Reliever-Triggered Inhaled Glucocorticoid in Black and Latinx Adults with Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Black and Latinx patients bear a disproportionate burden of asthma. Efforts to reduce the disproportionate morbidity have been mostly unsuccessful, and guideline recommendations have not been based on studies in these populations. METHODS: In this pragmatic, open-label trial, we randomly assigned Black and Latinx adults with moderate-to-severe asthma to use a patient-activated, reliever-triggered inhaled glucocorticoid strategy (beclomethasone dipropionate, 80 µg) plus usual care (intervention) or to continue usual care. Participants had one instructional visit followed by 15 monthly questionnaires. The primary end point was the annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations. Secondary end points included monthly asthma control as measured with the Asthma Control Test (ACT; range, 5 [poor] to 25 [complete control]), quality of life as measured with the Asthma Symptom Utility Index (ASUI; range, 0 to 1, with lower scores indicating greater impairment), and participant-reported missed days of work, school, or usual activities. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Of 1201 adults (603 Black and 598 Latinx), 600 were assigned to the intervention group and 601 to the usual-care group. The annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations was 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61 to 0.78) in the intervention group and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.92) in the usual-care group (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.999; P = 0.048). ACT scores increased by 3.4 points (95% CI, 3.1 to 3.6) in the intervention group and by 2.5 points (95% CI, 2.3 to 2.8) in the usual-care group (difference, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.5 to 1.2); ASUI scores increased by 0.12 points (95% CI, 0.11 to 0.13) and 0.08 points (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.09), respectively (difference, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.05). The annualized rate of missed days was 13.4 in the intervention group and 16.8 in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95). Serious adverse events occurred in 12.2% of the participants, with an even distribution between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among Black and Latinx adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, provision of an inhaled glucocorticoid and one-time instruction on its use, added to usual care, led to a lower rate of severe asthma exacerbations. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and others; PREPARE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02995733.).

Survey of Physician Practices, Attitudes, and Knowledge Regarding Recombinant Zoster Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Herpes zoster vaccination rates remain low despite longstanding national recommendations to vaccinate immunocompetent adults aged ≥ 50 years. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP) updated its recommendations for recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) in October 2021 to include immunocompromised adults aged ≥19 years. OBJECTIVE: To assess practices, attitudes, and knowledge about RZV, barriers to recommending RZV, and likelihood of recommending RZV to patients with various immunocompromising conditions. DESIGN: Mail and internet-based survey conducted from May through July 2020. PARTICIPANTS: General internists and family physicians throughout the USA. MAIN MEASURES: Survey responses. KEY RESULTS: The response rate was 66% (632/955). Many physicians were already recommending RZV to immunocompromised populations, including adults ≥50 years with HIV (67% of respondents) and on recombinant human immune modulator therapy (56%). Forty-seven percent of respondents both stocked/administered RZV and referred patients elsewhere, frequently a pharmacy, for vaccination; 42% did not stock RZV and only referred patients. The majority agreed pharmacies do not inform them when RZV has been given (64%). Physicians were generally knowledgeable about RZV; however, 25% incorrectly thought experiencing side effects from the first dose of RZV that interfere with normal activities was a reason to not receive the second dose. The top reported barrier to recommending RZV was experience with patients declining RZV due to cost concerns (67%). Most physicians reported they would be likely to recommend RZV to immunocompromised patients. CONCLUSION: Most primary care physicians welcome updated ACIP RZV recommendations for immunocompromised adults. Knowledge gaps, communication issues, and financial barriers need to be addressed to optimize vaccination delivery.

Measles Experience, Practice, and Knowledge by Pediatricians in the Context of Resurgent US Outbreaks.

