Impact of Pharmacy-Initiated Interventions on Influenza Vaccination Rates in Pediatric Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

Effectiveness of Catch-Up Vaccination Interventions Versus Standard or Usual Care Procedures in Increasing Adherence to Recommended Vaccinations Among Different Age Groups: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Before-After Studies

BACKGROUND

To address the global challenge of vaccine hesitancy, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization strongly promotes vaccination reminder and recall interventions. Coupled with the new opportunities presented by scientific advancements, these measures are crucial for successfully immunizing target population groups.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the effectiveness of various interventions in increasing vaccination coverage compared with standard or usual care. The review will cover all vaccinations recommended for different age groups.

METHODS

In February 2022, 2 databases were consulted, retrieving 1850 studies. Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, 79 manuscripts were included after the assessment phase. These comprised 46 trials/randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 33 before-after studies. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model was performed with STATA software (version 14.1.2). The selected outcome was the risk ratio (RR) of vaccination coverage improvement effectiveness. Additionally, meta-regression analyses were conducted for the included manuscripts.

RESULTS

The analyses showed an overall efficacy of RR 1.22 (95% CI 1.19-1.26) for RCTs and RR 1.70 (95% CI 1.54-1.87) for before-after studies when considering all interventions cumulatively. Subgroup analyses identified multicomponent interventions (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.36-1.85) and recall clinical interventions (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.17-1.32) as the most effective in increasing vaccination coverage for RCTs. By contrast, educational interventions (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.60-2.83) and multicomponent interventions (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.43-1.82) achieved the highest increases for before-after studies. Meta-regression analyses indicated that the middle-aged adult population was associated with a higher increase in vaccination coverage (RCT: coefficient 0.54, 95% CI 0.12-0.95; before-after: coefficient 1.27, 95% CI 0.70-1.84).

CONCLUSIONS

Community, family, and health care-based multidimensional interventions, as well as education-based catch-up strategies, effectively improve vaccination coverage. Therefore, their systematic implementation is highly relevant for targeting undervaccinated population groups. This approach aligns with national vaccination schedules and aims to eliminate or eradicate vaccine-preventable diseases.

Interventions delivered in secondary or tertiary medical care settings to improve routine vaccination uptake in children and young people: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To identify and analyse the interventions delivered opportunistically in secondary or tertiary medical settings, focused on improving routine vaccination uptake in children and young people.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CINAHL, Web of Science, Medline, Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for studies in English published between 1989 and 2021 detailing interventions delivered in secondary or tertiary care that aimed to improve childhood vaccination coverage. Title, abstract and full-text screening were performed by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

After deduplication, the search returned 3456 titles. Following screening and discussion between reviewers, 53 studies were included in the review. Most papers were single-centre studies from high-income countries and varied considerably in terms of their study design, population, target vaccination, clinical setting and intervention delivered. To present and analyse the study findings, and to depict the complexity of vaccination interventions in hospital settings, findings were presented and described as a sequential pathway to opportunistic vaccination in secondary and tertiary care comprising the following stages: (1) identify patients eligible for vaccination; (2) take consent and offer immunisations; (3) order/prescribe vaccine; (4) dispense vaccine; (5) administer vaccine; (6) communicate with primary care; and (7) ongoing benefits of vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

Most published studies report improved vaccination coverage associated with opportunistic vaccination interventions in secondary and tertiary care. Children attending hospital appear to have lower baseline vaccination coverage and are likely to benefit from vaccination interventions in these settings. Checking immunisation status is challenging, however, and electronic immunisation registers are required to enable this to be done quickly and accurately in hospital settings. Further research is required in this area, particularly multicentre studies and cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions.

The impact of pharmacist involvement on immunization uptake and other outcomes: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The underutilization of immunization services remains a big public health concern. Pharmacists can address this concern by playing an active role in immunization administration.

Objective

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of pharmacist-involved interventions on immunization rates and other outcomes indirectly related to vaccine uptake.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from inception to February 2022 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies in which pharmacists were involved in the immunization process. Studies were excluded if no comparator was reported. Two reviewers independently completed data extraction and bias assessments using standardized forms. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model.

