pneumococcal vaccine efficacy

general population study in Spain to assess benefits of 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine (see pneumococcal vaccine efficacy CID 2014 in dropbox, or DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciu002).  PPV-23 was recommended for all people over 60 yo. 27,204 people in the cohort were followed prospectively from 2008-2011, of whom 8981 received the vaccine. mean age 72. primary outcome: hospitalization for pneumococcal community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), and all-cause CAP. pneumoccocal etiology determined if pos blood culture, pos sputum culture with no other likely bacterial pathogen, or positive urinary antigen test. results:

    --incidence rate (per 1000 person-years) were 0.21 for bacteremic pneumococcal CAP, 1.45 for nonbacteremic pneumococcal CAP, and 7.51 for all-cause CAP.  None of these were significantly different between vaccinated and unvaccinated.
    --BUT, in those vaccinated  within the past 5 years (n=2390)  there was a reduced risk of bacteremic pneumococcal CAP (HR=0.38, .09-1.68), nonbacteremic pneumococcal CAP (HR=0.52, .29-.92), overall pneumococcal CAP (HR=0.49, .29-.84), and all-cause CAP (HR=0.75, .58-.98). [the latter 3 were statistically significant]

note: this is not a randomized controlled trial, only an observational study comparing these outcomes in those who elected to take the vaccine vs those who did not, and there were differences between those vaccinated and not (though, not surprisingly, those choosing vaccination were sicker: older, more likely to have chronic pulmonary, heart, liver, or kidney disease and more htn, hyperlipidemia, obesity, smoking, cancer, alcoholism, immunocompromise). but there also may be unknown biases in this type of trial.

pneumococcal vaccine (PPV-23) is somewhat mixed in the studies of effectiveness, with more suggestion that it helps with invasive pneumococcal disease (recent cochrane review suggested vaccine efficacy of 74% for invasive disease). there was initial concern of severe/anaphyllactic reactions if revaccinated soon after a first dose, though subsequent trials indicated that this really did not happen if there was a several-year hiatus. other previous studies have found significant decreases in antibody levels after 3-5 years (and, i must admit, based on those studies, low cost, and apparent lack of toxicity, i have been revaccinating people every 5-6 years all along and have not seen any toxicity in patients receiving 3-4 shots). but it should be stated that this is not the CDC recommendation  --- for normal risk: one vaccination at age 65. for high risk (age 19-65) revaccinate one time after 5 years, then again at age 65 if at least 5 years after last vaccination,

Comments

Post a Comment

if you would like to receive the near-daily emails regularly, please email me at gmodest@uphams.org

Popular posts from this blog

cystatin c: better predictor of bad outcomes than creatinine

  another article found significant discordance between creatinine and cystatin C in assessing renal function,  finding that the latter correlated most strongly with both renal and non-renal adverse clinical outcomes (see   ckd cystatin c better than creat AJKD2023  in  dropbox or doi: 10.1053/ j.ajkd.2023.04.002)   Details: -- 158,601 adults who were in the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements (SCREAM) project and had testing of creatinine and cystatin C on the same day during a healthcare encounter, from 2010-2018     -- >400,000 outpatient tests were done for both creatinine and cystatin C levels -- mean age 62, 48% female -- mean eGFR by creatinine (   eGFR cr ) 80; mean eGFR by cystatin C ( eGFR cys  ) 73 -- mean stage of renal insufficiency: 39%  eGFR cr   90+; 38%  eGFR cr  60-89; 12%  eGFR cr  45-59; 7.1%  eGFR cr  30-44; 3.2%  eGFR cr  15-29, 0.7%  eGFR cr ...
Read more

diabetes DPP-4 inhibitors and the risk of heart failure

the FDA just came out with a safety alert about 2 DPP-4 inhibitors and the increased risk of heart failure (released 04/05/2016)(see  http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm494252.htm?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery ​ ). details: --saxagliptin and alogliptin were singled out because of 2 clinical trials in diabetic patients with heart disease. in each trial more patients taking these meds were hospitalized for heart failure vs those on placebo     --in the saxagliptin trial: 3.5% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 2.8% on placebo). risk factors included prior heart failure or kidney disease     --in the alogliptin trial: 3.9% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 3.3% on placebo) --recommendation by the FDA:     -- we should consider stopping these drugs if the patient develops heart failure ...
Read more

UPDATE: ASCVD risk factor critique

I decided to do an extensive update of my prior ASCVD (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease) risk analysis and critique of risk calculators, with much more information about the “non-traditional” risk factors. I felt that there should be more data/clarification, since I think we are really undertreating/not preventing the most common cause of death by relying on the current ASCVD risk calculators   -- Cardiovascular risk models:      -- many of us rely on the various cardiovascular risk models to determine the appropriate approach to patients, and these are often integrated into the electronic medical records      -- these risk models have several very important limitations:          -- they are typically based on community data, eg from the Framingham study etc. But, in clinical practice, we are dealing with the individual and not the community:          ...
Read more