MomsTalkShots, tailored educational app, improves vaccine attitudes: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Many pregnant women and parents have concerns about vaccines. This analysis examined the impact of MomsTalkShots, an individually tailored educational application, on vaccine attitudes of pregnant women and mothers. METHODS: MomsTalkShots was the patient-level component of a multi-level intervention to improve maternal and infant vaccine uptake that also included provider- and practice-level interventions. The impact of these interventions was studied using a two-by-two factorial design, randomizing at both the patient- and the practice-level. Study staff recruited pregnant women from a diverse set of prenatal care practices in Colorado and Georgia between June 2017 and July 2018. All participants (n = 2087) received a baseline survey of maternal and infant vaccine intentions and attitudes, and two follow-up surveys at least 1 month and 1 year after their infant's birth, respectively. Half of participants (n = 1041) were randomly assigned to receive educational videos through MomsTalkShots, algorithmically tailored to their vaccine intentions, attitudes, and demographics. Since the practice/provider intervention did not appear impactful, this analysis focused on MomsTalkShots regardless of the practice/provider intervention. RESULTS: By 1 month post-birth, MomsTalkShots increased perceived risk of maternal influenza disease (61% among MomsTalkShots recipients vs 55% among controls; Odds Ratio: 1.61, 95% Confidence Interval: 1.23-2.09), confidence in influenza vaccine efficacy (73% vs 63%; OR: 1.97, 95%CI: 1.47-2.65), and perceived vaccine knowledge (55% vs 48%; OR: 1.39, 95%CI: 1.13-1.72). Among those intending not to vaccinate at baseline, MomsTalkShots increased perceived risk of maternal influenza disease (38% vs 32%; OR: 2.07, 95%CI: 1.15-3.71) and confidence in influenza vaccine efficacy (44% vs 28%; OR: 2.62, 95%CI: 1.46-4.69). By 1 year post-birth, MomsTalkShots increased perceived vaccine knowledge (62% vs 50%; OR: 1.74, 95%CI: 1.36-2.24) and trust in vaccine information from obstetricians and pediatricians (64% vs 55%; OR: 1.53, 95%CI: 1.17-2.00). Among those uncertain about vaccinating at baseline, MomsTalkShots increased perceived vaccine knowledge (47% vs 12%; OR: 6.89, 95%CI: 1.52-31.25) and reduced infant vaccine safety concerns (71% vs 91%; OR: 0.24, 95%CI: 0.06-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: MomsTalkShots improved pregnant women's and mothers' knowledge and perceptions of maternal and infant vaccines and the diseases they prevent, and offers a scalable tool to address vaccine hesitancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at Clinicaltrials.gov on 13/09/2016 (registration number: NCT02898688).

Learning from maternal voices on COVID-19 vaccine uptake: Perspectives from pregnant women living in the Midwest on the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccine.

The aim of this study was to understand COVID-19 vaccine perceptions and decision-making among a racially/ethnically diverse population of pregnant and lactating women in the Midwest. Pregnant female participants (N = 27) at least 18 years. or older living in the Midwest were recruited to participate in a maternal voices survey. A mix-methods approach was used to capture the perceptions of maternal voices concerning the COVID-19 vaccine. Participants completed an online survey on COVID-19 disease burden, vaccine knowledge, and readiness for uptake. A total of 27 participants completed the Birth Equity Network Maternal Voices survey. Most participants were African American (64%). Sixty-three percent intend to get the vaccine. Only 25% felt at-risk for contracting COVID-19, and 74% plan to consult their provider about getting the COVID-19 vaccine. At least 66% had some concerns about the safety of the vaccine. Participants indicated a willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, especially if recommended by their provider. We found little racial/ethnic differences in perceptions of COVID-19 and low vaccine hesitancy.