OBJECTIVE: To assess measles experience, practice, and knowledge by pediatricians in the context of resurgent US outbreaks in 2018-2019. STUDY DESIGN: A nationally representative network of pediatricians were surveyed by email and mail from January to April 2020. RESULTS: The response rate was 67% (297 of 444). In the 3 years preceding the survey, 52% of the respondents reported awareness of measles cases in/near their community. Most thought that media reports about recent measles outbreaks had decreased delay/refusal of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine (6% "greatly decreased"; 66% "moderately decreased"). More than 60% of the pediatricians responded correctly for 6 of 9 true/false measles knowledge items. Less than 50% responded correctly for 3 true/false items, including statements about pretravel MMR recommendations for a preschooler and measles isolation precautions. The most common resources that the pediatricians would "sometimes" or "often/always" consult for measles information were those from the American Academy of Pediatrics (72%), a state or local public health department (70%), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (63%). More than 90% of the pediatricians reported correct clinical practice for MMR vaccination of a 9-month-old before international travel. More than one-third of the respondents did not have a plan for measles exposures in their clinic. Pediatricians aware of measles cases in/near their community in the previous 3 years and those working in a hospital/clinic or Health Maintenance Organization setting were more likely to have a plan for measles exposures. CONCLUSIONS: During this time of heightened risk for measles outbreaks, there are opportunities to strengthen the knowledge and implementation of measles pretravel vaccination and infection prevention and control recommendations among pediatricians.

Pediatricians' Knowledge and Practices Related to Mumps Diagnosis and Prevention.

OBJECTIVES: To assess pediatricians' mumps knowledge and testing practices, to identify physician and practice characteristics associated with mumps testing practices, and to assess reporting and outbreak response knowledge and practices. STUDY DESIGN: Between January and April 2020, we surveyed a nationally representative network of pediatricians. Descriptive statistics were generated for all items. The χ2 test, t tests, and Poisson regression were used to compare physician and practice characteristics between respondents who would rarely or never versus sometimes or often/always test for mumps in a vaccinated 17-year-old with parotitis in a non-outbreak setting. RESULTS: The response rate was 67% (297 of 444). For knowledge, more than one-half of the pediatricians responded incorrectly or "don't know" for 6 of the 9 true/false statements about mumps epidemiology, diagnosis, and prevention, and more than one-half reported needing additional guidance on mumps buccal swab testing. For testing practices, 59% of respondents reported they would sometimes (35%) or often/always (24%) test for mumps in a vaccinated 17-year-old with parotitis in a non-outbreak setting; older physicians, rural physicians, and physicians from the Northeast or Midwest were more likely to test for mumps. Thirty-six percent of the pediatricians reported they would often/always report a patient with suspected mumps to public health authorities. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatricians report mumps knowledge gaps and practices that do not align with public health recommendations. These gaps may lead to underdiagnosis and underreporting of mumps cases, delaying public health response measures and contributing to ongoing disease transmission.

Changes in Strength of Recommendation and Perceived Barriers to Human Papillomavirus Vaccination: Longitudinal Analysis of Primary Care Physicians, 2008-2018.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate among pediatricians and family physicians human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination recommendation practices for 11- to 12-year-old youth; report parental refusal/deferral of HPV vaccination; and report barriers to HPV vaccination changed over time. STUDY DESIGN: We surveyed nationally representative networks of pediatricians and family physicians in 2008, 2010, 2013-2014, and 2018. Male vaccination questions were not asked in 2008; barriers and parental vaccine refusal questions were not asked in 2010. RESULTS: Response rates were 80% in 2008 (680/848), 72% in 2010 (609/842), 70% in 2013-2014 (582/829), and 65% in 2018 (588/908). The proportion of physicians strongly recommending HPV vaccination for 11- to 12-year-old patients increased from 53% in 2008 to 79% in 2018 for female patients and from 48% in 2014 to 76% in 2018 for male patients (both P < .0001). The proportion of physicians indicating ≥50% of parents refused/deferred HPV vaccination remained steady for female patients (24% in 2008 vs 22% in 2018, P = .40) and decreased for male patients (42% in 2014 vs 28% in 2018, P < .001). Physician barriers to providing HPV vaccination were rare and decreased over time. Increasing numbers of physicians reported perceived parental barriers of vaccine safety concerns (5% "major barrier" in 2008 vs 35% in 2018, P < .0001) and moral/religious concerns (5% in 2008 vs 25% in 2018, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Between 2008 and 2018, more primary care physicians reported recommending HPV vaccination for adolescents, fewer reported barriers, and more physicians reported parents who had vaccine safety or moral/religious concerns.

