Influenza

What Is the Pneumococcal Pneumonia Vaccine?
The pneumococcal vaccine protects against infections from a type of bacteria called pneumococcus. Pneumococcus is a common cause of pneumonia (a lung infection), as well as other serious infections. The vaccine prepares your immune system to recognize and fight pneumococcal bacteria. The vaccine is usually given through an injection into the arm. Some versions can also be inhaled. The vaccines do not contain living or dead bacteria. The pneumococcal vaccine does not protect you from other lung infections like the flu (influenza), COVID-19, RSV (respiratory syncytial virus), or other kinds of bacteria that cause pneumonia. It is still important to get your flu shot every year and other vaccines your doctor recommends, even if you already got the pneumococcal vaccine.

What Are Benefits of Pneumococcal Pneumonia Vaccines?
The vaccine substantially lowers your risk of hospitalization or dying from serious pneumococcal infection. Vaccination can reduce the risk of pneumonia-related deaths by almost half.

Why Is There a New Pneumococcal Pneumonia Vaccine, and How Does It Differ From Prior Versions?
There are several types of pneumococcal bacteria that can cause pneumonia. Being vaccinated against one type of pneumococcus may not protect you from other types that could make you sick. Previous pneumococcal pneumonia vaccines like PPSV23 or PCV13 do not protect against all types of the pneumococcal bacteria that cause pneumonia. Newer vaccines were made in 2021 (PCV15 and PCV20) and 2024 (PCV21). These help to prevent infections from types of bacteria not covered by older versions.

What Are the Potential Side Effects?
Side effects are frequent but generally mild. The most common side effect is pain or redness at the site of injection. Less common side effects include fever, feeling tired, muscle ache, and headache. These are less severe than for other vaccines like flu and shingles. These effects can be treated with over-the-counter medications and generally go away within 24 to 48 hours. Life-threatening allergic reactions are extremely rare but possible. Seek immediate medical attention if you experience severe symptoms like difficulty breathing or progressive weakness after vaccination. The pneumonia vaccine cannot cause pneumonia or other bacterial illness.

Who Should Get a New Pneumococcal Pneumonia Vaccine?
All adults 50 years and older who have not been vaccinated should receive one of the new vaccines: PCV21, PCV20, or a sequence of PCV15 followed by PPSV23. People younger than 50 years with certain health problems should also get the new vaccine. These health problems include diabetes; chronic conditions affecting the heart, lungs, liver, or kidneys; current tobacco use or heavy alcohol consumption; a weak immune system from certain health problems or medications; absence or prior removal of the spleen; and a history of spinal fluid leak or a cochlear (inner ear) implant.

Most adults who got either PPSV23 and/or PCV13 should still get a booster with one of the newer vaccines. The different pneumococcal vaccines protect against different types of bacteria. Some types of bacteria are more common in people depending on their age, health, and where they live. Talk to your doctor about which vaccine is best for you.

Author/s:

Jerard Z. Kneifati-Hayek, Michael A. Incze

Influenza Vaccine

Brian Desmarais — Tue, 01 Sep 2020 13:45:14 +0000

Date Added:

September 1, 2020

Publisher:

Journal of the American Medical Association

Publication Date:

August 28, 2020

URL:

Influenza Vaccine

Type:

Patient Education Materials

Format:

Web Page

DOI (1):

10.1001/jama.2020.16846

Keywords

MeSH

Concise information for patients about on the influenza vaccine. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Not available.

Author/s:

Walter, Kristin

N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial

John Bayhi — Mon, 23 Mar 2020 22:10:43 +0000

Date Added:

March 23, 2020

Journal/Publication:

JAMA

Publisher:

American Medical Association

Publication Date:

September 3, 2019

Issue:

Volume:

222

Pages:

824-833

URL:

N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1001/jama.2019.11645

Keywords

respiratory disease

respiratory infections

PMID (1):

31479137

This large RCT appears to confirm prior studies showing that regular surgical masks work just as well (or poorly) as N95 masks from preventing influenza in front line health care workers. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

IMPORTANCE:

Clinical studies have been inconclusive about the effectiveness of N95 respirators and medical masks in preventing health care personnel (HCP) from acquiring workplace viral respiratory infections.

OBJECTIVE:

To compare the effect of N95 respirators vs medical masks for prevention of influenza and other viral respiratory infections among HCP.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:

A cluster randomized pragmatic effectiveness study conducted at 137 outpatient study sites at 7 US medical centers between September 2011 and May 2015, with final follow-up in June 2016. Each year for 4 years, during the 12-week period of peak viral respiratory illness, pairs of outpatient sites (clusters) within each center were matched and randomly assigned to the N95 respirator or medical mask groups.

INTERVENTIONS:

Overall, 1993 participants in 189 clusters were randomly assigned to wear N95 respirators (2512 HCP-seasons of observation) and 2058 in 191 clusters were randomly assigned to wear medical masks (2668 HCP-seasons) when near patients with respiratory illness.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:

The primary outcome was the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza. Secondary outcomes included incidence of acute respiratory illness, laboratory-detected respiratory infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory illness, and influenzalike illness. Adherence to interventions was assessed.

