Alternative Vaccination Schedules Research Articles

Do influenza and pneumococcal vaccines prevent community-acquired respiratory infections among older people with diabetes and does this vary by chronic kidney disease? A cohort study using electronic health records

ObjectiveWe aimed to estimate the effectiveness of influenza and 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccination on reducing the burden of community-acquired lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) among older people with diabetes, and...

Hepatitis B Vaccination in End-Stage Pulmonary Disease Patients Evaluated for Lung Transplantation: A Retrospective Single-Center Evaluation.

BACKGROUND In times of limited organs for transplantation, anti-HBc-positive organs can be accepted for lung transplantation to increase the number of donors. Transplant recipients should be vaccinated against hepatitis B to prevent HBV infection. However, response after HBV vaccination has only been poorly evaluated in patients with end-stage pulmonary disease. MATERIAL AND METHODS Anti-HBs titers of 40 anti-HBc negative patients with end-stage pulmonary disease evaluated for lung transplantation were analyzed with the Architect® system (Abbott, Germany). Responders, partial responders, or non-responders after HBV vaccination were defined by anti-HBs titers >100 IU/L, 10-100 IU/L, and <10 IU/L, respectively. RESULTS There were 34/40 individuals (85%) vaccinated against hepatitis B, and 6 were not vaccinated. Response, partial response, and non-response after vaccination were observed in 10/34 (29.4%), 11/34 (32.4%), and 13/34 (38.2%) of patients, respectively. Response to vaccination did not correlate with sex, pulmonary disease, comorbidities, immunosuppressive therapy, or smoking status. CONCLUSIONS Although 85% of patients evaluated for lung transplantation were vaccinated against hepatitis B, 38.2% did not show an anti-HBs titer >10 IU/L. Thus, anti-HBs titers should be regularly monitored. Nonresponders should be considered for booster vaccinations, alternative vaccination schedules, or prophylactic treatment with a nucleos(t)ide analogue in case of transplantation of an anti-HBc-positive organ.

Epidemiological and Economic Effects of Priming With the Whole-Cell Bordetella pertussis Vaccine.

Current acellular pertussis vaccines may not protect against transmission of Bordetella pertussis. To assess whether a priming dose of whole-cell pertussis (wP) vaccine is cost-effective at reducing pertussis infection in infants. Mathematical model of pertussis transmission fit to US incidence data in a simulation of the US population. In this simulation study conducted from June 2014 to May 2015, the population was divided into 9 age groups corresponding to the current pertussis vaccination schedule and fit to 2012 pertussis incidence. Inclusion of a priming dose of wP vaccine into the current acellular pertussis vaccination schedule. Reductions in symptomatic pertussis incidence by age group, increases in wP vaccine-related adverse effects, and quality-adjusted life-years owing to changing vaccine schedule. Switching to a wP-priming vaccination strategy could reduce whooping cough incidence by up to 95% (95% CI, 91-98), including 96% (95% CI, 92-98) fewer infections in neonates. Although there may be an increase in the number of vaccine adverse effects, we nonetheless estimate a 95% reduction in quality-adjusted life-years lost with a switch to the combined strategy and a cost reduction of 94% (95% CI, 91-97), saving more than $142 million annually. Our results suggest that an alternative vaccination schedule including 1 dose of wP vaccine may be highly cost-effective and ethically preferred until next-generation pertussis vaccines become available.

Vaccine safety: medical contraindications, myths, and risk communication.

On the basis of first principles, anaphylaxis to a vaccine or vaccine component is a contraindication to future receipt of that vaccine. • On the basis of strong evidence, live viral vaccines should not be administered to severely immunocompromised children. • On the basis of some evidence with consensus, children with egg allergies may receive inactivated influenza vaccine. • On the basis of strong evidence, neither measles-mumps-rubella vaccine nor thimerosal causes autism. • On the basis of some evidence with consensus, alternative vaccination schedules have no benefit and receipt of human papillomavirus vaccines does not result in promiscuity. • On the basis of first principles and consensus, vaccine risk communication requires a tailored approach to each individual family.

