer progression.

“Patients with selected metastatic cancers seemed to largely benefit from early [time of day] infusions, which is consistent with circadian mechanisms in immune-cell functions and trafficking,” the researchers noted. But “retrospective randomized trials are needed to establish recommendations for optimal circadian timing.”

Other research suggests or is investigating possible chronotherapy benefits for depression, glaucoma, respiratory diseases, stroke treatment, epilepsy, and sedatives used in surgery. So why aren’t healthcare providers adding time of day to more prescriptions? “What’s missing is more reliable data,” Dr. Dyar said.
 

Should You Use Chronotherapy Now?

Experts emphasize that more research is needed before doctors use chronotherapy and before medical organizations include it in treatment recommendations. But for some patients, circadian dosing may be worth a try:

Night owls whose blood pressure isn’t well controlled. Dr. Dyar and Dr. Pigazzani said night-time blood pressure drugs may be helpful for people with a “late chronotype.” Of course, patients shouldn’t change their medication schedule on their own, they said. And doctors may want to consider other concerns, like more overnight bathroom visits with evening diuretics.

In their study, the researchers determined participants’ chronotype with a few questions from the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire about what time they fell asleep and woke up on workdays and days off and whether they considered themselves “morning types” or “evening types.” (The questions can be found in supplementary data for the study.)

If a physician thinks matching the timing of a dose with chronotype would help, they can consider it, Dr. Pigazzani said. “However, I must add that this was an observational study, so I would advise healthcare practitioners to wait for our data to be confirmed in new RCTs of personalized chronotherapy of hypertension.”

Children and older adults getting vaccines. Timing COVID shots and possibly other vaccines from late morning to mid-afternoon could have a small benefit for individuals and a bigger public-health benefit, Dr. Haspel said. But the most important thing is getting vaccinated. “If you can only get one in the evening, it’s still worthwhile. Timing may add oomph at a public-health level for more vulnerable groups.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BARCELONA, SPAIN — Streptococcus pneumoniae, the bacteria that causes pneumococcal disease, is sixfold more likely to colonize adults older than 60 years who have regular contact with children than those who do not, data from a community-based study showed.

However, there is “no clear evidence of adult-to-adult transmission,” and the researchers, led by Anne L. Wyllie, PhD, from the Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, noted that the study results suggest “the main benefit of adult pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) immunization is to directly protect adults who are exposed to children, who still carry and transmit some vaccine-type pneumococci despite successful pediatric national immunization programs.”

The data show that relatively high pneumococcus carriage rates are seen in people who have regular contact with children, who have had contact in the previous 2 weeks, and who have had contact for extended periods, Dr. Wyllie explained.

Preschoolers in particular were found to be most likely to transmit pneumococcus to older adults. “It is the 24- to 59-month-olds who are most associated with pneumococcal carriage, more than 1- to 2-year-olds,” she reported. However, transmission rates from children younger than 1 year are higher than those from children aged 1-2 years, she added.

The findings were presented at the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) 2024 global conference, formerly known as the ECCMID conference.
 

Originally Designed to Investigate Adult-to-Adult Transmission

The researchers wanted to understand the sources and dynamics of transmission, as well as the risk factors for pneumococcal disease in older adults, to help predict the effect of PCVs in people older than 60 years.

Although “we designed the study to specifically look at transmission between adults, in the end, we were presented with a very unique scenario” — restricted social mixing as a result of the COVID pandemic — during which “no community activities were happening,” Dr. Wyllie said. Because of this, the team was able to determine “the source of acquisition or transmission to the older adults was, very likely, coming from contact with children.”

Pneumococci are commonly found in respiratory tracts of healthy people. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that 20%-60% of school-aged children may be colonized compared with only 5%-10% of adults without children.

The longitudinal study was conducted among household pairs, such as married couples who were both aged at least 60 years and who did not have people younger than 60 years living in the household, in New Haven over two winter seasons: 2020-2021 and 2021-2022.

Self-collected saliva samples were assessed, and surveys on social behaviors and health were completed every 2 weeks for a 10-week period (with six study visits). The saliva sampling method was used because the researchers considered it to be more effective than samples from nasopharyngeal swabs. Quantitative polymerase chain reaction assays were used to test the saliva samples for the presence of pneumococcal DNA (pneumococcus genes piaB and lytA) and the diversity of pneumococcal strains (36 serotypes were targeted).
 

Strongly Suggestive of Transmission From Children to Older Adults

Of the 121 adults living in 61 households who were enrolled in the study, 62 adults participated in both seasons. Mean age was 70.9 years (range, 60-86 years), 51% of participants were women, and 85% were White.

Overall, 52 of 1088 (4.8%) samples tested positive for pneumococcus, and 27 of 121 (22.3%) adults were colonized on at least one sampling visit. Some were colonized at multiple timepoints, and two were colonized throughout the 10-week sampling period. Of the two participants who were colonized at five of six timepoints, one reported daily contact with children younger than 5 years and children aged 5-9 years in the two study seasons. This person was also positive at three of six sampling points during the first study season.

There were five instances in which both members of the household were carriers in the same season, although not necessarily at the same timepoint. Numbers were too small to determine whether transmission had occurred between the household pairs.

Contact with a 24- to 59-month-old child (older than 2 years but younger than 5 years) had the strongest association with elevated odds of carrying pneumococcus, the authors reported in their preprint, although the frequency and intensity of contact also mattered.

At any sampled time (point prevalence), pneumococcal carriage was substantially — just over sixfold — higher among older adults who had contact with children daily or every few days (10%) than among those who had no contact with children (1.6%).

In particular, contact between adults and children younger than 5 years and children aged 5-9 years was found to lead to elevated point prevalences of 13.8% and 14.1%, respectively. Pneumococcal carriage in children older than 10 years was lower, with a point prevalence of 8.3%.

The younger the child, the greater the point prevalence; point prevalences were 13.8% for samples from children aged 1 year and younger, 10.5% for samples from children aged 1-2 years, and 17.8% for children aged 2-5 years.

Carriage prevalence was higher in older adults who reported daily contact with children (15.7%) or contact every few days (14.0%) than in those who reported contact with children only once or twice a month (4.5%) or never (1.8%), they wrote.

“Older people who have a lot of contact with kids and are more susceptible to respiratory viruses can get a secondary infection from pneumococcus, especially during the cold and flu seasons. Vaccination can help to protect them or lessen severity of the illness,” Wyllie pointed out.

However, adult PCV immunization may not have a major impact on onward transmission to other adults, the authors wrote in their preprint.

This study supports prior work demonstrating that pneumococcal colonization is greater in households with children than in those without, said Stephen Pelton, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist from Boston University schools of medicine and public health. “The unique aspect is that Dr. Wyllie’s group has looked at individuals over age 60 and used the most sensitive methods currently available to detect pneumococcal carriage.”

“At the most recent ISPPD [International Society of Pneumonia and Pneumococcal Diseases conference], the role of adult-to-adult transmission in the community was discussed. This study confirms the critical role children play in community transmission of the pneumococcus,” Dr. Pelton noted.

Dr. Wyllie received consulting and/or advisory board fees from Pfizer, Merck, Diasorin, PPS Health, Primary Health, Co-Diagnostics, and Global Diagnostic Systems for work unrelated to this project and is the principal investigator on research grants from Pfizer, Merck, NIH RADx-UP, and SalivaDirect, Inc. to Yale University and from NIH RADx, Balvi.io, and Shield T3 to SalivaDirect, Inc. Dr. Pelton received honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, and GSK for participation in Pneumococcal Advisory Boards and DSMB (Sanofi). Boston Medical Center received grant funding for investigator-initiated research from Merck and Pfizer.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BARCELONA, SPAIN — Streptococcus pneumoniae, the bacteria that causes pneumococcal disease, is sixfold more likely to colonize adults older than 60 years who have regular contact with children than those who do not, data from a community-based study showed.

However, there is “no clear evidence of adult-to-adult transmission,” and the researchers, led by Anne L. Wyllie, PhD, from the Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, noted that the study results suggest “the main benefit of adult pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) immunization is to directly protect adults who are exposed to children, who still carry and transmit some vaccine-type pneumococci despite successful pediatric national immunization programs.”

The data show that relatively high pneumococcus carriage rates are seen in people who have regular contact with children, who have had contact in the previous 2 weeks, and who have had contact for extended periods, Dr. Wyllie explained.

Preschoolers in particular were found to be most likely to transmit pneumococcus to older adults. “It is the 24- to 59-month-olds who are most associated with pneumococcal carriage, more than 1- to 2-year-olds,” she reported. However, transmission rates from children younger than 1 year are higher than those from children aged 1-2 years, she added.

The findings were presented at the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) 2024 global conference, formerly known as the ECCMID conference.
 

Originally Designed to Investigate Adult-to-Adult Transmission

The researchers wanted to understand the sources and dynamics of transmission, as well as the risk factors for pneumococcal disease in older adults, to help predict the effect of PCVs in people older than 60 years.