RESULTS:

Among 2862 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 43 [11.5] years; 2369 [82.8%]) women), 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCP-seasons. There were 207 laboratory-confirmed influenza infection events (8.2% of HCP-seasons) in the N95 respirator group and 193 (7.2% of HCP-seasons) in the medical mask group (difference, 1.0%, [95% CI, -0.5% to 2.5%]; P = .18) (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.18 [95% CI, 0.95-1.45]). There were 1556 acute respiratory illness events in the respirator group vs 1711 in the mask group (difference, -21.9 per 1000 HCP-seasons [95% CI, -48.2 to 4.4]; P = .10); 679 laboratory-detected respiratory infections in the respirator group vs 745 in the mask group (difference, -8.9 per 1000 HCP-seasons, [95% CI, -33.3 to 15.4]; P = .47); 371 laboratory-confirmed respiratory illness events in the respirator group vs 417 in the mask group (difference, -8.6 per 1000 HCP-seasons [95% CI, -28.2 to 10.9]; P = .39); and 128 influenzalike illness events in the respirator group vs 166 in the mask group (difference, -11.3 per 1000 HCP-seasons [95% CI, -23.8 to 1.3]; P = .08). In the respirator group, 89.4% of participants reported "always" or "sometimes" wearing their assigned devices vs 90.2% in the mask group.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:

Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.

TRIAL REGISTRATION:

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01249625.

Author/s:

Radonovich, LJ Jr, Simberkoff, MS, Bessesen, MT, Brown, AC, Cummings, DAT, Gaydos, CA, Los, JG, Krosche, AE, Gibert, CL, Gorse, GJ, Nyquist, AC, Reich, N.G., Rodriguez-Barradas, MC, Price, CS, Perl, TM, ResPECT investigators

Vaccination of Adults in General Medical Practice

Brian Desmarais — Fri, 03 Jan 2020 19:37:26 +0000

Date Added:

January 3, 2020

Journal/Publication:

Mayo Clinic Proceedings

Publication Date:

January 1, 2020

Issue:

Volume:

Pages:

169–183

URL:

Vaccination of Adults in General Medical Practice

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.02.024

Keywords

adult immunization

A review of adult immunization recommendations from Mayo. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

In vaccinating adults, clinicians face 2 types of challenges: (1) staying current on recommendations for influenza, pneumococcal, hepatitis A and B, zoster, and other vaccines and (2) addressing systemic barriers to implementing practices that increase vaccination rates. Although adult immunization rates remain suboptimal, there has been much good news in adult vaccination recently. New high-dose and adjuvanted influenza vaccines help improve immune response and may reduce influenza complications in older adults. The new recombinant zoster vaccine offers significantly more efficacy against zoster outbreaks and postherpetic neuralgia than zoster vaccine live. Pertussis vaccine given during the third trimester of pregnancy may prevent between 50% and 90% of pertussis infections in infants. Shorter time for completion (1 vs 6 months) of new, adjuvanted hepatitis B vaccine may increase adherence. Clinicians can address systemic barriers to increasing vaccination rates in their clinics and health care systems by following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Standards for Adult Immunization Practice. Clinicians can help increase vaccination rates by writing standing orders and by advocating for nurses or medical assistants to receive training and protected time for assessing and documenting vaccination histories and administration. Strong recommendations that presume acceptance of vaccination are effective with most patients. Communication techniques similar to motivational interviewing can help with vaccine-hesitant patients. Clinicians, as experts on providing preventive services, can educate community leaders about the benefits of immunization and can inform vaccine experts about challenges of implementing vaccination recommendations in clinical practice and strategies that can work to raise vaccination rates.

Author/s:

Hunter, P., Fryhofer, S.A., Szilagyi, P.

Routine Childhood Vaccines Given in the First 11 Months After Birth

John Bayhi — Thu, 02 Jan 2020 20:22:28 +0000

Date Added:

January 2, 2020

Journal/Publication:

Mayo Clinic Proceedings

Publisher:

Elsevier Inc.

Publication Date:

December 23, 2019

URL:

Routine Childhood Vaccines Given in the First 11 Months After Birth

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.06.007

Keywords

vaccines

infants

immunizations

PMID (1):

31879133

MeSH

Haemophilus influenzae type b

Influenza

Human

Rotavirus

Strepococcus pneumoniae

Poliovirus

Advisory Committees

Vaccine-Preventable Diseases

This is a nice review from Mayo of the vaccines recommended for children under the age of one including rationale, effectiveness, and concerns.

