Vaccines

The newly approved respiratory syncytial virus vaccine administered during pregnancy substantially reduces the clinical and economic burden of lower respiratory tract disease caused by RSV, according to research presented at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

“With RSV maternal vaccination that is associated with clinical efficacy of 69% against severe RSV disease at 6 months, we estimated that up to 200,000 cases can be averted, and that is associated with almost $800 million in total,” presenting author Amy W. Law, PharmD, director of global value and evidence at Pfizer, pointed out during a news briefing.

“RSV is associated with a significant burden in the U.S. and this newly approved and recommended maternal RSV vaccine can have substantial impact in easing some of that burden,” Dr. Law explained.

This study is “particularly timely as we head into RSV peak season,” said briefing moderator Natasha Halasa, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics, division of pediatric infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

The challenge, said Dr. Halasa, is that uptake of maternal vaccines and vaccines in general is “not optimal,” making increased awareness of this new maternal RSV vaccine important.
 

Strong efficacy data

Most children are infected with RSV at least once by the time they reach age 2 years. Very young children are at particular risk of severe complications, such as pneumonia or bronchitis.

As reported previously by this news organization, in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, Pfizer’s maternal RSV vaccine had an almost 82% efficacy against severe RSV infection in infants from birth through the first 90 days of life.

The vaccine also had a 69% efficacy against severe disease through the first 6 months of life. As part of the trial, a total of 7,400 women received a single dose of the vaccine in the late second or third trimester of their pregnancy. There were no signs of safety issues for the mothers or infants.

Based on the results, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the vaccine, known as Abrysvo, in August, to be given between weeks 32 and 36 of pregnancy.
 

New modeling study

Dr. Law and colleagues modeled the potential public health impact – both clinical and economic – of the maternal RSV vaccine among the population of all pregnant women and their infants born during a 12-month period in the United States. The model focused on severe RSV disease in babies that required medical attention.

According to their model, without widespread use of the maternal RSV vaccine, 48,246 hospitalizations, 144,495 emergency department encounters, and 399,313 outpatient clinic visits related to RSV are projected to occur annually among the U.S. birth cohort of 3.7 million infants younger than 12 months.

With widespread use of the vaccine, annual hospitalizations resulting from infant RSV would fall by 51%, emergency department encounters would decline by 32%, and outpatient clinic visits by 32% – corresponding to a decrease in direct medical costs of about $692 million and indirect nonmedical costs of roughly $110 million.

Dr. Law highlighted two important caveats to the data. “The protections are based on the year-round administration of the vaccine to pregnant women at 32 to 36 weeks’ gestational age, and this is also assuming 100% uptake. Of course, in reality, that most likely is not the case,” she told the briefing.

Dr. Halasa noted that the peak age for severe RSV illness is 3 months and it’s tough to identify infants at highest risk for severe RSV.

Nearly 80% of infants with RSV who are hospitalized do not have an underlying medical condition, “so we don’t even know who those high-risk infants are. That’s why having this vaccine is so exciting,” she told the briefing.

Dr. Halasa said it’s also important to note that infants with severe RSV typically make not just one but multiple visits to the clinic or emergency department, leading to missed days of work for the parent, not to mention the “emotional burden of having your otherwise healthy newborn or young infant in the hospital.”

In addition to Pfizer’s maternal RSV vaccine, the FDA in July approved AstraZeneca’s monoclonal antibody nirsevimab (Beyfortus) for the prevention of RSV in neonates and infants entering their first RSV season, and in children up to 24 months who remain vulnerable to severe RSV disease through their second RSV season.

The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Law is employed by Pfizer. Dr. Halasa has received grant and research support from Merck.

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

The newly approved respiratory syncytial virus vaccine administered during pregnancy substantially reduces the clinical and economic burden of lower respiratory tract disease caused by RSV, according to research presented at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

“With RSV maternal vaccination that is associated with clinical efficacy of 69% against severe RSV disease at 6 months, we estimated that up to 200,000 cases can be averted, and that is associated with almost $800 million in total,” presenting author Amy W. Law, PharmD, director of global value and evidence at Pfizer, pointed out during a news briefing.

“RSV is associated with a significant burden in the U.S. and this newly approved and recommended maternal RSV vaccine can have substantial impact in easing some of that burden,” Dr. Law explained.

This study is “particularly timely as we head into RSV peak season,” said briefing moderator Natasha Halasa, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics, division of pediatric infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

The challenge, said Dr. Halasa, is that uptake of maternal vaccines and vaccines in general is “not optimal,” making increased awareness of this new maternal RSV vaccine important.
 

Strong efficacy data

Most children are infected with RSV at least once by the time they reach age 2 years. Very young children are at particular risk of severe complications, such as pneumonia or bronchitis.

As reported previously by this news organization, in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, Pfizer’s maternal RSV vaccine had an almost 82% efficacy against severe RSV infection in infants from birth through the first 90 days of life.

The vaccine also had a 69% efficacy against severe disease through the first 6 months of life. As part of the trial, a total of 7,400 women received a single dose of the vaccine in the late second or third trimester of their pregnancy. There were no signs of safety issues for the mothers or infants.

Based on the results, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the vaccine, known as Abrysvo, in August, to be given between weeks 32 and 36 of pregnancy.
 

New modeling study

Dr. Law and colleagues modeled the potential public health impact – both clinical and economic – of the maternal RSV vaccine among the population of all pregnant women and their infants born during a 12-month period in the United States. The model focused on severe RSV disease in babies that required medical attention.

According to their model, without widespread use of the maternal RSV vaccine, 48,246 hospitalizations, 144,495 emergency department encounters, and 399,313 outpatient clinic visits related to RSV are projected to occur annually among the U.S. birth cohort of 3.7 million infants younger than 12 months.

With widespread use of the vaccine, annual hospitalizations resulting from infant RSV would fall by 51%, emergency department encounters would decline by 32%, and outpatient clinic visits by 32% – corresponding to a decrease in direct medical costs of about $692 million and indirect nonmedical costs of roughly $110 million.

Dr. Law highlighted two important caveats to the data. “The protections are based on the year-round administration of the vaccine to pregnant women at 32 to 36 weeks’ gestational age, and this is also assuming 100% uptake. Of course, in reality, that most likely is not the case,” she told the briefing.

Dr. Halasa noted that the peak age for severe RSV illness is 3 months and it’s tough to identify infants at highest risk for severe RSV.

Nearly 80% of infants with RSV who are hospitalized do not have an underlying medical condition, “so we don’t even know who those high-risk infants are. That’s why having this vaccine is so exciting,” she told the briefing.

Dr. Halasa said it’s also important to note that infants with severe RSV typically make not just one but multiple visits to the clinic or emergency department, leading to missed days of work for the parent, not to mention the “emotional burden of having your otherwise healthy newborn or young infant in the hospital.”

In addition to Pfizer’s maternal RSV vaccine, the FDA in July approved AstraZeneca’s monoclonal antibody nirsevimab (Beyfortus) for the prevention of RSV in neonates and infants entering their first RSV season, and in children up to 24 months who remain vulnerable to severe RSV disease through their second RSV season.

The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Law is employed by Pfizer. Dr. Halasa has received grant and research support from Merck.

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

The newly approved respiratory syncytial virus vaccine administered during pregnancy substantially reduces the clinical and economic burden of lower respiratory tract disease caused by RSV, according to research presented at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

“With RSV maternal vaccination that is associated with clinical efficacy of 69% against severe RSV disease at 6 months, we estimated that up to 200,000 cases can be averted, and that is associated with almost $800 million in total,” presenting author Amy W. Law, PharmD, director of global value and evidence at Pfizer, pointed out during a news briefing.

“RSV is associated with a significant burden in the U.S. and this newly approved and recommended maternal RSV vaccine can have substantial impact in easing some of that burden,” Dr. Law explained.

This study is “particularly timely as we head into RSV peak season,” said briefing moderator Natasha Halasa, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics, division of pediatric infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

The challenge, said Dr. Halasa, is that uptake of maternal vaccines and vaccines in general is “not optimal,” making increased awareness of this new maternal RSV vaccine important.
 

Strong efficacy data

Most children are infected with RSV at least once by the time they reach age 2 years. Very young children are at particular risk of severe complications, such as pneumonia or bronchitis.

As reported previously by this news organization, in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, Pfizer’s maternal RSV vaccine had an almost 82% efficacy against severe RSV infection in infants from birth through the first 90 days of life.

The vaccine also had a 69% efficacy against severe disease through the first 6 months of life. As part of the trial, a total of 7,400 women received a single dose of the vaccine in the late second or third trimester of their pregnancy. There were no signs of safety issues for the mothers or infants.

Based on the results, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the vaccine, known as Abrysvo, in August, to be given between weeks 32 and 36 of pregnancy.
 

New modeling study

Dr. Law and colleagues modeled the potential public health impact – both clinical and economic – of the maternal RSV vaccine among the population of all pregnant women and their infants born during a 12-month period in the United States. The model focused on severe RSV disease in babies that required medical attention.

According to their model, without widespread use of the maternal RSV vaccine, 48,246 hospitalizations, 144,495 emergency department encounters, and 399,313 outpatient clinic visits related to RSV are projected to occur annually among the U.S. birth cohort of 3.7 million infants younger than 12 months.

With widespread use of the vaccine, annual hospitalizations resulting from infant RSV would fall by 51%, emergency department encounters would decline by 32%, and outpatient clinic visits by 32% – corresponding to a decrease in direct medical costs of about $692 million and indirect nonmedical costs of roughly $110 million.

Dr. Law highlighted two important caveats to the data. “The protections are based on the year-round administration of the vaccine to pregnant women at 32 to 36 weeks’ gestational age, and this is also assuming 100% uptake. Of course, in reality, that most likely is not the case,” she told the briefing.

Dr. Halasa noted that the peak age for severe RSV illness is 3 months and it’s tough to identify infants at highest risk for severe RSV.

Nearly 80% of infants with RSV who are hospitalized do not have an underlying medical condition, “so we don’t even know who those high-risk infants are. That’s why having this vaccine is so exciting,” she told the briefing.

Dr. Halasa said it’s also important to note that infants with severe RSV typically make not just one but multiple visits to the clinic or emergency department, leading to missed days of work for the parent, not to mention the “emotional burden of having your otherwise healthy newborn or young infant in the hospital.”

In addition to Pfizer’s maternal RSV vaccine, the FDA in July approved AstraZeneca’s monoclonal antibody nirsevimab (Beyfortus) for the prevention of RSV in neonates and infants entering their first RSV season, and in children up to 24 months who remain vulnerable to severe RSV disease through their second RSV season.

The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Law is employed by Pfizer. Dr. Halasa has received grant and research support from Merck.

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

CASE Sexually active woman asks about the HPV vaccine

A 26-year-old woman delivered her first child 4 weeks ago. She has had 3 lifetime sexual partners and is now in a mutually faithful monogamous relationship with her partner. She has no known history of sexually transmissible infections. She received only one Pap test 3 years ago, and the cytology showed no abnormal cells. This cervical specimen was not tested for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA. At the time of her postpartum appointment, she inquires whether she is a candidate for the HPV vaccine.

What should be your response?
 

Genital HPV infection is the most common sexually transmissible infection in the United States. This virus is the cause of multiple genital malignancies, including cancers of the vagina, vulva, penis, anus, and cervix. The organism is also now the major cause of oropharyngeal cancer.

Of the more than 200 different HPV types that have been identified, 12 have been defined as oncogenic (high risk), and 8 to 12 types have been defined as possibly or probably oncogenic. The HPV strain with the highest risk of progression to cancer is HPV 16. The strains HPV 16 and 18 are responsible for approximately 70% of cases of cervical cancer. Each year in the United States, approximately 11,500 new cases of invasive cervical cancer occur. Unfortunately, this malignancy is responsible for about 4,000 deaths annually. Worldwide, HPV causes approximately 690,000 cancers each year.¹

To a large extent, most cases of HPV infection would be preventable if patients were to take advantage of the remarkably effective HPV vaccine that is now available. However, acceptance of the vaccine has been disappointing. In 2020, only about half of adolescents, age 13 to 15, had received the appropriate number of vaccine doses.¹

As ObGyn physicians, we can take several measures, in concert with our pediatrician colleagues, to improve HPV vaccination rates. In this article, I review the development of the HPV vaccine and describe the components, indications, dosing schedules, contraindications, adverse effects, and cost of the vaccine.

HPV vaccine development and expansion

The first HPV vaccine introduced in the United States was the recombinant quadrivalent vaccine (Gardasil; Merck); it was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2006. This vaccine is composed of viral-like particles unique to HPV 16 and 18 (the 2 most common causes of cervical, penile, anal, and oropharyngeal cancer) and HPV 6 and 11 (the 2 most common causes of genital warts). The formulation is prepared in baker’s yeast, and it elicits a robust production of neutralizing antibodies.²

In 2009, the FDA approved the bivalent vaccine (Cervarix; GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals). This vaccine contains viral-like particles unique to HPV 16 and 18, and it also induces a robust immune response. The vaccine is prepared in insect viral vectors.²

Both the quadrivalent and bivalent vaccines are no longer available in the United States. The only HPV vaccine currently marketed is the recombinant 9-valent vaccine (Gardasil 9; Merck), which was approved by the FDA in 2014. This newer vaccine targets the original 4 viral HPV strains in the quadrivalent vaccine (16, 18, 6, 11) plus 5 additional oncogenic strains: 31, 33, 45, 52, 58.^2-4 The HPV strains targeted by this vaccine are responsible for approximately 90% of all cancers caused by HPV.

The 9-valent HPV vaccine, like the other 2, is highly effective in preventing cancers of the cervix, vagina, vulva, anus, penis; oropharyngeal cancers; and precancerous lesions such as genital warts.^2-5 It will not, however, prevent the progression of preexisting infection or clear an infection that is already present at the time of vaccination.¹

Although the original protocol for administration of the vaccine provided for 3 doses, recent studies indicate that 2 doses may be as effective as 3 in eliciting a favorable antibody response.⁶ There also is evidence that even a single dose of the vaccine can elicit a protective immune response.⁷ This encouraging finding is particularly important to public health officials responsible for developing HPV vaccination programs in low- and middle-resource countries.