Although “we designed the study to specifically look at transmission between adults, in the end, we were presented with a very unique scenario” — restricted social mixing as a result of the COVID pandemic — during which “no community activities were happening,” Dr. Wyllie said. Because of this, the team was able to determine “the source of acquisition or transmission to the older adults was, very likely, coming from contact with children.”

Pneumococci are commonly found in respiratory tracts of healthy people. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that 20%-60% of school-aged children may be colonized compared with only 5%-10% of adults without children.

The longitudinal study was conducted among household pairs, such as married couples who were both aged at least 60 years and who did not have people younger than 60 years living in the household, in New Haven over two winter seasons: 2020-2021 and 2021-2022.

Self-collected saliva samples were assessed, and surveys on social behaviors and health were completed every 2 weeks for a 10-week period (with six study visits). The saliva sampling method was used because the researchers considered it to be more effective than samples from nasopharyngeal swabs. Quantitative polymerase chain reaction assays were used to test the saliva samples for the presence of pneumococcal DNA (pneumococcus genes piaB and lytA) and the diversity of pneumococcal strains (36 serotypes were targeted).
 

Strongly Suggestive of Transmission From Children to Older Adults

Of the 121 adults living in 61 households who were enrolled in the study, 62 adults participated in both seasons. Mean age was 70.9 years (range, 60-86 years), 51% of participants were women, and 85% were White.

Overall, 52 of 1088 (4.8%) samples tested positive for pneumococcus, and 27 of 121 (22.3%) adults were colonized on at least one sampling visit. Some were colonized at multiple timepoints, and two were colonized throughout the 10-week sampling period. Of the two participants who were colonized at five of six timepoints, one reported daily contact with children younger than 5 years and children aged 5-9 years in the two study seasons. This person was also positive at three of six sampling points during the first study season.

There were five instances in which both members of the household were carriers in the same season, although not necessarily at the same timepoint. Numbers were too small to determine whether transmission had occurred between the household pairs.

Contact with a 24- to 59-month-old child (older than 2 years but younger than 5 years) had the strongest association with elevated odds of carrying pneumococcus, the authors reported in their preprint, although the frequency and intensity of contact also mattered.

At any sampled time (point prevalence), pneumococcal carriage was substantially — just over sixfold — higher among older adults who had contact with children daily or every few days (10%) than among those who had no contact with children (1.6%).

In particular, contact between adults and children younger than 5 years and children aged 5-9 years was found to lead to elevated point prevalences of 13.8% and 14.1%, respectively. Pneumococcal carriage in children older than 10 years was lower, with a point prevalence of 8.3%.

The younger the child, the greater the point prevalence; point prevalences were 13.8% for samples from children aged 1 year and younger, 10.5% for samples from children aged 1-2 years, and 17.8% for children aged 2-5 years.

Carriage prevalence was higher in older adults who reported daily contact with children (15.7%) or contact every few days (14.0%) than in those who reported contact with children only once or twice a month (4.5%) or never (1.8%), they wrote.

“Older people who have a lot of contact with kids and are more susceptible to respiratory viruses can get a secondary infection from pneumococcus, especially during the cold and flu seasons. Vaccination can help to protect them or lessen severity of the illness,” Wyllie pointed out.

However, adult PCV immunization may not have a major impact on onward transmission to other adults, the authors wrote in their preprint.

This study supports prior work demonstrating that pneumococcal colonization is greater in households with children than in those without, said Stephen Pelton, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist from Boston University schools of medicine and public health. “The unique aspect is that Dr. Wyllie’s group has looked at individuals over age 60 and used the most sensitive methods currently available to detect pneumococcal carriage.”

“At the most recent ISPPD [International Society of Pneumonia and Pneumococcal Diseases conference], the role of adult-to-adult transmission in the community was discussed. This study confirms the critical role children play in community transmission of the pneumococcus,” Dr. Pelton noted.

Dr. Wyllie received consulting and/or advisory board fees from Pfizer, Merck, Diasorin, PPS Health, Primary Health, Co-Diagnostics, and Global Diagnostic Systems for work unrelated to this project and is the principal investigator on research grants from Pfizer, Merck, NIH RADx-UP, and SalivaDirect, Inc. to Yale University and from NIH RADx, Balvi.io, and Shield T3 to SalivaDirect, Inc. Dr. Pelton received honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, and GSK for participation in Pneumococcal Advisory Boards and DSMB (Sanofi). Boston Medical Center received grant funding for investigator-initiated research from Merck and Pfizer.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BARCELONA, SPAIN — Streptococcus pneumoniae, the bacteria that causes pneumococcal disease, is sixfold more likely to colonize adults older than 60 years who have regular contact with children than those who do not, data from a community-based study showed.

However, there is “no clear evidence of adult-to-adult transmission,” and the researchers, led by Anne L. Wyllie, PhD, from the Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, noted that the study results suggest “the main benefit of adult pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) immunization is to directly protect adults who are exposed to children, who still carry and transmit some vaccine-type pneumococci despite successful pediatric national immunization programs.”

The data show that relatively high pneumococcus carriage rates are seen in people who have regular contact with children, who have had contact in the previous 2 weeks, and who have had contact for extended periods, Dr. Wyllie explained.

Preschoolers in particular were found to be most likely to transmit pneumococcus to older adults. “It is the 24- to 59-month-olds who are most associated with pneumococcal carriage, more than 1- to 2-year-olds,” she reported. However, transmission rates from children younger than 1 year are higher than those from children aged 1-2 years, she added.

The findings were presented at the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) 2024 global conference, formerly known as the ECCMID conference.
 

Originally Designed to Investigate Adult-to-Adult Transmission

The researchers wanted to understand the sources and dynamics of transmission, as well as the risk factors for pneumococcal disease in older adults, to help predict the effect of PCVs in people older than 60 years.

Although “we designed the study to specifically look at transmission between adults, in the end, we were presented with a very unique scenario” — restricted social mixing as a result of the COVID pandemic — during which “no community activities were happening,” Dr. Wyllie said. Because of this, the team was able to determine “the source of acquisition or transmission to the older adults was, very likely, coming from contact with children.”

Pneumococci are commonly found in respiratory tracts of healthy people. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that 20%-60% of school-aged children may be colonized compared with only 5%-10% of adults without children.

The longitudinal study was conducted among household pairs, such as married couples who were both aged at least 60 years and who did not have people younger than 60 years living in the household, in New Haven over two winter seasons: 2020-2021 and 2021-2022.

Self-collected saliva samples were assessed, and surveys on social behaviors and health were completed every 2 weeks for a 10-week period (with six study visits). The saliva sampling method was used because the researchers considered it to be more effective than samples from nasopharyngeal swabs. Quantitative polymerase chain reaction assays were used to test the saliva samples for the presence of pneumococcal DNA (pneumococcus genes piaB and lytA) and the diversity of pneumococcal strains (36 serotypes were targeted).
 

Strongly Suggestive of Transmission From Children to Older Adults

Of the 121 adults living in 61 households who were enrolled in the study, 62 adults participated in both seasons. Mean age was 70.9 years (range, 60-86 years), 51% of participants were women, and 85% were White.

Overall, 52 of 1088 (4.8%) samples tested positive for pneumococcus, and 27 of 121 (22.3%) adults were colonized on at least one sampling visit. Some were colonized at multiple timepoints, and two were colonized throughout the 10-week sampling period. Of the two participants who were colonized at five of six timepoints, one reported daily contact with children younger than 5 years and children aged 5-9 years in the two study seasons. This person was also positive at three of six sampling points during the first study season.

There were five instances in which both members of the household were carriers in the same season, although not necessarily at the same timepoint. Numbers were too small to determine whether transmission had occurred between the household pairs.

Contact with a 24- to 59-month-old child (older than 2 years but younger than 5 years) had the strongest association with elevated odds of carrying pneumococcus, the authors reported in their preprint, although the frequency and intensity of contact also mattered.

At any sampled time (point prevalence), pneumococcal carriage was substantially — just over sixfold — higher among older adults who had contact with children daily or every few days (10%) than among those who had no contact with children (1.6%).

In particular, contact between adults and children younger than 5 years and children aged 5-9 years was found to lead to elevated point prevalences of 13.8% and 14.1%, respectively. Pneumococcal carriage in children older than 10 years was lower, with a point prevalence of 8.3%.

The younger the child, the greater the point prevalence; point prevalences were 13.8% for samples from children aged 1 year and younger, 10.5% for samples from children aged 1-2 years, and 17.8% for children aged 2-5 years.

Carriage prevalence was higher in older adults who reported daily contact with children (15.7%) or contact every few days (14.0%) than in those who reported contact with children only once or twice a month (4.5%) or never (1.8%), they wrote.

“Older people who have a lot of contact with kids and are more susceptible to respiratory viruses can get a secondary infection from pneumococcus, especially during the cold and flu seasons. Vaccination can help to protect them or lessen severity of the illness,” Wyllie pointed out.

However, adult PCV immunization may not have a major impact on onward transmission to other adults, the authors wrote in their preprint.

This study supports prior work demonstrating that pneumococcal colonization is greater in households with children than in those without, said Stephen Pelton, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist from Boston University schools of medicine and public health. “The unique aspect is that Dr. Wyllie’s group has looked at individuals over age 60 and used the most sensitive methods currently available to detect pneumococcal carriage.”

