Exploring meningococcal serogroup B vaccination conversations under shared clinical decision-making in the US.

OBJECTIVE: In 2019, the United States Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) updated their meningococcal serogroup B (MenB) vaccination recommendation for 16-|23-year-olds from individual to shared clinical decision-making (SCDM). SCDM recommendations are individually based and informed by a decision process between patients and healthcare providers (HCPs). MenB vaccination among 16-23-year-olds remains low. We examined recorded conversations in which MenB vaccine-related discussions between HCPs and patients/caregivers took place, and how these interactions changed following the updated SCDM recommendation. METHODS: An analysis of recordings where MenB vaccination was discussed between HCPs and patients (16-|23 years old)/caregivers was conducted using retrospective anonymized dialogue data (January 2015-October 2022). Shared decision-making strength was measured using a modified OPTION5 framework. RESULTS: Of 97 included recorded conversations, the average duration was 11.3 min. Within these conversations, MenB disease was discussed for 0.25 min (38.9% of words in total vaccine-preventable diseases discussion) and MenB vaccination was discussed for 1.36 min (60.9% of words in total vaccine discussion), on average. HCPs spoke 78.8% of MenB vaccine-related words and most (99.0%) initiated the MenB vaccination discussion. In 40.2% of recordings, HCPs acknowledged the MenB vaccine without providing a clear recommendation. HCP recommendations often favored MenB vaccination (87.0%) and recommendations were 21.4% stronger post-recommendation change to SCDM. As measured by the modified OPTION5 framework, most recordings did not reflect a high degree of shared decision-making between HCPs and patients/caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: MenB vaccination discussions were brief, and the degree of shared decision-making was low. Targeted education of HCPs and patients/caregivers may improve MenB vaccination awareness, SCDM implementation, and vaccine uptake.

Meningitis is a serious and sometimes deadly disease. In the United States (US), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that 16­23-year-olds get vaccinated against meningococcal serogroup B (MenB), which causes a specific type of meningitis called invasive meningococcal disease. As of 2019, the CDC recommends that healthcare providers and patients or their caregivers have a shared decision-making discussion about deciding to get vaccinated against MenB. Despite these recommendations, vaccination against MenB among 16­23-year-olds is very low. Only about 3 in 10 17-year-olds had received the MenB vaccine in 2022. We studied conversations between healthcare providers and patients or their caregivers that included discussions of MenB vaccination. These discussions were largely brief and led by the healthcare providers. We found that healthcare providers most often made recommendations that were in favor of their patients getting vaccinated against MenB. However, we also found that healthcare providers missed many opportunities to have these shared decision-making discussions about MenB vaccination with patients or their caregivers. Providing education and resources for patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers focused on increasing awareness about MenB vaccination and the role they can play in having shared decision-making discussions may lead to more adolescents and young adults getting vaccinated against MenB. More research is needed to find out how we can improve MenB vaccination coverage in the US.

United States Physicians' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Regarding Meningococcal Vaccination for Healthy Adolescents and Young Adults.

PURPOSE: The United States Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends vaccination against meningococcal serogroups A, C, W, and Y (MenACWY) for all 11-12-year-olds, with a booster dose for 16-year-olds, and against meningococcal serogroup B (MenB) for 16-23-year-olds under shared clinical decision-making (SCDM). However, uptake of the MenB vaccine and the MenACWY booster dose is low. This study investigated United States physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding recommending MenB and MenACWY vaccines to non-high-risk older adolescents and young adults. METHODS: An online survey was conducted in April-May 2022 among pediatricians, family physicians (FPs), general practitioners (GPs), and internists who had recommended the MenB and/or the MenACWY vaccine(s) to at least one 16-23-year-old in the past year. RESULTS: Among 407 participants, 50% correctly identified MenB as the leading cause of meningococcal disease among adolescents and young adults. Furthermore, 46% of physicians (47% of pediatricians, 40% of FPs and GPs, 53% of internists) answered correctly that MenB vaccination is recommended under SCDM, and 82% of physicians (96% of pediatricians, 70% of FPs and GPs, 65% of internists) answered correctly that MenACWY vaccination is routinely recommended. Among MenB-vaccinators, 78% reported having received some training or other information on implementing SCDM, and 65% rated recommending MenB vaccination as very important. DISCUSSION: Knowledge gaps, which varied by specialty, were identified regarding meningococcal disease and vaccine recommendations, particularly regarding MenB. Targeted education of physicians may facilitate discussions about MenB vaccination.