Googling for Information About Alternative Vaccination Schedules

IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to explore and describe the information a parent may find when Googling for information about alternative vaccination schedules. MethodsThe data collection tool included evaluation of Web site quality and vaccine-specific content on the 12 sites that met the inclusion criteria. ResultsSeven of the Web sites had a bias toward vaccination, three sites were anti-vaccine, and two sites were neutral in their stance. Three of the four Web sites authored by physicians had an antivaccine bias. Only three sites included 50% or more of the vaccine-specific content. Fewer than half of the Web sites recommended that vaccine concerns be discussed with a health care provider. Three alternate vaccine schedules were found in the study sample. DiscussionAlthough the majority of the Web sites indicated that vaccines are important and acknowledged that parents may have legitimate concerns regarding vaccinations, few addressed parental fears surrounding vaccine safety. It would be challenging for a parent to decide what vaccine information constitutes “science” and which site is “right” when there are “expert” physicians on both sides of an intense debate. It is important for parents to bring in the vaccine information they find to facilitate an open dialogue and build trust with their health care provider.

Flexibility of oral cholera vaccine dosing-a randomized controlled trial measuring immune responses following alternative vaccination schedules in a cholera hyper-endemic zone.

BackgroundA bivalent killed whole cell oral cholera vaccine has been found to be safe and efficacious for five years in the cholera endemic setting of Kolkata, India, when given in a two dose schedule, two weeks apart. A randomized controlled trial revealed that the immune response was not significantly increased following the second dose compared to that after the first dose. We aimed to evaluate the impact of an extended four week dosing schedule on vibriocidal response.Methodology/Principal FindingsIn this double blind randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, 356 Indian, non-pregnant residents aged 1 year or older were randomized to receive two doses of oral cholera vaccine at 14 and 28 day intervals. We compared vibriocidal immune responses between these schedules. Among adults, no significant differences were noted when comparing the rates of seroconversion for V. cholerae O1 Inaba following two dose regimens administered at a 14 day interval (55%) vs the 28 day interval (58%). Similarly, no differences in seroconversion were demonstrated in children comparing the 14 (80%) and 28 day intervals (77%). Following 14 and 28 day dosing intervals, vibriocidal response rates against V. cholerae O1 Ogawa were 45% and 49% in adults and 73% and 72% in children respectively. Responses were lower for V. cholerae O139, but similar between dosing schedules for adults (20%, 20%) and children (28%, 20%).Conclusions/SignificanceComparable immune responses and safety profiles between the two dosing schedules support the option for increased flexibility of current OCV dosing. Further operational research using a longer dosing regimen will provide answers to improve implementation and delivery of cholera vaccination in endemic and epidemic outbreak scenarios.

Alternative Vaccination Schedules and Up-to-date Status

Alternative Vaccination Schedules and Up-to-date Status

Identifying intentional use of alternative vaccine schedules, New York State

Identifying intentional use of alternative vaccine schedules, New York State

Parents' choices and rationales for alternative vaccination schedules: a qualitative study.

A growing number of parents adopt alternative vaccination schedules for their children. A better understanding of parents' rationales for these choices is needed to guide vaccine decision making. We conducted 24 semistructured telephone interviews with parents of 12- to 36-month-olds and analyzed data using an inductive approach. We identified 5 alternative vaccination approaches: "Dr Sears" schedule, shot-limiting approach, selective delay or decline, visit-by-visit decisions, and refusal of all vaccines. Parents who adopted alternative approaches expressed a desire for more control of exposure to vaccine ingredients; vaccine safety, immune system burden, and perceived disease risk were articulated as concerns. Parents who adopt alternative vaccination schedules can be classified in defined subgroups based on their decision-making approaches, and many describe considered reasons to support their actions. Communications that acknowledge and address those reasons may be better able to engage parents and ultimately enhance the process of decision making about vaccines.