“At the most recent ISPPD [International Society of Pneumonia and Pneumococcal Diseases conference], the role of adult-to-adult transmission in the community was discussed. This study confirms the critical role children play in community transmission of the pneumococcus,” Dr. Pelton noted.

Dr. Wyllie received consulting and/or advisory board fees from Pfizer, Merck, Diasorin, PPS Health, Primary Health, Co-Diagnostics, and Global Diagnostic Systems for work unrelated to this project and is the principal investigator on research grants from Pfizer, Merck, NIH RADx-UP, and SalivaDirect, Inc. to Yale University and from NIH RADx, Balvi.io, and Shield T3 to SalivaDirect, Inc. Dr. Pelton received honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, and GSK for participation in Pneumococcal Advisory Boards and DSMB (Sanofi). Boston Medical Center received grant funding for investigator-initiated research from Merck and Pfizer.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many adults are complacent about vaccinations, believing that annual COVID and flu shots aside, they had all the immunizations they need as children and teens. But adults need vaccines as well, especially if they have missed earlier doses. And older and health-compromised adults, in particular, can benefit from newer vaccines that were not part of the childhood schedule.

“The question is whether adults had the vaccinations they need in the first place,” Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, MD, an internist in Atlanta and the American Medical Association’s liaison to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in an interview. “Many do not even have reliable records of vaccination.”

Mary Jane Starke

Primary care physicians are ideally positioned to get adult patients to update their vaccination status on older vaccines and obtain newer ones as needed. “ACIP recommendations for adult vaccines are getting longer and more complicated and the way they’re administered is more complex, too, in that they’re not all given in the primary care office but sometimes in pharmacies,” Dr. Fryhofer said.

Not all adult patients want to update their vaccinations. “Vaccine hesitancy among many adults is accelerated by the several new vaccines that have been recommended in recent years,” Lauren Block, MD, MPH, an internist at Northwell Health and assistant professor in the Institute of Health System Science at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in metropolitan New York City, said in an interview.

Physicians are rightly concerned about the lagging rates of adult vaccination, Dr. Block said. “Given the prevalence of conditions like pneumonia and shingles and the morbidity associated with them, healthcare providers should take every opportunity to discuss vaccination with patients, from well visits to hospital visits,” Dr. Block added. 

Feinstein Institute for Medical Research

She pointed to several obstacles to broader uptake, including product shortages, financial barriers, and, increasingly, the negative vocal messaging from media outlets and social media.
 

Current Recommendations

The main vaccines recommended for adults, besides flu and COVID shots, are for respiratory syncytial virus (RVS); shingles; pneumococcal disease; measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR); and tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap). Less commonly, booster vaccines for MM, and hepatitis are recommended when titers are proven to be low.

ACIP’s updated 2024 Adult Immunization Schedule can be downloaded from the website of the CDC.

The newest additions to the schedule include RSV vaccines, the mpox vaccine (Jynneos), a new MenACWY-MenB combo vaccine (Penbraya), and the new 2023-2024 formulation of updated COVID vaccines (both mRNA and protein-based adjuvanted versions).
 

1. Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccines

There are two licensed RSV vaccines, Arexvy and Abrysvo. The CDC schedule recommends a single-dose RSV vaccine for adults age 60 years and older, especially those at high risk of contracting the virus — but after shared decision-making based on a discussion of the risk-harm balance since this vaccine carries a small increased chance of developing the neurological symptoms of Guillain-Barré syndrome.

Chronic health conditions associated with a higher risk of severe RVS include cardiopulmonary disease, diabetes, and kidney, liver, and hematologic disorders, as well as compromised immunity, older age, and frailty.
 

2. Shingles Vaccines

This painful disease carries the potential complication of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), which leads to long-term nerve pain in 10%-18% of patients, especially those over age 40. ACIP recommends two doses of the recombinant zoster vaccine (Shingrix) for individuals 50 years and older. Those 19 years and older with weakened immune systems due to disease or medical treatments should get two doses of the recombinant vaccine, as they have a higher risk of getting shingles and its complications, including neurological problems and skin and eye infections.

3 Pneumococcal Vaccines

There are three approved pneumococcal vaccines: PCV15 (Vaxneuvance), PCV20 (Prevnar20), and PPSV23 (Pneumovax23).

“The pneumococcal vaccine schedule is the most complicated one as higher-valent products continue to become available,” Dr. Fryhofer said.

The two types are pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs, specifically PCV15 and PCV20) and the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23). “While PPSV23 covers 23 strains, it doesn’t give the long-term immunity of the conjugate vaccine,” said Dr. Fryhofer. “A patient may have completed their vaccination with the polysaccharide vaccine but 5 years out may no longer be protected. So we offer the option of getting a dose of PCV20 to round out the protection and confer greater immune memory.”

The ACIP schedule recommends immunization against the Streptococcus pneumoniae pathogen for all older and all at-risk adults. Routine administration of PCV15 or PCV20 is advised for those 65 years or older who have never received any pneumococcal conjugate vaccine or whose previous vaccination history is unknown. If PCV15 is used, it should be followed by PPSV23. Those 65 years or older should get PPSV23 even if they already had one or more doses of pneumococcal vaccine before turning 65.

Further vaccination is recommended for younger at-risk adults aged 19-64 years who have received both PCV13 and PPSV23 but have incomplete vaccination status. These individuals are advised to complete their pneumococcal series by receiving either a single dose of PCV20 at an interval of at least 5 years after the last pneumococcal vaccine dose or more than one dose of PPSV23.

See Pneumococcal Vaccination: Summary of Who and When to Vaccinate for CDC guidance on vaccination options for adults who have previously received a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. Or, to sort out quickly who gets what and when based on their age, concurrent conditions, and vaccination history, the CDC offers a type-in app called the PneumoRecs VaxAdvisor.
 

4. Measles, Mumps, and Rubella, and Varicella Vaccines

The two approved MMR vaccines are M-M-R II and PRIORIX. A third vaccine, ProQuad, adds varicella.

Adults lacking presumptive evidence of immunity should get at least one dose of the MMR combination vaccine.

Those born before 1957 are deemed to be immune, Dr. Fryhofer noted.

Two doses are recommended for adults entering high-risk settings for measles or mumps transmission such as healthcare personnel, students away at college, and international travelers. The two doses should be separated by at least 28 days. It’s no secret that measles, though preventable, is making a comeback, with 146 reported cases (48 in adults) across 21 states as of May 31 — most linked to international travel.

Women who plan to get pregnant should be vaccinated before but not during each pregnancy. (The vaccine is safe during lactation.) And those of childbearing age with no presumptive evidence of immunity are advised to get at least one dose of the MMR vaccine.
 

5. Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Pertussis Vaccine

Adults with no previous Tdap vaccination should receive a single dose of Adacel or Boostrix followed by a booster every 10 years. Boostrix is recommended for adults over 64 years.

During every pregnancy, women should have a single dose of Tdap, preferably in gestational weeks 27 through 36.

As to the immediate postpartum period, Tdap is recommended only for mothers who did not receive it during their current pregnancy and never received a prior dose. If a woman did not receive Tdap during her current pregnancy but did receive a prior dose of Tdap, she does not need Tdap postpartum.
 

The Challenges

According to Dr. Fryhofer, widespread disinformation about the risks of immunization against vaccine-preventable diseases has brought us to a flashpoint. “It’s now more important than ever to keep telling patients that vaccination is one of the most effective tools for preventing individual illness and protecting public health.”

She recommends that doctors follow the National Institutes of Health’s AIMS method to broach the subject of adult vaccination and increase participation in an inquiring, reassuring, and low-pressure way. Standing for Announce, Inquire, Mirror, and Secure, AIMS structures a nonjudgmental, patient-friendly conversation around immunization to elicit and acknowledge the reasons for hesitancy while explaining the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

Dr. Fryhofer frequently uses AIMS to bring inoculation-averse patients around. “Keep the conversation open with reluctant patients but leave them where they are. They need to see you as a reliable source and nonjudgmental source of information,” she said.

Dr. Block recommends outlining the diseases that have been eliminated through vaccines, from polio to measles, as well as the dangers of vaccine refusal, as indicated by recent outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases in areas with low immunization rates. “This approach highlights the opportunity we all have to get vaccinated to protect ourselves and our communities,”  she said.

In Dr. Fryhofer’s view, the situation is urgent and doctors need to be proactive. “We’re now at a public-health tipping point where we may see a sliding back and a reversing of many years of progress.”

Dr. Fryhofer and Dr. Block disclosed no competing interests relevant to their comments.

Many adults are complacent about vaccinations, believing that annual COVID and flu shots aside, they had all the immunizations they need as children and teens. But adults need vaccines as well, especially if they have missed earlier doses. And older and health-compromised adults, in particular, can benefit from newer vaccines that were not part of the childhood schedule.

“The question is whether adults had the vaccinations they need in the first place,” Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, MD, an internist in Atlanta and the American Medical Association’s liaison to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in an interview. “Many do not even have reliable records of vaccination.”