Final efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety analyses of a nine-valent human papillomavirus vaccine in women aged 16-26 years: a randomised, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Primary analyses of a study in young women aged 16-26 years showed efficacy of the nine-valent human papillomavirus (9vHPV; HPV 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58) vaccine against infections and disease related to HPV 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58, and non-inferior HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18 antibody responses when compared with quadrivalent HPV (qHPV; HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18) vaccine. We aimed to report efficacy of the 9vHPV vaccine for up to 6 years following first administration and antibody responses over 5 years. METHODS: We undertook this randomised, double-blind, efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety study of the 9vHPV vaccine study at 105 study sites in 18 countries. Women aged 16-26 years old who were healthy, with no history of abnormal cervical cytology, no previous abnormal cervical biopsy results, and no more than four lifetime sexual partners were randomly assigned (1:1) by central randomisation and block sizes of 2 and 2 to receive three intramuscular injections over 6 months of 9vHPV or qHPV (control) vaccine. All participants, study investigators, and study site personnel, laboratory staff, members of the sponsor's study team, and members of the adjudication pathology panel were masked to vaccination groups. The primary outcomes were incidence of high-grade cervical disease (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3, adenocarcinoma in situ, invasive cervical carcinoma), vulvar disease (vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3, vulvar cancer), and vaginal disease (vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3, vaginal cancer) related to HPV 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 and non-inferiority (excluding a decrease of 1·5 times) of anti-HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18 geometric mean titres (GMT). Tissue samples were adjudicated for histopathology diagnosis and tested for HPV DNA. Serum antibody responses were assessed by competitive Luminex immunoassay. The primary evaluation of efficacy was a superiority analysis in the per-protocol efficacy population, supportive efficacy was analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population, and the primary evaluation of immunogenicity was a non-inferiority analysis. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00543543. FINDINGS: Between Sept 26, 2007, and Dec 18, 2009, we recruited and randomly assigned 14 215 participants to receive 9vHPV (n=7106) or qHPV (n=7109) vaccine. In the per-protocol population, the incidence of high-grade cervical, vulvar and vaginal disease related to HPV 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 was 0·5 cases per 10 000 person-years in the 9vHPV and 19·0 cases per 10 000 person-years in the qHPV groups, representing 97·4% efficacy (95% CI 85·0-99·9). HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18 GMTs were non-inferior in the 9vHPV versus qHPV group from month 1 to 3 years after vaccination. No clinically meaningful differences in serious adverse events were noted between the study groups. 11 participants died during the study follow-up period (six in the 9vHPV vaccine group and five in the qHPV vaccine group); none of the deaths were considered vaccine-related. INTERPRETATION: The 9vHPV vaccine prevents infection, cytological abnormalities, high-grade lesions, and cervical procedures related to HPV 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. Both the 9vHPV vaccine and qHPV vaccine had a similar immunogenicity profile with respect to HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18. Vaccine efficacy was sustained for up to 6 years. The 9vHPV vaccine could potentially provide broader coverage and prevent 90% of cervical cancer cases worldwide. FUNDING: Merck & Co, Inc.

Cervical Cancer Screening in the United States-Affiliated Pacific Islands: Options and Opportunities.

OBJECTIVE: Successful cervical cancer screening in the United States-Affiliated Pacific Islands (USAPI) is limited by geographic, political, economic, and logistic factors. An expert panel convened to examine screening in each of the 6 island jurisdictions and to explore options beyond cytology-based screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-one representatives of American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecology, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, government agencies, the World Health Organization, Pan American Health Organization, health representatives of the 6 Pacific island jurisdictions, Puerto Rico, and several academic institutions met in a 2-day meeting to explore options to improve access and coverage of cervical cancer screening in the USAPI. RESULTS: Cytology-based screening is less widely accessed and less successful in the USAPI than in the United States in general. Barriers include geographic isolation, cultural factors, and lack of resources. Cytology-based screening requires multiple visits to complete the process from screening to treatment. Screen-and-treat regimens based on visual inspection with acetic acid or human papillomavirus requiring 1 or 2 visits have the potential to improve cervical cancer prevention in the USAPI. CONCLUSIONS: The standard US algorithm of cytology screening followed by colposcopy and treatment is less effective in geographically and culturally isolated regions such as the USAPI. Alternate technologies, both high tech, such as primary human papillomavirus screening, and low tech, such as visual inspection with acetic acid, have shown promise in resource-poor countries and may have applicability in these US jurisdictions.

Use of primary high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: interim clinical guidance.

