Fire ant Immunotherapy with inteRvals Extended to 12 weekS: The FIRES study.

BACKGROUND: There are no studies describing 12-week extended maintenance interval (EMI) immunotherapy (IT) efficacy in preventing anaphylaxis to imported fire ant (IFA) stings. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of 12-week maintenance intervals in patients treated with IFA IT. METHODS: After a minimum of 3 months of conventional maintenance interval IT and verification of baseline efficacy, adults with IFA hypersensitivity were prospectively enrolled and extended their maintenance doses to 6-, 8-, and 12-week intervals. Efficacy was confirmed by means of an annual IFA sting challenge. RESULTS: A total of 25 patients initiated EMI. The severity of their initial systemic reactions was mild in 8 patients (32%), moderate in 10 patients (40%), and severe in 7 patients (28%). Maintenance IT duration at trial entry was less than 3 years in 18 patients (mean 11 months; range 3-28 months), 3 to 5 years in 4 patients (mean 46 months; range 36-57 months), and greater than 5 years in 5 patients (mean 111 months; range 67-197 months). The treatment cohort did not experience systemic reactions to extended interval injections, cluster refill injections, field stings, or sting challenges. CONCLUSION: This prospective longitudinal cohort study revealed that in adults 18 years old or older who have received at least 3 months of maintenance dose IFA-whole body extract IT with proven efficacy, extension to a 12-week EMI is a safe effective treatment option. The benefits of EMI include a reduced number of injections, clinic visits, and lapses in maintenance IT.

Perceptions and Concerns Regarding COVID-19 Vaccination in a Military Base Population.

INTRODUCTION: Safe and effective vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus 2 are essential tools in the fight against the coronavirus disease 2019  (COVID-19) pandemic. However, hesitancy to vaccination is a major barrier to achieving herd immunity, particularly among a population working on a military base. To better understand the perceptions and concerns of these individuals, a voluntary survey was conducted. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An interactive, online survey was constructed and disseminated to individuals associated with Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB) in Dayton, OH. Survey participation was voluntary with responses collected over the initial weeks in which WPAFB began to distribute COVID-19 vaccines in a series of phases. Although initially designed to collect demographic data and identify reasons for potential vaccine hesitancy among WPAFB 88th Medical Group personnel, the study population was expanded to include all WPAFB-affiliated personnel at the direction of base leadership. The chi-squared test was used to examine the relationships between categorical variables, while multivariable logistic regression was used to assess age and occupation as independent risk factors for vaccine hesitancy. RESULTS: A total of 816 individuals completed the survey, of whom 22.7% (n = 185) self-identified as vaccine hesitant (VH). The VH group had a lower mean age than the not vaccine hesitant (NVH) group (39.3 ± 14.2 vs. 45.9 ± 13.4, P < .001). Respondents whose occupation was medical were more likely to be VH than their non-medical colleagues (49% vs. 18%, P < .001). The VH group was more concerned about short-term side effects (43% vs. 26%, P < .001), long-term side effects (82% vs. 50%, P < 0.001), vaccine effectiveness (23% vs. 5%, P < .001), vaccine making them feel sick (22% vs. 13%, P = .002), being infected with COVID-19 from the vaccine (10% vs. 5%, P = 0.008), and worry about misinformation/political agenda (43% vs. 31%, P = 0.003). Younger respondents and medical personnel were more likely to be concerned about long-term side effects and vaccine effectiveness, and the younger group was also more likely to be concerned about pregnancy/breastfeeding issues and worry about misinformation/political agenda. Age (younger vs. older, odds ratio 2.15) and occupation (medical vs. non-medical, odds ratio 3.74) were independent risk factors for vaccine hesitancy. The NVH group was more likely to recommend the COVID-19 vaccine to a friend or family member than the VH group (93% vs. 20%, P < .001) as were the older age group (79% vs. 67%, P = .001) and non-medical personnel (81% vs. 52%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Younger age and medical occupation were independent risk factors for vaccine hesitancy and these individuals were less likely to recommend vaccination to a friend or family member. We also identified several key concerns related to vaccination hesitancy, in particular those related to short- and long-term side effects, and the spread of misinformation. Among military personnel, these findings carry important implications that may negatively impact mission readiness, a matter that merits further investigation. Our COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy findings can be used to guide targeted interventions at future vaccination campaigns in a military population.