Mary Jane Starke

Primary care physicians are ideally positioned to get adult patients to update their vaccination status on older vaccines and obtain newer ones as needed. “ACIP recommendations for adult vaccines are getting longer and more complicated and the way they’re administered is more complex, too, in that they’re not all given in the primary care office but sometimes in pharmacies,” Dr. Fryhofer said.

Not all adult patients want to update their vaccinations. “Vaccine hesitancy among many adults is accelerated by the several new vaccines that have been recommended in recent years,” Lauren Block, MD, MPH, an internist at Northwell Health and assistant professor in the Institute of Health System Science at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in metropolitan New York City, said in an interview.

Physicians are rightly concerned about the lagging rates of adult vaccination, Dr. Block said. “Given the prevalence of conditions like pneumonia and shingles and the morbidity associated with them, healthcare providers should take every opportunity to discuss vaccination with patients, from well visits to hospital visits,” Dr. Block added. 

Feinstein Institute for Medical Research

She pointed to several obstacles to broader uptake, including product shortages, financial barriers, and, increasingly, the negative vocal messaging from media outlets and social media.
 

Current Recommendations

The main vaccines recommended for adults, besides flu and COVID shots, are for respiratory syncytial virus (RVS); shingles; pneumococcal disease; measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR); and tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap). Less commonly, booster vaccines for MM, and hepatitis are recommended when titers are proven to be low.

ACIP’s updated 2024 Adult Immunization Schedule can be downloaded from the website of the CDC.

The newest additions to the schedule include RSV vaccines, the mpox vaccine (Jynneos), a new MenACWY-MenB combo vaccine (Penbraya), and the new 2023-2024 formulation of updated COVID vaccines (both mRNA and protein-based adjuvanted versions).
 

1. Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccines

There are two licensed RSV vaccines, Arexvy and Abrysvo. The CDC schedule recommends a single-dose RSV vaccine for adults age 60 years and older, especially those at high risk of contracting the virus — but after shared decision-making based on a discussion of the risk-harm balance since this vaccine carries a small increased chance of developing the neurological symptoms of Guillain-Barré syndrome.

Chronic health conditions associated with a higher risk of severe RVS include cardiopulmonary disease, diabetes, and kidney, liver, and hematologic disorders, as well as compromised immunity, older age, and frailty.
 

2. Shingles Vaccines

This painful disease carries the potential complication of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), which leads to long-term nerve pain in 10%-18% of patients, especially those over age 40. ACIP recommends two doses of the recombinant zoster vaccine (Shingrix) for individuals 50 years and older. Those 19 years and older with weakened immune systems due to disease or medical treatments should get two doses of the recombinant vaccine, as they have a higher risk of getting shingles and its complications, including neurological problems and skin and eye infections.

3 Pneumococcal Vaccines

There are three approved pneumococcal vaccines: PCV15 (Vaxneuvance), PCV20 (Prevnar20), and PPSV23 (Pneumovax23).

“The pneumococcal vaccine schedule is the most complicated one as higher-valent products continue to become available,” Dr. Fryhofer said.

The two types are pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs, specifically PCV15 and PCV20) and the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23). “While PPSV23 covers 23 strains, it doesn’t give the long-term immunity of the conjugate vaccine,” said Dr. Fryhofer. “A patient may have completed their vaccination with the polysaccharide vaccine but 5 years out may no longer be protected. So we offer the option of getting a dose of PCV20 to round out the protection and confer greater immune memory.”

The ACIP schedule recommends immunization against the Streptococcus pneumoniae pathogen for all older and all at-risk adults. Routine administration of PCV15 or PCV20 is advised for those 65 years or older who have never received any pneumococcal conjugate vaccine or whose previous vaccination history is unknown. If PCV15 is used, it should be followed by PPSV23. Those 65 years or older should get PPSV23 even if they already had one or more doses of pneumococcal vaccine before turning 65.

Further vaccination is recommended for younger at-risk adults aged 19-64 years who have received both PCV13 and PPSV23 but have incomplete vaccination status. These individuals are advised to complete their pneumococcal series by receiving either a single dose of PCV20 at an interval of at least 5 years after the last pneumococcal vaccine dose or more than one dose of PPSV23.

See Pneumococcal Vaccination: Summary of Who and When to Vaccinate for CDC guidance on vaccination options for adults who have previously received a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. Or, to sort out quickly who gets what and when based on their age, concurrent conditions, and vaccination history, the CDC offers a type-in app called the PneumoRecs VaxAdvisor.
 

4. Measles, Mumps, and Rubella, and Varicella Vaccines

The two approved MMR vaccines are M-M-R II and PRIORIX. A third vaccine, ProQuad, adds varicella.

Adults lacking presumptive evidence of immunity should get at least one dose of the MMR combination vaccine.

Those born before 1957 are deemed to be immune, Dr. Fryhofer noted.

Two doses are recommended for adults entering high-risk settings for measles or mumps transmission such as healthcare personnel, students away at college, and international travelers. The two doses should be separated by at least 28 days. It’s no secret that measles, though preventable, is making a comeback, with 146 reported cases (48 in adults) across 21 states as of May 31 — most linked to international travel.

Women who plan to get pregnant should be vaccinated before but not during each pregnancy. (The vaccine is safe during lactation.) And those of childbearing age with no presumptive evidence of immunity are advised to get at least one dose of the MMR vaccine.
 

5. Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Pertussis Vaccine

Adults with no previous Tdap vaccination should receive a single dose of Adacel or Boostrix followed by a booster every 10 years. Boostrix is recommended for adults over 64 years.

During every pregnancy, women should have a single dose of Tdap, preferably in gestational weeks 27 through 36.

As to the immediate postpartum period, Tdap is recommended only for mothers who did not receive it during their current pregnancy and never received a prior dose. If a woman did not receive Tdap during her current pregnancy but did receive a prior dose of Tdap, she does not need Tdap postpartum.
 

The Challenges

According to Dr. Fryhofer, widespread disinformation about the risks of immunization against vaccine-preventable diseases has brought us to a flashpoint. “It’s now more important than ever to keep telling patients that vaccination is one of the most effective tools for preventing individual illness and protecting public health.”

She recommends that doctors follow the National Institutes of Health’s AIMS method to broach the subject of adult vaccination and increase participation in an inquiring, reassuring, and low-pressure way. Standing for Announce, Inquire, Mirror, and Secure, AIMS structures a nonjudgmental, patient-friendly conversation around immunization to elicit and acknowledge the reasons for hesitancy while explaining the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

Dr. Fryhofer frequently uses AIMS to bring inoculation-averse patients around. “Keep the conversation open with reluctant patients but leave them where they are. They need to see you as a reliable source and nonjudgmental source of information,” she said.

Dr. Block recommends outlining the diseases that have been eliminated through vaccines, from polio to measles, as well as the dangers of vaccine refusal, as indicated by recent outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases in areas with low immunization rates. “This approach highlights the opportunity we all have to get vaccinated to protect ourselves and our communities,”  she said.

In Dr. Fryhofer’s view, the situation is urgent and doctors need to be proactive. “We’re now at a public-health tipping point where we may see a sliding back and a reversing of many years of progress.”

Dr. Fryhofer and Dr. Block disclosed no competing interests relevant to their comments.

Many adults are complacent about vaccinations, believing that annual COVID and flu shots aside, they had all the immunizations they need as children and teens. But adults need vaccines as well, especially if they have missed earlier doses. And older and health-compromised adults, in particular, can benefit from newer vaccines that were not part of the childhood schedule.

“The question is whether adults had the vaccinations they need in the first place,” Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, MD, an internist in Atlanta and the American Medical Association’s liaison to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in an interview. “Many do not even have reliable records of vaccination.”

Mary Jane Starke

Primary care physicians are ideally positioned to get adult patients to update their vaccination status on older vaccines and obtain newer ones as needed. “ACIP recommendations for adult vaccines are getting longer and more complicated and the way they’re administered is more complex, too, in that they’re not all given in the primary care office but sometimes in pharmacies,” Dr. Fryhofer said.

Not all adult patients want to update their vaccinations. “Vaccine hesitancy among many adults is accelerated by the several new vaccines that have been recommended in recent years,” Lauren Block, MD, MPH, an internist at Northwell Health and assistant professor in the Institute of Health System Science at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in metropolitan New York City, said in an interview.

Physicians are rightly concerned about the lagging rates of adult vaccination, Dr. Block said. “Given the prevalence of conditions like pneumonia and shingles and the morbidity associated with them, healthcare providers should take every opportunity to discuss vaccination with patients, from well visits to hospital visits,” Dr. Block added. 

Feinstein Institute for Medical Research

She pointed to several obstacles to broader uptake, including product shortages, financial barriers, and, increasingly, the negative vocal messaging from media outlets and social media.
 

Current Recommendations

The main vaccines recommended for adults, besides flu and COVID shots, are for respiratory syncytial virus (RVS); shingles; pneumococcal disease; measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR); and tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap). Less commonly, booster vaccines for MM, and hepatitis are recommended when titers are proven to be low.

ACIP’s updated 2024 Adult Immunization Schedule can be downloaded from the website of the CDC.