Use of High-Dose Influenza and Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccines by US Primary Care Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Several different types of influenza vaccine are licensed for use in adults in the USA including high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV) and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV). HD-IIV is licensed for use in adults ≥ 65 years, and recommendations for use of LAIV have changed several times in recent years. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine family physicians' (FPs) and general internal medicine physicians' (GIMs) perceptions, knowledge, and practices for use of HD-IIV and LAIV during the 2016-2017 and 2018-2019 influenza seasons. DESIGN: E-mail and mail surveys conducted February-March 2017, January-February 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Nationally representative samples of FPs and GIMs. MAIN MEASURES: Surveys assessed HD-IIV practices (2017), knowledge and perceptions (2019), and LAIV knowledge and practices (2017, 2019). KEY RESULTS: Response rates were 67% (620/930) in 2017 and 69% (642/926) in 2019. Many physicians believed HD-IIV is more effective than standard dose IIV in patients ≥ 65 years (76%) and reported their patients ≥ 65 years believe they need HD-IIV (67%). Most respondents incorrectly thought ACIP preferentially recommends HD-IIV for adults ≥ 65 years (88%); 65% "almost always/always" recommended HD-IIV for adults ≥ 65 years. Some physicians incorrectly thought ACIP preferentially recommends HD-IIV for adults < 65 years with cardiopulmonary disease (38%) or immunosuppression (48%); some respondents recommended HD-IIV for these groups (25% and 28% respectively). In 2017, 88% of respondents knew that ACIP recommended against using LAIV during the 2016-2017 influenza season, and 4% recommended LAIV to patients. In 2019, 63% knew that ACIP recommended that LAIV could be used during the 2018-2019 influenza season, and 8% recommended LAIV. CONCLUSIONS: Many physicians incorrectly thought ACIP had preferential recommendations for HD-IIV. Physicians should be encouraged to use any available age-appropriate influenza vaccine to optimize influenza vaccination particularly among older adults and patients with chronic conditions who are more vulnerable to severe influenza disease.

Shared Clinical Decision-Making Recommendations for Adult Immunization: What Do Physicians Think?

BACKGROUND: In 2019, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) incorporated the terminology "shared clinical decision-making" (SDM) into recommendations for two adult vaccines. OBJECTIVE: To assess among general internal medicine physicians (GIMs) and family physicians (FPs) nationally (1) attitudes about and experience with ACIP SDM recommendations, (2) knowledge of insurance reimbursement for vaccines with SDM recommendations, (3) how SDM recommendations are incorporated into vaccine forecasting software, and (4) physician and practice characteristics associated with not knowing how to implement SDM. DESIGN: Survey conducted in October 2019-January 2020 by mail or internet based on preference. PARTICIPANTS: Networks of GIMs and FPs recruited from American College of Physicians (ACP) and American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) who practice ≥ 50% in primary care. Post-stratification quota sampling performed to ensure networks similar to ACP and AAFP memberships. MAIN MEASURES: Responses on 4-point Likert scales (attitudes/experiences), true/false options (knowledge), and categorical response options (forecasting). Multivariable modeling with outcome of "not knowing how to implement SDM" conducted. KEY RESULTS: Response rate was 64% (617/968). Most physicians strongly/somewhat agreed SDM requires more time than routine recommendations (90%FP; 95%GIM, p = 0.02) and that they need specific talking points to guide SDM discussions (79%FP; 84%GIM, p = NS). There was both support for SDM recommendations for certain vaccines (81%FP; 75%GIM, p = 0.06) and agreement that SDM creates confusion (64%FP; 76%GIM, p = 0.001). Only 41%FP and 43%GIM knew vaccines recommended for SDM would be covered by most health insurance. Overall, 38% reported SDM recommendations are displayed as "recommended" and 23% that they did not result in any recommendation in forecasting software. In adjusted multivariable models, GIMs [risk ratio 1.44 (1.15-1.81)] and females [1.28 (1.02-1.60)] were significantly associated with not knowing how to implement SDM recommendations CONCLUSIONS: To be successful in a primary care setting, SDM for adult vaccination will require thoughtful implementation with decision-making support for patients and physicians.