Continue to: Target groups for the HPV vaccine...

Target groups for the HPV vaccine

The primary target group for the HPV vaccine is girls and boys who are aged 11 to 12 years. The key strategy is to immunize these individuals before they become sexually active. The vaccine also should be offered to children who are aged 9 to 10 years of age if they are judged to be at unusual risk, such as because of concern about sexual molestation. Children in these 2 age groups should receive 2 doses of the vaccine, with the second dose administered 6 to 12 months after the first dose.

The second target group for vaccination is individuals who are aged 13 to 26 years who have never been vaccinated. They should be offered catch-up vaccination. If older than age 15, they should receive 3 doses of the vaccine, with the second dose administered 1 to 2 months after the first dose and the third dose administered 6 months after the first dose.¹

A third target group is individuals who are aged 27 to 45 years and who, in their own opinion or in the opinion of their physician, are at new or increased risk for HPV infection. These individuals should receive the 3-dose vaccine series as outlined above.¹

Patients in any age range who are immunocompromised, for example, due to HIV infection, should receive the 3-dose series.¹

The approximate retail cost of a single 0.5-mL intramuscular dose of the 9-valent vaccine is $240 (www.goodrx.com).

Vaccine adverse effects

The most common reactions to the HPV vaccine are inflammation at the site of injection, fatigue, headache, fever, gastrointestinal upset, vertigo, cough, and oropharyngeal discomfort. The most serious reaction—which fortunately is very rare—is anaphylaxis.¹

Contraindications to the vaccine

The HPV vaccine should not be used in any patient who is hypersensitive to any component of the vaccine, including yeast. It should not be given to a patient who is moderately or severely ill at the time of the scheduled administration. Because of an abundance of caution, the manufacturer also recommends that the vaccine not be given to pregnant women even though the agent does not contain live virus.¹

Of note, a study by Scheller and colleagues was very reassuring about the lack of adverse effects of HPV vaccine administration in pregnancy.⁸ The authors evaluated a large cohort of pregnant women in Demark and found that exposure to the vaccine was not associated with an increase in the frequency of major birth defects, spontaneous abortion, preterm delivery, low birthweight, fetal growth restriction, or stillbirth.⁸

Barriers to vaccination

One important barrier to HPV vaccination is patient apprehension that the vaccine may cause genital tract or oropharyngeal cancer. The patient should be reassured that the vaccine does not contain infectious viral particles and does not transmit infection. Rather, it builds robust immunity to infection.

Another important barrier is the misconception that the vaccine will promote sexual promiscuity in preteenagers and teenagers. Absolutely no evidence supports this belief. Multiple studies have demonstrated that teenagers do not engage in more high-risk sexual behavior following vaccination.

A specific barrier related to vaccination of young boys is the philosophical viewpoint that, “Why should my young male child be vaccinated to protect against a disease (specifically cervical cancer) that occurs only in girls and women?” The appropriate answer to this question is that the vaccine also protects against penile cancer, anal cancer, oropharyngeal cancer, and genital warts. While penile and anal cancers are rare, the other 2 conditions are not. In fact, oropharyngeal cancer is significantly more common in males than females.

A final important barrier to HPV vaccination is cost. The new evidence that demonstrated the effectiveness of a 2-dose vaccine series, and even single-dose vaccination, is of great importance in minimizing cost of the HPV vaccine series, in the absence of full reimbursement by public and private insurance agencies.

Continue to: Creating an effective vaccination program...

Creating an effective vaccination program

The following commonsense guidelines, which we have implemented at our medical center, should be helpful in organizing an effective HPV vaccination program for your office or department^4,9,10:

• One clinician in the department or practice should be designated the “vaccination champion.” This individual should provide colleagues with periodic updates, emphasizing the importance of the HPV vaccine and other vaccines, such as Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis), influenza, COVID, pneumococcal, hepatitis B, herpes zoster (shingles), and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus).
• One staff member in the practice or department should be designated as the go-to person for all logistical matters related to vaccines. This individual should be responsible for estimating usage, ordering vaccines, and storing them properly. He or she also should be knowledgeable about the cost of the vaccines and insurance reimbursement for the vaccines.
• Signs and educational materials should be posted in strategic locations in the office, advising patients of the importance of timely vaccination for themselves and their adolescent children.
• At every encounter, patients should be encouraged to receive the HPV vaccine series if they are in the appropriate age range and social situation for vaccination. They should not be required to have HPV testing before vaccine administration.
• Key leaders in the department or practice should lobby effectively with their pediatrician colleagues and with public and private insurance companies to encourage timely administration and proper coverage of this important immunization.

Other measures to reduce the risk of HPV-mediated malignancies

Practitioners should advise their patients to:

• Be circumspect in selection of sexual partners.
• Use male or female condoms when engaging in vaginal, anal, and/or oral sex with multiple partners, particularly those who may have genital or oral condylomas.
• Have regular Pap tests, every 3 to 5 years, depending upon age. More frequent testing may be indicated if there is a history of previous abnormal testing.
• Seek prompt medical or surgical treatment for genital or oral condylomas.

CASE Resolved with HPV vaccination

This patient is an excellent candidate for catch-up vaccination. She should receive the first dose of the 9-valent HPV vaccine at the time of her postpartum appointment. The second dose should be administered 1 to 2 months later. The third dose should be administered 6 months after the first dose. She also should have a Pap test, either cytology alone or cytology plus HPV screening. If the latter test is chosen and is reassuring, she will not need retesting for 5 years. If the former test is chosen, she should have a repeat test in 3 years. ●

CASE Sexually active woman asks about the HPV vaccine

A 26-year-old woman delivered her first child 4 weeks ago. She has had 3 lifetime sexual partners and is now in a mutually faithful monogamous relationship with her partner. She has no known history of sexually transmissible infections. She received only one Pap test 3 years ago, and the cytology showed no abnormal cells. This cervical specimen was not tested for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA. At the time of her postpartum appointment, she inquires whether she is a candidate for the HPV vaccine.

What should be your response?
 

Genital HPV infection is the most common sexually transmissible infection in the United States. This virus is the cause of multiple genital malignancies, including cancers of the vagina, vulva, penis, anus, and cervix. The organism is also now the major cause of oropharyngeal cancer.

Of the more than 200 different HPV types that have been identified, 12 have been defined as oncogenic (high risk), and 8 to 12 types have been defined as possibly or probably oncogenic. The HPV strain with the highest risk of progression to cancer is HPV 16. The strains HPV 16 and 18 are responsible for approximately 70% of cases of cervical cancer. Each year in the United States, approximately 11,500 new cases of invasive cervical cancer occur. Unfortunately, this malignancy is responsible for about 4,000 deaths annually. Worldwide, HPV causes approximately 690,000 cancers each year.¹

To a large extent, most cases of HPV infection would be preventable if patients were to take advantage of the remarkably effective HPV vaccine that is now available. However, acceptance of the vaccine has been disappointing. In 2020, only about half of adolescents, age 13 to 15, had received the appropriate number of vaccine doses.¹

As ObGyn physicians, we can take several measures, in concert with our pediatrician colleagues, to improve HPV vaccination rates. In this article, I review the development of the HPV vaccine and describe the components, indications, dosing schedules, contraindications, adverse effects, and cost of the vaccine.

HPV vaccine development and expansion

The first HPV vaccine introduced in the United States was the recombinant quadrivalent vaccine (Gardasil; Merck); it was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2006. This vaccine is composed of viral-like particles unique to HPV 16 and 18 (the 2 most common causes of cervical, penile, anal, and oropharyngeal cancer) and HPV 6 and 11 (the 2 most common causes of genital warts). The formulation is prepared in baker’s yeast, and it elicits a robust production of neutralizing antibodies.²

In 2009, the FDA approved the bivalent vaccine (Cervarix; GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals). This vaccine contains viral-like particles unique to HPV 16 and 18, and it also induces a robust immune response. The vaccine is prepared in insect viral vectors.²

Both the quadrivalent and bivalent vaccines are no longer available in the United States. The only HPV vaccine currently marketed is the recombinant 9-valent vaccine (Gardasil 9; Merck), which was approved by the FDA in 2014. This newer vaccine targets the original 4 viral HPV strains in the quadrivalent vaccine (16, 18, 6, 11) plus 5 additional oncogenic strains: 31, 33, 45, 52, 58.^2-4 The HPV strains targeted by this vaccine are responsible for approximately 90% of all cancers caused by HPV.

The 9-valent HPV vaccine, like the other 2, is highly effective in preventing cancers of the cervix, vagina, vulva, anus, penis; oropharyngeal cancers; and precancerous lesions such as genital warts.^2-5 It will not, however, prevent the progression of preexisting infection or clear an infection that is already present at the time of vaccination.¹

Although the original protocol for administration of the vaccine provided for 3 doses, recent studies indicate that 2 doses may be as effective as 3 in eliciting a favorable antibody response.⁶ There also is evidence that even a single dose of the vaccine can elicit a protective immune response.⁷ This encouraging finding is particularly important to public health officials responsible for developing HPV vaccination programs in low- and middle-resource countries.

Continue to: Target groups for the HPV vaccine...

Target groups for the HPV vaccine

The primary target group for the HPV vaccine is girls and boys who are aged 11 to 12 years. The key strategy is to immunize these individuals before they become sexually active. The vaccine also should be offered to children who are aged 9 to 10 years of age if they are judged to be at unusual risk, such as because of concern about sexual molestation. Children in these 2 age groups should receive 2 doses of the vaccine, with the second dose administered 6 to 12 months after the first dose.

The second target group for vaccination is individuals who are aged 13 to 26 years who have never been vaccinated. They should be offered catch-up vaccination. If older than age 15, they should receive 3 doses of the vaccine, with the second dose administered 1 to 2 months after the first dose and the third dose administered 6 months after the first dose.¹

A third target group is individuals who are aged 27 to 45 years and who, in their own opinion or in the opinion of their physician, are at new or increased risk for HPV infection. These individuals should receive the 3-dose vaccine series as outlined above.¹

Patients in any age range who are immunocompromised, for example, due to HIV infection, should receive the 3-dose series.¹

The approximate retail cost of a single 0.5-mL intramuscular dose of the 9-valent vaccine is $240 (www.goodrx.com).

Vaccine adverse effects

The most common reactions to the HPV vaccine are inflammation at the site of injection, fatigue, headache, fever, gastrointestinal upset, vertigo, cough, and oropharyngeal discomfort. The most serious reaction—which fortunately is very rare—is anaphylaxis.¹

Contraindications to the vaccine

The HPV vaccine should not be used in any patient who is hypersensitive to any component of the vaccine, including yeast. It should not be given to a patient who is moderately or severely ill at the time of the scheduled administration. Because of an abundance of caution, the manufacturer also recommends that the vaccine not be given to pregnant women even though the agent does not contain live virus.¹

Of note, a study by Scheller and colleagues was very reassuring about the lack of adverse effects of HPV vaccine administration in pregnancy.⁸ The authors evaluated a large cohort of pregnant women in Demark and found that exposure to the vaccine was not associated with an increase in the frequency of major birth defects, spontaneous abortion, preterm delivery, low birthweight, fetal growth restriction, or stillbirth.⁸

Barriers to vaccination

One important barrier to HPV vaccination is patient apprehension that the vaccine may cause genital tract or oropharyngeal cancer. The patient should be reassured that the vaccine does not contain infectious viral particles and does not transmit infection. Rather, it builds robust immunity to infection.

Another important barrier is the misconception that the vaccine will promote sexual promiscuity in preteenagers and teenagers. Absolutely no evidence supports this belief. Multiple studies have demonstrated that teenagers do not engage in more high-risk sexual behavior following vaccination.

A specific barrier related to vaccination of young boys is the philosophical viewpoint that, “Why should my young male child be vaccinated to protect against a disease (specifically cervical cancer) that occurs only in girls and women?” The appropriate answer to this question is that the vaccine also protects against penile cancer, anal cancer, oropharyngeal cancer, and genital warts. While penile and anal cancers are rare, the other 2 conditions are not. In fact, oropharyngeal cancer is significantly more common in males than females.

A final important barrier to HPV vaccination is cost. The new evidence that demonstrated the effectiveness of a 2-dose vaccine series, and even single-dose vaccination, is of great importance in minimizing cost of the HPV vaccine series, in the absence of full reimbursement by public and private insurance agencies.

Continue to: Creating an effective vaccination program...

Creating an effective vaccination program

The following commonsense guidelines, which we have implemented at our medical center, should be helpful in organizing an effective HPV vaccination program for your office or department^4,9,10:

• One clinician in the department or practice should be designated the “vaccination champion.” This individual should provide colleagues with periodic updates, emphasizing the importance of the HPV vaccine and other vaccines, such as Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis), influenza, COVID, pneumococcal, hepatitis B, herpes zoster (shingles), and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus).
• One staff member in the practice or department should be designated as the go-to person for all logistical matters related to vaccines. This individual should be responsible for estimating usage, ordering vaccines, and storing them properly. He or she also should be knowledgeable about the cost of the vaccines and insurance reimbursement for the vaccines.
• Signs and educational materials should be posted in strategic locations in the office, advising patients of the importance of timely vaccination for themselves and their adolescent children.
• At every encounter, patients should be encouraged to receive the HPV vaccine series if they are in the appropriate age range and social situation for vaccination. They should not be required to have HPV testing before vaccine administration.
• Key leaders in the department or practice should lobby effectively with their pediatrician colleagues and with public and private insurance companies to encourage timely administration and proper coverage of this important immunization.

Other measures to reduce the risk of HPV-mediated malignancies

Practitioners should advise their patients to:

• Be circumspect in selection of sexual partners.
• Use male or female condoms when engaging in vaginal, anal, and/or oral sex with multiple partners, particularly those who may have genital or oral condylomas.
• Have regular Pap tests, every 3 to 5 years, depending upon age. More frequent testing may be indicated if there is a history of previous abnormal testing.
• Seek prompt medical or surgical treatment for genital or oral condylomas.