The newest additions to the schedule include RSV vaccines, the mpox vaccine (Jynneos), a new MenACWY-MenB combo vaccine (Penbraya), and the new 2023-2024 formulation of updated COVID vaccines (both mRNA and protein-based adjuvanted versions).
 

1. Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccines

There are two licensed RSV vaccines, Arexvy and Abrysvo. The CDC schedule recommends a single-dose RSV vaccine for adults age 60 years and older, especially those at high risk of contracting the virus — but after shared decision-making based on a discussion of the risk-harm balance since this vaccine carries a small increased chance of developing the neurological symptoms of Guillain-Barré syndrome.

Chronic health conditions associated with a higher risk of severe RVS include cardiopulmonary disease, diabetes, and kidney, liver, and hematologic disorders, as well as compromised immunity, older age, and frailty.
 

2. Shingles Vaccines

This painful disease carries the potential complication of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), which leads to long-term nerve pain in 10%-18% of patients, especially those over age 40. ACIP recommends two doses of the recombinant zoster vaccine (Shingrix) for individuals 50 years and older. Those 19 years and older with weakened immune systems due to disease or medical treatments should get two doses of the recombinant vaccine, as they have a higher risk of getting shingles and its complications, including neurological problems and skin and eye infections.

3 Pneumococcal Vaccines

There are three approved pneumococcal vaccines: PCV15 (Vaxneuvance), PCV20 (Prevnar20), and PPSV23 (Pneumovax23).

“The pneumococcal vaccine schedule is the most complicated one as higher-valent products continue to become available,” Dr. Fryhofer said.

The two types are pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs, specifically PCV15 and PCV20) and the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23). “While PPSV23 covers 23 strains, it doesn’t give the long-term immunity of the conjugate vaccine,” said Dr. Fryhofer. “A patient may have completed their vaccination with the polysaccharide vaccine but 5 years out may no longer be protected. So we offer the option of getting a dose of PCV20 to round out the protection and confer greater immune memory.”

The ACIP schedule recommends immunization against the Streptococcus pneumoniae pathogen for all older and all at-risk adults. Routine administration of PCV15 or PCV20 is advised for those 65 years or older who have never received any pneumococcal conjugate vaccine or whose previous vaccination history is unknown. If PCV15 is used, it should be followed by PPSV23. Those 65 years or older should get PPSV23 even if they already had one or more doses of pneumococcal vaccine before turning 65.

Further vaccination is recommended for younger at-risk adults aged 19-64 years who have received both PCV13 and PPSV23 but have incomplete vaccination status. These individuals are advised to complete their pneumococcal series by receiving either a single dose of PCV20 at an interval of at least 5 years after the last pneumococcal vaccine dose or more than one dose of PPSV23.

See Pneumococcal Vaccination: Summary of Who and When to Vaccinate for CDC guidance on vaccination options for adults who have previously received a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. Or, to sort out quickly who gets what and when based on their age, concurrent conditions, and vaccination history, the CDC offers a type-in app called the PneumoRecs VaxAdvisor.
 

4. Measles, Mumps, and Rubella, and Varicella Vaccines

The two approved MMR vaccines are M-M-R II and PRIORIX. A third vaccine, ProQuad, adds varicella.

Adults lacking presumptive evidence of immunity should get at least one dose of the MMR combination vaccine.

Those born before 1957 are deemed to be immune, Dr. Fryhofer noted.

Two doses are recommended for adults entering high-risk settings for measles or mumps transmission such as healthcare personnel, students away at college, and international travelers. The two doses should be separated by at least 28 days. It’s no secret that measles, though preventable, is making a comeback, with 146 reported cases (48 in adults) across 21 states as of May 31 — most linked to international travel.

Women who plan to get pregnant should be vaccinated before but not during each pregnancy. (The vaccine is safe during lactation.) And those of childbearing age with no presumptive evidence of immunity are advised to get at least one dose of the MMR vaccine.
 

5. Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Pertussis Vaccine

Adults with no previous Tdap vaccination should receive a single dose of Adacel or Boostrix followed by a booster every 10 years. Boostrix is recommended for adults over 64 years.

During every pregnancy, women should have a single dose of Tdap, preferably in gestational weeks 27 through 36.

As to the immediate postpartum period, Tdap is recommended only for mothers who did not receive it during their current pregnancy and never received a prior dose. If a woman did not receive Tdap during her current pregnancy but did receive a prior dose of Tdap, she does not need Tdap postpartum.
 

The Challenges

According to Dr. Fryhofer, widespread disinformation about the risks of immunization against vaccine-preventable diseases has brought us to a flashpoint. “It’s now more important than ever to keep telling patients that vaccination is one of the most effective tools for preventing individual illness and protecting public health.”

She recommends that doctors follow the National Institutes of Health’s AIMS method to broach the subject of adult vaccination and increase participation in an inquiring, reassuring, and low-pressure way. Standing for Announce, Inquire, Mirror, and Secure, AIMS structures a nonjudgmental, patient-friendly conversation around immunization to elicit and acknowledge the reasons for hesitancy while explaining the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

Dr. Fryhofer frequently uses AIMS to bring inoculation-averse patients around. “Keep the conversation open with reluctant patients but leave them where they are. They need to see you as a reliable source and nonjudgmental source of information,” she said.

Dr. Block recommends outlining the diseases that have been eliminated through vaccines, from polio to measles, as well as the dangers of vaccine refusal, as indicated by recent outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases in areas with low immunization rates. “This approach highlights the opportunity we all have to get vaccinated to protect ourselves and our communities,”  she said.

In Dr. Fryhofer’s view, the situation is urgent and doctors need to be proactive. “We’re now at a public-health tipping point where we may see a sliding back and a reversing of many years of progress.”

Dr. Fryhofer and Dr. Block disclosed no competing interests relevant to their comments.

BERLIN — To date, mRNA vaccines have had their largest global presence in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. Intensive research is underway on many other potential applications for this vaccine technology, which suggests a promising future. Martina Prelog, MD, a pediatric and adolescent medicine specialist at the University Hospital of Würzburg in Germany, reported on the principles, research status, and perspectives for these vaccines at the 25th Travel and Health Forum of the Center for Travel Medicine in Berlin.

To understand the future, the immunologist first examined the past. “The induction of cellular and humoral immune responses by externally injected mRNA was discovered in the 1990s,” she said.
 

Instability Challenge

Significant hurdles in mRNA vaccinations included the instability of mRNA and the immune system’s ability to identify foreign mRNA as a threat and destroy mRNA fragments. “The breakthrough toward vaccination came through Dr. Katalin Karikó, who, along with Dr. Drew Weissman, both of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, discovered in 2005 that modifications of mRNA (replacing the nucleoside uridine with pseudouridine) enable better stability of mRNA, reduced immunogenicity, and higher translational capacity at the ribosomes,” said Dr. Prelog.

With this discovery, the two researchers paved the way for the development of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 and other diseases. They were awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine for their discovery last year.
 

Improved Scalability

“Since 2009, mRNA vaccines have been studied as a treatment option for cancer,” said Dr. Prelog. “Since 2012, they have been studied for the influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus [RSV].” Consequently, several mRNA vaccines are currently in development or in approval studies. “The mRNA technology offers the advantage of quickly and flexibly responding to new variants of pathogens and the ability to scale up production when there is high demand for a particular vaccine.”

Different forms and designations of mRNA vaccines are used, depending on the application and desired effect, said Dr. Prelog.

In nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccines, modifications in the mRNA sequence enable the mRNA to remain in the body longer and to induce protein synthesis more effectively.

Lipid nanoparticle (LNP)–encapsulated mRNA vaccines protect the coding mRNA sequences against degradation by the body’s enzymes and facilitate the uptake of mRNA into cells, where it then triggers the production of the desired protein. In addition, LNPs are involved in cell stimulation and support the self-adjuvant effect of mRNA vaccines, thus eliminating the need for adjuvants.

Self-amplifying mRNA vaccines include a special mRNA that replicates itself in the cell and contains a sequence for RNA replicase, in addition to the coding sequence for the protein. This composition enables increased production of the target protein without the need for a high amount of external mRNA administration. Such vaccines could trigger a longer and stronger immune response because the immune system has more time to interact with the protein.
 

Cancer Immunotherapy

Dr. Prelog also discussed personalized vaccines for cancer immunotherapy. Personalized mRNA vaccines are tailored to the patient’s genetic characteristics and antigens. They could be used in cancer immunotherapy to activate the immune system selectively against tumor cells.

Multivalent mRNA vaccines contain mRNA that codes for multiple antigens rather than just one protein to generate an immune response. These vaccines could be particularly useful in fighting pathogens with variable or changing surface structures or in eliciting protection against multiple pathogens simultaneously.

The technology of mRNA-encoded antibodies involves introducing mRNA into the cell, which creates light and heavy chains of antibodies. This step leads to the formation of antibodies targeted against toxins (eg, diphtheria and tetanus), animal venoms, infectious agents, or tumor cells.
 

Genetic Engineering

Dr. Prelog also reviewed genetic engineering techniques. In regenerative therapy or protein replacement therapy, skin fibroblasts or other cells are transfected with mRNA to enable conversion into induced pluripotent stem cells. This approach avoids the risk for DNA integration into the genome and associated mutation risks.