In 2011, the American Cancer Society, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology updated screening guidelines for the early detection of cervical cancer and its precursors. Recommended screening strategies were cytology and cotesting (cytology in combination with hrHPV testing). These guidelines also addressed the use of hrHPV testing alone as a primary screening approach, which was not recommended for use at that time. There is now a growing body of evidence for screening with primary hrHPV testing, including a prospective US-based registration study. Thirteen experts including representatives from the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Cancer Society, American Society of Cytopathology, College of American Pathologists, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology, convened to provide interim guidance for primary hrHPV screening. This guidance panel was specifically triggered by an application to the FDA for a currently marketed HPV test to be labeled for the additional indication of primary cervical cancer screening. Guidance was based on literature review and review of data from the FDA registration study, supplemented by expert opinion. This document aims to provide information for healthcare providers who are interested in primary hrHPV testing and an overview of the potential advantages and disadvantages of this strategy for screening as well as to highlight areas in need of further investigation.

Use of primary high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: interim clinical guidance.

In 2011, the American Cancer Society, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology updated screening guidelines for the early detection of cervical cancer and its precursors. Recommended screening strategies were cytology or cotesting (cytology in combination with high-risk HPV (hrHPV) testing). These guidelines also addressed the use of hrHPV testing alone as a primary screening approach, which was not recommended for use at that time. There is now a growing body of evidence for screening with primary hrHPV testing, including a prospective US-based registration study. Thirteen experts including representatives from the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Cancer Society, American Society of Cytopathology, College of American Pathologists, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology, convened to provide interim guidance for primary hrHPV screening. This guidance panel was specifically triggered by an application to the FDA for a currently marketed HPV test to be labeled for the additional indication of primary cervical cancer screening. Guidance was based on literature review and review of data from the FDA registration study, supplemented by expert opinion. This document aims to provide information for health care providers who are interested in primary hrHPV testing and an overview of the potential advantages and disadvantages of this strategy for screening as well as to highlight areas in need of further investigation.

Women's health providers as vaccine providers in public health emergencies.

OBJECTIVE: To understand women's health providers' vaccine practices and challenges to administering vaccines during public health emergencies. STUDY DESIGN: We surveyed a sample of women's health providers in Washington and California in 2010-2011 about their vaccine practices, perceptions, and emergency preparedness activities related to the 2009-2010 influenza campaign and ongoing pertussis outbreaks. RESULTS: Of the 215 practices surveyed, 152 (70.7%) completed the survey. Most (83.8%) practices considered it standard of care to ask about vaccines and to require, encourage, or offer vaccines to their staff (84.8%). However, only a minority of practices have participated in emergency preparedness exercises (19.3%), actual emergency responses (4.6%), or medical surge capacity initiatives (1.3%). Notably, the challenges and barriers to providing vaccinations in a public health emergency were not practice-level factors such as storage space, staff illness, or reporting, but instead were factors such as vaccine supply, billing, and public interest. CONCLUSION: Women's health providers have generally not been included in preparedness and emergency response activities despite their continuing vaccination efforts. Focusing on women's health providers' involvement in preparedness activities may improve opportunities to vaccinate an important high-risk group, especially in public health emergencies.

Beyond likes and tweets: an in-depth look at the physician social media landscape.

Social networking sites are a popular way for physicians to communicate about clinical, professional, and social topics. These sites can be used for educational purposes, professional interaction, and for general discussion. There are many popular sites oriented toward health care professionals, each with their own functionality and style. We reviewed the top physician-oriented networking sites, as well as popular general social networking sites that can be used for physician communication. We also provide background on social media communication, as well as specific advice for online physician communication and a discussion of confidentiality.

Programmatic and research priorities for improving influenza immunization of pregnant women.

Despite evidence regarding the benefits of influenza immunization during pregnancy for both the pregnant woman and her infant, as well as reassuring safety data, influenza vaccination rates in pregnancy have lagged. The 2009 influenza pandemic was accompanied by increased maternal vaccination rates. In this article, we review programmatic and research priorities with regard to overcoming barriers to influenza immunization of pregnant women.

Adenocarcinoma in situ and associated human papillomavirus type distribution observed in two clinical trials of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine.

