1
|
Condran B, Kervin M, Burton C, Blydt-Hansen TD, Morris SK, Sadarangani M, Otley A, Yong E, Mitchell H, Bettinger JA, Top KA. Parent and healthcare provider views of live varicella vaccination of pediatric solid organ transplant recipients. Pediatr Transplant 2023; 27:e14609. [PMID: 37746885 DOI: 10.1111/petr.14609] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/07/2023] [Revised: 07/28/2023] [Accepted: 09/01/2023] [Indexed: 09/26/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Live attenuated varicella vaccine (LAVV) has historically been contraindicated in children who are immunocompromised due to solid organ transplant (SOT) because of safety concerns. Recently, clinical guidelines were developed that support post-transplant varicella vaccination in selected SOT recipients based on emerging evidence of LAVV safety. This qualitative study sought to explore barriers and facilitators to implementing the new guidelines, as well as acceptability of LAVV among healthcare providers (HCPs) and parents. METHODS HCPs and parents of transplant recipients were recruited from four sites using purposive sampling. Data from semi-structured interviews were analyzed using an Interpretive Description approach that incorporated data from the interviews, academic knowledge and clinical experience, and drew from Grounded Theory and Thematic Analysis. The theoretical framework used was Adaptive Leadership. RESULTS Thirty-four participants (16 HCPs and 18 parents) were included in the analysis. Parents developed skills in adaptive leadership that included strategies to protect their child against infectious diseases. Foundational information that live vaccines were absolutely contraindicated post-transplant "stuck" with parents and led them to develop strategies other than vaccination to keep their child safe. Some parents struggled to understand that information previously presented as a certainty (contraindication of LAVV) could change. Their approach to adaptive leadership informed their appraisal of the new vaccination guidelines and willingness to accept vaccination. CONCLUSIONS HCPs should adopt a family-centered approach to communicating changing guidelines that considers parents' approach to adaptive leadership and discusses the changing nature of medical evidence. Trust between HCPs and parents can facilitate these conversations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brian Condran
- Canadian Center for Vaccinology, IWK Health, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
| | - Melissa Kervin
- Canadian Center for Vaccinology, IWK Health, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
| | - Catherine Burton
- Stollery Children's Hospital, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Tom D Blydt-Hansen
- Department of Pediatrics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Shaun K Morris
- Clinical Public Health and Centre for Vaccine Preventable Diseases, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Division of Infectious Diseases and Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Manish Sadarangani
- Department of Pediatrics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- Vaccine Evaluation Center, BC Children's Hospital Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Anthony Otley
- Department of Pediatrics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
| | | | - Hana Mitchell
- Department of Pediatrics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- Vaccine Evaluation Center, BC Children's Hospital Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Julie A Bettinger
- Department of Pediatrics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- Vaccine Evaluation Center, BC Children's Hospital Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Karina A Top
- Canadian Center for Vaccinology, IWK Health, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
- Department of Pediatrics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Considering a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for pediatric kidney transplant candidates. Pediatr Nephrol 2022; 37:2559-2569. [PMID: 35333972 PMCID: PMC8949834 DOI: 10.1007/s00467-022-05511-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/13/2022] [Revised: 02/10/2022] [Accepted: 02/11/2022] [Indexed: 12/02/2022]
Abstract
The world continues to face the effects of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective in protecting recipients, decreasing the risk of COVID-19 acquisition, transmission, hospitalization, and death. Transplant recipients may be at greater risk for severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. As a result, transplant programs have begun instituting mandates for COVID-19 vaccine for transplant candidacy. While the question of mandating COVID-19 vaccine for adult transplant candidates has garnered attention in the lay and academic press, these discussions have not explicitly addressed children who may be otherwise eligible for kidney transplants. In this paper we seek to examine the potential ethical justifications of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for pediatric kidney transplant candidacy through an examination of relevant ethical principles, analogous cases of the use of mandates, differences between adult and pediatric kidney transplant candidates, and the role of gatekeeping in transplant vaccine mandates. At present, it does not appear that pediatric kidney transplant centers are justified to institute a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for candidates. Finally, we will offer suggestions to be considered prior to the implementation of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
Collapse
|
3
|
MacDonald SE, Palichuk A, Slater L, Tripp H, Reifferscheid L, Burton C. Gaps in knowledge about the vaccine coverage of immunocompromised children: a scoping review. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2021; 18:1-16. [PMID: 34270376 PMCID: PMC8920240 DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2021.1935169] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
Abstract
Immunocompromised children are at increased risk of severe illness from vaccine-preventable infections. However, inadequate vaccine coverage remains a concern. This scoping review sought to determine the current state of knowledge regarding vaccine coverage of immunocompromised children. Bibliographic databases were searched for primary research from any year. Data were analyzed quantitatively and narratively. Ninety-seven studies met inclusion criteria. The most commonly studied vaccines were pneumococcal (n = 46), influenza (n = 44), diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis/poliomyelitis/Haemophilus influenzae type B/hepatitis B-containing (n = 36), and measles- and/or mumps- and/or rubella-containing (n = 29). Immunocompromising conditions studied included cancer/stem cell transplants (n = 24), solid organ transplants (n = 23), sickle cell disease (n = 21), immunosuppressive therapy (n = 14), human immunodeficiency virus (n = 12), splenectomy (n = 4), and primary immunodeficiency (n = 2). As more children are treated with immunosuppressive therapies, it is critical to identify whether they are being appropriately vaccinated for age and condition. We identified gaps in the current state of knowledge for specific vaccine types in specific immunocompromised populations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Linda Slater
