Vaccines

The current tetravalent dengue vaccine TAK-003, from the Japanese laboratory Takeda, is not likely to control the ongoing epidemic, according to the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). The organization emphasized the need to better understand the vaccine’s effectiveness against different serotypes and its safety under real-world clinical conditions.

The Americas are experiencing a record increase in dengue cases. Three times as many cases have been identified during 2024 (3.5 million) than were reported for the same period in 2023. 

“The vaccine we have available will not curb the dengue epidemic; it should be used complementarily with other actions. The most important actions are field operations, vector control, prevention, and education,” said Daniel Salas, MD, executive manager of the PAHO Comprehensive Immunization Program, during a press conference on March 28.

“The vaccines we currently have are not the best response to reduce transmission and prevent deaths,” added Jarbas Barbosa, MD, PhD, PAHO’s director. The fatality rate remains below 0.05%, but this figure could be hard to maintain if the situation becomes more uncontrolled.

The TAK-003 regimen consists of two doses with a 3-month interval between applications, so “it is not a tool to control transmission at this moment. Studies have shown that only 8 years of [population-level] vaccination would have a significant impact on dengue transmission,” said Dr. Barbosa.

A new vaccine developed in Brazil in partnership with the company MSD, Butantan-DV, is in phase 3 trials and has the advantage of being a single-dose application, which could facilitate its use in situations with accelerated transmission. “But this vaccine will likely only be available in 2025,” said Dr. Barbosa.

PAHO officials also highlighted the need to better characterize the vaccine’s effectiveness and safety in the real world. They observed, for example, that when TAK-003 was investigated, the circulation of dengue serotype 3 was almost nonexistent, so the efficacy data against that serotype “are very limited.”

“The producer, Takeda, has very limited production capacity. Brazil is the country that uses this vaccine the most, followed by Argentina. Given that these countries have a good epidemiological surveillance system and adverse effect registration, they can conduct studies on how the vaccine performs in real life, which will greatly increase our knowledge about it. For example, we will see its effectiveness against serotype 3,” said Dr. Barbosa.

The PAHO Technical Advisory Group (TAG) on vaccine-preventable diseases recommended that any country using these vaccines have surveillance systems in place because it is important to promptly report and investigate any adverse events, said Dr. Salas. The organization also suggested that vaccination should ideally be administered in a “more controlled environment,” a phase 4 study, “to complete the safety and efficacy profile, especially in those who have not had dengue before and for dengue 3 and 4,” said Dr. Salas in response to a question from this news organization.

“People cannot expect that just because they were vaccinated, they will not get dengue. The vaccine has limited reach,” he emphasized.

Other research strategies for vector control, such as the use of the Wolbachia bacteria and mosquito sterilization, are future strategies and “not tools to control this outbreak,” noted Sylvain Aldighieri, MD, director of the Department of Prevention, Control, and Elimination of Transmissible Diseases at PAHO.

In his opening remarks, Dr. Barbosa urged the intensification of efforts with tools that are already available. These approaches include eliminating mosquito breeding sites (“80% are in or near homes”) and protecting against mosquito bites, preparing health services for early diagnosis and timely clinical management, and educating the population about dengue symptoms so they seek medical attention immediately.

Although dengue is increasing throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, the most affected countries are Brazil (83%), Paraguay (5.3%), and Argentina (3.7%), which account for 92% of the cases and 87% of the deaths, PAHO reported.

This story was translated from the Medscape Spanish 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 .

The current tetravalent dengue vaccine TAK-003, from the Japanese laboratory Takeda, is not likely to control the ongoing epidemic, according to the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). The organization emphasized the need to better understand the vaccine’s effectiveness against different serotypes and its safety under real-world clinical conditions.

The Americas are experiencing a record increase in dengue cases. Three times as many cases have been identified during 2024 (3.5 million) than were reported for the same period in 2023. 

“The vaccine we have available will not curb the dengue epidemic; it should be used complementarily with other actions. The most important actions are field operations, vector control, prevention, and education,” said Daniel Salas, MD, executive manager of the PAHO Comprehensive Immunization Program, during a press conference on March 28.

“The vaccines we currently have are not the best response to reduce transmission and prevent deaths,” added Jarbas Barbosa, MD, PhD, PAHO’s director. The fatality rate remains below 0.05%, but this figure could be hard to maintain if the situation becomes more uncontrolled.