Survey of Adult Influenza Vaccination Practices and Perspectives Among US Primary Care Providers (2016-2017 Influenza Season).

BACKGROUND: Seasonal influenza vaccination is recommended for all adults; however, little is known about how primary care physicians can communicate effectively with patients about influenza vaccination. OBJECTIVE: To assess among general internal medicine (GIM) and family physicians (FP) regarding adult influenza vaccination: (1) recommendation and administration practices, (2) barriers to discussing and perceived reasons for patient refusal, and (3) factors associated with physician self-efficacy in convincing patients to be vaccinated. DESIGN: Email and mail survey conducted in February-March 2017 PARTICIPANTS: Nationally representative sample of GIM and FP MAIN MEASURES: Factor analysis was used to group similar items for multivariable analysis of barriers and strategies associated with high physician self-efficacy about convincing patients to be vaccinated (defined as disagreeing that they could do nothing to change resistant patients' minds). KEY RESULTS: Response rate was 67% (620/930). Ninety-eight percent always/almost always recommended influenza vaccine to adults ≥ 65 years, 90% for adults 50-64 years, and 75% for adults 19-49 years. Standing orders (76%) and electronic alerts (64%) were the most commonly used practice-based immunization strategies. Frequently reported barriers to discussing vaccination were other health issues taking precedence (41%), time (29%), and feeling they were unlikely to change patients' minds (24%). Fifty-eight percent of physicians reported high self-efficacy about convincing patients to be vaccinated; these providers reported fewer patient belief barriers contributing to vaccine refusal (RR = 0.93 per item; 95% CI (0.89-0.98); Cronbach's α = 0.70), were more likely to report using both fact- (1.08/item; (1.03-1.14); 0.66) and personal experience-based (1.07/item; (1.003-1.15); 0.65) communication strategies, and were more likely to work in practices using patient reminders for influenza vaccine (1.32; (1.16-1.50)). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians identified barriers to successfully communicating about adult influenza vaccination but few effective strategies to counter them. Interventions to promote self-efficacy in communication and under-utilized practice-based immunization strategies are needed.

Patient Perspectives on a Text Messaging Program to Support Asthma Management: A Qualitative Study.

Introduction. This study investigated participants' acceptance of a short messaging service (SMS) intervention designed to support asthma management, including suggestions regarding program delivery and message content. Methods. Individual and group interviews were conducted with patients from a safety-net health care system in Denver, Colorado. Eligible participants were English or Spanish speakers between the ages of 13 and 40 years, with diagnosed persistent asthma. All individual and group interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed, translated from Spanish to English (where applicable), and analyzed for thematic content by experienced analysts using established qualitative content techniques. The qualitative software package ATLAS.ti was used for data analysis and management. Results. This study included a total of 43 participants. In general, participants were receptive toward the SMS program and supported the use of tailored and interactive messages. Adolescents supported the idea of enhancing care by sending messages to a support person, such as a parent or guardian. However, adults were less receptive toward this idea. Participants also preferred directive educational messages and cues to action, while general messages reminding them of their asthma diagnosis were viewed less favorably. Implications. The results from this study will inform a randomized control trial evaluating the efficacy of the SMS intervention.

