Exclusion of older adults and immunocompromised individuals in influenza, pneumococcal and COVID-19 vaccine trials before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Older adults and immunocompromised individulas are often excluded from vaccine trials. AIM: We hypothesised that during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the proportion of trials excluding these patients decreased. METHODS: Using the US Food and Drug Administration and and European Medicines Agency search engines, we identified all vaccines approved against pneumococcal disease, influenza (quadrivalent vaccines), and COVID-19 from 2011 to 2021. Study protocols were screened for direct and indirect age exclusion criteria and exclusion of immunocompromised individuals. In addition, we reviewed the studies with no explicit exclusion criteria and investigated the actual inclusion of those individuals. RESULTS: We identified 2024 trial records; 1702 were excluded (e.g., use of other vaccine or risk group); and 322 studies were eligible for our review. Among the pneumococcal and influenza vaccine trials (n = 193), 81 (42%) had an explicit direct age exclusion, and 150 (78%) had an indirect age-related exclusion. In total, 163 trials (84%) trials were likely to exclude older adults. Among the COVID-19 vaccine trials (n = 129), 33 (26%) had direct age exclusion and 82 (64%) had indirect age exclusion; in total, 85 (66%) trials were likely to exclude older adults. Therefore was a 18% decrease in the proportion of trials with age-related exclusion between 2011 and 2021 (only influenza and pneumococcal vaccine trials) and 2020-2021 (only COVID-19 vaccine trials) (p = 0.014). In a sub-analysis assessing observational and randomised trials, the decrease was 25% and 9%, respectively. Immunocompromised individuals were included in 87 (45%) of the pneumococcal and influenza vaccine trials compared with 54 (42%) of the COVID-19 vaccine trials (p = 0.058). CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, we found a decrease in the exclusion of older adults from vaccine trials but no significant change in the inclusion of immunocompromised individulas.

Changes in vaccination uptake against pneumococcal disease, influenza, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) before and after a Head and Neck cancer diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Pneumonia is one of the main contributors to non-cancer mortality among patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). This study aimed to determine the vaccine uptake for pneumococcal polysaccharide and conjugate vaccines, quadrivalent influenza vaccines, and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines before and after an HNC diagnosis. Furthermore, the study investigated the timing of vaccination after a cancer diagnosis. MATERIALS & METHODS: This register based multicentre study included Danish patients ≥ 18y diagnosed with HNC between 2018 and 2021. The vaccine uptake was assessed by calculating cumulative incidence (CI), while the timing of vaccination after an HNC diagnosis was explored by calculating incidence rates of vaccination the first and second half year after a cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of vaccine uptake for pneumococcal vaccines was estimated to be 8 % and 16 % one year before and after an HNC diagnosis, respectively. The CIs were 36 % and 38 % for quadrivalent influenza vaccines, respectively, whereas the CIs of vaccine uptake for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were 60 % and 89 %. The IR of mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations the first half year after HNC diagnosis were 273 per 1000 person-months of follow-up (PMFU) and 111 per 1000 PMFU the second half year, respectively (IRR: 0.38, p < 0.001). Comparing the same periods, the IR of quadrivalent influenza vaccination was 28 per 1000 PMFU and 51 per 1000 PMFU (IRR: 1.95, 0 < 0.001). The IRs of pneumococcal vaccinations were 11 per 1000 PMFU and 14 per 1000 PMFU (IRR 1.28, p = 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: Although our study shows a significant increase in pneumococcal and COVID-19 vaccine uptake after HNC diagnosis, a gap remains in vaccine uptake before diagnosis, underscoring the need for increased awareness of vaccination options and recommendations. Our findings could serve as a reference for future recommendations.

[Track and trigger systems in Denmark - small country, great variations].

A track and trigger (TAT) system and mobile emergency team (MET) can aid observation and care for admitted patients in the hospital ward. We have examined the literature and find evidence, though not strong, that the introduction of TAT and MET systems reduce hospital mortality. However, in Denmark, many different TAT systems are used, and several hospitals do not have MET. We believe, that a standardised national TAT system could encourage interregional research and the investigation of system compliance, cost-benefit and impact on intensive care unit admissions.