The TAK-003 regimen consists of two doses with a 3-month interval between applications, so “it is not a tool to control transmission at this moment. Studies have shown that only 8 years of [population-level] vaccination would have a significant impact on dengue transmission,” said Dr. Barbosa.

A new vaccine developed in Brazil in partnership with the company MSD, Butantan-DV, is in phase 3 trials and has the advantage of being a single-dose application, which could facilitate its use in situations with accelerated transmission. “But this vaccine will likely only be available in 2025,” said Dr. Barbosa.

PAHO officials also highlighted the need to better characterize the vaccine’s effectiveness and safety in the real world. They observed, for example, that when TAK-003 was investigated, the circulation of dengue serotype 3 was almost nonexistent, so the efficacy data against that serotype “are very limited.”

“The producer, Takeda, has very limited production capacity. Brazil is the country that uses this vaccine the most, followed by Argentina. Given that these countries have a good epidemiological surveillance system and adverse effect registration, they can conduct studies on how the vaccine performs in real life, which will greatly increase our knowledge about it. For example, we will see its effectiveness against serotype 3,” said Dr. Barbosa.

The PAHO Technical Advisory Group (TAG) on vaccine-preventable diseases recommended that any country using these vaccines have surveillance systems in place because it is important to promptly report and investigate any adverse events, said Dr. Salas. The organization also suggested that vaccination should ideally be administered in a “more controlled environment,” a phase 4 study, “to complete the safety and efficacy profile, especially in those who have not had dengue before and for dengue 3 and 4,” said Dr. Salas in response to a question from this news organization.

“People cannot expect that just because they were vaccinated, they will not get dengue. The vaccine has limited reach,” he emphasized.

Other research strategies for vector control, such as the use of the Wolbachia bacteria and mosquito sterilization, are future strategies and “not tools to control this outbreak,” noted Sylvain Aldighieri, MD, director of the Department of Prevention, Control, and Elimination of Transmissible Diseases at PAHO.

In his opening remarks, Dr. Barbosa urged the intensification of efforts with tools that are already available. These approaches include eliminating mosquito breeding sites (“80% are in or near homes”) and protecting against mosquito bites, preparing health services for early diagnosis and timely clinical management, and educating the population about dengue symptoms so they seek medical attention immediately.

Although dengue is increasing throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, the most affected countries are Brazil (83%), Paraguay (5.3%), and Argentina (3.7%), which account for 92% of the cases and 87% of the deaths, PAHO reported.

This story was translated from the Medscape Spanish 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 .

The current tetravalent dengue vaccine TAK-003, from the Japanese laboratory Takeda, is not likely to control the ongoing epidemic, according to the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). The organization emphasized the need to better understand the vaccine’s effectiveness against different serotypes and its safety under real-world clinical conditions.

The Americas are experiencing a record increase in dengue cases. Three times as many cases have been identified during 2024 (3.5 million) than were reported for the same period in 2023. 

“The vaccine we have available will not curb the dengue epidemic; it should be used complementarily with other actions. The most important actions are field operations, vector control, prevention, and education,” said Daniel Salas, MD, executive manager of the PAHO Comprehensive Immunization Program, during a press conference on March 28.

“The vaccines we currently have are not the best response to reduce transmission and prevent deaths,” added Jarbas Barbosa, MD, PhD, PAHO’s director. The fatality rate remains below 0.05%, but this figure could be hard to maintain if the situation becomes more uncontrolled.

The TAK-003 regimen consists of two doses with a 3-month interval between applications, so “it is not a tool to control transmission at this moment. Studies have shown that only 8 years of [population-level] vaccination would have a significant impact on dengue transmission,” said Dr. Barbosa.

A new vaccine developed in Brazil in partnership with the company MSD, Butantan-DV, is in phase 3 trials and has the advantage of being a single-dose application, which could facilitate its use in situations with accelerated transmission. “But this vaccine will likely only be available in 2025,” said Dr. Barbosa.

PAHO officials also highlighted the need to better characterize the vaccine’s effectiveness and safety in the real world. They observed, for example, that when TAK-003 was investigated, the circulation of dengue serotype 3 was almost nonexistent, so the efficacy data against that serotype “are very limited.”

“The producer, Takeda, has very limited production capacity. Brazil is the country that uses this vaccine the most, followed by Argentina. Given that these countries have a good epidemiological surveillance system and adverse effect registration, they can conduct studies on how the vaccine performs in real life, which will greatly increase our knowledge about it. For example, we will see its effectiveness against serotype 3,” said Dr. Barbosa.