The primary objective of this report is to describe the detection of adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) and associated human papillomavirus (HPV) type distribution that was observed in the context of two phase 3 clinical trials of a quadrivalent HPV6/11/16/18 vaccine. In this intention-to-treat analysis, we include all women who had at least one follow-up visit postenrollment. Healthy women (17,622) aged 15-26 with no history of HPV disease and a lifetime number of less than five sex partners (average follow-up of 3.6 years) were randomized (1:1) to receive vaccine or placebo at day 1, months 2, and 6. Women underwent colposcopy and biopsy according to a Papanicolaou triage algorithm. All tissue specimens were tested for 14 HPV types and were adjudicated by a pathology panel. During the trials, 22 women were diagnosed with AIS (six vaccine and 16 placebo). There were 25 AIS lesions in total, with HPV16/18 present in 96% (24 of 25 with 15 of 25 as single infections). Only two of 22 women had concomitant cytology results suggesting glandular abnormality. Colposcopic impressions (25 total) were either negative or indicated squamous lesions only. Of women with AIS, all six in the vaccine cohort and seven of 16 in the placebo cohort were infected at baseline with the same HPV type that was detected in the AIS lesion. Concurrent squamous lesions were detected in 20 of these 22 women. In summary, our findings show that AIS evades colposcopic and cervical cytologic detection. As most AIS lesions were HPV16/18-related, prophylactic HPV vaccination should reduce the incidence of invasive adenocarcinoma.

Chlamydia trachomatis infection and risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.

OBJECTIVES: High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) is the primary cause of cervical cancer. As Chlamydia trachomatis is also linked to cervical cancer, its role as a potential co-factor in the development of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or higher was examined. METHODS: The placebo arms of two large, multinational, clinical trials of an HPV6/11/16/18 vaccine were combined. A total of 8441 healthy women aged 15-26 years underwent cervicovaginal cytology (Papanicolaou (Pap) testing) sampling and C trachomatis testing at day 1 and every 12 months thereafter for up to 4 years. Protocol-specified guidelines were used to triage participants with Pap abnormalities to colposcopy and definitive therapy. The main outcome measured was CIN. RESULTS: At baseline, 2629 (31.1%) tested positive for hrHPV DNA and 354 (4.2%) tested positive for C trachomatis. Among those with HPV16/18 infection (n = 965; 11.4%) or without HPV16/18 infection (n = 7382, 87.5%), the hazard ratios (HRs) associated with development of any CIN grade 2 according to baseline C trachomatis status were 1.82 (95% CI: 1.06 to 3.14) and 1.74 (95% CI 1.05 to 2.90), respectively. The results were comparable when only the 12 most common hrHPV infections were considered, but the excess risk disappeared when the outcome was expanded to include CIN grade 3 or worse. CONCLUSION: Further studies based on larger cohorts with longitudinal follow-up in relation to the C trachomatis acquisition and a thorough evaluation of temporal relationships of infections with hrHPV types, C trachomatis and cervical neoplasia are needed to demonstrate whether and how in some situations C trachomatis sets the stage for cervical carcinogenesis. Trial registration NCT00092521 and NCT00092534.

Safety of influenza vaccination during pregnancy.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends routine influenza vaccination for all women who are or will be pregnant during the influenza season. During seasonal influenza epidemics, during previous pandemics, and with the current influenza A (H1N1) pandemic, pregnancy places otherwise healthy women at increased risk for serious complications from influenza, including death. Inactivated influenza vaccine can be safely and effectively administered during any trimester of pregnancy. No study to date has demonstrated an increased risk of either maternal complications or adverse fetal outcomes associated with inactivated influenza vaccination. Moreover, no scientific evidence exists that thimerosal-containing vaccines are a cause of adverse events among children born to women who received influenza vaccine during pregnancy. In this article, we review the evidentiary basis for the recommendation of vaccination of all women who will be pregnant during the influenza season and safety data of influenza vaccination during pregnancy.

Evaluation of quadrivalent HPV 6/11/16/18 vaccine efficacy against cervical and anogenital disease in subjects with serological evidence of prior vaccine type HPV infection.