A double-dose hepatitis B vaccination schedule in travelers presenting for late consultation.

Vaccination against hepatitis B virus (HBV) is recommended for all travelers visiting HBV-endemic countries. However, travelers often present with insufficient time for the standard HBV vaccine schedule (SVS). We examined seroprotection against HBV following an alternative two-visit vaccination schedule (TVS) with currently available vaccine products, and completion rates with this TVS. A retrospective cohort study was conducted in three travel clinics in British Columbia, Canada. Adults ≥20 years old traveling to an HBV-endemic country, and unable to complete the standard or rapid HBV vaccination schedule before departure, were offered a TVS that consisted of a double dose of HBV vaccine at day 0, followed by a single dose in 4 to 12 months. Immunity to HBV [anti-HBV surface antigen (HBs) ≥10 mIU/mL] was determined 1 to 6 months following the final dose of HBV vaccine. Logistic regression modeling was used to assess correlates of seroprotection. We also determined completion rate with this TVS at two clinics. In total, 117 participants (age range, 21-81 years, median age 57) met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 97 (82.9%) were immune after the TVS. Immunity was demonstrated in 93.1% of patients <50 years old and 79.5% of patients ≥50 years old. Increasing age was associated with reduced odds of developing immunity to HBV using the TVS [adjusted odds ratio = 0.954, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.904, 1.008]. The completion rate of the TVS was 32.6% over a 12-month period. Completion rates varied between clinics (23.5% vs 48.4%, p < 0.001), suggesting that clinic-specific follow-up policies were important. Seroprotection with completion of this TVS was similar to or exceeded that published in the literature for the SVS by age. However, even with a TVS, completion rates were low, underscoring the importance of follow-up. Further research is needed to determine whether travelers are protected prior to completion of this TVS.

Challenges in comparing the safety of different vaccination schedules

As vaccine hesitancy has increased in the United States, various authors have begun proposing alternatives to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ recommended childhood immunization schedule. Because parents may believe the safety claims made by such authors, evaluations of the safety of alternative vaccination schedules are needed. However, comparing the safety of different vaccination schedules has numerous methodologic challenges. These challenges include defining vaccination history, defining safety, appropriately modeling interactions between vaccines, and appropriately handling age effects. Failure to properly address these challenges can result in biased results.

Hepatitis B vaccine in celiac disease: Yesterday, today and tomorrow

Some studies showed that in celiac patients the immunological response to vaccination is similar to that one found in general population except for vaccine against hepatitis B virus (HBV). The non-responsiveness to HBV vaccine has also been described in healthy people, nevertheless the number of non-responders has been demonstrated to be higher in celiac disease (CD) patients than in healthy controls. Several hypothesis explaining this higher rate of unresponsiveness to HBV vaccine in CD patients have been described, such as the genetic hypothesis, according with CD patients carrying the disease-specific haplotype HLA-B8, DR3, and DQ2, show a lower response to HBV vaccine both in clinical expressed CD patients and in healthy people carrying the same haplotype. On the other hand, it has been demonstrated that the gluten intake during the vaccination seems to influence the response to the same vaccine. Moreover, it has been demonstrated a possible genetic predisposition to hepatitis B vaccine non-responsiveness likely due to the presence of specific human leukocyte antigen haplotypes and specific single nucleotide polymorphism in genes of cytokine/cytokine receptors and toll like receptors, but the pathogenic mechanism responsible for this low responsiveness still remains unclear. The aim of this review is to focus on the possible pathogenic causes of unresponsiveness to HBV vaccine in CD patients and to propose an alternative vaccination schedule in order to improve the responsiveness to HBV vaccine in this at-risk patients.