The PAHO Technical Advisory Group (TAG) on vaccine-preventable diseases recommended that any country using these vaccines have surveillance systems in place because it is important to promptly report and investigate any adverse events, said Dr. Salas. The organization also suggested that vaccination should ideally be administered in a “more controlled environment,” a phase 4 study, “to complete the safety and efficacy profile, especially in those who have not had dengue before and for dengue 3 and 4,” said Dr. Salas in response to a question from this news organization.

“People cannot expect that just because they were vaccinated, they will not get dengue. The vaccine has limited reach,” he emphasized.

Other research strategies for vector control, such as the use of the Wolbachia bacteria and mosquito sterilization, are future strategies and “not tools to control this outbreak,” noted Sylvain Aldighieri, MD, director of the Department of Prevention, Control, and Elimination of Transmissible Diseases at PAHO.

In his opening remarks, Dr. Barbosa urged the intensification of efforts with tools that are already available. These approaches include eliminating mosquito breeding sites (“80% are in or near homes”) and protecting against mosquito bites, preparing health services for early diagnosis and timely clinical management, and educating the population about dengue symptoms so they seek medical attention immediately.

Although dengue is increasing throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, the most affected countries are Brazil (83%), Paraguay (5.3%), and Argentina (3.7%), which account for 92% of the cases and 87% of the deaths, PAHO reported.

This story was translated from the Medscape Spanish 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 .

Primary care physicians who served marginalized communities had the highest proportion of patients who were unvaccinated against COVID-19, Canadian data suggested.

A study of more than 9000 family physicians in Ontario also found that the physicians with the largest proportion of unvaccinated patients were more likely to be male, to have trained outside Canada, to be older, and to work in an enhanced fee-for-service model than their counterparts who had lower proportions of unvaccinated patients.

“The family physicians with the most unvaccinated patients were also more likely to be solo practitioners and less likely to practice in team-based models, meaning they may have fewer support staff in their clinics,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.

The findings were published in CMAJ.
 

Need vs Resources

Dr. Shuldiner and her team had been working on a project to provide additional support to family physicians with large numbers of patients who had not received their COVID-19 vaccinations. Their goal was to encourage family physicians to support these patients in getting vaccinated.

“As we were designing this project, we wondered how these physicians and their patients might differ. What characteristics might they have that would enable us to design and implement an intervention with high uptake and impact?” she said.

The researchers conducted a cross-sectional, population-based cohort study using linked administrative datasets in Ontario. They calculated the percentage of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 who were enrolled with each comprehensive care family physician, ranked physicians according to the proportion of unvaccinated patients, and identified 906 physicians in the top 10% of unvaccinated patients. These physicians were compared with the remaining 90% of family physicians.

The physicians with the highest proportion of unvaccinated patients cared for 259,130 unvaccinated patients as of November 1, 2021. The proportion of patients who received two or more doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in this group was 74.2%. In comparison, the proportion of patients who received two or more doses of the vaccine was 87.0% in the remaining 90% of physicians.

Physicians with the largest proportion of unvaccinated patients were more likely to be male (64.6% vs 48.1%), to have trained outside Canada (46.9% vs 29.3%), to be older (mean age, 56 years vs 49 years), and to work in an enhanced fee-for-service model (49% vs 28%).

The study also found that patients enrolled with physicians in the most unvaccinated group tended to live in places with more ethnic diversity, higher material deprivation, and lower incomes. The proportion of recent immigrants was higher in this group.

“Clinics or practices with a large number of unvaccinated patients could be viable targets for efforts to coordinate public health and primary care,” said Dr. Shuldiner.

The findings indicate “the ongoing inverse relationship between the need for care and its accessibility and utilization. In other words, the practices with the highest need receive the fewest resources,” she noted.

“We know that relationships with trusted family physicians can positively influence patients’ decisions. Our study highlights the need to create equitable systems and processes that create opportunities for primary care teams to play a crucial role in influencing general and COVID-19-specific vaccine-related decision-making.”
 

Helping Primary Care Physicians

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Sabrina Wong, RN, PhD, professor of nursing at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, said, “They did quite a nice analysis to show this using administrative data, and I think the information they’ve uncovered will be helpful in trying to fill the gaps and provide these practitioners with more support.”

Dr. Wong did not participate in the study. “The information they provide will be useful in helping us to move forward working with underserved, underresourced communities and also hopefully provide the clinicians, family physicians, and nurse practitioners working in these areas with more resources,” she said.