CASE Resolved with HPV vaccination

This patient is an excellent candidate for catch-up vaccination. She should receive the first dose of the 9-valent HPV vaccine at the time of her postpartum appointment. The second dose should be administered 1 to 2 months later. The third dose should be administered 6 months after the first dose. She also should have a Pap test, either cytology alone or cytology plus HPV screening. If the latter test is chosen and is reassuring, she will not need retesting for 5 years. If the former test is chosen, she should have a repeat test in 3 years. ●

CASE Sexually active woman asks about the HPV vaccine

A 26-year-old woman delivered her first child 4 weeks ago. She has had 3 lifetime sexual partners and is now in a mutually faithful monogamous relationship with her partner. She has no known history of sexually transmissible infections. She received only one Pap test 3 years ago, and the cytology showed no abnormal cells. This cervical specimen was not tested for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA. At the time of her postpartum appointment, she inquires whether she is a candidate for the HPV vaccine.

What should be your response?
 

Genital HPV infection is the most common sexually transmissible infection in the United States. This virus is the cause of multiple genital malignancies, including cancers of the vagina, vulva, penis, anus, and cervix. The organism is also now the major cause of oropharyngeal cancer.

Of the more than 200 different HPV types that have been identified, 12 have been defined as oncogenic (high risk), and 8 to 12 types have been defined as possibly or probably oncogenic. The HPV strain with the highest risk of progression to cancer is HPV 16. The strains HPV 16 and 18 are responsible for approximately 70% of cases of cervical cancer. Each year in the United States, approximately 11,500 new cases of invasive cervical cancer occur. Unfortunately, this malignancy is responsible for about 4,000 deaths annually. Worldwide, HPV causes approximately 690,000 cancers each year.¹

To a large extent, most cases of HPV infection would be preventable if patients were to take advantage of the remarkably effective HPV vaccine that is now available. However, acceptance of the vaccine has been disappointing. In 2020, only about half of adolescents, age 13 to 15, had received the appropriate number of vaccine doses.¹

As ObGyn physicians, we can take several measures, in concert with our pediatrician colleagues, to improve HPV vaccination rates. In this article, I review the development of the HPV vaccine and describe the components, indications, dosing schedules, contraindications, adverse effects, and cost of the vaccine.

HPV vaccine development and expansion

The first HPV vaccine introduced in the United States was the recombinant quadrivalent vaccine (Gardasil; Merck); it was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2006. This vaccine is composed of viral-like particles unique to HPV 16 and 18 (the 2 most common causes of cervical, penile, anal, and oropharyngeal cancer) and HPV 6 and 11 (the 2 most common causes of genital warts). The formulation is prepared in baker’s yeast, and it elicits a robust production of neutralizing antibodies.²

In 2009, the FDA approved the bivalent vaccine (Cervarix; GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals). This vaccine contains viral-like particles unique to HPV 16 and 18, and it also induces a robust immune response. The vaccine is prepared in insect viral vectors.²

Both the quadrivalent and bivalent vaccines are no longer available in the United States. The only HPV vaccine currently marketed is the recombinant 9-valent vaccine (Gardasil 9; Merck), which was approved by the FDA in 2014. This newer vaccine targets the original 4 viral HPV strains in the quadrivalent vaccine (16, 18, 6, 11) plus 5 additional oncogenic strains: 31, 33, 45, 52, 58.^2-4 The HPV strains targeted by this vaccine are responsible for approximately 90% of all cancers caused by HPV.

The 9-valent HPV vaccine, like the other 2, is highly effective in preventing cancers of the cervix, vagina, vulva, anus, penis; oropharyngeal cancers; and precancerous lesions such as genital warts.^2-5 It will not, however, prevent the progression of preexisting infection or clear an infection that is already present at the time of vaccination.¹

Although the original protocol for administration of the vaccine provided for 3 doses, recent studies indicate that 2 doses may be as effective as 3 in eliciting a favorable antibody response.⁶ There also is evidence that even a single dose of the vaccine can elicit a protective immune response.⁷ This encouraging finding is particularly important to public health officials responsible for developing HPV vaccination programs in low- and middle-resource countries.

Continue to: Target groups for the HPV vaccine...

Target groups for the HPV vaccine

The primary target group for the HPV vaccine is girls and boys who are aged 11 to 12 years. The key strategy is to immunize these individuals before they become sexually active. The vaccine also should be offered to children who are aged 9 to 10 years of age if they are judged to be at unusual risk, such as because of concern about sexual molestation. Children in these 2 age groups should receive 2 doses of the vaccine, with the second dose administered 6 to 12 months after the first dose.

The second target group for vaccination is individuals who are aged 13 to 26 years who have never been vaccinated. They should be offered catch-up vaccination. If older than age 15, they should receive 3 doses of the vaccine, with the second dose administered 1 to 2 months after the first dose and the third dose administered 6 months after the first dose.¹

A third target group is individuals who are aged 27 to 45 years and who, in their own opinion or in the opinion of their physician, are at new or increased risk for HPV infection. These individuals should receive the 3-dose vaccine series as outlined above.¹

Patients in any age range who are immunocompromised, for example, due to HIV infection, should receive the 3-dose series.¹

The approximate retail cost of a single 0.5-mL intramuscular dose of the 9-valent vaccine is $240 (www.goodrx.com).

Vaccine adverse effects

The most common reactions to the HPV vaccine are inflammation at the site of injection, fatigue, headache, fever, gastrointestinal upset, vertigo, cough, and oropharyngeal discomfort. The most serious reaction—which fortunately is very rare—is anaphylaxis.¹

Contraindications to the vaccine

The HPV vaccine should not be used in any patient who is hypersensitive to any component of the vaccine, including yeast. It should not be given to a patient who is moderately or severely ill at the time of the scheduled administration. Because of an abundance of caution, the manufacturer also recommends that the vaccine not be given to pregnant women even though the agent does not contain live virus.¹

Of note, a study by Scheller and colleagues was very reassuring about the lack of adverse effects of HPV vaccine administration in pregnancy.⁸ The authors evaluated a large cohort of pregnant women in Demark and found that exposure to the vaccine was not associated with an increase in the frequency of major birth defects, spontaneous abortion, preterm delivery, low birthweight, fetal growth restriction, or stillbirth.⁸

Barriers to vaccination

One important barrier to HPV vaccination is patient apprehension that the vaccine may cause genital tract or oropharyngeal cancer. The patient should be reassured that the vaccine does not contain infectious viral particles and does not transmit infection. Rather, it builds robust immunity to infection.

Another important barrier is the misconception that the vaccine will promote sexual promiscuity in preteenagers and teenagers. Absolutely no evidence supports this belief. Multiple studies have demonstrated that teenagers do not engage in more high-risk sexual behavior following vaccination.

A specific barrier related to vaccination of young boys is the philosophical viewpoint that, “Why should my young male child be vaccinated to protect against a disease (specifically cervical cancer) that occurs only in girls and women?” The appropriate answer to this question is that the vaccine also protects against penile cancer, anal cancer, oropharyngeal cancer, and genital warts. While penile and anal cancers are rare, the other 2 conditions are not. In fact, oropharyngeal cancer is significantly more common in males than females.

A final important barrier to HPV vaccination is cost. The new evidence that demonstrated the effectiveness of a 2-dose vaccine series, and even single-dose vaccination, is of great importance in minimizing cost of the HPV vaccine series, in the absence of full reimbursement by public and private insurance agencies.

Continue to: Creating an effective vaccination program...

Creating an effective vaccination program

The following commonsense guidelines, which we have implemented at our medical center, should be helpful in organizing an effective HPV vaccination program for your office or department^4,9,10:

• One clinician in the department or practice should be designated the “vaccination champion.” This individual should provide colleagues with periodic updates, emphasizing the importance of the HPV vaccine and other vaccines, such as Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis), influenza, COVID, pneumococcal, hepatitis B, herpes zoster (shingles), and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus).
• One staff member in the practice or department should be designated as the go-to person for all logistical matters related to vaccines. This individual should be responsible for estimating usage, ordering vaccines, and storing them properly. He or she also should be knowledgeable about the cost of the vaccines and insurance reimbursement for the vaccines.
• Signs and educational materials should be posted in strategic locations in the office, advising patients of the importance of timely vaccination for themselves and their adolescent children.
• At every encounter, patients should be encouraged to receive the HPV vaccine series if they are in the appropriate age range and social situation for vaccination. They should not be required to have HPV testing before vaccine administration.
• Key leaders in the department or practice should lobby effectively with their pediatrician colleagues and with public and private insurance companies to encourage timely administration and proper coverage of this important immunization.

Other measures to reduce the risk of HPV-mediated malignancies

Practitioners should advise their patients to:

• Be circumspect in selection of sexual partners.
• Use male or female condoms when engaging in vaginal, anal, and/or oral sex with multiple partners, particularly those who may have genital or oral condylomas.
• Have regular Pap tests, every 3 to 5 years, depending upon age. More frequent testing may be indicated if there is a history of previous abnormal testing.
• Seek prompt medical or surgical treatment for genital or oral condylomas.

CASE Resolved with HPV vaccination

This patient is an excellent candidate for catch-up vaccination. She should receive the first dose of the 9-valent HPV vaccine at the time of her postpartum appointment. The second dose should be administered 1 to 2 months later. The third dose should be administered 6 months after the first dose. She also should have a Pap test, either cytology alone or cytology plus HPV screening. If the latter test is chosen and is reassuring, she will not need retesting for 5 years. If the former test is chosen, she should have a repeat test in 3 years. ●

THE CASE

A 52-year-old man sought care at the emergency department for intermittent fevers that started within 6 days of receiving his second dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech). After an unremarkable work-up, he was discharged home. Six days later, he returned to the emergency department with a fever of 102 °F and new-onset, progressive tremors in all 4 of his extremities.

The patient had a history of rheumatoid arthritis, for which he was taking oral methotrexate 15 mg once weekly and golimumab 50 mg SQ once monthly, and atrial fibrillation. He’d also had mechanical aortic and mitral valves implanted and was taking warfarin (9 mg/d on weekdays, 6 mg/d on Saturday and Sunday). Aside from his fever, his vital signs were normal. He also had horizontal nystagmus (chronically present) and diffuse tremors/myoclonic movements throughout his upper and lower extremities. The tremors were present at rest and worsened with intention/activity, which affected the patient’s ability to walk and perform activities of daily living.

He was admitted the next day to the family medicine service for further evaluation. Neurology and infectious disease consultations were requested, and a broad initial work-up was undertaken. Hyperreflexia was present in all of his extremities, but his neurologic examination was otherwise normal. Initial laboratory tests demonstrated leukocytosis and elevated liver transaminases. His international normalized ratio (INR) and prothrombin time (PT) also were elevated (> 8 [goal, 2.5-3.5 for mechanical heart valves] and > 90 seconds [normal range, 9.7-13.0 seconds], respectively), thus his warfarin was held and oral vitamin K was started (initial dose of 2.5 mg, which was increased to 5 mg when his INR did not decrease enough).

By Day 2, his INR and PT had normalized enough to reinitiate his warfarin dosing. Results from the viral antibody and polymerase chain reaction testing indicated the presence of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection with viremia; blood cultures for bacterial infection were negative. Brain magnetic resonance imaging was ordered and identified a small, acute left-side cerebellar stroke. Lumbar puncture also was ordered but deferred until his INR was below 1.5 (on Day 8), at which point it confirmed the absence of CMV or herpes simplex virus in his central nervous system.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The patient started oral valganciclovir 900 mg twice daily to ameliorate his tremors, but he did not tolerate it well, vomiting after dosing. He was switched to IV ganciclovir 5 mg/kg every 12 hours; however, his tremors were not improving, leading the team to suspect an etiology other than viral infection. A presumptive diagnosis of autoimmune movement disorder was made, and serum tests were ordered; the results were positive for antiphospholipid antibodies, including anticardiolipin and anti-ß₂ glycoprotein-I antibodies. A final diagnosis of autoimmune antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS)–related movement disorder¹ with coagulopathy was reached, and the patient was started on methylprednisolone 1 g/d IV.

We suspected the CMV viremia was reactivated by the COVID-19 vaccine and caused the APS that led to the movement disorder, coagulopathy, and likely, the thrombotic cerebellar stroke. The case was reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).²

DISCUSSION

Clinically evident APS is rare, with an estimated annual incidence of 2.1 per 100,000 according to a 2019 longitudinal cohort study.³ Notably, all identified cases in this cohort had either a venous or arterial thrombotic event—a characterizing feature of APS—with 45% of patients diagnosed with stroke or transient ischemic attack.^3,4

Continue to: The development of antiphospholipid antibodies...

The development of antiphospholipid antibodies has been independently associated with rheumatoid arthritis,⁵ COVID-19,⁶ and CMV infection,⁷ as well as with vaccination for influenza and tetanus.⁸ There also are reports of antiphospholipid antibodies occurring in patients who have received ­adenovirus-vectored and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.^9-11

Movement disorders occurring with APS are unusual, with approximately 1.3% to 4.5% of patients with APS demonstrating this manifestation.¹² One of multiple autoimmune-related movement disorders, APS-­related movement disorder is most commonly associated with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), although it can occur outside an SLE diagnosis.⁴

Limited evidence suggests that COVID-19 vaccination can cause reactivation of dormant herpesviruses.

