nursing homes

This 30-minute video from the CDC reviews precautions nursing homes and assisted living centers should take to prevent spread of COVID-19. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Not available.

Author/s:

Long-term Care Team, Prevention and Response Brach Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion

Use of 13-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine and 23-Valent Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccine Among Adults Aged ≥65 Years: Updated Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices

John Bayhi — Fri, 22 Nov 2019 15:07:10 +0000

Date Added:

November 22, 2019

Journal/Publication:

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report

Publisher:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Publication Date:

November 22, 2019

Issue:

Volume:

Pages:

1069-1075

URL:

Use of 13-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine and 23-Valent Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccine Among Adults Aged ≥65 Years: Updated Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices

Type:

Public Health Announcements

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.15585/mmwr.mm6846a5

Keywords

Pneumococcal Vaccines

vaccination

pneumonia

PMID (1):

31751323

MeSH

child

Adult

Humans

Heptavalent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine

Cochlear Implants

Serogroup

Advisory Committees

clinical decision-making

long-term care

13-valent pneumococcal vaccine

Pneumococcal Vaccines

23-valent pneumococcal capsular polysaccharide vaccine

Pneumococcal Infections

Updated recommendations from the ACIP regarding pneumococcal vaccination of patients > 65 years of age. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Two pneumococcal vaccines are currently licensed for use in adults in the United States: a 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13 [Prevnar 13, Pfizer, Inc.]) and a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23 [Pneumovax 23, Merck and Co., Inc.]). In 2014, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)* recommended routine use of PCV13 in series with PPSV23 for all adults aged ≥65 years based on demonstrated PCV13 safety and efficacy against PCV13-type pneumonia among adults aged ≥65 years (1). At that time, ACIP recognized that there would be a need to reevaluate this recommendation because it was anticipated that PCV13 use in children would continue to reduce disease burden among adults through reduced carriage and transmission of vaccine serotypes from vaccinated children (i.e., PCV13 indirect effects). On June 26, 2019, after having reviewed the evidence accrued during the preceding 3 years (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/recs/grade/PCV13.html), ACIP voted to remove the recommendation for routine PCV13 use among adults aged ≥65 years and to recommend administration of PCV13 based on shared clinical decision-making for adults aged ≥65 years who do not have an immunocompromising condition,† cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, or cochlear implant, and who have not previously received PCV13. ACIP recognized that some adults aged ≥65 years are potentially at increased risk for exposure to PCV13 serotypes, such as persons residing in nursing homes or other long-term care facilities and persons residing in settings with low pediatric PCV13 uptake or traveling to settings with no pediatric PCV13 program, and might attain higher than average benefit from PCV13 vaccination. When patients and vaccine providers§ engage in shared clinical decision-making for PCV13 use to determine whether PCV13 is right for a particular person, considerations might include both the person's risk for exposure to PCV13 serotypes and their risk for developing pneumococcal disease as a result of underlying medical conditions. All adults aged ≥65 years should continue to receive 1 dose of PPSV23. If the decision is made to administer PCV13, it should be given at least 1 year before PPSV23. ACIP continues to recommend PCV13 in series with PPSV23 for adults aged ≥19 years with an immunocompromising condition, CSF leak, or cochlear implant (2).

Author/s:

Matanock, A, Lee, G, Gierke, R, Kobayashi, M, Leidner, A, Pilishvili, T

Oral Care Measures for Preventing Nursing Home-Acquired Pneumonia

Jeffrey Wilson — Tue, 16 Oct 2018 19:05:29 +0000

Date Added:

October 16, 2018

Journal/Publication:

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Publisher:

Cochrane Library

Publication Date:

September 27, 2018

URL:

Oral Care Measures for Preventing Nursing Home-Acquired Pneumonia

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

DOI (1):

10.1002/14651858.CD012416.pub2

Keywords

PMID (1):

30264525

MeSH

Periodic professional oral care, primarily dental hygienist cleaning, probably reduces the risk of pneumonia and pneumonia-associated deaths in nursing home residents compared with usual oral care provided by nursing home staff.

Commercial full text (fees may apply)

View

BACKGROUND:

Pneumonia occurring in residents of long-term care facilities and nursing homes can be termed 'nursing home-acquired pneumonia' (NHAP). NHAP is the leading cause of mortality among residents. NHAP may be caused by aspiration of oropharyngeal flora into the lung, and by failure of the individual's defence mechanisms to eliminate the aspirated bacteria. Oral care measures to remove or disrupt oral plaque might be effective in reducing the risk of NHAP.

OBJECTIVES:

To assess effects of oral care measures for preventing nursing home-acquired pneumonia in residents of nursing homes and other long-term care facilities.

SEARCH METHODS:

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 15 November 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 10), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 15 November 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 15 November 2017) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1937 to 15 November 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. We also searched the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and the Sciencepaper Online to 20 November 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of oral care measures (brushing, swabbing, denture cleaning mouthrinse, or combination) in residents of any age in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

At least two review authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in the included studies. We contacted study authors for additional information. We pooled data from studies with similar interventions and outcomes. We reported risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, and hazard ratio (HR) for time-to-event outcomes, using random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS:

We included four RCTs (3905 participants), all of which were at high risk of bias. The studies all evaluated one comparison: professional oral care versus usual oral care. We did not pool the results from one study (N = 834 participants), which was stopped at interim analysis due to lack of a clear difference between groups.We were unable to determine whether professional oral care resulted in a lower incidence rate of NHAP compared with usual oral care over an 18-month period (hazard ratio 0.65, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.46; one study, 2513 participants analysed; low-quality evidence).We were also unable to determine whether professional oral care resulted in a lower number of first episodes of pneumonia compared with usual care over a 24-month period (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.01; one study, 366 participants analysed; low-quality evidence).There was low-quality evidence from two studies that professional oral care may reduce the risk of pneumonia-associated mortality compared with usual oral care at 24-month follow-up (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.72, 507 participants analysed).We were uncertain whether or not professional oral care may reduce all-cause mortality compared to usual care, when measured at 24-month follow-up (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.15; one study, 141 participants analysed; very low-quality evidence).Only one study (834 participants randomised) measured adverse effects of the interventions. The study identified no serious events and 64 non-serious events, the most common of which were oral cavity disturbances (not defined) and dental staining.No studies evaluated oral care versus no oral care.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

Although low-quality evidence suggests that professional oral care could reduce mortality due to pneumonia in nursing home residents when compared to usual care, this finding must be considered with caution. Evidence for other outcomes is inconclusive. We found no high-quality evidence to determine which oral care measures are most effective for reducing nursing home-acquired pneumonia. Further trials are needed to draw reliable conclusions.

Author/s:

Liu, Chang, Cao, Yubin, Lin, Jie, Ng, Linda, Needleman, Ian, Walsh, Tanya, Li, Chunjie