“The authors also point out that there needs to be more collaboration between public health and primary care to support these communities in their efforts to get the vaccines to the people in these communities who need them.”

The study was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant. Dr. Shuldiner and Dr. Wong reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Primary care physicians who served marginalized communities had the highest proportion of patients who were unvaccinated against COVID-19, Canadian data suggested.

A study of more than 9000 family physicians in Ontario also found that the physicians with the largest proportion of unvaccinated patients were more likely to be male, to have trained outside Canada, to be older, and to work in an enhanced fee-for-service model than their counterparts who had lower proportions of unvaccinated patients.

“The family physicians with the most unvaccinated patients were also more likely to be solo practitioners and less likely to practice in team-based models, meaning they may have fewer support staff in their clinics,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.

The findings were published in CMAJ.
 

Need vs Resources

Dr. Shuldiner and her team had been working on a project to provide additional support to family physicians with large numbers of patients who had not received their COVID-19 vaccinations. Their goal was to encourage family physicians to support these patients in getting vaccinated.

“As we were designing this project, we wondered how these physicians and their patients might differ. What characteristics might they have that would enable us to design and implement an intervention with high uptake and impact?” she said.

The researchers conducted a cross-sectional, population-based cohort study using linked administrative datasets in Ontario. They calculated the percentage of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 who were enrolled with each comprehensive care family physician, ranked physicians according to the proportion of unvaccinated patients, and identified 906 physicians in the top 10% of unvaccinated patients. These physicians were compared with the remaining 90% of family physicians.

The physicians with the highest proportion of unvaccinated patients cared for 259,130 unvaccinated patients as of November 1, 2021. The proportion of patients who received two or more doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in this group was 74.2%. In comparison, the proportion of patients who received two or more doses of the vaccine was 87.0% in the remaining 90% of physicians.

Physicians with the largest proportion of unvaccinated patients were more likely to be male (64.6% vs 48.1%), to have trained outside Canada (46.9% vs 29.3%), to be older (mean age, 56 years vs 49 years), and to work in an enhanced fee-for-service model (49% vs 28%).

The study also found that patients enrolled with physicians in the most unvaccinated group tended to live in places with more ethnic diversity, higher material deprivation, and lower incomes. The proportion of recent immigrants was higher in this group.

“Clinics or practices with a large number of unvaccinated patients could be viable targets for efforts to coordinate public health and primary care,” said Dr. Shuldiner.

The findings indicate “the ongoing inverse relationship between the need for care and its accessibility and utilization. In other words, the practices with the highest need receive the fewest resources,” she noted.

“We know that relationships with trusted family physicians can positively influence patients’ decisions. Our study highlights the need to create equitable systems and processes that create opportunities for primary care teams to play a crucial role in influencing general and COVID-19-specific vaccine-related decision-making.”
 

Helping Primary Care Physicians

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Sabrina Wong, RN, PhD, professor of nursing at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, said, “They did quite a nice analysis to show this using administrative data, and I think the information they’ve uncovered will be helpful in trying to fill the gaps and provide these practitioners with more support.”

Dr. Wong did not participate in the study. “The information they provide will be useful in helping us to move forward working with underserved, underresourced communities and also hopefully provide the clinicians, family physicians, and nurse practitioners working in these areas with more resources,” she said.

“The authors also point out that there needs to be more collaboration between public health and primary care to support these communities in their efforts to get the vaccines to the people in these communities who need them.”

The study was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant. Dr. Shuldiner and Dr. Wong reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Primary care physicians who served marginalized communities had the highest proportion of patients who were unvaccinated against COVID-19, Canadian data suggested.

A study of more than 9000 family physicians in Ontario also found that the physicians with the largest proportion of unvaccinated patients were more likely to be male, to have trained outside Canada, to be older, and to work in an enhanced fee-for-service model than their counterparts who had lower proportions of unvaccinated patients.

“The family physicians with the most unvaccinated patients were also more likely to be solo practitioners and less likely to practice in team-based models, meaning they may have fewer support staff in their clinics,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.

The findings were published in CMAJ.
 

Need vs Resources

Dr. Shuldiner and her team had been working on a project to provide additional support to family physicians with large numbers of patients who had not received their COVID-19 vaccinations. Their goal was to encourage family physicians to support these patients in getting vaccinated.