The Burden of Hepatitis A Outbreaks in the United States: Health Outcomes, Economic Costs, and Management Strategies.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis A (HepA) vaccines are recommended for United States (US) adults at risk of HepA. Ongoing US HepA outbreaks since 2016 have primarily spread person-to-person, especially among at-risk groups. We investigated the health outcomes, economic burden, and outbreak management considerations associated with HepA outbreaks from 2016 onwards. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to assess HepA outbreak-associated health outcomes, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and economic burden. A targeted literature review evaluated HepA outbreak management considerations. RESULTS: Across 33 studies reporting on HepA outbreak-associated health outcomes/HCRU, frequently reported HepA-related morbidities included acute liver failure/injury (n=6 studies/33 studies) and liver transplantation (n=5/33); reported case fatality rates ranged from 0-10.8%. Hospitalization rates reported in studies investigating person-to-person outbreaks ranged from 41.6-84.8%. Ten studies reported on outbreak-associated economic burden, with a national study reporting an average cost of over $16,000 per hospitalization. Thirty-four studies reported on outbreak management; challenges included difficulty reaching at-risk groups and vaccination distrust. Successes included targeted interventions and increasing public awareness. CONCLUSIONS: This review indicates a considerable clinical and economic burden of ongoing US HepA outbreaks. Targeted prevention strategies and increased public awareness and vaccination coverage are needed to reduce HepA burden and prevent future outbreaks.

Awareness, attitudes, and practices on meningococcal serogroup B vaccination in the United States among parents of older adolescents and among young adults.

OBJECTIVE: Meningococcal serogroup B (MenB) vaccination is recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for adolescents and young adults 16-23-years-old under shared clinical decision-making (SCDM). However, MenB vaccination coverage in this population remains low in the United States (US). We investigated the awareness, attitudes, and practices regarding MenB disease and vaccination among parents of 16-18-year-old older adolescents and among 19-23-year-old young adults. METHODS: An online survey was conducted in September-October 2022 among parents of older adolescents and among young adults recruited from a US-based patient panel. RESULTS: There were 606 total participants, including parents of MenB-vaccinated (n = 151) and non-vaccinated (n = 154) adolescents, and also MenB-vaccinated (n = 150) and non-vaccinated (n = 151) young adults. Non-vaccinated cohorts reported low awareness of MenB disease (58.3-67.5%) and vaccination (49.7-61.0%), though awareness was higher among non-vaccinated parents. However, all cohorts reported high interest in learning more about MenB disease and vaccination. Vaccinated cohorts relied on primary care providers (PCPs) to initiate MenB vaccination conversation and had a low awareness of SCDM at 35.1-45.3%, though those aware of SCDM were more likely to participate in decision-making. Barriers to MenB vaccination included lack of PCP recommendation, vaccine side effects, and uncertainty about vaccination need. CONCLUSIONS: There are gaps in awareness of MenB disease, vaccination, and SCDM among parents and patients in the US, resulting in missed opportunities for discussing and administering MenB vaccination. Targeted education on MenB and vaccination recommendations may increase these opportunities and improve MenB vaccination awareness and initiation.

MenB disease, a type of meningitis, is a serious and life-threatening illness. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that 16­23-year-olds get a MenB vaccine after talking with their healthcare provider and deciding it is the right choice. As of 2021, only about 3 in 10 17-year-olds had received a MenB vaccine. In this study, we used an online survey to learn about parents of older teens' (16­18-years-old) and young adults' (19­23-years-old) awareness, thoughts, and practices related to meningitis and the MenB vaccine. Parents of non-vaccinated teens, and non-vaccinated young adults, had a lower awareness of the causes, risks, and symptoms of meningitis, and the MenB vaccine. In addition, most parents thought the impact of meningitis would be severe, compared with young adults who thought it would be less severe. Most participants were also not aware of their role in deciding if they or their child should be vaccinated against MenB. However, most showed a high interest in learning more about meningitis and the MenB vaccine. We also found that most teens and young adults who did receive the MenB vaccine received it right after talking about it with their healthcare provider. These findings show a clear opportunity to address gaps in awareness and thoughts about meningitis and MenB vaccination. Providing education and resources to parents, young adults, and healthcare providers could create more opportunities to discuss MenB vaccination and lead to more teens and young adults accessing vaccination and being protected against meningitis.

