Immune responses to hepatitis B vaccination after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in pediatric and young adult patients.

BACKGROUND: Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients require hepatitis B (HBV) revaccination. Hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) seroconversion rates after revaccination range from 64% to 79% in these patients. The seroconversion rate and factors associated with non-seroconversion have not been clearly elucidated in pediatric and young adult recipients after HSCT. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate anti-HBs seroconversion rates in pediatric and young adult patients revaccinated after HSCT, and to identify factors associated with non-seroconversion. METHOD: The current study was prospective and cross-sectional. Post-HSCT recipients aged ≤25 years who had completed a course of three HBV revaccinations were recruited, and their anti-HBs titers were assessed. Non-seroconverted patients were administered a fourth vaccination. Those who subsequently remained seronegative were administered two additional vaccinations. Those who remained seronegative after all six vaccinations were defined as non-responders. RESULTS: A total of 118 patients were enrolled. The HBV-containing vaccines used included DTaP-IPV-HBV-Hib, DTwP-HBV-Hib, and monovalent vaccines. The anti-HBs seroconversion rate after three revaccinations was 82% (95% confidence interval [CI], 73.7-89.2). One patient (0.8%) was classified as non-responder. Factors associated with non-seroconversion after three revaccinations included cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation (odds ratio [OR] 10.63, 95% CI 1.16-97.00), anti-HBs seronegativity before HSCT (OR 7.01, 95% CI 1.55-31.78) and three DTwP-HBV-Hib revaccinations (OR 11.71, 95% CI 1.43-96.26). CONCLUSION: In the current study the anti-HBs seroconversion rate after three HBV revaccinations was excellent. CMV reactivation, anti-HBs seronegativity before HSCT, and three DTwP-HBV-Hib revaccinations were associated with non-seroconversion, but the non-responder rate was low.

Assessment of interhospital transport care for pediatric patients.

BACKGROUND: Many critically ill patients require transfer to a higher-level hospital for complex medical care. Despite the publication of the American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines for pediatric interhospital transportation services and the establishment of many pediatric transport programs, adverse events during pediatric transport still occur. PURPOSE: To determine the incidence of adverse events occurring during pediatric transport and explore their complications and risk factors. METHODS: This prospective observational study explored the adverse events that occurred during the interhospital transport of all pediatric patients referred to the pediatric intensive care unit of Ramathibodi Hospital between March 2016 and June 2017. RESULTS: There were 122 pediatric transports to the unit. Adverse events occurred in 25 cases (22%). Physiologic deterioration occurred in 15 patients (60%). Most issues (11 events) involved circulatory problems causing patient hypotension and poor tissue perfusion requiring fluid resuscitation or inotropic administration on arrival at the unit. Respiratory complications were the second most common cause (4 events). Equipmentrelated adverse events occurred in 5 patients (20%). The common causes were accidental extubation and endotracheal tube displacement. Five patients had both physiologic deterioration and equipment-related adverse events. Regarding transport personnel, the group without complications more often had a physician escort than the group with complications (92% vs. 76%; relative risk, 2.4; P=0.028). CONCLUSION: The incidence of adverse events occurring during the transport of critically ill pediatric patients was 22%. Most events involved physiological deterioration. Escort personnel maybe the key to preventing and appropriately monitoring complications occurring during transport.