“As we were designing this project, we wondered how these physicians and their patients might differ. What characteristics might they have that would enable us to design and implement an intervention with high uptake and impact?” she said.

The researchers conducted a cross-sectional, population-based cohort study using linked administrative datasets in Ontario. They calculated the percentage of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 who were enrolled with each comprehensive care family physician, ranked physicians according to the proportion of unvaccinated patients, and identified 906 physicians in the top 10% of unvaccinated patients. These physicians were compared with the remaining 90% of family physicians.

The physicians with the highest proportion of unvaccinated patients cared for 259,130 unvaccinated patients as of November 1, 2021. The proportion of patients who received two or more doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in this group was 74.2%. In comparison, the proportion of patients who received two or more doses of the vaccine was 87.0% in the remaining 90% of physicians.

Physicians with the largest proportion of unvaccinated patients were more likely to be male (64.6% vs 48.1%), to have trained outside Canada (46.9% vs 29.3%), to be older (mean age, 56 years vs 49 years), and to work in an enhanced fee-for-service model (49% vs 28%).

The study also found that patients enrolled with physicians in the most unvaccinated group tended to live in places with more ethnic diversity, higher material deprivation, and lower incomes. The proportion of recent immigrants was higher in this group.

“Clinics or practices with a large number of unvaccinated patients could be viable targets for efforts to coordinate public health and primary care,” said Dr. Shuldiner.

The findings indicate “the ongoing inverse relationship between the need for care and its accessibility and utilization. In other words, the practices with the highest need receive the fewest resources,” she noted.

“We know that relationships with trusted family physicians can positively influence patients’ decisions. Our study highlights the need to create equitable systems and processes that create opportunities for primary care teams to play a crucial role in influencing general and COVID-19-specific vaccine-related decision-making.”
 

Helping Primary Care Physicians

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Sabrina Wong, RN, PhD, professor of nursing at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, said, “They did quite a nice analysis to show this using administrative data, and I think the information they’ve uncovered will be helpful in trying to fill the gaps and provide these practitioners with more support.”

Dr. Wong did not participate in the study. “The information they provide will be useful in helping us to move forward working with underserved, underresourced communities and also hopefully provide the clinicians, family physicians, and nurse practitioners working in these areas with more resources,” she said.

“The authors also point out that there needs to be more collaboration between public health and primary care to support these communities in their efforts to get the vaccines to the people in these communities who need them.”

The study was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant. Dr. Shuldiner and Dr. Wong reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURE:

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURE:

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURE:

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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


 

Sometimes Deadly

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

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

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

Vaccine Misinformation Playing a Role

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lifelong Protection in Most Cases

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

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

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

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

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

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


 

Sometimes Deadly

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

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

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

Vaccine Misinformation Playing a Role

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lifelong Protection in Most Cases

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

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

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

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

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

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


 

Sometimes Deadly

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

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

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

Vaccine Misinformation Playing a Role

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lifelong Protection in Most Cases

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

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

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

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

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

#1: Be Patient With Your Patient

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

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

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

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

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

#2: Always Acknowledge a Concern

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

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

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

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

#3: Make a Strong Recommendation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#5: Make it Personal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#1: Be Patient With Your Patient

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

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

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

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

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

#2: Always Acknowledge a Concern

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

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

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

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

#3: Make a Strong Recommendation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#5: Make it Personal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#1: Be Patient With Your Patient

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

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

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

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

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

#2: Always Acknowledge a Concern

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

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

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

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

#3: Make a Strong Recommendation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#5: Make it Personal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Quadrivalent Vaccine

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

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

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

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

With Serogroup B

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

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

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

Two Doses With a Boost?

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Quadrivalent Vaccine

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

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

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

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

With Serogroup B

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

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

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

Two Doses With a Boost?

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Quadrivalent Vaccine

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

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

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

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

With Serogroup B

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

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

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

Two Doses With a Boost?

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

Preterm Births

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

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

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

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

Only One RSV Vaccine Approved in Pregnancy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s Next for Other Vaccines

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

Preterm Births

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

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

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

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

Only One RSV Vaccine Approved in Pregnancy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s Next for Other Vaccines

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

Preterm Births

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

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

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

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

Only One RSV Vaccine Approved in Pregnancy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s Next for Other Vaccines

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

A Shape-Shifting Virus

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advances in the Field

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

A Shape-Shifting Virus

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advances in the Field

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

A Shape-Shifting Virus

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advances in the Field

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.