While APS-related movement disorder occurs with the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies, the pathogenesis of the movement disorder is unclear.⁴ Patients are typically young women, and the associated movements are choreiform. The condition often occurs with coagulopathy and arterial thrombosis.⁴ Psychiatric manifestations also can occur, including changes in behavior—up to and including psychosis.⁴

Evidence of COVID-19 vaccination reactivating herpesviruses exists, although it is rare and usually does not cause serious health outcomes.¹³ The annual incidence of reactivation related to vaccination is estimated to be 0.7 per 100,000 for varicella zoster virus and 0.03 per 100,000 for herpes simplex virus.¹³ The literature also suggests that the occurrence of Bell palsy—the onset of which may be related to the reactivation of a latent virus—may increase in relation to particular COVID-19 vaccines.^14,15 Although there is no confirmed explanation for these reactivation events at this time, different theories related to altering the focus of immune cells from latent disease to the newly generated antigen have been suggested.¹⁶

To date, reactivation has not been demonstrated with CMV specifically. However, based on the literature reviewed here on the reactivation of herpesviruses and the temporal relationship to infection in our patient, we propose that the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination reactivated his CMV infection and led to his APS-related movement disorder.

Continue to: Treatment is focused on resolved the autoimmune condition

Treatment is focused on resolving the autoimmune condition, usually with corticosteroids. Longer-term treatment of the movement disorder with antiepileptics such as carbamazepine and valproic acid may be necessary.⁴

Our patient received methylprednisolone IV 1 g/d for 3 days and responded quickly to the treatment. He was discharged to a post-acute rehabilitation hospital on Day 16 with a plan for 21 days of antiviral treatment for an acute CMV infection, 1 month of oral steroid taper for the APS, and continued warfarin treatment. This regimen resulted in complete resolution of his movement disorder and negative testing of antiphospholipid antibodies 16 days after he was discharged from the hospital.

THE TAKEAWAY

This case illustrates the possible reactivation of a herpesvirus (CMV) related to COVID-19 vaccination, as well as the development of APS-related movement disorder and coagulopathy related to acute CMV infection with viremia. Vaccination for the COVID-19 virus is seen as the best intervention available for preventing serious illness and death associated with COVID-19 infection. Thus, it is important to be aware of these unusual events when vaccinating large populations. This case also demonstrates the need to understand the interplay of immune status and possible disorders associated with autoimmune conditions. Keeping an open mind when evaluating patients with post-vaccination complaints is beneficial—especially given the volume of distrust and misinformation associated with COVID-19 vaccination.

CORRESPONDENCE
Aaron Lear, MD, MSc, CAQ, Cleveland Clinic Akron General Center for Family Medicine, 1 Akron General Avenue, Building 301, Akron, OH 44307; Leara@ccf.org

THE CASE

A 52-year-old man sought care at the emergency department for intermittent fevers that started within 6 days of receiving his second dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech). After an unremarkable work-up, he was discharged home. Six days later, he returned to the emergency department with a fever of 102 °F and new-onset, progressive tremors in all 4 of his extremities.

The patient had a history of rheumatoid arthritis, for which he was taking oral methotrexate 15 mg once weekly and golimumab 50 mg SQ once monthly, and atrial fibrillation. He’d also had mechanical aortic and mitral valves implanted and was taking warfarin (9 mg/d on weekdays, 6 mg/d on Saturday and Sunday). Aside from his fever, his vital signs were normal. He also had horizontal nystagmus (chronically present) and diffuse tremors/myoclonic movements throughout his upper and lower extremities. The tremors were present at rest and worsened with intention/activity, which affected the patient’s ability to walk and perform activities of daily living.

He was admitted the next day to the family medicine service for further evaluation. Neurology and infectious disease consultations were requested, and a broad initial work-up was undertaken. Hyperreflexia was present in all of his extremities, but his neurologic examination was otherwise normal. Initial laboratory tests demonstrated leukocytosis and elevated liver transaminases. His international normalized ratio (INR) and prothrombin time (PT) also were elevated (> 8 [goal, 2.5-3.5 for mechanical heart valves] and > 90 seconds [normal range, 9.7-13.0 seconds], respectively), thus his warfarin was held and oral vitamin K was started (initial dose of 2.5 mg, which was increased to 5 mg when his INR did not decrease enough).

By Day 2, his INR and PT had normalized enough to reinitiate his warfarin dosing. Results from the viral antibody and polymerase chain reaction testing indicated the presence of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection with viremia; blood cultures for bacterial infection were negative. Brain magnetic resonance imaging was ordered and identified a small, acute left-side cerebellar stroke. Lumbar puncture also was ordered but deferred until his INR was below 1.5 (on Day 8), at which point it confirmed the absence of CMV or herpes simplex virus in his central nervous system.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The patient started oral valganciclovir 900 mg twice daily to ameliorate his tremors, but he did not tolerate it well, vomiting after dosing. He was switched to IV ganciclovir 5 mg/kg every 12 hours; however, his tremors were not improving, leading the team to suspect an etiology other than viral infection. A presumptive diagnosis of autoimmune movement disorder was made, and serum tests were ordered; the results were positive for antiphospholipid antibodies, including anticardiolipin and anti-ß₂ glycoprotein-I antibodies. A final diagnosis of autoimmune antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS)–related movement disorder¹ with coagulopathy was reached, and the patient was started on methylprednisolone 1 g/d IV.

We suspected the CMV viremia was reactivated by the COVID-19 vaccine and caused the APS that led to the movement disorder, coagulopathy, and likely, the thrombotic cerebellar stroke. The case was reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).²

DISCUSSION

Clinically evident APS is rare, with an estimated annual incidence of 2.1 per 100,000 according to a 2019 longitudinal cohort study.³ Notably, all identified cases in this cohort had either a venous or arterial thrombotic event—a characterizing feature of APS—with 45% of patients diagnosed with stroke or transient ischemic attack.^3,4

Continue to: The development of antiphospholipid antibodies...

The development of antiphospholipid antibodies has been independently associated with rheumatoid arthritis,⁵ COVID-19,⁶ and CMV infection,⁷ as well as with vaccination for influenza and tetanus.⁸ There also are reports of antiphospholipid antibodies occurring in patients who have received ­adenovirus-vectored and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.^9-11

Movement disorders occurring with APS are unusual, with approximately 1.3% to 4.5% of patients with APS demonstrating this manifestation.¹² One of multiple autoimmune-related movement disorders, APS-­related movement disorder is most commonly associated with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), although it can occur outside an SLE diagnosis.⁴

Limited evidence suggests that COVID-19 vaccination can cause reactivation of dormant herpesviruses.

While APS-related movement disorder occurs with the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies, the pathogenesis of the movement disorder is unclear.⁴ Patients are typically young women, and the associated movements are choreiform. The condition often occurs with coagulopathy and arterial thrombosis.⁴ Psychiatric manifestations also can occur, including changes in behavior—up to and including psychosis.⁴

Evidence of COVID-19 vaccination reactivating herpesviruses exists, although it is rare and usually does not cause serious health outcomes.¹³ The annual incidence of reactivation related to vaccination is estimated to be 0.7 per 100,000 for varicella zoster virus and 0.03 per 100,000 for herpes simplex virus.¹³ The literature also suggests that the occurrence of Bell palsy—the onset of which may be related to the reactivation of a latent virus—may increase in relation to particular COVID-19 vaccines.^14,15 Although there is no confirmed explanation for these reactivation events at this time, different theories related to altering the focus of immune cells from latent disease to the newly generated antigen have been suggested.¹⁶

To date, reactivation has not been demonstrated with CMV specifically. However, based on the literature reviewed here on the reactivation of herpesviruses and the temporal relationship to infection in our patient, we propose that the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination reactivated his CMV infection and led to his APS-related movement disorder.

Continue to: Treatment is focused on resolved the autoimmune condition

Treatment is focused on resolving the autoimmune condition, usually with corticosteroids. Longer-term treatment of the movement disorder with antiepileptics such as carbamazepine and valproic acid may be necessary.⁴

Our patient received methylprednisolone IV 1 g/d for 3 days and responded quickly to the treatment. He was discharged to a post-acute rehabilitation hospital on Day 16 with a plan for 21 days of antiviral treatment for an acute CMV infection, 1 month of oral steroid taper for the APS, and continued warfarin treatment. This regimen resulted in complete resolution of his movement disorder and negative testing of antiphospholipid antibodies 16 days after he was discharged from the hospital.

THE TAKEAWAY

This case illustrates the possible reactivation of a herpesvirus (CMV) related to COVID-19 vaccination, as well as the development of APS-related movement disorder and coagulopathy related to acute CMV infection with viremia. Vaccination for the COVID-19 virus is seen as the best intervention available for preventing serious illness and death associated with COVID-19 infection. Thus, it is important to be aware of these unusual events when vaccinating large populations. This case also demonstrates the need to understand the interplay of immune status and possible disorders associated with autoimmune conditions. Keeping an open mind when evaluating patients with post-vaccination complaints is beneficial—especially given the volume of distrust and misinformation associated with COVID-19 vaccination.

CORRESPONDENCE
Aaron Lear, MD, MSc, CAQ, Cleveland Clinic Akron General Center for Family Medicine, 1 Akron General Avenue, Building 301, Akron, OH 44307; Leara@ccf.org

THE CASE

A 52-year-old man sought care at the emergency department for intermittent fevers that started within 6 days of receiving his second dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech). After an unremarkable work-up, he was discharged home. Six days later, he returned to the emergency department with a fever of 102 °F and new-onset, progressive tremors in all 4 of his extremities.

The patient had a history of rheumatoid arthritis, for which he was taking oral methotrexate 15 mg once weekly and golimumab 50 mg SQ once monthly, and atrial fibrillation. He’d also had mechanical aortic and mitral valves implanted and was taking warfarin (9 mg/d on weekdays, 6 mg/d on Saturday and Sunday). Aside from his fever, his vital signs were normal. He also had horizontal nystagmus (chronically present) and diffuse tremors/myoclonic movements throughout his upper and lower extremities. The tremors were present at rest and worsened with intention/activity, which affected the patient’s ability to walk and perform activities of daily living.

He was admitted the next day to the family medicine service for further evaluation. Neurology and infectious disease consultations were requested, and a broad initial work-up was undertaken. Hyperreflexia was present in all of his extremities, but his neurologic examination was otherwise normal. Initial laboratory tests demonstrated leukocytosis and elevated liver transaminases. His international normalized ratio (INR) and prothrombin time (PT) also were elevated (> 8 [goal, 2.5-3.5 for mechanical heart valves] and > 90 seconds [normal range, 9.7-13.0 seconds], respectively), thus his warfarin was held and oral vitamin K was started (initial dose of 2.5 mg, which was increased to 5 mg when his INR did not decrease enough).

By Day 2, his INR and PT had normalized enough to reinitiate his warfarin dosing. Results from the viral antibody and polymerase chain reaction testing indicated the presence of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection with viremia; blood cultures for bacterial infection were negative. Brain magnetic resonance imaging was ordered and identified a small, acute left-side cerebellar stroke. Lumbar puncture also was ordered but deferred until his INR was below 1.5 (on Day 8), at which point it confirmed the absence of CMV or herpes simplex virus in his central nervous system.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The patient started oral valganciclovir 900 mg twice daily to ameliorate his tremors, but he did not tolerate it well, vomiting after dosing. He was switched to IV ganciclovir 5 mg/kg every 12 hours; however, his tremors were not improving, leading the team to suspect an etiology other than viral infection. A presumptive diagnosis of autoimmune movement disorder was made, and serum tests were ordered; the results were positive for antiphospholipid antibodies, including anticardiolipin and anti-ß₂ glycoprotein-I antibodies. A final diagnosis of autoimmune antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS)–related movement disorder¹ with coagulopathy was reached, and the patient was started on methylprednisolone 1 g/d IV.

We suspected the CMV viremia was reactivated by the COVID-19 vaccine and caused the APS that led to the movement disorder, coagulopathy, and likely, the thrombotic cerebellar stroke. The case was reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).²

DISCUSSION

Clinically evident APS is rare, with an estimated annual incidence of 2.1 per 100,000 according to a 2019 longitudinal cohort study.³ Notably, all identified cases in this cohort had either a venous or arterial thrombotic event—a characterizing feature of APS—with 45% of patients diagnosed with stroke or transient ischemic attack.^3,4

Continue to: The development of antiphospholipid antibodies...

The development of antiphospholipid antibodies has been independently associated with rheumatoid arthritis,⁵ COVID-19,⁶ and CMV infection,⁷ as well as with vaccination for influenza and tetanus.⁸ There also are reports of antiphospholipid antibodies occurring in patients who have received ­adenovirus-vectored and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.^9-11

Movement disorders occurring with APS are unusual, with approximately 1.3% to 4.5% of patients with APS demonstrating this manifestation.¹² One of multiple autoimmune-related movement disorders, APS-­related movement disorder is most commonly associated with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), although it can occur outside an SLE diagnosis.⁴

Limited evidence suggests that COVID-19 vaccination can cause reactivation of dormant herpesviruses.

While APS-related movement disorder occurs with the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies, the pathogenesis of the movement disorder is unclear.⁴ Patients are typically young women, and the associated movements are choreiform. The condition often occurs with coagulopathy and arterial thrombosis.⁴ Psychiatric manifestations also can occur, including changes in behavior—up to and including psychosis.⁴

Evidence of COVID-19 vaccination reactivating herpesviruses exists, although it is rare and usually does not cause serious health outcomes.¹³ The annual incidence of reactivation related to vaccination is estimated to be 0.7 per 100,000 for varicella zoster virus and 0.03 per 100,000 for herpes simplex virus.¹³ The literature also suggests that the occurrence of Bell palsy—the onset of which may be related to the reactivation of a latent virus—may increase in relation to particular COVID-19 vaccines.^14,15 Although there is no confirmed explanation for these reactivation events at this time, different theories related to altering the focus of immune cells from latent disease to the newly generated antigen have been suggested.¹⁶

To date, reactivation has not been demonstrated with CMV specifically. However, based on the literature reviewed here on the reactivation of herpesviruses and the temporal relationship to infection in our patient, we propose that the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination reactivated his CMV infection and led to his APS-related movement disorder.