U.S. physicians' perspective of adult vaccine delivery.

BACKGROUND: Adults are at substantial risk for vaccine-preventable disease, but their vaccination rates remain low. OBJECTIVE: To assess practices for assessing vaccination status and stocking recommended vaccines, barriers to vaccination, characteristics associated with reporting financial barriers to delivering vaccines, and practices regarding vaccination by alternate vaccinators. DESIGN: Mail and Internet-based survey. SETTING: Survey conducted from March to June 2012. PARTICIPANTS: General internists and family physicians throughout the United States. MEASUREMENTS: A financial barriers scale was created. Multivariable linear modeling for each specialty was performed to assess associations between a financial barrier score and physician and practice characteristics. RESULTS: Response rates were 79% (352 of 443) for general internists and 62% (255 of 409) for family physicians. Twenty-nine percent of general internists and 32% of family physicians reported assessing vaccination status at every visit. A minority used immunization information systems (8% and 36%, respectively). Almost all respondents reported assessing need for and stocking seasonal influenza; pneumococcal; tetanus and diphtheria; and tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccines. However, fewer assessed and stocked other recommended vaccines. The most commonly reported barriers were financial. Characteristics significantly associated with reporting greater financial barriers included private practice setting, fewer than 5 providers in the practice, and, for general internists only, having more patients with Medicare Part D. The most commonly reported reasons for referring patients elsewhere included lack of insurance coverage for the vaccine (55% for general internists and 62% for family physicians) or inadequate reimbursement (36% and 41%, respectively). Patients were most often referred to pharmacies/retail stores and public health departments. LIMITATIONS: Surveyed physicians may not be representative of all physicians. CONCLUSION: Improving adult vaccination delivery will require increased use of evidence-based methods for vaccination delivery and concerted efforts to resolve financial barriers, especially for smaller practices and for general internists who see more patients with Medicare Part D. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Clinician Barriers to Ordering Pulmonary Function Tests for Adults with Suspected Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Primary care clinicians do not adhere to national and international guidelines recommending pulmonary function testing (PFTs) in patients with suspected asthma. Little is known about why that occurs. Our objective was to assess clinician focused barriers to ordering PFTs. METHODS: An internet-based 11-item survey of primary care clinicians at a large safety-net institution was conducted between August 2021 and November 2021. This survey assessed barriers and possible electronic health record (EHR) solutions to ordering PFTs. One of the survey questions contained an open-ended question about barriers which was analyzed qualitatively. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 59% (117/200). The top 3 reported barriers included beliefs that testing will not change management, distance to testing site, and the physical effort it takes to complete testing. Clinicians were in favor of an EHR intervention to prompt them to order PFTs. Responses to the open-ended question also conveyed that objective testing does not change management. DISCUSSION: PFTs improve diagnostic accuracy and reduce inappropriate therapies. Of the barriers we identified, the most modifiable is to educate clinicians about how PFTs can change management. That in conjunction with an EHR prompt, which clinicians approved of, may lead to guideline congruent and improved quality in asthma care.

Mortality risk after COVID-19 vaccination: A self-controlled case series study.