Results

A total of 14 RCTs and 79 observational studies were included. Several types of immunizations were provided, including influenza, pneumococcal, herpes zoster, Tdap, and others in a variety of settings (community pharmacy, hospital, clinic, others). Pooled analyses from RCTs indicated that a pharmacist as immunizer (risk ratio 1.14 [95% CI 1.12–1.15]), advocator (1.31 [1.17–1.48]), or both (1.14 [1.12–1.15]) significantly increased immunization rates compared with usual care or non–pharmacist-involved interventions. The quality of evidence was assessed as moderate or low for those meta-analyses. Evidence from observational studies was consistent with the results found in the analysis of the RCTs.

Conclusion

Pharmacist involvement as immunizer, advocator, or both roles has favorable effects on immunization uptake, especially with influenza vaccines in the United States and some high-income countries. As the practice of pharmacists in immunization has been expanded globally, further research on investigating the impact of pharmacist involvement in immunization in other countries, especially developing ones, is warranted.

Vaccine-induced protection against hepatitis B in pediatric solid organ transplant patients

BACKGROUND

Vaccination against hepatitis B virus (HBV) has led to a worldwide reduction in disease burden and mortality. Vaccine immunogenicity data in transplanted children are limited, and vaccine-induced protection may be reduced. We evaluated HBV vaccination coverage, seroprotection rates, and factors influencing vaccine immunity among pediatric solid organ transplant (SOT) patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified patients ≤21 years of age evaluated for SOT and/or transplanted at our center between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018. A detailed chart review was conducted using a standard questionnaire to gather information on demographic, clinical, and laboratory features of patients' HBV vaccination, and hepatitis B surface antibody (HBsAb) titers.

RESULTS

A total of 381 patients undergoing evaluation and/or transplantation were included: 139 (36.5%) liver, 138 (36.2%) kidney, and 104 (27.3%) heart. Overall, HBsAb at evaluation was reactive in 216 (56.7%), indeterminate in 17 (4.5%), non-reactive in 138 (36.2%), and not available in 10 (2.6%). Of those that completed a primary HBV vaccine series (n = 304), HBsAb was reactive in 164 (53.9%), indeterminate in 13 (4.3%), non-reactive in 119 (39.1%), and not available in 8 (2.6%). For those up to date for age on HBV vaccinations with non-reactive/indeterminate titers at evaluation, revaccination and a follow-up HBsAb were available in 45 patients of which 33 (73.3%) seroconverted to a reactive HBsAb titer.

CONCLUSION

Vaccine-induced protection against HBV infection among high-risk pediatric SOT recipients can be improved by serology-based intervention. Though the absence of HBsAb does not always indicate loss of protection, boosting or completing primary series is recommended.

Improving Influenza Vaccination in Children With Comorbidities: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Children with medical comorbidities are at greater risk for severe influenza and poorer clinical outcomes. Despite recommendations and funding, influenza vaccine coverage remains inadequate in these children.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to systematically review literature assessing interventions targeting influenza vaccine coverage in children with comorbidities and assess the impact on influenza vaccine coverage.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, and Web of Science databases were searched.

STUDY SELECTION

Interventions targeting influenza vaccine coverage in children with medical comorbidities.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracting studies' methods, interventions, settings, populations, and results. Four reviewers independently assessed risk of bias.

RESULTS

From 961 screened articles, 35 met inclusion criteria. Published studies revealed that influenza vaccine coverage was significantly improved through vaccination reminders and education directed at either patients' parents or providers, as well as by vaccination-related clinic process changes. Interventions improved influenza vaccine coverage by an average 60%, but no significant differences between intervention types were detected. Significant bias and study heterogeneity were also identified, limiting confidence in this effect estimate.

LIMITATIONS

A high risk of bias and overall low quality of evidence limited our capacity to assess intervention types and methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions were shown to consistently improve influenza vaccine coverage; however, no significant differences in coverage between different intervention types were observed. Future well-designed studies evaluating the effectiveness of different intervention are required to inform future optimal interventions.