Continue to: Treatment is focused on resolved the autoimmune condition

Treatment is focused on resolving the autoimmune condition, usually with corticosteroids. Longer-term treatment of the movement disorder with antiepileptics such as carbamazepine and valproic acid may be necessary.⁴

Our patient received methylprednisolone IV 1 g/d for 3 days and responded quickly to the treatment. He was discharged to a post-acute rehabilitation hospital on Day 16 with a plan for 21 days of antiviral treatment for an acute CMV infection, 1 month of oral steroid taper for the APS, and continued warfarin treatment. This regimen resulted in complete resolution of his movement disorder and negative testing of antiphospholipid antibodies 16 days after he was discharged from the hospital.

THE TAKEAWAY

This case illustrates the possible reactivation of a herpesvirus (CMV) related to COVID-19 vaccination, as well as the development of APS-related movement disorder and coagulopathy related to acute CMV infection with viremia. Vaccination for the COVID-19 virus is seen as the best intervention available for preventing serious illness and death associated with COVID-19 infection. Thus, it is important to be aware of these unusual events when vaccinating large populations. This case also demonstrates the need to understand the interplay of immune status and possible disorders associated with autoimmune conditions. Keeping an open mind when evaluating patients with post-vaccination complaints is beneficial—especially given the volume of distrust and misinformation associated with COVID-19 vaccination.

CORRESPONDENCE
Aaron Lear, MD, MSc, CAQ, Cleveland Clinic Akron General Center for Family Medicine, 1 Akron General Avenue, Building 301, Akron, OH 44307; Leara@ccf.org

When the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) met in June and adopted recommendations for influenza vaccines for the 2023-2024 season, the major discussions focused on the timing of vaccine administration, the composition of the vaccine, and what (if any) special precautions are needed when administering an egg-based vaccine to a person with a history of egg allergy. Here are the takeaways.

When should flu vaccine be administered?

Influenza activity usually peaks between December and the end of March; only twice between 1982 and 2022 did it peak before December. Thus, most people should receive the vaccine in September or October, a recommendation that has not changed from last year. This is early enough to provide adequate protection in most influenza seasons, but late enough to allow protection to persist through the entire season. Vaccination should continue to be offered to those who are unvaccinated throughout the influenza season, as long as influenza viruses are circulating.

Earlier administration is not recommended for most people and is recommended against for those ages 65 years and older (because their immunity from the vaccine may wane faster) and for pregnant people in their first or second trimester (because the vaccine is more effective in preventing influenza in newborns if administered in the third trimester). Evidence regarding waning immunity is inconsistent; however, some studies have shown greater loss of immunity in the elderly compared to younger age groups, as time from vaccination increases.¹

What’s in this year’s vaccines?

The composition of the vaccines used in North America was determined by the World Health Organization in February, based on the most commonly circulating strains. All vaccines approved for use in the 2023-2024 season are quadrivalent and contain 1 influenza A (H1N1) strain, 1 influenza A (H3N2) strain, and 2 influenza B strains. The specifics of each strain are listed in TABLE 1.² The 2 influenza A strains are slightly different for the egg-based and non-egg-based vaccines.² There is no known effectiveness advantage of one antigen strain vs the other.

Should you take special precautions with egg allergy?

There is new wording to the recommendations on the use of egg-based influenza vaccines for those with a history of egg allergy (TABLE 2²). Previously, the ACIP had recommended that if an egg-based vaccine is given to a person with a history of egg allergy, it should be administered in an inpatient or outpatient medical setting (eg, hospital, clinic, health department, physician office) and should be supervised by a health care provider who is able to recognize and manage severe allergic reactions. These added precautions were out of step with other organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and allergy-related specialty societies, all of whom recommend no special procedures or precautions when administering any influenza vaccine to those with a history of egg allergy.³

Why the change? Several factors contributed to ACIP’s decision to reword its recommendation. One is that the ovalbumin content of all current influenza vaccines ­(TABLE 3³) is considered too low to trigger an allergic reaction.

Another is the paucity of evidence that egg-based vaccines convey increased risk beyond that for any other vaccine. Although 1% to 3% of children are reported to have an egg allergy, there is no evidence that they are at increased risk for a serious allergic reaction if administered an egg-based vaccine.³ A systematic review of 31 studies (mostly low-quality observational studies and case series) conducted by the ACIP Influenza Work Group found no risk for severe anaphylaxis, hospitalization, or death, even in those with a history of an anaphylactic reaction to eggs.² A review of Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) data identified 18 cases of reported anaphylaxis after receipt of an inactivated influenza vaccine over a 5-year period, but clinical review confirmed only 7.²

Continue to: And finally, appropriate precautions already...

And finally, appropriate precautions already are recommended for administration of any vaccine. The CDC guidance for best practices for administering vaccines states: “Although allergic reactions are a common concern for vaccine providers, these reactions are uncommon and anaphylaxis following vaccines is rare, occurring at a rate of approximately one per million doses for many vaccines. Epinephrine and equipment for managing an airway should be available for immediate use.”⁴

What does this mean in practice? Family physicians who administer influenza vaccines do not need to use special precautions for any influenza vaccine, or use non-egg-based vaccines, for those who have a history of egg allergy. However, they should be prepared to respond to a severe allergic reaction just as they would for any other vaccine. Any vestigial practices pertaining to egg allergy and influenza vaccines—such as vaccine skin testing prior to vaccination (with dilution of vaccine if positive), vaccination deferral or administration via alternative dosing protocols, and split dosing of vaccine—are unnecessary and should be abandoned. 

When the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) met in June and adopted recommendations for influenza vaccines for the 2023-2024 season, the major discussions focused on the timing of vaccine administration, the composition of the vaccine, and what (if any) special precautions are needed when administering an egg-based vaccine to a person with a history of egg allergy. Here are the takeaways.

When should flu vaccine be administered?

Influenza activity usually peaks between December and the end of March; only twice between 1982 and 2022 did it peak before December. Thus, most people should receive the vaccine in September or October, a recommendation that has not changed from last year. This is early enough to provide adequate protection in most influenza seasons, but late enough to allow protection to persist through the entire season. Vaccination should continue to be offered to those who are unvaccinated throughout the influenza season, as long as influenza viruses are circulating.

Earlier administration is not recommended for most people and is recommended against for those ages 65 years and older (because their immunity from the vaccine may wane faster) and for pregnant people in their first or second trimester (because the vaccine is more effective in preventing influenza in newborns if administered in the third trimester). Evidence regarding waning immunity is inconsistent; however, some studies have shown greater loss of immunity in the elderly compared to younger age groups, as time from vaccination increases.¹

What’s in this year’s vaccines?

The composition of the vaccines used in North America was determined by the World Health Organization in February, based on the most commonly circulating strains. All vaccines approved for use in the 2023-2024 season are quadrivalent and contain 1 influenza A (H1N1) strain, 1 influenza A (H3N2) strain, and 2 influenza B strains. The specifics of each strain are listed in TABLE 1.² The 2 influenza A strains are slightly different for the egg-based and non-egg-based vaccines.² There is no known effectiveness advantage of one antigen strain vs the other.

Should you take special precautions with egg allergy?

There is new wording to the recommendations on the use of egg-based influenza vaccines for those with a history of egg allergy (TABLE 2²). Previously, the ACIP had recommended that if an egg-based vaccine is given to a person with a history of egg allergy, it should be administered in an inpatient or outpatient medical setting (eg, hospital, clinic, health department, physician office) and should be supervised by a health care provider who is able to recognize and manage severe allergic reactions. These added precautions were out of step with other organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and allergy-related specialty societies, all of whom recommend no special procedures or precautions when administering any influenza vaccine to those with a history of egg allergy.³

Why the change? Several factors contributed to ACIP’s decision to reword its recommendation. One is that the ovalbumin content of all current influenza vaccines ­(TABLE 3³) is considered too low to trigger an allergic reaction.

Another is the paucity of evidence that egg-based vaccines convey increased risk beyond that for any other vaccine. Although 1% to 3% of children are reported to have an egg allergy, there is no evidence that they are at increased risk for a serious allergic reaction if administered an egg-based vaccine.³ A systematic review of 31 studies (mostly low-quality observational studies and case series) conducted by the ACIP Influenza Work Group found no risk for severe anaphylaxis, hospitalization, or death, even in those with a history of an anaphylactic reaction to eggs.² A review of Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) data identified 18 cases of reported anaphylaxis after receipt of an inactivated influenza vaccine over a 5-year period, but clinical review confirmed only 7.²

Continue to: And finally, appropriate precautions already...

And finally, appropriate precautions already are recommended for administration of any vaccine. The CDC guidance for best practices for administering vaccines states: “Although allergic reactions are a common concern for vaccine providers, these reactions are uncommon and anaphylaxis following vaccines is rare, occurring at a rate of approximately one per million doses for many vaccines. Epinephrine and equipment for managing an airway should be available for immediate use.”⁴

What does this mean in practice? Family physicians who administer influenza vaccines do not need to use special precautions for any influenza vaccine, or use non-egg-based vaccines, for those who have a history of egg allergy. However, they should be prepared to respond to a severe allergic reaction just as they would for any other vaccine. Any vestigial practices pertaining to egg allergy and influenza vaccines—such as vaccine skin testing prior to vaccination (with dilution of vaccine if positive), vaccination deferral or administration via alternative dosing protocols, and split dosing of vaccine—are unnecessary and should be abandoned. 

When the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) met in June and adopted recommendations for influenza vaccines for the 2023-2024 season, the major discussions focused on the timing of vaccine administration, the composition of the vaccine, and what (if any) special precautions are needed when administering an egg-based vaccine to a person with a history of egg allergy. Here are the takeaways.

When should flu vaccine be administered?

Influenza activity usually peaks between December and the end of March; only twice between 1982 and 2022 did it peak before December. Thus, most people should receive the vaccine in September or October, a recommendation that has not changed from last year. This is early enough to provide adequate protection in most influenza seasons, but late enough to allow protection to persist through the entire season. Vaccination should continue to be offered to those who are unvaccinated throughout the influenza season, as long as influenza viruses are circulating.

Earlier administration is not recommended for most people and is recommended against for those ages 65 years and older (because their immunity from the vaccine may wane faster) and for pregnant people in their first or second trimester (because the vaccine is more effective in preventing influenza in newborns if administered in the third trimester). Evidence regarding waning immunity is inconsistent; however, some studies have shown greater loss of immunity in the elderly compared to younger age groups, as time from vaccination increases.¹

What’s in this year’s vaccines?

The composition of the vaccines used in North America was determined by the World Health Organization in February, based on the most commonly circulating strains. All vaccines approved for use in the 2023-2024 season are quadrivalent and contain 1 influenza A (H1N1) strain, 1 influenza A (H3N2) strain, and 2 influenza B strains. The specifics of each strain are listed in TABLE 1.² The 2 influenza A strains are slightly different for the egg-based and non-egg-based vaccines.² There is no known effectiveness advantage of one antigen strain vs the other.

Should you take special precautions with egg allergy?

There is new wording to the recommendations on the use of egg-based influenza vaccines for those with a history of egg allergy (TABLE 2²). Previously, the ACIP had recommended that if an egg-based vaccine is given to a person with a history of egg allergy, it should be administered in an inpatient or outpatient medical setting (eg, hospital, clinic, health department, physician office) and should be supervised by a health care provider who is able to recognize and manage severe allergic reactions. These added precautions were out of step with other organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and allergy-related specialty societies, all of whom recommend no special procedures or precautions when administering any influenza vaccine to those with a history of egg allergy.³

Why the change? Several factors contributed to ACIP’s decision to reword its recommendation. One is that the ovalbumin content of all current influenza vaccines ­(TABLE 3³) is considered too low to trigger an allergic reaction.

Another is the paucity of evidence that egg-based vaccines convey increased risk beyond that for any other vaccine. Although 1% to 3% of children are reported to have an egg allergy, there is no evidence that they are at increased risk for a serious allergic reaction if administered an egg-based vaccine.³ A systematic review of 31 studies (mostly low-quality observational studies and case series) conducted by the ACIP Influenza Work Group found no risk for severe anaphylaxis, hospitalization, or death, even in those with a history of an anaphylactic reaction to eggs.² A review of Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) data identified 18 cases of reported anaphylaxis after receipt of an inactivated influenza vaccine over a 5-year period, but clinical review confirmed only 7.²

Continue to: And finally, appropriate precautions already...

And finally, appropriate precautions already are recommended for administration of any vaccine. The CDC guidance for best practices for administering vaccines states: “Although allergic reactions are a common concern for vaccine providers, these reactions are uncommon and anaphylaxis following vaccines is rare, occurring at a rate of approximately one per million doses for many vaccines. Epinephrine and equipment for managing an airway should be available for immediate use.”⁴

What does this mean in practice? Family physicians who administer influenza vaccines do not need to use special precautions for any influenza vaccine, or use non-egg-based vaccines, for those who have a history of egg allergy. However, they should be prepared to respond to a severe allergic reaction just as they would for any other vaccine. Any vestigial practices pertaining to egg allergy and influenza vaccines—such as vaccine skin testing prior to vaccination (with dilution of vaccine if positive), vaccination deferral or administration via alternative dosing protocols, and split dosing of vaccine—are unnecessary and should be abandoned. 

Maternal pertussis vaccinations, given during pregnancy, prevent an estimated 65% of pertussis infections in infants, new research indicates.

The study, led by Annette K. Regan, PhD, MPH, a perinatal and pediatric infectious disease epidemiologist at Curtin University, Perth, Australia, was published online in Pediatrics.

Dr. Regan – who is also with the University of San Francisco and the University of California, Los Angeles – and colleagues reviewed data on 279,418 infants born to 252,444 mothers in Australia.

There, about 52% of the women in this study received the Tdap vaccine through a maternal pertussis vaccination program.

Duration of effectiveness in infants was one of the main questions the study sought to answer.

The authors wrote that they assessed vaccine effectiveness through 18 months of age. “We observed significant protection against disease until at least 8 months of age, 2 months longer than reported in previous studies.” From 70% to 90% of all pertussis-attributable hospitalizations and death occur in infancy.
 