Another approach is making post-transcriptional modifications through RNA interference. For example, RNA structures can be used to inhibit the translation of disease-causing proteins. This technique is currently being tested against HIV and tumors such as melanoma.

In addition, mRNA technologies can be combined with CRISPR/Cas9 technology (“gene scissors”) to influence the creation of gene products even more precisely. The advantage of this technique is that mRNA is only transiently expressed, thus preventing unwanted side effects. Furthermore, mRNA is translated directly in the cytoplasm, leading to a faster initiation of gene editing.

Of the numerous ongoing clinical mRNA vaccine studies, around 70% focus on infections, about 12% on cancer, and the rest on autoimmune diseases and neurodegenerative disorders, said Dr. Prelog.
 

Research in Infections

Research in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology is the most advanced: mRNA vaccines against influenza and RSV are already in advanced clinical trials, Dr. Prelog told this news organization.

“Conventional influenza vaccines contain immunogenic surface molecules against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase in various combinations of influenza strains A and B and are produced in egg or cell cultures,” she said. “This is a time-consuming manufacturing process that takes months and, particularly with the egg-based process, bears the risk of changing the vaccine strain.”

“Additionally, influenza viruses undergo antigenic shift and drift through recombination, thus requiring annual adjustments to the vaccines. Thus, these influenza vaccines often lose accuracy in targeting circulating seasonal influenza strains.”

Several mRNA vaccines being tested contain not only coding sequences against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase but also for structural proteins of influenza viruses. “These are more conserved and mutate less easily, meaning they could serve as the basis for universal pandemic influenza vaccines,” said Dr. Prelog.

An advantage of mRNA vaccines, she added, is the strong cellular immune response that they elicit. This response is intended to provide additional protection alongside specific antibodies. An mRNA vaccine with coding sequences for the pre-fusion protein of RSV is in phase 3 trials for approval for vaccination in patients aged 60 years and older. It shows high effectiveness even in older patients and those with comorbidities.
 

Elaborate Purification Process

Bacterial origin plasmid DNA is used to produce mRNA vaccines. The mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 raised concerns that production-related DNA residues could pose a safety risk and cause autoimmune diseases.

These vaccines “typically undergo a very elaborate purification process,” said Dr. Prelog. “This involves enzymatic digestion with DNase to fragment and deplete plasmid DNA, followed by purification using chromatography columns, so that no safety-relevant DNA fragments should remain afterward.”

Thus, the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut also pointed out the very small, fragmented plasmid DNA residues of bacterial origin in mRNA COVID-19 vaccines pose no risk, unlike residual DNA from animal cell culture might pose in other vaccines.
 

Prevention and Therapy

In addition to the numerous advantages of mRNA vaccines (such as rapid adaptability to new or mutated pathogens, scalability, rapid production capability, self-adjuvant effect, strong induction of cellular immune responses, and safety), there are also challenges in RNA technology as a preventive and therapeutic measure, according to Dr. Prelog.

“Stability and storability, as well as the costs of new vaccine developments, play a role, as do the long-term effects regarding the persistence of antibody and cellular responses,” she said. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, for example, showed a well-maintained cellular immune response despite a tendency toward a rapid decline in humoral immune response.

“The experience with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and the new vaccine developments based on mRNA technology give hope for an efficient and safe preventive and therapeutic use, particularly in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology,” Dr. Prelog concluded.

This story was translated from the Medscape German 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.

BERLIN — To date, mRNA vaccines have had their largest global presence in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. Intensive research is underway on many other potential applications for this vaccine technology, which suggests a promising future. Martina Prelog, MD, a pediatric and adolescent medicine specialist at the University Hospital of Würzburg in Germany, reported on the principles, research status, and perspectives for these vaccines at the 25th Travel and Health Forum of the Center for Travel Medicine in Berlin.

To understand the future, the immunologist first examined the past. “The induction of cellular and humoral immune responses by externally injected mRNA was discovered in the 1990s,” she said.
 

Instability Challenge

Significant hurdles in mRNA vaccinations included the instability of mRNA and the immune system’s ability to identify foreign mRNA as a threat and destroy mRNA fragments. “The breakthrough toward vaccination came through Dr. Katalin Karikó, who, along with Dr. Drew Weissman, both of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, discovered in 2005 that modifications of mRNA (replacing the nucleoside uridine with pseudouridine) enable better stability of mRNA, reduced immunogenicity, and higher translational capacity at the ribosomes,” said Dr. Prelog.

With this discovery, the two researchers paved the way for the development of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 and other diseases. They were awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine for their discovery last year.
 

Improved Scalability

“Since 2009, mRNA vaccines have been studied as a treatment option for cancer,” said Dr. Prelog. “Since 2012, they have been studied for the influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus [RSV].” Consequently, several mRNA vaccines are currently in development or in approval studies. “The mRNA technology offers the advantage of quickly and flexibly responding to new variants of pathogens and the ability to scale up production when there is high demand for a particular vaccine.”

Different forms and designations of mRNA vaccines are used, depending on the application and desired effect, said Dr. Prelog.

In nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccines, modifications in the mRNA sequence enable the mRNA to remain in the body longer and to induce protein synthesis more effectively.

Lipid nanoparticle (LNP)–encapsulated mRNA vaccines protect the coding mRNA sequences against degradation by the body’s enzymes and facilitate the uptake of mRNA into cells, where it then triggers the production of the desired protein. In addition, LNPs are involved in cell stimulation and support the self-adjuvant effect of mRNA vaccines, thus eliminating the need for adjuvants.

Self-amplifying mRNA vaccines include a special mRNA that replicates itself in the cell and contains a sequence for RNA replicase, in addition to the coding sequence for the protein. This composition enables increased production of the target protein without the need for a high amount of external mRNA administration. Such vaccines could trigger a longer and stronger immune response because the immune system has more time to interact with the protein.
 

Cancer Immunotherapy

Dr. Prelog also discussed personalized vaccines for cancer immunotherapy. Personalized mRNA vaccines are tailored to the patient’s genetic characteristics and antigens. They could be used in cancer immunotherapy to activate the immune system selectively against tumor cells.

Multivalent mRNA vaccines contain mRNA that codes for multiple antigens rather than just one protein to generate an immune response. These vaccines could be particularly useful in fighting pathogens with variable or changing surface structures or in eliciting protection against multiple pathogens simultaneously.

The technology of mRNA-encoded antibodies involves introducing mRNA into the cell, which creates light and heavy chains of antibodies. This step leads to the formation of antibodies targeted against toxins (eg, diphtheria and tetanus), animal venoms, infectious agents, or tumor cells.
 

Genetic Engineering

Dr. Prelog also reviewed genetic engineering techniques. In regenerative therapy or protein replacement therapy, skin fibroblasts or other cells are transfected with mRNA to enable conversion into induced pluripotent stem cells. This approach avoids the risk for DNA integration into the genome and associated mutation risks.

Another approach is making post-transcriptional modifications through RNA interference. For example, RNA structures can be used to inhibit the translation of disease-causing proteins. This technique is currently being tested against HIV and tumors such as melanoma.

In addition, mRNA technologies can be combined with CRISPR/Cas9 technology (“gene scissors”) to influence the creation of gene products even more precisely. The advantage of this technique is that mRNA is only transiently expressed, thus preventing unwanted side effects. Furthermore, mRNA is translated directly in the cytoplasm, leading to a faster initiation of gene editing.

Of the numerous ongoing clinical mRNA vaccine studies, around 70% focus on infections, about 12% on cancer, and the rest on autoimmune diseases and neurodegenerative disorders, said Dr. Prelog.
 

Research in Infections

Research in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology is the most advanced: mRNA vaccines against influenza and RSV are already in advanced clinical trials, Dr. Prelog told this news organization.

“Conventional influenza vaccines contain immunogenic surface molecules against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase in various combinations of influenza strains A and B and are produced in egg or cell cultures,” she said. “This is a time-consuming manufacturing process that takes months and, particularly with the egg-based process, bears the risk of changing the vaccine strain.”

“Additionally, influenza viruses undergo antigenic shift and drift through recombination, thus requiring annual adjustments to the vaccines. Thus, these influenza vaccines often lose accuracy in targeting circulating seasonal influenza strains.”

Several mRNA vaccines being tested contain not only coding sequences against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase but also for structural proteins of influenza viruses. “These are more conserved and mutate less easily, meaning they could serve as the basis for universal pandemic influenza vaccines,” said Dr. Prelog.

An advantage of mRNA vaccines, she added, is the strong cellular immune response that they elicit. This response is intended to provide additional protection alongside specific antibodies. An mRNA vaccine with coding sequences for the pre-fusion protein of RSV is in phase 3 trials for approval for vaccination in patients aged 60 years and older. It shows high effectiveness even in older patients and those with comorbidities.
 

Elaborate Purification Process

Bacterial origin plasmid DNA is used to produce mRNA vaccines. The mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 raised concerns that production-related DNA residues could pose a safety risk and cause autoimmune diseases.