BACKGROUND: Although previous studies found no-increased mortality risk after COVID-19 vaccination, residual confounding bias might have impacted the findings. Using a modified self-controlled case series (SCCS) design, we assessed the risk of non-COVID-19 mortality, all-cause mortality, and four cardiac-related death outcomes after primary series COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: We analyzed all deaths between December 14, 2020, and August 11, 2021, among individuals from eight Vaccine Safety Datalink sites. Demographic characteristics of deaths in recipients of COVID-19 vaccines and unvaccinated individuals were reported. We conducted SCCS analyses by vaccine type and death outcomes and reported relative incidences (RI). The observation period for death spanned from the dates of emergency use authorization to the end of the study period (August 11, 2021) without censoring the observation period upon death. We pre-specified a primary risk interval of 28-day and a secondary risk interval of 14-day after each vaccination dose. Adjusting for seasonality in mortality analyses is crucial because death rates vary over time. Deaths among unvaccinated individuals were included in SCCS analyses to account for seasonality by incorporating calendar month in the models. RESULTS: For Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2), RIs of non-COVID-19 mortality, all-cause mortality, and four cardiac-related death outcomes were below 1 and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) excluded 1 across both doses and both risk intervals. For Moderna (mRNA-1273), RI point estimates of all outcomes were below 1, although the 95 % CIs of two RI estimates included 1: cardiac-related (RI = 0.78, 95 % CI, 0.58-1.04) and non-COVID-19 cardiac-related mortality (RI = 0.80, 95 % CI, 0.60-1.08) 14 days after the second dose in individuals without pre-existing cancer and heart disease. For Janssen (Ad26.COV2.S), RIs of four cardiac-related death outcomes ranged from 0.94 to 0.98 for the 14-day risk interval, and 0.68 to 0.72 for the 28-day risk interval and 95 % CIs included 1. CONCLUSION: Using a modified SCCS design and adjusting for temporal trends, no-increased risk was found for non-COVID-19 mortality, all-cause mortality, and four cardiac-related death outcomes among recipients of the three COVID-19 vaccines used in the US.

Physicians' confidence in vaccine safety studies.

OBJECTIVES: To ascertain, through two separate surveys among nationally representative networks of pediatricians (Peds) and family physicians (FM): 1) physicians' reported level of confidence in pre- and post-licensure vaccine safety studies; and 2) changes in reported level of confidence from 2007 to 2010/11. METHODS: Two surveys were conducted in August to October 2007 and in November 2010 to January 2011. The survey response rates were 81% (FM, 79%, Peds, 84%, p=0.07) for the 2007 survey (691/848) and 66% (FM, 61%, Peds, 70%, p=0.003) for the 2010/11 survey (532/811). RESULTS: One in three family physicians compared to one in ten pediatricians in both surveys reported little or no confidence in pre-licensure vaccine safety studies (p<0.001). Compared to pre-licensure studies, higher percentages of both specialties reported a great deal of confidence in post-licensure vaccine safety studies in both years, and more physicians from both specialties reported a great deal of confidence in 2010/11 than in 2007. CONCLUSION: While most family physicians and pediatricians report confidence in post-licensure vaccine safety studies, one third of family physicians report little or no confidence in pre-licensure studies. More research is needed to better understand the reasons behind some physicians' lack of confidence in vaccine safety studies.

What Patients Call Their Inhalers Is Associated with "Asthma Attacks".

BACKGROUND: Clinician-patient miscommunication contributes to worse asthma outcomes. What patients call their asthma inhalers and its relationship with asthma morbidity are unknown. METHODS: Inhaler names were ascertained from Black and Latinx adults with moderate-severe asthma and categorized as "standard" if based on brand/generic name or inhaler type (i.e., controller vs. rescue) or "non-standard" for other terms (i.e., color, device type, e.g., "puffer," or unique names). Clinical characteristics and asthma morbidity measures were evaluated at baseline: self-reported asthma exacerbations one year before enrollment (i.e., systemic corticosteroid bursts, emergency department (ED)/urgent care (UC) visits, or hospitalizations), and asthma control and quality of life. Multivariable regression models tested the relationship between non-standard names and asthma morbidity measures, with adjustments. RESULTS: Forty-four percent (502/1150) of participants used non-standard inhaler names. These participants were more likely to be Black (p=0.006), from the Southeast (p<0.001), and have fewer years with asthma (p=0.012) relative to those who used standard names. Non-standard inhaler names was associated with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1.29 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.50, p=0.001; 1.8 vs. 1.5 events) for corticosteroid bursts for asthma, an IRR=1.43 (95% CI, 1.21-1.69, p<0.001; 1.9 vs. 1.4 events) for ED/UC visits for asthma, and an odds ratio=1.57 (95% CI, 1.12-2.18, p=0.008; 0.5 vs. 0.3 events) for asthma hospitalizations after adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who use non-standard names for asthma inhalers experience increased asthma morbidity. Ascertaining what patients call their inhalers may be a quick method to identify those at higher risk of poor outcomes.