Answering the ‘blunting’ question

This study also set out to clarify an important clinical question regarding a potential “blunting” effect in infants. Previous work had suggested that maternal antibodies from the vaccination could interfere with the effectiveness of infants’ DtaP (the version of Tdap for infants) and other vaccines.

Dr. Regan and colleagues found that, “although we observed slightly lower VE [vaccine effectiveness] point estimates for the third dose of infant pertussis vaccine among maternally vaccinated compared with unvaccinated infants (76.5% vs. 92.9%, P = .002), we did not observe higher rates of pertussis infection (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-3.39).
 

Best time to give mothers the vaccine

Another clinical debate has centered on when to give the mother the vaccine during pregnancy. The authors concluded: “Our findings support the infant health benefits of recommendations to administer a booster dose of pertussis vaccine near 28 weeks of gestational age.”

That 28-week mark was associated with lower risk of infection in infants through 8 months of age, they wrote.
 

Positive results in the United States

In an invited commentary, Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, with the division of infectious diseases, department of pediatrics, at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., highlighted similar positive findings for maternal pertussis vaccination in the United States.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did an ecologic study of infant pertussis cases reported between Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2019. Rates were compared for the years before maternal Tdap vaccinations were recommended against the 7-year period after they were implemented.

That study found that in the period before maternal Tdap vaccination, annual pertussis incidence did not change among infants younger than 2 months and increased slightly in infants 6-12 months.

However, during the period after maternal Tdap vaccination had started (2012-2019), pertussis incidence significantly decreased in infants younger than 2 months and was unchanged in infants 6-12 months.

“As with the Australian data, the U.S. data support the overall benefit of the maternal Tdap program and, as with the Australian data, do not suggest that blunting has led to an increase in cases within the first year of life,” Dr. Edwards wrote.

The CDC notes that pertussis cases are rising and outbreaks are happening across the United States.

“On average, about 1,000 infants are hospitalized and typically between 5 and 15 infants die each year in the United States due to pertussis,” the CDC states.
 

Uptake low despite positive data

Dr. Edwards noted that, despite positive data supporting maternal vaccination to reduce pertussis, uptake rates are low – between 50% and 60% in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. “Active engagement to increase these rates should be implemented.”

Maternal vaccination might also be implemented soon to protect against other diseases including respiratory syncytial virus and group B streptococcal disease after promising study data, she said.

As with pertussis, the potential “blunting” effect will need to be carefully monitored, she said, “as was done in the carefully conducted study of pertussis reported in this issue of Pediatrics.”

One coauthor has received institutional honoraria for participation in advisory groups for Merck Sharpe & Dohme and Pfizer unrelated to this work. Another coauthor was supported by scholarships provided by the Wesfarmers Centre of Vaccines and Infectious Disease at the Telethon Kids Institute. Dr. Edwards reported receiving grants from the CDC and consulting for Bionet, Dynavax, and IBM. She is a member of the data safety and monitoring board for Sanofi, X-4 Pharma, Seqirus, Moderna, Pfizer, Merck, Roche, Novavax, and Brighton Collaboration.

Maternal pertussis vaccinations, given during pregnancy, prevent an estimated 65% of pertussis infections in infants, new research indicates.

The study, led by Annette K. Regan, PhD, MPH, a perinatal and pediatric infectious disease epidemiologist at Curtin University, Perth, Australia, was published online in Pediatrics.

Dr. Regan – who is also with the University of San Francisco and the University of California, Los Angeles – and colleagues reviewed data on 279,418 infants born to 252,444 mothers in Australia.

There, about 52% of the women in this study received the Tdap vaccine through a maternal pertussis vaccination program.

Duration of effectiveness in infants was one of the main questions the study sought to answer.

The authors wrote that they assessed vaccine effectiveness through 18 months of age. “We observed significant protection against disease until at least 8 months of age, 2 months longer than reported in previous studies.” From 70% to 90% of all pertussis-attributable hospitalizations and death occur in infancy.
 

Answering the ‘blunting’ question

This study also set out to clarify an important clinical question regarding a potential “blunting” effect in infants. Previous work had suggested that maternal antibodies from the vaccination could interfere with the effectiveness of infants’ DtaP (the version of Tdap for infants) and other vaccines.

Dr. Regan and colleagues found that, “although we observed slightly lower VE [vaccine effectiveness] point estimates for the third dose of infant pertussis vaccine among maternally vaccinated compared with unvaccinated infants (76.5% vs. 92.9%, P = .002), we did not observe higher rates of pertussis infection (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-3.39).
 

Best time to give mothers the vaccine

Another clinical debate has centered on when to give the mother the vaccine during pregnancy. The authors concluded: “Our findings support the infant health benefits of recommendations to administer a booster dose of pertussis vaccine near 28 weeks of gestational age.”

That 28-week mark was associated with lower risk of infection in infants through 8 months of age, they wrote.
 

Positive results in the United States

In an invited commentary, Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, with the division of infectious diseases, department of pediatrics, at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., highlighted similar positive findings for maternal pertussis vaccination in the United States.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did an ecologic study of infant pertussis cases reported between Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2019. Rates were compared for the years before maternal Tdap vaccinations were recommended against the 7-year period after they were implemented.

That study found that in the period before maternal Tdap vaccination, annual pertussis incidence did not change among infants younger than 2 months and increased slightly in infants 6-12 months.

However, during the period after maternal Tdap vaccination had started (2012-2019), pertussis incidence significantly decreased in infants younger than 2 months and was unchanged in infants 6-12 months.

“As with the Australian data, the U.S. data support the overall benefit of the maternal Tdap program and, as with the Australian data, do not suggest that blunting has led to an increase in cases within the first year of life,” Dr. Edwards wrote.

The CDC notes that pertussis cases are rising and outbreaks are happening across the United States.

“On average, about 1,000 infants are hospitalized and typically between 5 and 15 infants die each year in the United States due to pertussis,” the CDC states.
 

Uptake low despite positive data

Dr. Edwards noted that, despite positive data supporting maternal vaccination to reduce pertussis, uptake rates are low – between 50% and 60% in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. “Active engagement to increase these rates should be implemented.”

Maternal vaccination might also be implemented soon to protect against other diseases including respiratory syncytial virus and group B streptococcal disease after promising study data, she said.

As with pertussis, the potential “blunting” effect will need to be carefully monitored, she said, “as was done in the carefully conducted study of pertussis reported in this issue of Pediatrics.”

One coauthor has received institutional honoraria for participation in advisory groups for Merck Sharpe & Dohme and Pfizer unrelated to this work. Another coauthor was supported by scholarships provided by the Wesfarmers Centre of Vaccines and Infectious Disease at the Telethon Kids Institute. Dr. Edwards reported receiving grants from the CDC and consulting for Bionet, Dynavax, and IBM. She is a member of the data safety and monitoring board for Sanofi, X-4 Pharma, Seqirus, Moderna, Pfizer, Merck, Roche, Novavax, and Brighton Collaboration.

Maternal pertussis vaccinations, given during pregnancy, prevent an estimated 65% of pertussis infections in infants, new research indicates.

The study, led by Annette K. Regan, PhD, MPH, a perinatal and pediatric infectious disease epidemiologist at Curtin University, Perth, Australia, was published online in Pediatrics.

Dr. Regan – who is also with the University of San Francisco and the University of California, Los Angeles – and colleagues reviewed data on 279,418 infants born to 252,444 mothers in Australia.

There, about 52% of the women in this study received the Tdap vaccine through a maternal pertussis vaccination program.

Duration of effectiveness in infants was one of the main questions the study sought to answer.

The authors wrote that they assessed vaccine effectiveness through 18 months of age. “We observed significant protection against disease until at least 8 months of age, 2 months longer than reported in previous studies.” From 70% to 90% of all pertussis-attributable hospitalizations and death occur in infancy.
 

Answering the ‘blunting’ question

This study also set out to clarify an important clinical question regarding a potential “blunting” effect in infants. Previous work had suggested that maternal antibodies from the vaccination could interfere with the effectiveness of infants’ DtaP (the version of Tdap for infants) and other vaccines.

Dr. Regan and colleagues found that, “although we observed slightly lower VE [vaccine effectiveness] point estimates for the third dose of infant pertussis vaccine among maternally vaccinated compared with unvaccinated infants (76.5% vs. 92.9%, P = .002), we did not observe higher rates of pertussis infection (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-3.39).
 

Best time to give mothers the vaccine

Another clinical debate has centered on when to give the mother the vaccine during pregnancy. The authors concluded: “Our findings support the infant health benefits of recommendations to administer a booster dose of pertussis vaccine near 28 weeks of gestational age.”

That 28-week mark was associated with lower risk of infection in infants through 8 months of age, they wrote.
 

Positive results in the United States

In an invited commentary, Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, with the division of infectious diseases, department of pediatrics, at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., highlighted similar positive findings for maternal pertussis vaccination in the United States.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did an ecologic study of infant pertussis cases reported between Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2019. Rates were compared for the years before maternal Tdap vaccinations were recommended against the 7-year period after they were implemented.

That study found that in the period before maternal Tdap vaccination, annual pertussis incidence did not change among infants younger than 2 months and increased slightly in infants 6-12 months.

However, during the period after maternal Tdap vaccination had started (2012-2019), pertussis incidence significantly decreased in infants younger than 2 months and was unchanged in infants 6-12 months.

“As with the Australian data, the U.S. data support the overall benefit of the maternal Tdap program and, as with the Australian data, do not suggest that blunting has led to an increase in cases within the first year of life,” Dr. Edwards wrote.

The CDC notes that pertussis cases are rising and outbreaks are happening across the United States.

“On average, about 1,000 infants are hospitalized and typically between 5 and 15 infants die each year in the United States due to pertussis,” the CDC states.
 

Uptake low despite positive data

Dr. Edwards noted that, despite positive data supporting maternal vaccination to reduce pertussis, uptake rates are low – between 50% and 60% in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. “Active engagement to increase these rates should be implemented.”

Maternal vaccination might also be implemented soon to protect against other diseases including respiratory syncytial virus and group B streptococcal disease after promising study data, she said.

As with pertussis, the potential “blunting” effect will need to be carefully monitored, she said, “as was done in the carefully conducted study of pertussis reported in this issue of Pediatrics.”

One coauthor has received institutional honoraria for participation in advisory groups for Merck Sharpe & Dohme and Pfizer unrelated to this work. Another coauthor was supported by scholarships provided by the Wesfarmers Centre of Vaccines and Infectious Disease at the Telethon Kids Institute. Dr. Edwards reported receiving grants from the CDC and consulting for Bionet, Dynavax, and IBM. She is a member of the data safety and monitoring board for Sanofi, X-4 Pharma, Seqirus, Moderna, Pfizer, Merck, Roche, Novavax, and Brighton Collaboration.

Click to read more from Pulmonology Data Trends 2023.

Click to read more from Pulmonology Data Trends 2023.

Click to read more from Pulmonology Data Trends 2023.

In July 2023, nirsevimab (Beyfortus), a monoclonal antibody, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease in infants and children younger than 2 years of age. On Aug. 3, 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended routine use of it for all infants younger than 8 months of age born during or entering their first RSV season. Its use is also recommended for certain children 8-19 months of age who are at increased risk for severe RSV disease at the start of their second RSV season. Hearing the approval, I immediately had a flashback to residency, recalling the multiple infants admitted each fall and winter exhibiting classic symptoms including cough, rhinorrhea, nasal flaring, retractions, and wheezing with many having oxygen requirements and others needing intubation. Only supportive care was available.

RSV is the leading cause of infant hospitalizations. Annually, the CDC estimates there are 50,000-80,000 RSV hospitalizations and 100-300 RSV-related deaths in the United States in persons younger than 5 years of age. While premature infants have the highest rates of hospitalization (three times a term infant) about 79% of hospitalized children younger than 2 years have no underlying medical risks.¹ The majority of children will experience RSV as an upper respiratory infection within the first 2 years of life. However, severe disease requiring hospitalization is more likely to occur in premature infants and children younger than 6 months; children younger than 2 with congenital heart disease and/or chronic lung disease; children with severe cystic fibrosis; as well as the immunocompromised child and individuals with neuromuscular disorders that preclude clearing mucous secretions or have difficulty swallowing.

Palivizumab (Synagis), the first monoclonal antibody to prevent RSV in infants was licensed in 1998. Its use was limited to infants meeting specific criteria developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Only 5% of infants had access to it. It was a short-acting agent requiring monthly injections, which were very costly ($1,661-$2,584 per dose). Eligible infants could receive up to five injections per season. Several studies proved its use was not cost beneficial.

What are the advantages of nirsevimab? It’s a long-acting monoclonal antibody. Only one dose is required per season. Costs will significantly diminish. It is recommended for all infants younger than 8 months of age born during RSV season. Those children 8-19 months at risk for severe RSV disease can receive it prior to the start of their second RSV season. During RSV season (October 1 to March 31), the initial dose should be administered to newborns just prior to hospital discharge. Older infants and newborns who did not receive it prior to hospital discharge can receive it at their medical home. Newborns should receive it within the first week of life. It is covered by the Vaccine for Children Program. Simultaneous administration with routine childhood immunizations is recommended. Finally, RSV season may vary in tropical areas (Southern Florida, Puerto Rico. etc.) and Alaska. The timing of nirsevimab administration should be based on local RSV activity provided by state and local authorities.

In addition, the FDA approved an RSV vaccine (Abrysvo) for use in adults at least 60 years of age and in pregnant women at 32-36 weeks’ gestation. The latter is administered to prevent lower respiratory tract infection in infants from birth to 6 months. Recommendations have been published for administration in nonpregnant adults. Specific information is forthcoming in terms timing of administration of nirsevimab in infants whose mothers receive Abrysvo.

RSV season is quickly approaching. Detailed recommendations for administration and FAQ questions related to nirsevimab and palivizumab can be found at https://www.aap.org or https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/index.html.
 