These vaccines “typically undergo a very elaborate purification process,” said Dr. Prelog. “This involves enzymatic digestion with DNase to fragment and deplete plasmid DNA, followed by purification using chromatography columns, so that no safety-relevant DNA fragments should remain afterward.”

Thus, the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut also pointed out the very small, fragmented plasmid DNA residues of bacterial origin in mRNA COVID-19 vaccines pose no risk, unlike residual DNA from animal cell culture might pose in other vaccines.
 

Prevention and Therapy

In addition to the numerous advantages of mRNA vaccines (such as rapid adaptability to new or mutated pathogens, scalability, rapid production capability, self-adjuvant effect, strong induction of cellular immune responses, and safety), there are also challenges in RNA technology as a preventive and therapeutic measure, according to Dr. Prelog.

“Stability and storability, as well as the costs of new vaccine developments, play a role, as do the long-term effects regarding the persistence of antibody and cellular responses,” she said. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, for example, showed a well-maintained cellular immune response despite a tendency toward a rapid decline in humoral immune response.

“The experience with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and the new vaccine developments based on mRNA technology give hope for an efficient and safe preventive and therapeutic use, particularly in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology,” Dr. Prelog concluded.

This story was translated from the Medscape German 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.

BERLIN — To date, mRNA vaccines have had their largest global presence in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. Intensive research is underway on many other potential applications for this vaccine technology, which suggests a promising future. Martina Prelog, MD, a pediatric and adolescent medicine specialist at the University Hospital of Würzburg in Germany, reported on the principles, research status, and perspectives for these vaccines at the 25th Travel and Health Forum of the Center for Travel Medicine in Berlin.

To understand the future, the immunologist first examined the past. “The induction of cellular and humoral immune responses by externally injected mRNA was discovered in the 1990s,” she said.
 

Instability Challenge

Significant hurdles in mRNA vaccinations included the instability of mRNA and the immune system’s ability to identify foreign mRNA as a threat and destroy mRNA fragments. “The breakthrough toward vaccination came through Dr. Katalin Karikó, who, along with Dr. Drew Weissman, both of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, discovered in 2005 that modifications of mRNA (replacing the nucleoside uridine with pseudouridine) enable better stability of mRNA, reduced immunogenicity, and higher translational capacity at the ribosomes,” said Dr. Prelog.

With this discovery, the two researchers paved the way for the development of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 and other diseases. They were awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine for their discovery last year.
 

Improved Scalability

“Since 2009, mRNA vaccines have been studied as a treatment option for cancer,” said Dr. Prelog. “Since 2012, they have been studied for the influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus [RSV].” Consequently, several mRNA vaccines are currently in development or in approval studies. “The mRNA technology offers the advantage of quickly and flexibly responding to new variants of pathogens and the ability to scale up production when there is high demand for a particular vaccine.”

Different forms and designations of mRNA vaccines are used, depending on the application and desired effect, said Dr. Prelog.

In nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccines, modifications in the mRNA sequence enable the mRNA to remain in the body longer and to induce protein synthesis more effectively.

Lipid nanoparticle (LNP)–encapsulated mRNA vaccines protect the coding mRNA sequences against degradation by the body’s enzymes and facilitate the uptake of mRNA into cells, where it then triggers the production of the desired protein. In addition, LNPs are involved in cell stimulation and support the self-adjuvant effect of mRNA vaccines, thus eliminating the need for adjuvants.

Self-amplifying mRNA vaccines include a special mRNA that replicates itself in the cell and contains a sequence for RNA replicase, in addition to the coding sequence for the protein. This composition enables increased production of the target protein without the need for a high amount of external mRNA administration. Such vaccines could trigger a longer and stronger immune response because the immune system has more time to interact with the protein.
 

Cancer Immunotherapy

Dr. Prelog also discussed personalized vaccines for cancer immunotherapy. Personalized mRNA vaccines are tailored to the patient’s genetic characteristics and antigens. They could be used in cancer immunotherapy to activate the immune system selectively against tumor cells.

Multivalent mRNA vaccines contain mRNA that codes for multiple antigens rather than just one protein to generate an immune response. These vaccines could be particularly useful in fighting pathogens with variable or changing surface structures or in eliciting protection against multiple pathogens simultaneously.

The technology of mRNA-encoded antibodies involves introducing mRNA into the cell, which creates light and heavy chains of antibodies. This step leads to the formation of antibodies targeted against toxins (eg, diphtheria and tetanus), animal venoms, infectious agents, or tumor cells.
 

Genetic Engineering

Dr. Prelog also reviewed genetic engineering techniques. In regenerative therapy or protein replacement therapy, skin fibroblasts or other cells are transfected with mRNA to enable conversion into induced pluripotent stem cells. This approach avoids the risk for DNA integration into the genome and associated mutation risks.

Another approach is making post-transcriptional modifications through RNA interference. For example, RNA structures can be used to inhibit the translation of disease-causing proteins. This technique is currently being tested against HIV and tumors such as melanoma.

In addition, mRNA technologies can be combined with CRISPR/Cas9 technology (“gene scissors”) to influence the creation of gene products even more precisely. The advantage of this technique is that mRNA is only transiently expressed, thus preventing unwanted side effects. Furthermore, mRNA is translated directly in the cytoplasm, leading to a faster initiation of gene editing.

Of the numerous ongoing clinical mRNA vaccine studies, around 70% focus on infections, about 12% on cancer, and the rest on autoimmune diseases and neurodegenerative disorders, said Dr. Prelog.
 

Research in Infections

Research in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology is the most advanced: mRNA vaccines against influenza and RSV are already in advanced clinical trials, Dr. Prelog told this news organization.

“Conventional influenza vaccines contain immunogenic surface molecules against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase in various combinations of influenza strains A and B and are produced in egg or cell cultures,” she said. “This is a time-consuming manufacturing process that takes months and, particularly with the egg-based process, bears the risk of changing the vaccine strain.”

“Additionally, influenza viruses undergo antigenic shift and drift through recombination, thus requiring annual adjustments to the vaccines. Thus, these influenza vaccines often lose accuracy in targeting circulating seasonal influenza strains.”

Several mRNA vaccines being tested contain not only coding sequences against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase but also for structural proteins of influenza viruses. “These are more conserved and mutate less easily, meaning they could serve as the basis for universal pandemic influenza vaccines,” said Dr. Prelog.

An advantage of mRNA vaccines, she added, is the strong cellular immune response that they elicit. This response is intended to provide additional protection alongside specific antibodies. An mRNA vaccine with coding sequences for the pre-fusion protein of RSV is in phase 3 trials for approval for vaccination in patients aged 60 years and older. It shows high effectiveness even in older patients and those with comorbidities.
 

Elaborate Purification Process

Bacterial origin plasmid DNA is used to produce mRNA vaccines. The mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 raised concerns that production-related DNA residues could pose a safety risk and cause autoimmune diseases.

These vaccines “typically undergo a very elaborate purification process,” said Dr. Prelog. “This involves enzymatic digestion with DNase to fragment and deplete plasmid DNA, followed by purification using chromatography columns, so that no safety-relevant DNA fragments should remain afterward.”

Thus, the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut also pointed out the very small, fragmented plasmid DNA residues of bacterial origin in mRNA COVID-19 vaccines pose no risk, unlike residual DNA from animal cell culture might pose in other vaccines.
 

Prevention and Therapy

In addition to the numerous advantages of mRNA vaccines (such as rapid adaptability to new or mutated pathogens, scalability, rapid production capability, self-adjuvant effect, strong induction of cellular immune responses, and safety), there are also challenges in RNA technology as a preventive and therapeutic measure, according to Dr. Prelog.

“Stability and storability, as well as the costs of new vaccine developments, play a role, as do the long-term effects regarding the persistence of antibody and cellular responses,” she said. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, for example, showed a well-maintained cellular immune response despite a tendency toward a rapid decline in humoral immune response.

“The experience with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and the new vaccine developments based on mRNA technology give hope for an efficient and safe preventive and therapeutic use, particularly in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology,” Dr. Prelog concluded.

This story was translated from the Medscape German 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.

Urinary tract infections are among the most common bacterial infections. They can be painful, require antibiotic treatments, and recur in 20%-30% of cases. With the risk for the emergence or increase of resistance to antibiotics, it is important to search for potential therapeutic alternatives to treat or prevent urinary tract infections.

The MV140 Vaccine

The MV140 vaccine is produced by the Spanish pharmaceutical company Immunotek. MV140, known as Uromune, consists of a suspension of whole heat-inactivated bacteria in glycerol, sodium chloride, an artificial pineapple flavor, and water. It includes equal percentages of strains from four bacterial species (V121 Escherichia coli, V113 Klebsiella pneumoniae, V125 Enterococcus faecalis, and V127 Proteus vulgaris). MV140 is administered sublingually by spraying two 100-µL doses daily for 3 months.

The vaccine is in phase 2-3 of development. It is available under special access programs outside of marketing authorization in 26 countries, including Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, and Chile. Recently, MV140 was approved in Mexico and the Dominican Republic and submitted to Health Canada for registration.