Safety of simultaneous vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines in the Vaccine Safety Datalink.

INTRODUCTION: Safety data on simultaneous vaccination (SV) with primary series monovalent COVID-19 vaccines and other vaccines are limited. We describe SV with primary series COVID-19 vaccines and assess 23 pre-specified health outcomes following SV among persons aged ≥5 years in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). METHODS: We utilized VSD's COVID-19 vaccine surveillance data from December 11, 2020-May 21, 2022. Analyses assessed frequency of SV. Rate ratios (RRs) were estimated by Poisson regression when the number of outcomes was ≥5 across both doses, comparing outcome rates between COVID-19 vaccinees receiving SV and COVID-19 vaccinees receiving no SV in the 1-21 days following COVID-19 vaccine dose 1 and 1-42 days following dose 2 by SV type received ("All SV", "Influenza SV", "Non-influenza SV"). RESULTS: SV with COVID-19 vaccines was not common practice (dose 1: 0.7 % of 8,455,037 persons, dose 2: 0.3 % of 7,787,013 persons). The most frequent simultaneous vaccines were influenza, HPV, Tdap, and meningococcal. Outcomes following SV with COVID-19 vaccines were rare (total of 56 outcomes observed after dose 1 and dose 2). Overall rate of outcomes among COVID-19 vaccinees who received SV was not statistically significantly different than the rate among those who did not receive SV (6.5 vs. 6.8 per 10,000 persons). Statistically significant elevated RRs were observed for appendicitis (2.09; 95 % CI, 1.06-4.13) and convulsions/seizures (2.78; 95 % CI, 1.10-7.06) in the "All SV" group following dose 1, and for Bell's palsy (2.82; 95 % CI, 1.14-6.97) in the "Influenza SV" group following dose 2. CONCLUSION: Combined pre-specified health outcomes observed among persons who received SV with COVID-19 vaccine were rare and not statistically significantly different compared to persons who did not receive SV with COVID-19 vaccine. Statistically significant adjusted rate ratios were observed for some individual outcomes, but the number of outcomes was small and there was no adjustment for multiple testing.

Simultaneous administration of mRNA COVID-19 bivalent booster and influenza vaccines.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized use of mRNA COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccines on August 31, 2022. Currently, CDC's clinical guidance states that COVID-19 and other vaccines may be administered simultaneously. At time of authorization and recommendations, limited data existed describing simultaneous administration of COVID-19 bivalent booster and other vaccines. We describe simultaneous influenza and mRNA COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccine administration between August 31-December 31, 2022, among persons aged ≥6 months in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) by COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccine type, influenza vaccine type, age group, sex, and race and ethnicity. Of 2,301,876 persons who received a COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccine, 737,992 (32.1%) received simultaneous influenza vaccine, majority were female (53.1%), aged ≥18 years (91.4%), and non-Hispanic White (55.7%). These findings can inform future VSD studies on simultaneous influenza and COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccine safety and coverage, which may have implications for immunization service delivery.

Adherence to expanded influenza immunization recommendations among primary care providers.