Influenza

So, what about influenza? Vaccine composition has been tweaked to match the circulating viruses but the recommended age for annual routine administration remains unchanged. All persons at least 6 months of age should be vaccinated. Children between 6 months and 8 years need two doses at least 4 weeks apart when receiving vaccine for the first time. Immunizing everyone in the household is encouraged especially if there are household contacts at risk for developing severe disease, including infants too young to be vaccinated. Keep in mind children may be coinfected with multiple viruses. Adams and colleagues reviewed the prevalence of coinfection of influenza and Sars-CoV-2 in persons younger than 18 years reported to three CDC surveillance platforms during the 2021-2022 season.² Thirty-two of 575 hospitalized (6%) coinfections were analyzed and 7 of 44 (16%) deaths. Compared with patients without coinfections, the coinfected patients were more likely to require mechanical ventilation (13% vs. 4%) or CPAP (16% vs. 6%). Only 4 of 23 who were influenza vaccine eligible were vaccinated. Of seven coinfected children who died, none had received influenza vaccine and only one received an antiviral. Only 5 of 31 (16%) infected only with influenza were vaccinated.³

Influenza activity was lower than usual during the 2021-2022 season. However, this report revealed underuse of both influenza vaccine and antiviral therapy, both of which are routinely recommended.
 

COVID-19

What’s new with COVID-19? On Sept. 12, 2023, ACIP recommended that everyone at least 6 months of age receive the 2023-2024 (monovalent, XBB containing) COVID-19 vaccines. Children at least 5 years of age need one dose and those younger need one or two doses depending on the number of doses previously received. Why the change? Circulating variants continue to change. There is a current uptick in cases including hospitalizations (7.7%) and deaths (4.5%) and it’s just the beginning of the season.⁴ Symptoms, risk groups and complications have not changed. The primary goal is to prevent infection, hospitalization, long term complications, and death.

We are now armed with the most up-to-date interventions to help prevent the acquisition of these three viruses. Our next step is recommending and delivering them to our patients.
 

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She reported no relevant financial disclosures.

References

1.Suh M et al. J Infect Dis. 2022;226(Suppl 2):S154-36. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiac120.

2. Adams K et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:1589-96. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7150a4.

3. Pingali C et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Aug 25;72:912-9. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7234a3.

4. CDC Covid Data Tracker.

In July 2023, nirsevimab (Beyfortus), a monoclonal antibody, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease in infants and children younger than 2 years of age. On Aug. 3, 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended routine use of it for all infants younger than 8 months of age born during or entering their first RSV season. Its use is also recommended for certain children 8-19 months of age who are at increased risk for severe RSV disease at the start of their second RSV season. Hearing the approval, I immediately had a flashback to residency, recalling the multiple infants admitted each fall and winter exhibiting classic symptoms including cough, rhinorrhea, nasal flaring, retractions, and wheezing with many having oxygen requirements and others needing intubation. Only supportive care was available.

RSV is the leading cause of infant hospitalizations. Annually, the CDC estimates there are 50,000-80,000 RSV hospitalizations and 100-300 RSV-related deaths in the United States in persons younger than 5 years of age. While premature infants have the highest rates of hospitalization (three times a term infant) about 79% of hospitalized children younger than 2 years have no underlying medical risks.¹ The majority of children will experience RSV as an upper respiratory infection within the first 2 years of life. However, severe disease requiring hospitalization is more likely to occur in premature infants and children younger than 6 months; children younger than 2 with congenital heart disease and/or chronic lung disease; children with severe cystic fibrosis; as well as the immunocompromised child and individuals with neuromuscular disorders that preclude clearing mucous secretions or have difficulty swallowing.

Palivizumab (Synagis), the first monoclonal antibody to prevent RSV in infants was licensed in 1998. Its use was limited to infants meeting specific criteria developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Only 5% of infants had access to it. It was a short-acting agent requiring monthly injections, which were very costly ($1,661-$2,584 per dose). Eligible infants could receive up to five injections per season. Several studies proved its use was not cost beneficial.

What are the advantages of nirsevimab? It’s a long-acting monoclonal antibody. Only one dose is required per season. Costs will significantly diminish. It is recommended for all infants younger than 8 months of age born during RSV season. Those children 8-19 months at risk for severe RSV disease can receive it prior to the start of their second RSV season. During RSV season (October 1 to March 31), the initial dose should be administered to newborns just prior to hospital discharge. Older infants and newborns who did not receive it prior to hospital discharge can receive it at their medical home. Newborns should receive it within the first week of life. It is covered by the Vaccine for Children Program. Simultaneous administration with routine childhood immunizations is recommended. Finally, RSV season may vary in tropical areas (Southern Florida, Puerto Rico. etc.) and Alaska. The timing of nirsevimab administration should be based on local RSV activity provided by state and local authorities.

In addition, the FDA approved an RSV vaccine (Abrysvo) for use in adults at least 60 years of age and in pregnant women at 32-36 weeks’ gestation. The latter is administered to prevent lower respiratory tract infection in infants from birth to 6 months. Recommendations have been published for administration in nonpregnant adults. Specific information is forthcoming in terms timing of administration of nirsevimab in infants whose mothers receive Abrysvo.

RSV season is quickly approaching. Detailed recommendations for administration and FAQ questions related to nirsevimab and palivizumab can be found at https://www.aap.org or https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/index.html.
 

Influenza

So, what about influenza? Vaccine composition has been tweaked to match the circulating viruses but the recommended age for annual routine administration remains unchanged. All persons at least 6 months of age should be vaccinated. Children between 6 months and 8 years need two doses at least 4 weeks apart when receiving vaccine for the first time. Immunizing everyone in the household is encouraged especially if there are household contacts at risk for developing severe disease, including infants too young to be vaccinated. Keep in mind children may be coinfected with multiple viruses. Adams and colleagues reviewed the prevalence of coinfection of influenza and Sars-CoV-2 in persons younger than 18 years reported to three CDC surveillance platforms during the 2021-2022 season.² Thirty-two of 575 hospitalized (6%) coinfections were analyzed and 7 of 44 (16%) deaths. Compared with patients without coinfections, the coinfected patients were more likely to require mechanical ventilation (13% vs. 4%) or CPAP (16% vs. 6%). Only 4 of 23 who were influenza vaccine eligible were vaccinated. Of seven coinfected children who died, none had received influenza vaccine and only one received an antiviral. Only 5 of 31 (16%) infected only with influenza were vaccinated.³

Influenza activity was lower than usual during the 2021-2022 season. However, this report revealed underuse of both influenza vaccine and antiviral therapy, both of which are routinely recommended.
 

COVID-19

What’s new with COVID-19? On Sept. 12, 2023, ACIP recommended that everyone at least 6 months of age receive the 2023-2024 (monovalent, XBB containing) COVID-19 vaccines. Children at least 5 years of age need one dose and those younger need one or two doses depending on the number of doses previously received. Why the change? Circulating variants continue to change. There is a current uptick in cases including hospitalizations (7.7%) and deaths (4.5%) and it’s just the beginning of the season.⁴ Symptoms, risk groups and complications have not changed. The primary goal is to prevent infection, hospitalization, long term complications, and death.

We are now armed with the most up-to-date interventions to help prevent the acquisition of these three viruses. Our next step is recommending and delivering them to our patients.
 

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She reported no relevant financial disclosures.

References

1.Suh M et al. J Infect Dis. 2022;226(Suppl 2):S154-36. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiac120.

2. Adams K et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:1589-96. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7150a4.

3. Pingali C et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Aug 25;72:912-9. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7234a3.

4. CDC Covid Data Tracker.

In July 2023, nirsevimab (Beyfortus), a monoclonal antibody, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease in infants and children younger than 2 years of age. On Aug. 3, 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended routine use of it for all infants younger than 8 months of age born during or entering their first RSV season. Its use is also recommended for certain children 8-19 months of age who are at increased risk for severe RSV disease at the start of their second RSV season. Hearing the approval, I immediately had a flashback to residency, recalling the multiple infants admitted each fall and winter exhibiting classic symptoms including cough, rhinorrhea, nasal flaring, retractions, and wheezing with many having oxygen requirements and others needing intubation. Only supportive care was available.

RSV is the leading cause of infant hospitalizations. Annually, the CDC estimates there are 50,000-80,000 RSV hospitalizations and 100-300 RSV-related deaths in the United States in persons younger than 5 years of age. While premature infants have the highest rates of hospitalization (three times a term infant) about 79% of hospitalized children younger than 2 years have no underlying medical risks.¹ The majority of children will experience RSV as an upper respiratory infection within the first 2 years of life. However, severe disease requiring hospitalization is more likely to occur in premature infants and children younger than 6 months; children younger than 2 with congenital heart disease and/or chronic lung disease; children with severe cystic fibrosis; as well as the immunocompromised child and individuals with neuromuscular disorders that preclude clearing mucous secretions or have difficulty swallowing.

Palivizumab (Synagis), the first monoclonal antibody to prevent RSV in infants was licensed in 1998. Its use was limited to infants meeting specific criteria developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Only 5% of infants had access to it. It was a short-acting agent requiring monthly injections, which were very costly ($1,661-$2,584 per dose). Eligible infants could receive up to five injections per season. Several studies proved its use was not cost beneficial.

What are the advantages of nirsevimab? It’s a long-acting monoclonal antibody. Only one dose is required per season. Costs will significantly diminish. It is recommended for all infants younger than 8 months of age born during RSV season. Those children 8-19 months at risk for severe RSV disease can receive it prior to the start of their second RSV season. During RSV season (October 1 to March 31), the initial dose should be administered to newborns just prior to hospital discharge. Older infants and newborns who did not receive it prior to hospital discharge can receive it at their medical home. Newborns should receive it within the first week of life. It is covered by the Vaccine for Children Program. Simultaneous administration with routine childhood immunizations is recommended. Finally, RSV season may vary in tropical areas (Southern Florida, Puerto Rico. etc.) and Alaska. The timing of nirsevimab administration should be based on local RSV activity provided by state and local authorities.

In addition, the FDA approved an RSV vaccine (Abrysvo) for use in adults at least 60 years of age and in pregnant women at 32-36 weeks’ gestation. The latter is administered to prevent lower respiratory tract infection in infants from birth to 6 months. Recommendations have been published for administration in nonpregnant adults. Specific information is forthcoming in terms timing of administration of nirsevimab in infants whose mothers receive Abrysvo.

RSV season is quickly approaching. Detailed recommendations for administration and FAQ questions related to nirsevimab and palivizumab can be found at https://www.aap.org or https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/index.html.
 

Influenza

So, what about influenza? Vaccine composition has been tweaked to match the circulating viruses but the recommended age for annual routine administration remains unchanged. All persons at least 6 months of age should be vaccinated. Children between 6 months and 8 years need two doses at least 4 weeks apart when receiving vaccine for the first time. Immunizing everyone in the household is encouraged especially if there are household contacts at risk for developing severe disease, including infants too young to be vaccinated. Keep in mind children may be coinfected with multiple viruses. Adams and colleagues reviewed the prevalence of coinfection of influenza and Sars-CoV-2 in persons younger than 18 years reported to three CDC surveillance platforms during the 2021-2022 season.² Thirty-two of 575 hospitalized (6%) coinfections were analyzed and 7 of 44 (16%) deaths. Compared with patients without coinfections, the coinfected patients were more likely to require mechanical ventilation (13% vs. 4%) or CPAP (16% vs. 6%). Only 4 of 23 who were influenza vaccine eligible were vaccinated. Of seven coinfected children who died, none had received influenza vaccine and only one received an antiviral. Only 5 of 31 (16%) infected only with influenza were vaccinated.³

Influenza activity was lower than usual during the 2021-2022 season. However, this report revealed underuse of both influenza vaccine and antiviral therapy, both of which are routinely recommended.
 

COVID-19

What’s new with COVID-19? On Sept. 12, 2023, ACIP recommended that everyone at least 6 months of age receive the 2023-2024 (monovalent, XBB containing) COVID-19 vaccines. Children at least 5 years of age need one dose and those younger need one or two doses depending on the number of doses previously received. Why the change? Circulating variants continue to change. There is a current uptick in cases including hospitalizations (7.7%) and deaths (4.5%) and it’s just the beginning of the season.⁴ Symptoms, risk groups and complications have not changed. The primary goal is to prevent infection, hospitalization, long term complications, and death.

We are now armed with the most up-to-date interventions to help prevent the acquisition of these three viruses. Our next step is recommending and delivering them to our patients.
 

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She reported no relevant financial disclosures.

References

1.Suh M et al. J Infect Dis. 2022;226(Suppl 2):S154-36. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiac120.

2. Adams K et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:1589-96. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7150a4.

3. Pingali C et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Aug 25;72:912-9. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7234a3.

4. CDC Covid Data Tracker.

Nonmenstruating women were more likely to experience unexpected vaginal bleeding after receiving COVID-19 vaccinations, according to a new study.

The researchers suggested it could have been connected to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the vaccines. The study was published in Science Advances.

After vaccinations became widely available, many women reported heavier menstrual bleeding than normal. Researchers at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health in Oslo examined the data, particularly among women who do not have periods, such as those who have been through menopause or are taking contraceptives.

The researchers used an ongoing population health survey called the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Cohort Study, Nature reported. They examined more than 21,000 responses from postmenopausal, perimenopausal, and nonmenstruating premenopausal women. Some were on long-term hormonal contraceptives.

They learned that 252 postmenopausal women, 1,008 perimenopausal women, and 924 premenopausal women reported having unexpected vaginal bleeding.

About half said the bleeding occurred within 4 weeks of the first or second shot or both. The risk of bleeding was up three to five times for premenopausal and perimenopausal women, and two to three times for postmenopausal women, the researchers found.

Postmenopausal bleeding is usually serious and can be a sign of cancer. “Knowing a patient’s vaccination status could put their bleeding incidence into context,” said Kate Clancy, a biological anthropologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

The study received funding through the Norwegian Institute of Public Health and Research Council of Norway. The researchers reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Nonmenstruating women were more likely to experience unexpected vaginal bleeding after receiving COVID-19 vaccinations, according to a new study.

The researchers suggested it could have been connected to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the vaccines. The study was published in Science Advances.