Alternative Vaccination Schedule Preferences Among Parents of Young Children

Alternative Vaccination Schedule Preferences Among Parents of Young Children

History of polio vaccination

Poliomyelitis is an acute paralytic disease caused by three poliovirus (PV) serotypes. Less than 1% of PV infections result in acute flaccid paralysis. The disease was controlled using the formalin-inactivated Salk polio vaccine (IPV) and the Sabin oral polio vaccine (OPV). Global poliomyelitis eradication was proposed in 1988 by the World Health Organization to its member states. The strategic plan established the activities required for polio eradication, certification for regions, OPV cessation phase and post-OPV phase. OPV is the vaccine of choice for the poliomyelitis eradication program because it induces both a systemic and mucosal immune response. The major risks of OPV vaccination are the appearance of Vaccine-Associated Paralytic Poliomyelitis cases (VAPP) and the emergence of Vaccine Derived Polioviruses strains. The supplementary immunization with monovalent strains of OPV type 1 or type 3 or with a new bivalent oral polio vaccine bOPV (containing type 1 and type 3 PV) has been introduced in those regions where the virus has been difficult to control. Most countries have switched the schedule of vaccination by using IPV instead of OPV because it poses no risk of vaccine-related disease. Until 2008, poliomyelitis was controlled in Romania, an Eastern European country, predominantly using OPV. The alternative vaccination schedule (IPV/OPV) was implemented starting in September 2008, while beginning in 2009, the vaccination was IPV only. The risk of VAPP will disappear worldwide with the cessation of use of OPV. The immunization for polio must be maintained for at least 5 to 10 years using IPV.

Treating Children Whose Parents Refuse to Have Them Vaccinated

Case Dr. Feyn, a Denver pediatrician, mentions to his colleague Dr. Manning that parents’ refusal of vaccines for their children has become more popular among parents in his patient panel in the last 5 years. “Most of these parents have similar reasons for choosing not to vaccinate their children. They cite alternative vaccination schedules, celebrity campaigns against vaccine side effects, even online forum discussions with other parents.”

Alternative Vaccination Schedule Preferences Among Parents of Young Children

Increasing numbers of parents use alternative vaccination schedules that differ from the recommended childhood vaccination schedule for their children. We sought to describe national patterns of alternative vaccination schedule use and the potential "malleability" of parents' current vaccination schedule choices. We performed a cross-sectional, Internet-based survey of a nationally representative sample of parents of children 6 months to 6 years of age. Bivariate and multivariate analyses determined associations between demographic and attitudinal factors and alternative vaccination schedule use. The response rate was 61% (N = 748). Of the 13% of parents who reported following an alternative vaccination schedule, most refused only certain vaccines (53%) and/or delayed some vaccines until the child was older (55%). Only 17% reported refusing all vaccines. In multivariate models, nonblack race and not having a regular health care provider for the child were the only factors significantly associated with higher odds of using an alternative schedule. A large proportion of alternative vaccinators (30%) reported having initially followed the recommended vaccination schedule. Among parents following the recommended vaccination schedule, 28% thought that delaying vaccine doses was safer than the schedule they used, and 22% disagreed that the best vaccination schedule to follow was the one recommended by vaccination experts. More than 1 of 10 parents of young children currently use an alternative vaccination schedule. In addition, a large proportion of parents currently following the recommended schedule seem to be "at risk" for switching to an alternative schedule.

Alternative Vaccination Schedule Preferences Among Parents of Young Children

Alternative Vaccination Schedule Preferences Among Parents of Young Children

A Phase 1 trial of PfCP2.9: An AMA1/MSP1 chimeric recombinant protein vaccine for Plasmodium falciparum malaria