OBJECTIVE: To assess practices regarding the expanded Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendations for influenza vaccination in children among US pediatricians and family medicine physicians (FMs) and strategies to promote vaccination. STUDY DESIGN: We administered a survey between July and October 2009 to 416 pediatricians and 424 FMs from nationally representative networks. RESULTS: The response rate was 75% (79% pediatricians, 70% FMs). FMs were less likely than pediatricians to report adherence to ACIP recommendations (35% vs 65%; adjusted risk ratio [RR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.50-0.72). Most physicians (89% pediatricians and 89% FMs) reported using posters or pamphlets to encourage influenza vaccination, and 57% pediatricians and 41% FMs reported offering after hours dedicated influenza vaccination clinics. Only 23% pediatricians and 14% FMs reported providing written, telephone, or e-mail reminders to all children. Having dedicated influenza vaccination clinics after hours or weekends was associated with routine vaccination of all children (adjusted RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.15-1.57). CONCLUSION: In the first year of the expanded ACIP recommendations to immunize all eligible children against influenza, two-thirds of pediatricians and one-half of FMs reported adherence, although less than one-quarter were actively engaging in reminder/recall efforts. Practices that adhered to the ACIP recommendations were more likely to put a substantial effort into promoting vaccination opportunities.

Influenza vaccination in the 2009-2010 pandemic season: the experience of primary care physicians.

OBJECTIVES: Determine among a representative sample of pediatricians (Peds), family medicine (FM), and general internal medicine (GIM) physicians in the 2009-2010 influenza season physicians': 1) practices and experiences with delivery of seasonal and pH1N1 influenza vaccines; and 2) anticipated and experienced barriers. METHODS: Two US national surveys administered 7/2009-10/2009 (before pH1N1 distribution) and 3/2010-6/2010 (after pH1N1 distribution) to 416 Peds, 424 FM and 432 GIM. RESULTS: Of respondents who received both surveys, 62% (776/1253) completed both. Overall, 98% reported administering seasonal influenza vaccine and 86% pH1N1, with 70% reporting that working with public health in delivery of pH1N1 was a positive experience. Due to limited supplies of pH1N1, 63% of providers reported prioritizing who received vaccine even within high risk groups. Pre-distribution, 71% perceived that patient/parental safety concerns about pH1N1 would be a barrier, and post-distribution 72% perceived it had been a barrier. Physician concern about safety decreased, with 44% reporting safety a barrier pre-distribution and 12% post-distribution (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of a pandemic most primary care physicians collaborated with public health in delivery of pH1N1. Physicians faced challenges with patient/parent safety concerns about pH1N1 and supply issues with pH1N1 that required physicians to prioritize who received vaccine.

Why Aren't We Achieving High Vaccination Rates for Rotavirus Vaccine in the United States?

BACKGROUND: Rotavirus vaccine (RV) coverage levels for US infants are <80%. METHODS: We surveyed nationally representative networks of pediatricians by internet/mail from April to June, 2019. Multivariable regression assessed factors associated with difficulty administering the first RV dose (RV#1) by the maximum age. RESULTS: Response rate was 68% (303/448). Ninety-nine percent of providers reported strongly recommending RV. The most common barriers to RV delivery overall (definite/somewhat of a barrier) were: parental concerns about vaccine safety overall (27%), parents wanting to defer (25%), parents not thinking RV was necessary (12%), and parent concerns about RV safety (6%). The most commonly reported reasons for nonreceipt of RV#1 by 4 to 5 months (often/always) were parental vaccine refusal (9%), hospitals not giving RV at discharge from nursery (7%), infants past the maximum age when discharged from neonatal intensive care unit/nursery (6%), and infant not seen before maximum age for well care visit (3%) or seen but no vaccine given (4%). Among respondents 4% strongly agreed and 25% somewhat agreed that they sometimes have difficulty giving RV#1 before the maximum age. Higher percentage of State Child Health Insurance Program/Medicaid-insured children in the practice and reporting that recommendations for timing of RV doses are too complicated were associated with reporting difficulty delivering the RV#1 by the maximum age. CONCLUSIONS: US pediatricians identified multiple, actionable issues that may contribute to suboptimal RV immunization rates including lack of vaccination prior to leaving nurseries after prolonged stays, infants not being seen for well care visits by the maximum age, missed opportunities at visits and parents refusing/deferring.