After vaccinations became widely available, many women reported heavier menstrual bleeding than normal. Researchers at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health in Oslo examined the data, particularly among women who do not have periods, such as those who have been through menopause or are taking contraceptives.

The researchers used an ongoing population health survey called the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Cohort Study, Nature reported. They examined more than 21,000 responses from postmenopausal, perimenopausal, and nonmenstruating premenopausal women. Some were on long-term hormonal contraceptives.

They learned that 252 postmenopausal women, 1,008 perimenopausal women, and 924 premenopausal women reported having unexpected vaginal bleeding.

About half said the bleeding occurred within 4 weeks of the first or second shot or both. The risk of bleeding was up three to five times for premenopausal and perimenopausal women, and two to three times for postmenopausal women, the researchers found.

Postmenopausal bleeding is usually serious and can be a sign of cancer. “Knowing a patient’s vaccination status could put their bleeding incidence into context,” said Kate Clancy, a biological anthropologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

The study received funding through the Norwegian Institute of Public Health and Research Council of Norway. The researchers reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Nonmenstruating women were more likely to experience unexpected vaginal bleeding after receiving COVID-19 vaccinations, according to a new study.

The researchers suggested it could have been connected to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the vaccines. The study was published in Science Advances.

After vaccinations became widely available, many women reported heavier menstrual bleeding than normal. Researchers at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health in Oslo examined the data, particularly among women who do not have periods, such as those who have been through menopause or are taking contraceptives.

The researchers used an ongoing population health survey called the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Cohort Study, Nature reported. They examined more than 21,000 responses from postmenopausal, perimenopausal, and nonmenstruating premenopausal women. Some were on long-term hormonal contraceptives.

They learned that 252 postmenopausal women, 1,008 perimenopausal women, and 924 premenopausal women reported having unexpected vaginal bleeding.

About half said the bleeding occurred within 4 weeks of the first or second shot or both. The risk of bleeding was up three to five times for premenopausal and perimenopausal women, and two to three times for postmenopausal women, the researchers found.

Postmenopausal bleeding is usually serious and can be a sign of cancer. “Knowing a patient’s vaccination status could put their bleeding incidence into context,” said Kate Clancy, a biological anthropologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

The study received funding through the Norwegian Institute of Public Health and Research Council of Norway. The researchers reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Key clinical point: In patients with migraine, COVID-19 vaccination worsened the overall migraine symptoms in the first month post-vaccination; however, COVID-19 infection solely increased the number of acute medication intake days in the first month following infection.

Major finding: COVID-19 vaccination led to a significant increase in the number of monthly migraine days (MMD), monthly headache days (MHD), and monthly acute medication days (MAMD) by 1.06, 1.52, and 0.72, respectively (all P < .001) in the first month post-vaccination. COVID-19 infection solely increased MAMD by 1.11 (P = .027) in the first month following infection, with no significant effects on MMD and MHD.

Study details: This longitudinal cohort study identified 547 patients with migraine, of whom 147 were included in the vaccine analysis and 59 in the infection analysis.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. BWH van der Arend and GM Terwindt declared receiving independent support and consultancy or industry support from various sources. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: van der Arend BWH et al. Effect of COVID vaccination on monthly migraine days: A longitudinal cohort study. Cephalalgia. 2023;43(9) (Sep 8). doi: 10.1177/03331024231198792

Key clinical point: In patients with migraine, COVID-19 vaccination worsened the overall migraine symptoms in the first month post-vaccination; however, COVID-19 infection solely increased the number of acute medication intake days in the first month following infection.

Major finding: COVID-19 vaccination led to a significant increase in the number of monthly migraine days (MMD), monthly headache days (MHD), and monthly acute medication days (MAMD) by 1.06, 1.52, and 0.72, respectively (all P < .001) in the first month post-vaccination. COVID-19 infection solely increased MAMD by 1.11 (P = .027) in the first month following infection, with no significant effects on MMD and MHD.

Study details: This longitudinal cohort study identified 547 patients with migraine, of whom 147 were included in the vaccine analysis and 59 in the infection analysis.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. BWH van der Arend and GM Terwindt declared receiving independent support and consultancy or industry support from various sources. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: van der Arend BWH et al. Effect of COVID vaccination on monthly migraine days: A longitudinal cohort study. Cephalalgia. 2023;43(9) (Sep 8). doi: 10.1177/03331024231198792

Key clinical point: In patients with migraine, COVID-19 vaccination worsened the overall migraine symptoms in the first month post-vaccination; however, COVID-19 infection solely increased the number of acute medication intake days in the first month following infection.

Major finding: COVID-19 vaccination led to a significant increase in the number of monthly migraine days (MMD), monthly headache days (MHD), and monthly acute medication days (MAMD) by 1.06, 1.52, and 0.72, respectively (all P < .001) in the first month post-vaccination. COVID-19 infection solely increased MAMD by 1.11 (P = .027) in the first month following infection, with no significant effects on MMD and MHD.

Study details: This longitudinal cohort study identified 547 patients with migraine, of whom 147 were included in the vaccine analysis and 59 in the infection analysis.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. BWH van der Arend and GM Terwindt declared receiving independent support and consultancy or industry support from various sources. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: van der Arend BWH et al. Effect of COVID vaccination on monthly migraine days: A longitudinal cohort study. Cephalalgia. 2023;43(9) (Sep 8). doi: 10.1177/03331024231198792

Widely used billing codes have been updated for 2024, including new ones for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines and medications, and new Spanish translations.

The American Medical Association recently released the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) 2024 Code Set. The update included 349 editorial changes, including 230 additions, 49 deletions, and 70 revisions. With more than 11,100 codes in use, the CPT system continues “to grow and evolve with the rapid pace of innovation in medical science and health technology,” AMA said.

The AMA said the CPT update includes five new codes created to report product-specific RSV products (90380, 90381, 90683, 90679, and 90678) for better tracking, reporting and analysis that supports data-driven planning and allocation, AMA said.

There’s been a flurry of new U.S. vaccines and drugs to address RSV. The Food and Drug Administration in May granted the first U.S. approval of an RSV vaccine to Arexy, manufactured by GSK. The FDA cleared it for prevention of lower respiratory tract disease caused by RSV in adults age 60 years and older.

In June, Pfizer won FDA approval of Abrysvo, another vaccine meant to protect adults older than 60 years from RSV. The following month, the FDA approved nirsevimab (Beyfortus, AstraZeneca/Sanofi), for the prevention of RSV in neonates and infants entering their first RSV season, and in children up to 24 months of age who remain vulnerable to severe RSV disease through their second RSV season. (This is not a vaccine, but a monoclonal antibody used for prevention. There has been confusion on this issue in part because monoclonal antibodies are often used for treatment rather than prevention.)

The FDA also has approved Abrysvo for use in pregnant individuals.

In addition, new CPT codes aim to streamline COVID-19 immunizations reporting. A new code (90480) was approved for reporting the administration of any COVID-19 vaccine for any patient. New provisional codes (91318-91322) will identify monovalent vaccine products from Moderna and Pfizer for immunization against COVID-19.

These provisional codes will be effective for use when the monovalent vaccine products from Moderna and Pfizer receive FDA approval, AMA said.
 

More codes explained in Spanish

The 2024 update includes more code descriptions in Spanish. Many hospitals, health plans, and medical offices already incorporate CPT descriptors in English-language medical documents, insurance forms, price sheets, and patient portals. This expansion is intended to help patients who may not read English well or at all.

“Providing approximately 41 million Spanish-speaking individuals in the United States with an easy-to-understand description of medical procedures and services can help build a more inclusive health care environment, where language is no longer a barrier and patients can actively engage in their own care,” Lori Prestesater, AMA’s senior vice president of health solutions, said in a statement.

In addition, the 2024 update includes clarifications sought by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services about the reporting of evaluation and management (E/M) services. The revisions include:

• Removal of time ranges from office or other outpatient visit codes (99202-99205, 99212-99215) and format alignment with other E/M codes.
• Definition of the “substantive portion” of a split/shared E/M visit in which a physician and a nonphysician practitioner work jointly to furnish all the work related to the visit.
• Instructions for reporting hospital inpatient or observation care services and admission and discharge services for the use of codes. 99234-99236 when the patient stay crosses over two calendar dates.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Widely used billing codes have been updated for 2024, including new ones for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines and medications, and new Spanish translations.

The American Medical Association recently released the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) 2024 Code Set. The update included 349 editorial changes, including 230 additions, 49 deletions, and 70 revisions. With more than 11,100 codes in use, the CPT system continues “to grow and evolve with the rapid pace of innovation in medical science and health technology,” AMA said.

The AMA said the CPT update includes five new codes created to report product-specific RSV products (90380, 90381, 90683, 90679, and 90678) for better tracking, reporting and analysis that supports data-driven planning and allocation, AMA said.

There’s been a flurry of new U.S. vaccines and drugs to address RSV. The Food and Drug Administration in May granted the first U.S. approval of an RSV vaccine to Arexy, manufactured by GSK. The FDA cleared it for prevention of lower respiratory tract disease caused by RSV in adults age 60 years and older.

In June, Pfizer won FDA approval of Abrysvo, another vaccine meant to protect adults older than 60 years from RSV. The following month, the FDA approved nirsevimab (Beyfortus, AstraZeneca/Sanofi), for the prevention of RSV in neonates and infants entering their first RSV season, and in children up to 24 months of age who remain vulnerable to severe RSV disease through their second RSV season. (This is not a vaccine, but a monoclonal antibody used for prevention. There has been confusion on this issue in part because monoclonal antibodies are often used for treatment rather than prevention.)

The FDA also has approved Abrysvo for use in pregnant individuals.

In addition, new CPT codes aim to streamline COVID-19 immunizations reporting. A new code (90480) was approved for reporting the administration of any COVID-19 vaccine for any patient. New provisional codes (91318-91322) will identify monovalent vaccine products from Moderna and Pfizer for immunization against COVID-19.

These provisional codes will be effective for use when the monovalent vaccine products from Moderna and Pfizer receive FDA approval, AMA said.
 

More codes explained in Spanish

The 2024 update includes more code descriptions in Spanish. Many hospitals, health plans, and medical offices already incorporate CPT descriptors in English-language medical documents, insurance forms, price sheets, and patient portals. This expansion is intended to help patients who may not read English well or at all.

“Providing approximately 41 million Spanish-speaking individuals in the United States with an easy-to-understand description of medical procedures and services can help build a more inclusive health care environment, where language is no longer a barrier and patients can actively engage in their own care,” Lori Prestesater, AMA’s senior vice president of health solutions, said in a statement.

In addition, the 2024 update includes clarifications sought by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services about the reporting of evaluation and management (E/M) services. The revisions include:

• Removal of time ranges from office or other outpatient visit codes (99202-99205, 99212-99215) and format alignment with other E/M codes.
• Definition of the “substantive portion” of a split/shared E/M visit in which a physician and a nonphysician practitioner work jointly to furnish all the work related to the visit.
• Instructions for reporting hospital inpatient or observation care services and admission and discharge services for the use of codes. 99234-99236 when the patient stay crosses over two calendar dates.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Widely used billing codes have been updated for 2024, including new ones for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines and medications, and new Spanish translations.

The American Medical Association recently released the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) 2024 Code Set. The update included 349 editorial changes, including 230 additions, 49 deletions, and 70 revisions. With more than 11,100 codes in use, the CPT system continues “to grow and evolve with the rapid pace of innovation in medical science and health technology,” AMA said.

The AMA said the CPT update includes five new codes created to report product-specific RSV products (90380, 90381, 90683, 90679, and 90678) for better tracking, reporting and analysis that supports data-driven planning and allocation, AMA said.

There’s been a flurry of new U.S. vaccines and drugs to address RSV. The Food and Drug Administration in May granted the first U.S. approval of an RSV vaccine to Arexy, manufactured by GSK. The FDA cleared it for prevention of lower respiratory tract disease caused by RSV in adults age 60 years and older.

In June, Pfizer won FDA approval of Abrysvo, another vaccine meant to protect adults older than 60 years from RSV. The following month, the FDA approved nirsevimab (Beyfortus, AstraZeneca/Sanofi), for the prevention of RSV in neonates and infants entering their first RSV season, and in children up to 24 months of age who remain vulnerable to severe RSV disease through their second RSV season. (This is not a vaccine, but a monoclonal antibody used for prevention. There has been confusion on this issue in part because monoclonal antibodies are often used for treatment rather than prevention.)

The FDA also has approved Abrysvo for use in pregnant individuals.

In addition, new CPT codes aim to streamline COVID-19 immunizations reporting. A new code (90480) was approved for reporting the administration of any COVID-19 vaccine for any patient. New provisional codes (91318-91322) will identify monovalent vaccine products from Moderna and Pfizer for immunization against COVID-19.

These provisional codes will be effective for use when the monovalent vaccine products from Moderna and Pfizer receive FDA approval, AMA said.
 

More codes explained in Spanish

The 2024 update includes more code descriptions in Spanish. Many hospitals, health plans, and medical offices already incorporate CPT descriptors in English-language medical documents, insurance forms, price sheets, and patient portals. This expansion is intended to help patients who may not read English well or at all.

“Providing approximately 41 million Spanish-speaking individuals in the United States with an easy-to-understand description of medical procedures and services can help build a more inclusive health care environment, where language is no longer a barrier and patients can actively engage in their own care,” Lori Prestesater, AMA’s senior vice president of health solutions, said in a statement.

In addition, the 2024 update includes clarifications sought by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services about the reporting of evaluation and management (E/M) services. The revisions include:

• Removal of time ranges from office or other outpatient visit codes (99202-99205, 99212-99215) and format alignment with other E/M codes.
• Definition of the “substantive portion” of a split/shared E/M visit in which a physician and a nonphysician practitioner work jointly to furnish all the work related to the visit.
• Instructions for reporting hospital inpatient or observation care services and admission and discharge services for the use of codes. 99234-99236 when the patient stay crosses over two calendar dates.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.