Immunisation schedule of the Spanish Association of Paediatrics: 2023 Recommendations

Real world evidence for public health decision-making on vaccination policies: perspectives from an expert roundtable

INTRODUCTION

Influenza causes significant morbidity and mortality, but influenza vaccine uptake remains below most countries' targets. Vaccine policy recommendations vary, as do procedures for reviewing and appraising the evidence.

AREAS COVERED

During a series of roundtable discussions, we reviewed procedures and methodologies used by health ministries in four European countries to inform vaccine recommendations. We review the type of evidence currently recommended by each health ministry and the range of approaches toward considering randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world evidence (RWE) studies when setting influenza vaccine recommendations.

EXPERT OPINION

Influenza vaccine recommendations should be based on data from both RCTs and RWE studies of efficacy, effectiveness, and safety. Such data should be considered alongside health-economic, cost-effectiveness, and budgetary factors. Although RCT data are more robust and less prone to bias, well-designed RWE studies permit timely evaluation of vaccine benefits, effectiveness comparisons over multiple seasons in large populations, and detection of rare adverse events, under real-world conditions. Given the variability of vaccine effectiveness due to influenza virus mutations and increasing diversification of influenza vaccines, we argue that consideration of both RWE and RCT evidence is the best approach to more nuanced and timely updates of influenza vaccine recommendations.

Exploring the adoption of less restricted criteria for respiratory syncytial virus prophylaxis in late preterm infants: insights from a retrospective analysis

Background

Preterm infants born between 33 and 35 weeks of gestational age (wGA) have been considered a "major underserved population" and ineligible to receive palivizumab (PLV), the only drug authorized to date for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) prophylaxis, by current international guidelines. In Italy, such a vulnerable population is currently eligible for prophylaxis, and, in our region, specific risk factors are taken into consideration (SIN_Lazio score) to target prophylaxis for those at highest risk. Whether the adoption of less or more restrictive eligibility criteria for PLV prophylaxis would translate into differences in bronchiolitis and hospitalization incidence is not known.

Materials and methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted in 296 moderate-to-late preterm infants (born between 33 and 35⁺⁶ weeks) who were being considered for prophylaxis in two epidemic seasons: 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. The study participants were categorized according to both the SIN_Lazio score and the Blanken risk scoring tool (BRST), which was found to reliably predict RSV-associated hospitalization in preterm infants on the basis of three risk factor variables.

Results

Based on the SIN_Lazio score, approximately 40% of infants (123/296) would meet the criteria to be eligible for PLV prophylaxis. In contrast, none of the analyzed infants would be considered eligible for RSV prophylaxis on the basis of the BRST. A total of 45 (15.2%) bronchiolitis diagnoses were recorded on average at 5 months of age in the overall population. Almost seven out of 10 (84/123) patients exhibiting ≥3 risk factors to be eligible for RSV prophylaxis according to SIN_Lazio criteria would not be receiving PLV if they were categorized on the basis of the BRST. Bronchiolitis occurrence in patients with a SIN_Lazio score ≥3 was approximately 2.2 times more likely than that in patients with a SIN_Lazio score <3. PLV prophylaxis has been associated with a 91% lower risk of requiring a nasal cannula.

Conclusion

Our work further supports the need for targeting late preterm infants for RSV prophylaxis and calls for an appraisal of the current eligibility criteria for PLV treatment. Therefore, adopting less restrictive criteria may ensure a comprehensive prophylaxis of the eligible subjects, thus sparing them from avoidable short- and long-term consequences of RSV infection.