A randomized study published in 2022 showed the vaccine›s efficacy in preventing urinary tract infections over 9 months. In total, 240 women with a urinary tract infection received MV140 for either 3 or 6 months or a placebo for 6 months. The primary outcome was the number of urinary tract infection episodes during the 9-month study period after vaccination.

In this pivotal study, MV140 administration for 3 and 6 months was associated with a significant reduction in the median number of urinary tract infection episodes, from 3.0 to 0.0 compared with the placebo during the 9-month efficacy period. The median time to the first urinary tract infection after 3 months of treatment was 275.0 days in the MV140 groups compared with 48.0 days in the placebo group.

Nine-Year Follow-Up

On April 6 at the 2024 congress of The European Association of Urology, urologists from the Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust presented the results of a study evaluating the MV140 vaccine spray for long-term prevention of bacterial urinary tract infections.

This was a prospective cohort study involving 89 participants (72 women and 17 men) older than 18 years with recurrent urinary tract infections who received a course of MV140 for 3 months. Participants had no urinary tract infection when offered the vaccine and had no other urinary abnormalities (such as tumors, stones, or kidney infections).

Postvaccination follow-up was conducted over a 9-year period, during which researchers analyzed the data from the electronic health records of their initial cohort. They queried participants about the occurrence of urinary tract infections since receiving the vaccine and about potential related side effects. Thus, the results were self-reported.

Long-Term Efficacy 

In this cohort, 48 participants (59%) reported having no infections during the 9-year follow-up. In the cohort of 89 participants, the average period without infection was 54.7 months (4.5 years; 56.7 months for women and 44.3 months for men). No vaccine-related side effects were observed.

The study’s limitations included the small number of participants and the collection of self-reported data. Furthermore, all cases were simple urinary tract infections without complications.

The authors concluded that “9 years after first receiving the sublingual spray MV140 vaccine, 54% of participants remained free from urinary tract infection.” For them, “this vaccine is safe in the long-term, and our participants reported fewer urinary tract infections and, if any, they were less severe.”

Vaccination could thus be an alternative to antibiotic treatments and could help combat the emergence of antibiotic resistance. The full study results should be published by the end of 2024.

Other studies are planned to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the MV140 vaccine in older patients residing in long-term care homes, in children suffering from acute urinary tract infections, and in adults suffering from complicated acute urinary tract infections (for example, patients with a catheter or with a neurogenic bladder). 
 

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, 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.

Urinary tract infections are among the most common bacterial infections. They can be painful, require antibiotic treatments, and recur in 20%-30% of cases. With the risk for the emergence or increase of resistance to antibiotics, it is important to search for potential therapeutic alternatives to treat or prevent urinary tract infections.

The MV140 Vaccine

The MV140 vaccine is produced by the Spanish pharmaceutical company Immunotek. MV140, known as Uromune, consists of a suspension of whole heat-inactivated bacteria in glycerol, sodium chloride, an artificial pineapple flavor, and water. It includes equal percentages of strains from four bacterial species (V121 Escherichia coli, V113 Klebsiella pneumoniae, V125 Enterococcus faecalis, and V127 Proteus vulgaris). MV140 is administered sublingually by spraying two 100-µL doses daily for 3 months.

The vaccine is in phase 2-3 of development. It is available under special access programs outside of marketing authorization in 26 countries, including Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, and Chile. Recently, MV140 was approved in Mexico and the Dominican Republic and submitted to Health Canada for registration.

A randomized study published in 2022 showed the vaccine›s efficacy in preventing urinary tract infections over 9 months. In total, 240 women with a urinary tract infection received MV140 for either 3 or 6 months or a placebo for 6 months. The primary outcome was the number of urinary tract infection episodes during the 9-month study period after vaccination.

In this pivotal study, MV140 administration for 3 and 6 months was associated with a significant reduction in the median number of urinary tract infection episodes, from 3.0 to 0.0 compared with the placebo during the 9-month efficacy period. The median time to the first urinary tract infection after 3 months of treatment was 275.0 days in the MV140 groups compared with 48.0 days in the placebo group.

Nine-Year Follow-Up

On April 6 at the 2024 congress of The European Association of Urology, urologists from the Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust presented the results of a study evaluating the MV140 vaccine spray for long-term prevention of bacterial urinary tract infections.

This was a prospective cohort study involving 89 participants (72 women and 17 men) older than 18 years with recurrent urinary tract infections who received a course of MV140 for 3 months. Participants had no urinary tract infection when offered the vaccine and had no other urinary abnormalities (such as tumors, stones, or kidney infections).

Postvaccination follow-up was conducted over a 9-year period, during which researchers analyzed the data from the electronic health records of their initial cohort. They queried participants about the occurrence of urinary tract infections since receiving the vaccine and about potential related side effects. Thus, the results were self-reported.

Long-Term Efficacy 

In this cohort, 48 participants (59%) reported having no infections during the 9-year follow-up. In the cohort of 89 participants, the average period without infection was 54.7 months (4.5 years; 56.7 months for women and 44.3 months for men). No vaccine-related side effects were observed.

The study’s limitations included the small number of participants and the collection of self-reported data. Furthermore, all cases were simple urinary tract infections without complications.

The authors concluded that “9 years after first receiving the sublingual spray MV140 vaccine, 54% of participants remained free from urinary tract infection.” For them, “this vaccine is safe in the long-term, and our participants reported fewer urinary tract infections and, if any, they were less severe.”

Vaccination could thus be an alternative to antibiotic treatments and could help combat the emergence of antibiotic resistance. The full study results should be published by the end of 2024.

Other studies are planned to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the MV140 vaccine in older patients residing in long-term care homes, in children suffering from acute urinary tract infections, and in adults suffering from complicated acute urinary tract infections (for example, patients with a catheter or with a neurogenic bladder). 
 

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, 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.

Urinary tract infections are among the most common bacterial infections. They can be painful, require antibiotic treatments, and recur in 20%-30% of cases. With the risk for the emergence or increase of resistance to antibiotics, it is important to search for potential therapeutic alternatives to treat or prevent urinary tract infections.

The MV140 Vaccine

The MV140 vaccine is produced by the Spanish pharmaceutical company Immunotek. MV140, known as Uromune, consists of a suspension of whole heat-inactivated bacteria in glycerol, sodium chloride, an artificial pineapple flavor, and water. It includes equal percentages of strains from four bacterial species (V121 Escherichia coli, V113 Klebsiella pneumoniae, V125 Enterococcus faecalis, and V127 Proteus vulgaris). MV140 is administered sublingually by spraying two 100-µL doses daily for 3 months.

The vaccine is in phase 2-3 of development. It is available under special access programs outside of marketing authorization in 26 countries, including Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, and Chile. Recently, MV140 was approved in Mexico and the Dominican Republic and submitted to Health Canada for registration.

A randomized study published in 2022 showed the vaccine›s efficacy in preventing urinary tract infections over 9 months. In total, 240 women with a urinary tract infection received MV140 for either 3 or 6 months or a placebo for 6 months. The primary outcome was the number of urinary tract infection episodes during the 9-month study period after vaccination.

In this pivotal study, MV140 administration for 3 and 6 months was associated with a significant reduction in the median number of urinary tract infection episodes, from 3.0 to 0.0 compared with the placebo during the 9-month efficacy period. The median time to the first urinary tract infection after 3 months of treatment was 275.0 days in the MV140 groups compared with 48.0 days in the placebo group.

Nine-Year Follow-Up

On April 6 at the 2024 congress of The European Association of Urology, urologists from the Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust presented the results of a study evaluating the MV140 vaccine spray for long-term prevention of bacterial urinary tract infections.

This was a prospective cohort study involving 89 participants (72 women and 17 men) older than 18 years with recurrent urinary tract infections who received a course of MV140 for 3 months. Participants had no urinary tract infection when offered the vaccine and had no other urinary abnormalities (such as tumors, stones, or kidney infections).

Postvaccination follow-up was conducted over a 9-year period, during which researchers analyzed the data from the electronic health records of their initial cohort. They queried participants about the occurrence of urinary tract infections since receiving the vaccine and about potential related side effects. Thus, the results were self-reported.

Long-Term Efficacy 

In this cohort, 48 participants (59%) reported having no infections during the 9-year follow-up. In the cohort of 89 participants, the average period without infection was 54.7 months (4.5 years; 56.7 months for women and 44.3 months for men). No vaccine-related side effects were observed.

The study’s limitations included the small number of participants and the collection of self-reported data. Furthermore, all cases were simple urinary tract infections without complications.

The authors concluded that “9 years after first receiving the sublingual spray MV140 vaccine, 54% of participants remained free from urinary tract infection.” For them, “this vaccine is safe in the long-term, and our participants reported fewer urinary tract infections and, if any, they were less severe.”

Vaccination could thus be an alternative to antibiotic treatments and could help combat the emergence of antibiotic resistance. The full study results should be published by the end of 2024.

Other studies are planned to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the MV140 vaccine in older patients residing in long-term care homes, in children suffering from acute urinary tract infections, and in adults suffering from complicated acute urinary tract infections (for example, patients with a catheter or with a neurogenic bladder). 
 

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, 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.