- John W. Scott Health Sciences Library, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
| | - Hailey Tripp
- Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
| | | | - Catherine Burton
- Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Pneumococcal vaccination rates in immunocompromised patients-A cohort study based on claims data from more than 200,000 patients in Germany. PLoS One 2019; 14:e0220848. [PMID: 31393931 PMCID: PMC6687114 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220848] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/20/2019] [Accepted: 07/24/2019] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The German Committee on Vaccination recommends pneumococcal vaccination for infants, seniors 60+ years and patients at risk with defined underlying diseases. Aim of this study was to assess the pneumococcal vaccination rate (pnc-VR) in patients with certain incident inherited or acquired immunodeficiency or immunosuppression and to understand who vaccinates these patients who are particularly at high risk to develop a pneumococcal infection. Methods We conducted a cohort study in patients aged 2 years or older, with a first episode of a “high-risk” condition between January 2013 and December 2014 based on a representative sample of German claims data. Pnc-VR was calculated as the proportion of patients receiving any pneumococcal vaccine within two years after first episode of “high-risk” condition. Further analyses cover pnc-VR stratified by high risk conditions and region, time to vaccination, and physician specialty administering the pneumococcal vaccination. Results The study population comprised 204,088 incident “high-risk” patients (56% female). The overall pnc-VR within two years was 4.4% (95%-confidence interval: 4.3%-4.5%). Within specific high-risk conditions, we found the highest vaccination rate of 11.5% (10.1%-13.0%) among patients starting immunosuppressants with underlying rheumatoid arthritis followed by 9.9% (7.8%-12.4%) in HIV patients. Stratification by region revealed a slightly higher vaccination rate in Eastern (6.5%: 6.0%-6.9%) compared to Western Germany (4.2%: 4.1–4.3%). Median time to vaccination within the first two years in vaccinated patients was 332.5 days (Q1 142 days, Q3 528 days). The majority of patients (92.6%) got vaccinated by a general practitioner. Conclusion Although these vulnerable patients need protection most, our study suggests that the overall pnc-VR after a first episode of a high-risk condition for pneumococcal disease is very low and vaccination is far too late. To prevent pneumococcal disease in patients at high risk, further efforts are needed to increase awareness and improve the timeliness of pneumococcal vaccination.
Collapse
|
5
|
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW The aim of this study was to highlight recent evidence on important aspects of influenza vaccination in solid organ transplant recipients. RECENT FINDINGS Influenza vaccine is the most evaluated vaccine in transplant recipients. The immunogenicity of the vaccine is suboptimal after transplantation. Newer formulations such as inactivated unadjuvanted high-dose influenza vaccine and the administration of a booster dose within the same season have shown to increase response rates. Intradermal vaccination and adjuvanted vaccines did not show clear benefit over standard influenza vaccines. Recent studies in transplant recipients do not suggest a higher risk for allograft rejection, neither after vaccination with a standard influenza vaccine nor after the administration of nonstandard formulation (high-dose, adjuvanted vaccines), routes (intradermally) or a booster dose. Nevertheless, influenza vaccine coverage in transplant recipients is still unsatisfactory low, potentially due to misinterpretation of risks and benefits. SUMMARY Annual influenza vaccination is well tolerated and is an important part of long-term care of solid organ transplant recipients.
Collapse
|
6
|
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW Infections represent a significant source of morbidity and mortality after kidney transplantation in children. We review recent advances in epidemiology, assessment, prevention and treatment for several different infections. RECENT FINDINGS Infections, such as bacterial urinary tract infection or opportunistic viral infection remain common, may be increasing and represent a large proportion of hospitalization. Extended antiviral agent use reduces the incidence of cytomegalovirus disease but its efficacy to reduce Epstein-Barr virus disease remains controversial. Human herpesvirus-6 and hepatitis E virus represent new infections to keep in mind. Ureteral stenting increases the rate of early UTI. Several new vaccines are now available, but rates of complete vaccination pretransplant are low. SUMMARY Infections remain a critical posttransplant issue associated with significant medical burdens. Emerging data on associated risk factors, assessment of and treatment for infections provide clinicians with new knowledge.
Collapse
|
7
|
Vaccination titres pre- and post-transplant in paediatric renal transplant recipients and the impact of immunosuppressive therapy. Pediatr Nephrol 2018; 33:897-910. [PMID: 29322328 DOI: 10.1007/s00467-017-3868-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/14/2017] [Revised: 11/29/2017] [Accepted: 12/04/2017] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Avoidance of vaccine-preventable infections in paediatric renal allograft recipients is of utmost importance. However, the development and maintenance of protective vaccination titres may be impaired in this patient population owing to their need for immunosuppressive medication. METHODS In the framework of the Cooperative European Paediatric Renal Transplant Initiative (CERTAIN), we therefore performed a multi-centre, multi-national study and analysed vaccination titres pre- and post-transplant in 155 patients with serial titre measurements in comparison with published data in healthy children. RESULTS The percentage of patients with positive vaccination titres before renal transplantation (RTx) was low, especially for diphtheria (38.5%, control 75%) and pertussis (21.3%, control 96.3%). As few as 58.1% of patients had a hepatitis B antibody (HBsAb) titre >100 IU/L before RTx. 38.1% of patients showed a vaccination titre loss post-transplant. Patients with an HBsAb titre between 10 and 100 IU/L before RTx experienced a significantly (p < 0.05) more frequent hepatitis B vaccination titre loss post-transplant than patients with an HBsAb titre >100 IU/L. The revaccination rate post-transplant was low and revaccination failed to induce positive titres in a considerable number of patients (27.3 to 83.3%). Treatment with rituximab was associated with a significantly increased risk of a vaccination titre loss post-transplant (odds ratio 4.26, p = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS These data show a low percentage of patients with positive vaccination titres pre-transplant, a low revaccination rate post-transplant with limited antibody response, and a high rate of vaccination titre losses.
Collapse
|