Impact of an Education Intervention on COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in a Military Base Population.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy is a major impediment to achieving herd immunity and overcoming the current pandemic. Our aim was to decrease the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy through an education intervention. METHOD: An education intervention, consisting of a PowerPoint presentation addressing the two mRNA COVID-19 vaccine concerns/myths and a question and answer panel comprising health care providers from various specialties, was implemented to address vaccine hesitancy among personnel associated with Wright-Patterson Air Force Base through a series of virtual and in-person seminars. Participants completed a post-seminar survey as a retrospective self-assessment to identify attitudes and views surrounding vaccine hesitancy and the impact of the education intervention. Chi-squared test was used to examine relationships between categorical variables, and multiple logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for vaccine hesitancy pre- and post-seminar. All analyses were done using SPSS Statistics Version 25.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY). Institutional Review Board approval was not obtained before this study as it began as a non-research initiative and received non-research determination post hoc. RESULTS: Five hundred participants completed the survey. Mean age was 44.7 years with 13.4 and 86.6% medical and non-medical personnel, respectively. Nearly all (98.8%) had not received their first shot of the vaccine series. 402 (80.9%) were receptive to vaccination, and 95 (19.1%) were hesitant post-seminar. Of the 139 participants who reported they were initially hesitant after our intervention, 50 (36%) indicated that they were now receptive to the vaccine, while 89 (64%) remained hesitant. Of those 50, 48 (96%) had moderate to great amount of trust in COVID-19 vaccine information presented by physicians/other providers. Six respondents who wanted the vaccine before the intervention no longer wanted the vaccine. A medical occupation (OR = 4.85, 95% CI = 2.63-8.96, P < .001), little or no trust in COVID-19 vaccine information from physicians/other providers (OR = 19.48, 95% CI = 7.31-51.90, P < 0.001), and being age 30 or younger (OR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.02-3.2, P = 0.041) were independent predictors of vaccine hesitancy. Trust in providers was a significant factor in change of intent from vaccine hesitant to receptive post-intervention (OR 0.13, 95% CI = 0.03-0.59, P = .008). Age and occupation were not significant factors associated with change in intent. CONCLUSION: Our education intervention was effective in reducing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in a military base population. Study limitations include applications toward other military and non-military populations, the possibility of nonresponse bias, and absence of prior validated interventions. Area for future studies includes improvement upon educational intervention, development of other effective methods, and application of intervention in other populations.

23-Valent Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccine Uptake in the United States Air Force HIV Program.

Streptococcus pneumoniae infection is a predominant cause of bacterial infection in HIV-infected individuals. However, reported rates of pneumococcal vaccination with 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) are variable. We evaluated uptake of PPV23 in patients diagnosed with HIV between 1996 and 2012 (n = 507) in the United States Air Force, a centralized HIV program with free access to care including vaccines and medications. A total of 411 (81.1%) patients received at least 1 PPV23 dose. The PPV23 vaccination within 1 year of diagnosis was greater for those diagnosed between 2004 and 2012 (n = 184, 86%) compared with 1996 to 2003 (n = 104, 56.5%; P < .001). For those with ≥6 years of follow-up, receipt of a second recommended PPV23 dose was greater for those diagnosed between 1996 and 2003 (n = 52, 57.8%) compared with 2004 to 2012 (n = 9, 28.1%; P = .004). Although first PPV23 vaccination was high in recent years, process improvement efforts are underway to overcome barriers and improve uptake of pneumococcal vaccines in our program.

Evaluation of interpretation strategies and substantial bronchodilator response in pediatric patients with normal baseline spirometry.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the best method to interpret pediatric spirometry. There is also controversy regarding the benefit of performing post-bronchodilator spirometry after normal baseline spirometry. This study compares the use of lower limit of normal (LLN) against percent of predicted (PP) in the interpretation of spirometry. We also investigate the occurrence of a substantial bronchodilator response for patients who received post-bronchodilator spirometry. METHODS: Spirometric tests performed in the pediatric clinic at San Antonio Military Medical Center were retrospectively reviewed. Results of spirometry were compared using LLN and PP for interpretation. Abnormal spirometry was defined as a low FEV1 or low FEV1/FVC, indicating evidence of airway obstruction. The presence of a substantial bronchodilator response was recorded and the results were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 242 tests, 212 normal and 30 abnormal tests were reported using the LLN interpretation strategy. Using the PP interpretation strategy, there was a significant difference in the number of normal (183) and abnormal (59) tests, when compared to the LLN (P < .001). No significant difference between LLN versus PP interpretation strategies was noted in the number of baseline tests, normal or abnormal, that demonstrated a substantial response to bronchodilator. Of the subjects with normal baseline spirometry, 10% (PP) and 12% (LLN) had a substantial bronchodilator response. An abnormal baseline spirometry was more likely to have a substantial response to bronchodilator, compared to normal baseline spirometry (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of LLN for interpretation is more likely to report a test as normal, when compared to the PP interpretation strategy. Although a substantial bronchodilator response is more likely to occur following abnormal baseline spirometry, 10-12% of subjects with normal baseline spirometry showed a substantial bronchodilator response. This suggests that normal baseline spirometry may miss reversible airway obstruction, which is a hallmark of asthma.