Determinants of Meningococcal Vaccination Coverage and Adherence: A Targeted Literature Review Supporting a 16-year-old Healthcare Visit.

We conducted a targeted literature review to understand the determinants of meningococcal serogroups A, C, W, and Y (MenACWY) and meningococcal serogroup B (MenB) vaccination coverage and adherence to vaccination schedules in the USA, and to identify evidence to support improvement of MenACWY and MenB vaccination coverage and adherence in older adolescents. Sources published since 2011 were considered, with sources published since 2015 given preference. Out of 2355 citations screened, 47 (46 studies) were selected for inclusion. Determinants of coverage and adherence ranging from patient-level sociodemographic factors to policy-level factors were identified. Four determinants identified were associated with improved coverage and adherence: (1) well-child, preventive, or vaccination-only appointments (particularly for older adolescents); (2) provider-initiated, provider-driven vaccine recommendations; (3) provider education about meningococcal disease and vaccine recommendations; and (4) state-level school-entry immunization policies. This robust review of the literature sheds light on the continued low MenACWY and MenB vaccination coverage and adherence among older adolescents (16-23 years of age) compared with that of younger adolescents (11-15 years of age) in the USA. The evidence supports a renewed call to action by local and national health authorities and medical organizations urging healthcare professionals to implement a healthcare visit for 16-year-olds and focus on vaccination as a key component of the visit.

Certain meningococcal vaccines are recommended for young people (ages 11­23) in the USA at specific ages. We analyzed scientific studies to understand how many young people in the USA have received meningococcal vaccines and whether they received them at the recommended ages. We found that a low proportion of young people age 16 or older have received appropriate meningococcal vaccination, compared with those under age 16. We looked at reasons why this might be the case and identified actions that could be taken to increase the proportion of young people age 16 or older who receive appropriate meningococcal vaccination. Overall, the information found confirms the importance of encouraging healthcare professionals to establish routine appointments with 16-year-olds, during which they can administer recommended, age-appropriate vaccines.

Expert Perspectives on the Vaccination of Individuals Who Are at Increased Risk of Meningococcal Disease Due to Medical Conditions: A Podcast.

Patients with functional or anatomic asplenia, including sickle cell anemia; complement component deficiency; or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection have a significantly increased risk of developing meningococcal disease. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends vaccination with a quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine against serogroups A, C, W, and Y (MenACWY) for individuals 2 months of age or older who are diagnosed with functional or anatomic asplenia, complement component deficiency, or HIV infection. Vaccination with a meningococcal vaccine against serogroup B (MenB) is also recommended for individuals 10 years of age or older who are diagnosed with functional or anatomic asplenia or complement component deficiency. Despite these recommendations, recent studies have shown that vaccination coverage in these populations is low. In this podcast, the authors discuss the challenges for implementing vaccine recommendations for individuals with medical conditions at increased risk of developing meningococcal disease and discuss strategies to increase coverage. Suboptimal vaccination rates could be addressed by better educating healthcare providers about recommendations for MenACWY and MenB vaccines in individuals at increased risk, increasing awareness of low vaccination coverage, and tailoring the education to the needs of particular healthcare providers and their respective patient populations. Barriers to vaccination could also be removed by administering vaccines at alternative sites of care, bundling preventative services, and implementing vaccination reminder systems that are tied to immunization information systems.

Invasive meningococcal disease is rare, but serious. Some people are at increased risk because of their medical conditions, including: People without a working spleen People with reduced immune function due to conditions known as complement component deficiencies People living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection Vaccines are available to prevent meningococcal disease, and these vaccines are recommended for healthy young people as well as for people at increased risk. Studies have shown that a low proportion of people at increased risk has been vaccinated. Strategies are needed to make sure more people in these groups get vaccinated. We suggest educating healthcare providers about the recommended vaccines and making it easier for people to get vaccinated by, for example, providing vaccines in places they might visit more often than a doctor's office.