OBJECTIVE: In the quadrivalent (types 6/11/16/18) HPV vaccine (GARDASIL/SILGARD) clinical program, 73% of women aged 16-26 were naïve to all vaccine HPV types. In these women, prophylactic administration of the vaccine was highly effective in preventing HPV 6/11/16/18-related cervical disease. Of the remaining women, 15% of had evidence of past infection with one or more vaccine HPV types (seropositive and DNA negative) at the time of enrollment. Here we present an analysis in this group of women to determine the efficacy of the HPV 6/11/16/18 vaccine against new cervical and external anogenital disease related to the same vaccine HPV type which had previously been cleared. Vaccine tolerability in this previously infected population was also assessed. METHODS: 18,174 women were enrolled into 3 clinical studies. The data presented comprise a subset of these subjects (n = 2,617) who were HPV seropositive and DNA negative at enrollment (for >or=1 vaccine type). In each study, subjects were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive HPV 6/11/16/18 vaccine or placebo at day 1, month 2 and month 6 (without knowledge of baseline HPV status). Procedures performed for efficacy data evaluation included detailed genital examination, Pap testing, and collection of cervicovaginal and external genital specimens. Analyses of efficacy were carried out in a population stratified by HPV serology and HPV DNA status at enrollment. RESULTS: Subjects were followed for an average of 40 months. Seven subjects in the placebo group developed cervical disease, and eight subjects developed external genital disease related to a vaccine HPV type they had previously encountered. No subject receiving HPV 6/11/16/18 vaccine developed disease to a vaccine HPV type to which they were seropositive and DNA negative at enrolment. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that natural HPV infection-elicited antibodies may not provide complete protection over time, however the immune response to the HPV 6/11/16/18 vaccine appears to prevent reinfection or reactivation of disease with vaccine HPV types. Vaccine-related adverse experiences were higher among subjects receiving vaccine, mostly due to increased injection site adverse experiences.

Effect of prophylactic human papillomavirus L1 virus-like-particle vaccine on risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2, grade 3, and adenocarcinoma in situ: a combined analysis of four randomised clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer and its obligate precursors, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 and 3 (CIN2/3), and adenocarcinona in situ (AIS), are caused by oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV). In this combined analysis of four clinical trials we assessed the effect of prophylactic HPV vaccination on these diseases. METHODS: 20,583 women aged 16-26 years were randomised to receive quadrivalent HPV6/11/16/18 vaccine (n=9087), its HPV16 vaccine component (n=1204), or placebo (n=10 292). They underwent periodic Papanicolaou testing, with colposcopy or biopsy for detected abnormalities. The primary composite endpoint was the combined incidence of HPV16/18-related CIN2/3, AIS, or cervical cancer. These trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00365378, NCT00365716, NCT00092521, and NCT00092534. FINDINGS: Mean follow-up was 3.0 years (SD 0.66) after first dose. In women negative for HPV16 or HPV18 infection during the vaccination regimen (n=17 129, per protocol), vaccine efficacy was 99% for the primary endpoint (95% CI 93-100), meeting the statistical criterion for success. In an intention-to-treat analysis of all randomised women (including those who were HPV16/18 naive or HPV16/18-infected at day 1), efficacy was 44% (95% CI 31-55); all but one case in vaccine recipients occurred in women infected with HPV16 or HPV18 before vaccination. In a second intention-to-treat analysis we noted an 18% reduction (95% CI 7-29) in the overall rate of CIN2/3 or AIS due to any HPV type. INTERPRETATION: Administration of HPV vaccine to HPV-naive women, and women who are already sexually active, could substantially reduce the incidence of HPV16/18-related cervical precancers and cervical cancer.

Human papillomavirus vaccines: an update for gynecologists.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) infections cause several common gynecologic problems. Oncogenic HPV infections are responsible for abnormal cervical cytology, cervical dysplasia, and cervical cancer. In 2006, a vaccine was introduced to prevent these common problems in women's health. The currently available HPV vaccine is quadrivalent, with HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18. Recently published clinical trials have consistently shown efficacy approaching 100%. Current clinical recommendations are for universal vaccination of adolescent and young adult women. This review will discuss the natural history and epidemiology of HPV, the diseases associated with these infections and current clinical usage of this vaccine. Future developments in this area will also be discussed.