Free full text

View

The US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends that infants beginning at birth receive several vaccines directed against a variety of infectious diseases that currently pose threats of morbidity and mortality to infants and those around them, including the 3-dose hepatitis B (HepB) series. The first dose is due at birth. This series protects against maternal-infant transmission of the HepB virus and against exposure the rest of the infant's life. At age 2 months infants are to receive not only their second dose of HepB vaccine but also a series of vaccines directed against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, pneumococcus, rotavirus, poliovirus, and Haemophilus influenzae type b. At 4 months, infants are to repeat those vaccines except for the HepB vaccine. At age 6 months infants are to finish the HepB series and receive the third doses of the other vaccines received at 2 and 4 months except for the rotavirus vaccine, depending on the brand used. Also, starting at 6 months, depending on the time of year, infants are to begin a 2-dose series against influenza separated by 28 days. Each of these vaccines is due at a time when the vaccine works to protect against an immediate risk and to provide long-term protection. These vaccine-preventable diseases vary in terms of the nature of exposure, the form of the morbidity, the risk of mortality, and the ability of routine vaccination to prevent or ameliorate harm.

Author/s:

Jacobson, RM

Baloxavir Marboxil for Uncomplicated Influenza in Adults and Adolescents

Tracy Ashby — Mon, 03 Dec 2018 06:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

October 30, 2019

Journal/Publication:

The New England Journal of Medicine

Publisher:

Massachusetts Medical Society

Publication Date:

September 6, 2018

Issue:

Volume:

379

Pages:

913-923

URL:

Baloxavir Marboxil for Uncomplicated Influenza in Adults and Adolescents

Type:

Clinical Research Results

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1056/NEJMoa1716197

Keywords

baloxavir marboxil

oseltamivir

influenza

PMID (1):

30184455

MeSH

adolescent

Adult

Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage

Antiviral Agents/adverse effects

Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use

child

double-blind method

Endonucleases/antagonists & inhibitors

Intention to Treat Analysis

Kaplan-Meier Estimate

male

Middle Aged

oseltamivir/therapeutic use

Oxazines/administration & dosage

Oxazines/adverse effects

Pyridines/administration & dosage

Pyridines/adverse effects

Thiepins/admistration & dosage

Thiepins/adverse effects

Triazines/administration & dosage

Triazines/adverse effects

viral load

Virus Replication/drug effects

Young Adult

These RCTs of the new anti-viral agent, baloxavir marboxil (Zofluza), found that, when given within 48 hours of onset of symptoms, it relieves symptoms one day sooner than placebo (same as Tamiflu). Viral shedding is reduced more effectively though. Resistance appears to develop quickly. The single-dose treatment costs about $150. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

BACKGROUND:

Baloxavir marboxil is a selective inhibitor of influenza cap-dependent endonuclease. It has shown therapeutic activity in preclinical models of influenza A and B virus infections, including strains resistant to current antiviral agents.

METHODS:

We conducted two randomized, double-blind, controlled trials involving otherwise healthy outpatients with acute uncomplicated influenza. After a dose-ranging (10 to 40 mg) placebo-controlled trial, we undertook a placebo- and oseltamivir-controlled trial of single, weight-based doses of baloxavir (40 or 80 mg) in patients 12 to 64 years of age during the 2016-2017 season. The dose of oseltamivir was 75 mg twice daily for 5 days. The primary efficacy end point was the time to alleviation of influenza symptoms in the intention-to-treat infected population.

RESULTS:

In the phase 2 trial, the median time to alleviation of influenza symptoms was 23.4 to 28.2 hours shorter in the baloxavir groups than in the placebo group (P<0.05). In the phase 3 trial, the intention-to-treat infected population included 1064 patients; 84.8 to 88.1% of patients in each group had influenza A(H3N2) infection. The median time to alleviation of symptoms was 53.7 hours (95% confidence interval [CI], 49.5 to 58.5) with baloxavir, as compared with 80.2 hours (95% CI, 72.6 to 87.1) with placebo (P<0.001). The time to alleviation of symptoms was similar with baloxavir and oseltamivir. Baloxavir was associated with greater reductions in viral load 1 day after initiation of the regimen than placebo or oseltamivir. Adverse events were reported in 20.7% of baloxavir recipients, 24.6% of placebo recipients, and 24.8% of oseltamivir recipients. The emergence of polymerase acidic protein variants with I38T/M/F substitutions conferring reduced susceptibility to baloxavir occurred in 2.2% and 9.7% of baloxavir recipients in the phase 2 trial and phase 3 trial, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS:

Single-dose baloxavir was without evident safety concerns, was superior to placebo in alleviating influenza symptoms, and was superior to both oseltamivir and placebo in reducing the viral load 1 day after initiation of the trial regimen in patients with uncomplicated influenza. Evidence for the development of decreased susceptibility to baloxavir after treatment was also observed. (Funded by Shionogi; JapicCTI number, 153090, and CAPSTONE-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02954354 .).

Author/s:

Hayden, Frederick G., Sugaya, Norio, Hirotsu, Nobuo, Lee, Nelson, de Jong, Menno D., Hurt, Aeron C., Ishida, Tadashi, Sekino, Hisakuni, Yamada, Kota, Portsmouth, Simon, Kawaguchi, Keiko, Shishido, Takao, Arai, Masatsugu, Tsuchiya, Kenji, Uehara, Takeki, Watanabe, Akira, Baloxavir Marboxil Investigators Group