Impact of pharmacist motivational interviewing on hepatitis B vaccination in adults with diabetes.

BACKGROUND: In 2011, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended hepatitis B (HepB) vaccination for previously unvaccinated adults (aged 19-59 years) with diabetes. Despite these recommendations, vaccination coverage for HepB vaccination for persons with diabetes remains low. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to determine the impact of a community pharmacist-led motivational interviewing (MI) intervention on HepB vaccination initiation among adults with diabetes who were previously unvaccinated against HepB. The secondary objective was to describe HepB vaccination series completion among adults with diabetes who initiated the first dose of a HepB vaccine. METHODS: A prospective, nonrandomized, controlled cluster trial was conducted across 58 regional grocery store chain pharmacies: a total of 29 pharmacies in the MI group and 29 pharmacies in the control group. Pharmacy location-level baseline data were collected during a 12-month pre-program period. The MI program was delivered over 10 months. Alerts were generated during prescription processing throughout the study period for eligible patients at each MI pharmacy location. The MI consisted of a face-to-face conversation between the pharmacist and the patient at the time of prescription pick-up. The difference in the primary outcome of HepB vaccination series initiation between patients receiving MI and control patients was assessed using a difference-in-differences analysis. For series completion, patients who initiated the HepB vaccination series were followed up for over 12 months after their first HepB vaccine dose. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant 3.711% increase in HepB vaccination when comparing eligible individuals who received the MI intervention (n = 1569) to eligible individuals in the control group (n = 3640). Of the patients in the MI group who initiated HepB vaccination, 40 of 65 patients (61.5%) completed the vaccination series. CONCLUSION: A pharmacist-led MI intervention increased HepB vaccination rates among adult patients with diabetes. Community pharmacists can effectively provide vaccinations that require multiple doses to complete the vaccination series.

Hepatitis A and B vaccination in adults at risk: A survey of US healthcare providers' attitudes and practices.

This study aimed to evaluate the attitudes and practices of US healthcare professionals (HCPs) regarding the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) vaccination recommendations on HepA and HepB for adult patients at risk of contracting these infections or experiencing complications of hepatitis disease. This cross-sectional, web-based survey of 400 US HCPs, which included nurse practitioners and family medicine, internal medicine, infectious disease, emergency department, and gastroenterology physicians, assessed HCPs' attitudes and practices regarding the ACIP recommendations for adult patients at risk for hepatitis disease. HCP participants were identified via a survey research panel. A recruitment quota of 400 HCPs was set, including 50 NPs, 100 FMs, 100 IMs, 50 GIs, 50 EDs, and 50 IDs. The most frequently reported reasons for not recommending either HepA or HepB vaccines were "I think the risk of HepA infection is low in this patient population" and "I am uncertain about what the guidelines say about vaccinating this population." The most reported factors considered when determining eligibility for either vaccine were medical history and the patient's willingness/motivation to be vaccinated. Most reported it was extremely or moderately important to prevent hepatitis disease by vaccinating adult patients at risk, and most also reported recommending a HepA vaccine or HepB vaccine to patients at risk. Although most HCPs reported recommending HepA and HepB vaccines to patients at risk, these findings contrast with the low reported vaccination rates among these populations, and improved awareness of the ACIP recommendations among HCPs is needed.