Apical Membrane Antigen 1 (AMA1) and Merozoite Surface Protein 1 (MSP1) were produced as a recombinant fusion protein and formulated with the adjuvant Montanide ISA 720 with the aim of replicating the structure present in the parasite protein. A previous trial with this construct demonstrated the vaccine was safe and immunogenic but was associated with injection site reactogenicity. This Phase 1a dose-escalating, double blind, randomized, controlled trial of PfCP2.9/Montanide ISA 720 was conducted to evaluate alternative dose levels and vaccination schedules, with a pre-formulated vaccine that had undergone more in-depth and frequent quality control and stability analysis. The trial was conducted in seventy healthy Chinese malaria-naïve volunteers between January 2006 and January 2007. The objective was to assess the safety, reactogenicity and immunogenicity of 5, 20 and 50 μg of PfCP2.9/ISA 720 under 2 different schedules. The most common adverse event was injection site tenderness (53%). The frequency and severity of adverse events was similar in both vaccination schedules. Antibody responses were induced and remained elevated throughout the study in volunteers receiving vaccine ( p < 0.001). Although high antibody titers as measured by ELISA to the PfCP2.9 immunogen were observed, biological function of these antibodies was not reflected by the in vitro inhibition of parasite growth, and there was limited recognition of fixed parasites in an immunofluorescence assay. At all three dose levels and both schedules, this formulation of PfCP2.9/ISA 720 is well tolerated, safe and immunogenic; however no functional activity against the parasite was observed.

Evaluation of a recombinant HER2 vaccine: Induction of specific antibodies, T-cells and preliminary activity in metastatic breast cancer patients

631 Background: We designed a vaccine to induce T cells able to recognize epitopes from HER2 and to engender a polyclonal antibody reponse. Methods: The vaccine is a recombinant HER2 protein, including its extra and part of its intra-cellular domains (ECD/ICD), combined with a potent immunologic adjuvant. Cohorts of patients with Stage II/III breast cancer (BC) received 20, 100 or 500 μg in the adjuvant setting. Treatment comprised of six vaccinations over 14 weeks, for the 500-μg dose, recall injections were given on weeks 34 and 38. The trial was extended to include an alternative vaccination schedule: 500 μg on days 0, 28 and 98. In an on-going trial, patients with metastatic BC treated in the first line setting are receiving the 500-μg treatment and being assessed for clinical response. Results: The vaccine was well tolerated, with no symptomatic cardiotoxicity. Antibody (Ab) response against ECD was dose-dependent, with 2/12, 9/14 and 14/15 immune responders in the respective cohorts after four vaccinations. Response was dose-related. Ab isotypes were analyzed in the 500 μg cohort: in 50% of patients, high levels of IgM (30–60%) against ECD were found after four vaccinations. The switch towards IgG was complete in all patients after six vaccinations. The efficacy of booster vaccinations was observed mainly in patients with low IgM after eight weeks. After two vaccinations, Ab titers on the alternative 500 μg vaccination schedule were as high as after four vaccinations utilizing the initial schedule. The anti-ECD antibodies in 11/15 patients (500 μg level) bound HER2-overexpressing breast-cancer cell lines. In sera from 2 patients tested thus far, the gene-expression resembled that of trastuzumab. Assays show that specific T cells were obtained; detailed analysis is continuing. Among metastatic patients, two showed evidence of tumor regression after vaccination. Conclusions: The HER2 vaccine was well tolerated and induced (dose-dependently) anti-ECD Ab that bound the HER2 receptor. Data suggest that the vaccine also induced specific T-cell immunity. The alternative vaccination schedule may increase the Ab titers. This data justifies further evaluation of this vaccine in the phase II/III setting. [Table: see text]

'Parsimonious' versus patient-centered care: quality issues in childhood immunization.

As currently practiced, the standard of care strictly limiting the number of medical conditions that warrant withholding vaccination may be incompatible with the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) recommendation for patient-centered care. Furthermore, the "parsimonious" approach to accepting contraindications to vaccination is inconsistent with the IOM's recommendation to consider alternative vaccination schedules and policies aimed at redistributing the benefits and burdens of immunization. This critical perspective is examined within the framework of five rules proposed by the IOM. There is an opportunity to improve the quality of childhood immunization by adopting a patient-centered approach, identifying individuals at risk for acute and/or delayed adverse vaccine effects, and developing alternative immunization schedules for these high-risk children.