vaccines

The AAP recommends vaccines to protect children against 18 diseases. The updated CDC schedule removed routine recommendations for hepatitis A and B, COVID-19, respiratory syncytial virus, rotavirus, influenza, and meningococcal disease, instead only recommending them for certain groups at high risk of infection or based on shared clinical decision-making. The AAP continues to suggest vaccines for these diseases.

There are also differences regarding administration. For example, the new CDC schedule recommends that children aged 4 to 6 years receive both a measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and a monovalent varicella vaccine, but the AAP also supports a combination vaccine that covers all 4 viruses. And although the CDC recommends 1 dose of the human papillomavirus virus vaccine at ages 11 to 12 years, the AAP recommends 2 doses starting at ages 9 to 12 years.

Recommendations from the AAP are based on a review of vaccine safety data and the epidemiology of US diseases, the organization said. It added that insurance coverage and liability protection are expected to continue for all vaccines on the CDC schedule—even those no longer considered routine—according to federal officials.

This JAMA Pediatrics Patient Page describes respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in children and how to prevent its spread.

Background
Influenza vaccines are available to help protect persons aged ≥65 years, who experience thousands of influenza hospitalizations annually. Because some influenza vaccines may work better than others, we sought to assess benefit of high-dose (HD), adjuvanted (ADJ), and recombinant (RIV) influenza vaccines (“enhanced influenza vaccines”) compared with standard-dose unadjuvanted influenza vaccines (SD) and with one another for prevention of influenza-associated hospitalizations among persons aged ≥65 years.

Methods
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane Library to identify randomized or observational studies published between January 1990 and October 2023 and reporting relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of HD, ADJ, or RIV for prevention of influenza-associated hospitalizations among adults aged ≥65 years. We extracted study data, assessed risk of bias, and conducted random-effects network meta-analysis and meta-regression.

Results
We identified 32 studies with 90 rVE estimates from five randomized and 27 observational studies (71,459,918 vaccinated participants). rVE estimates varied across studies and influenza seasons. Pooled rVE from randomized studies was 20% (95% CI −54 to 59) and 25% (95% CI −19 to 53) for ADJ and HD compared with SD, respectively; rVE was 6% (95% CI −109 to 58) for HD compared with ADJ; these differences were not statistically significant. In observational studies, ADJ, HD, and RIV conferred modestly increased protection compared with SD (rVE ranging from 10% to 19%), with no significant differences between HD, ADJ, and RIV. With enhanced vaccines combined, rVE versus SD was 18% (95% CI 3 to 32) from randomized and 11% (95% CI 8 to 14) from observational evidence. Meta-regression of observational studies suggested that those requiring laboratory confirmation of influenza reported greater benefit of enhanced vaccines.

Conclusions
HD, ADJ, and RIV provided stronger protection than SD against influenza hospitalizations among older adults. No differences in benefit were observed in comparisons of enhanced influenza vaccines with one another.

Importance
Allergic reactions among some individuals who received the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) COVID-19 vaccine discourage patients with allergic conditions from receiving this vaccine and physicians from recommending the vaccine.

Objective
To describe the assessment and immunization of highly allergic individuals with the BNT162b2 vaccine.

Design, Setting, and Participants
In a prospective cohort study from December 27, 2020, to February 22, 2021, 8102 patients with allergies who applied to the COVID 19 vaccine referral center at the Sheba Medical Center underwent risk assessment using an algorithm that included a detailed questionnaire. High-risk patients (n = 429) were considered “highly allergic” and were immunized under medical supervision.

Exposures
Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) COVID-19 vaccine.

Main Outcomes and Measures
Allergic and anaphylactic reactions after the first and second doses of BNT162b2 vaccine among highly allergic patients.

Results
Of the 429 individuals who applied to the COVID-19 referral center and were defined as highly allergic, 304 (70.9%) were women and the mean (SD) age was 52 (16) years. This highly allergic group was referred to receive immunization under medical supervision. After the first dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine, 420 patients (97.9%) had no immediate allergic event, 6 (1.4%) developed minor allergic responses, and 3 (0.7%) had anaphylactic reactions. During the study period, 218 highly allergic patients (50.8%) received the second BNT162b2 vaccine dose, of which 214 (98.2%) had no allergic reactions and 4 patients (1.8%) had minor allergic reactions. Other immediate and late reactions were comparable with those seen in the general population, except for delayed itch and skin eruption, which were more common among allergic patients.

Conclusions and Relevance
The rate of allergic reactions to BNT162b2 vaccine, is higher among patients with allergies, particularly among a subgroup with a history of high-risk allergies. This study suggests that most patients with a history of allergic diseases and, particularly, highly allergic patients can be safely immunized by using an algorithm that can be implemented in different medical facilities and includes a referral center, a risk assessment questionnaire, and a setting for immunization under medical supervision of highly allergic patients. Further studies are required to define more specific risk factors for allergic reactions to the BNT162b2 vaccine.