Although hepatitis A and hepatitis B are vaccine-preventable diseases, not enough adults at risk are vaccinated in the United States (US). The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) makes recommendations on the use of vaccines in the US. The ACIP recommendations identify groups of people at risk of contracting hepatitis A infection or experiencing complications of hepatitis A disease (e.g., people with chronic liver disease) and hepatitis B infection or its related complications (e.g., people with diabetes).To identify potential barriers to vaccination, we surveyed 400 US healthcare professionals to evaluate their views about the ACIP recommendations on hepatitis A and hepatitis B vaccination for patients at risk of infection or complications. Most reported it was extremely or moderately important to prevent hepatitis A or hepatitis B infection by vaccinating these adult patients. The most commonly reported reasons for not recommending either vaccine were "I am uncertain about what the guidelines say about vaccinating this population" and "I think the risk of hepatitis A or hepatitis B infection is low in this patient population".Our findings show that improved awareness of the guidelines among healthcare professionals is needed, particularly of the importance of hepatitis A vaccination, and hepatitis B vaccination in adults with diabetes. In addition to helping the ongoing multi-state hepatitis A outbreaks, this could aid in the successful implementation of the recent ACIP recommendation for hepatitis B vaccination in all adults that is expected to reduce barriers to vaccination.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Ado-trastuzumab Emtansine (T-DM1) for the Adjuvant Treatment of Patients With Residual Invasive HER2+ Early Breast Cancer in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) was recently approved for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive (HER2+) early breast cancer (eBC) with residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant taxane and trastuzumab-based treatment. Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to compare T-DM1 versus trastuzumab in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov cohort-based model tracked clinical and economic outcomes over a lifetime horizon from a US payer perspective. The model included 6 health states: invasive disease-free, nonmetastatic (locoregional) recurrence, remission, first-line and second-line metastatic BC and death. Model state transitions were based on statistical extrapolation of the head-to-head KATHERINE study and published sources. Dosing and treatment duration reflected prescribing information and trials. Costs (2019 US dollars) associated with pharmaceutical treatment (wholesale acquisition costs), health state specific care, adverse events, and end-of-life care were included. Health state utilities were obtained from KATHERINE and published literature. RESULTS: T-DM1 dominated trastuzumab, yielding lower lifetime costs (-$40,271), and higher life-years (2.980) and quality-adjusted life-years (2.336). Results were driven by patients receiving T-DM1 spending less time in more costly downstream health states, as these patients are less likely to experience a recurrence overall, despite having a higher likelihood of metastatic disease (distant recurrence) in the subset of patients who experience recurrence. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated robust results, with 96.7% of 5000 stochastic simulations producing dominance for T-DM1. The most influential variables were related to treatment costs, off treatment utilities, and health state costs. Additional scenario analyses tested a range of model inputs and assumptions, and produced consistent results. CONCLUSION: Relative to trastuzumab, T-DM1 treatment for patients with HER2+ eBC who have residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant taxane and trastuzumab-based treatment is likely to reduce the overall financial burden of cancer, while simultaneously improving patient outcomes.

A Budget Impact and Cost Per Additional Responder Analysis for Baricitinib for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in Patients with an Inadequate Response to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in the USA.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Baricitinib is a selective and reversible Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor indicated for the treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have had an inadequate response to one or more tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) and has been shown to improve multiple clinical and patient-reported outcomes. However, it is unclear what the budgetary impact would be for US commercial payers to add baricitinib to their formulary and how the efficacy of baricitinib compares to other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with a similar indication. METHODS: A budget impact model (BIM) was developed for a hypothetical population of 1 million plan members that compared a world without and with baricitinib. A retrospective observational study was carried out to estimate market utilization of advanced therapies. Number needed to treat (NNT) and cost per additional responder were calculated for American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20%/50%/70% improvement criteria (ACR20/50/70) response outcomes combining cost estimates from the BIM and efficacy values from a network meta-analysis (NMA). The model included costs related to drug acquisition and monitoring costs. RESULTS: Adding baricitinib would save a commercial payer $US169,742 for second-line therapy and $US135,471 for third-line therapy over a 2-year time horizon (all costs correspond to 2019 US dollars). Cost savings were driven by baricitinib drawing market share away from more expensive comparators. The NMA, based on nine studies, found no statistically significant differences in the median treatment difference between baricitinib and comparators except for versus a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD), and thus NNT versus a csDMARD was similar. The cost per additional responder for baricitinib in patients with inadequate response to a TNFi was substantially lower than all other treatments for all three ACR response criteria at 12 weeks (ACR20: $US129,672; ACR50: $US237,732; ACR70: $US475,464), and among the lowest at 24 weeks (ACR20: $US167,811; ACR50: $US259,344; ACR70: $US570,557). CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib, compared to other DMARDs, was a less expensive option (- $US0.01 incremental cost per member per month in second- and third-line therapy over a 2-year time horizon) with comparable efficacy in patients with inadequate response to TNFi. Adding baricitinib to formulary would likely be cost saving for US payers and expands treatment options for these patients.

Correction to: A Budget Impact and Cost Per Additional Responder Analysis for Baricitinib for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in Patients with an Inadequate Response to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in the USA.

Due to a single error in the annual cost of sarilumab the following needs to be corrected in the article.