<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<recommendedContent xmlns="http://api.mspoke.com">
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_452"
                     title="Study Backs Late Cardiotoxicity of Childhood Cancer Treatment (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.012"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/OtherCancers/tb/18384?impressionId=1265751027178"
                     
      A childhood cancer survivor&apos;s risk of dying from cardiovascular causes rises with the dose of radiation his heart received during treatment, researchers in France and the U.K. affirmed.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Those whose hearts were exposed had a 60% higher risk of cardiovascular death than the general population, even at a dose of 1 Gy (95% CI 20% to 250%), according to Florent de Vathaire, PhD, of L&apos;Institut National de la Sant&amp;#233; et de la Recherche M&amp;#233;dicale in Paris, and colleagues.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;The risk jumped to 12.5-fold for a cumulative radiation dose to the heart of 5 to 14.9 Gy, and to 14.9-fold for a dose of more than 15 Gy (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.01 for trend), the researchers reported online in the &lt;em&gt;Journal of Clinical Oncology&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;The notion that exposing the heart to radiation increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and death is not surprising, according to an accompanying editorial.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, this study examined cardiovascular mortality effects of both the dose of radiation and the dose of anthracyclines given to childhood cancer victims in the same cohort.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That&apos;s something previous studies haven&apos;t done, according to editorialists Steven E. Lipshultz, MD, of the University of Miami and Holtz Children&apos;s Hospital in Miami, and M. Jacob Adams, MD, MPH, of the University of Rochester, N.Y.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;These are pretty profound findings,&quot; Lipshultz told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today&lt;/em&gt;. &quot;These are the exact concerns we&apos;ve had based on careful subclinical assessments of how the heart in these survivors has been working.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;His group was one of the first to report that survivors of childhood cancer faced not only acute cardiotoxicity from treatment, but also late cardiac effects.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As more effective treatment for childhood cancers came into play, the dramatic jump in survival rates  --  from less than 50% in the mid-1970s to 80% today  --  yielded a large enough population of survivors to make chronic issues from treatment apparent, Lipshultz noted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;It appears that for some of these survivors we have substituted one fatal disease of childhood  --  cancer  --  for another fatal disease of early adult life,&quot; he said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;de Vathaire&apos;s group studied a cohort of 4,122 French and British children diagnosed with childhood solid cancer between 1942 and 1986 and who survived at least five years.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Over an average of 27 years of follow-up, they were at 8.3-fold higher risk of dying from any cause compared with the general populations in France and the U.K. (95% CI 7.6 to 9.0).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The majority of these excess deaths occurred early after diagnosis, five to nine years afterward in this analysis  --  in which all patients survived to five years.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on just 32 deaths from cardiovascular diseases in the cohort, the childhood cancer survivors experienced five times the cardiovascular mortality (95% CI 3.3 to 6.7) expected from the general population (1.7% cumulative at 35 years versus 0.3%).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This elevation in risk was similar to that seen in large studies from the U.S. and Nordic countries, suggesting generalizability of the results, Lipshultz said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Radiation therapy also conferred a 5.0-fold elevation in risk of cardiovascular disease-related death (95% CI 1.2 to 21.4).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Like radiation, a higher cumulative dose of anthracycline chemotherapy also increased risk of dying from cardiac diseases, compared with the general population (RR 4.4 for a dose over 360 mg/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, 95% CI 1.3 to 15.3).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, radiotherapy and chemotherapy did not appear to interact for cardiovascular mortality (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.4).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Notably, the vinca alkaloids were also significantly linked to cardiovascular disease-related death risk among childhood cancer survivors, even after adjustment for sex, treatment period, age at diagnosis, follow-up, and all other treatment modalities (RR 3.6, 95% CI 1.0 to 12.9).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Currently, guidelines support regular long-term cardiovascular screening for childhood cancer survivors who received anthracycline-based chemotherapy but provide little to no direction for those treated with nonanthracycline chemotherapy or radiation, Lipshultz noted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;These results suggested all three groups should be getting cardiac follow-up, he told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, because other research has suggested that these individual treatments affect the heart in different ways, such as diastolic rather than systolic dysfunction with radiotherapy, screening modalities may need to account for this as well, he said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers cautioned that cardiovascular disease was probably under-reported as a cause of death in the cohort.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Indeed, 15 of the deaths classified as results of cancer as the principal cause had cardiovascular diseases as the immediate cause,&quot; they wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was supported by the Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer; the Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique; the Agence Fran&amp;#231;aise de S&amp;#233;curit&amp;#233; Sanitaire et Produit de Sant&amp;#233;; Electricit&amp;#233; de France; the Wyeth Foundation for childhood and adolescent health; and a grant from the Foundation of France.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The researchers reported no conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The editorialists reported no conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_432"
                     title="Short Needle May Short HBV Protection for Obese (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.012"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Vaccines/tb/18348?impressionId=1265751027178"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Obese adolescents and young adults may not generate an adequate immune response to hepatitis B (HBV) vaccine because the needles used to vaccinate them are too short, a randomized study suggests.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Immunization with a 1.5-inch needle was associated with 80% higher anti-HBV titers than a 1.0-inch needle, researchers reported online in &lt;em&gt;Pediatrics.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The difference persisted in analyses performed to correct for imbalances in the study population.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;This supports the hypothesis that inadequate muscle penetration is responsible, at least in part, for lower immune response to HBV vaccine among obese adolescent and adult vaccine recipients,&quot; Amy Middleman, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, and colleagues concluded.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Several studies have shown that adolescents and adults with a higher body mass index (BMI) have lower antibody titers after HBV vaccination. The observations have taken on new significance, given that an increasing number of vaccines target a population that has a rising BMI, the authors wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Researchers hypothesize that standard-length needles do not penetrate through the deltoid fat and into the muscle of obese adolescents and adults. Because of its less abundant blood supply, adipose tissue may delay antigen presentation to B and T cells responsible for immune response, the authors continued.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To test the hypothesis, Middleman and colleagues conducted a randomized, clinical trial involving adolescents and adults ages 14 to 24 with no prior exposure to HBV vaccine. Eligibility criteria included weight &amp;gt;90 kg for female patients and &amp;gt;120 kg for male patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Patients were randomized to receive the HBV vaccine series with a standard one-inch needle or a 1.5-inch needle. Patients younger than 19 received 0.5-mL injections, and older patients received 1.0-mL injections.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Investigators used a standardized injection procedure: insertion of the needle at a 90&amp;#176; angle to the deltoid muscle, leaving 2 to 3 mm of needle visible between the skin and the hub.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Patients received three doses of vaccine at baseline, one month, and four months. Blood samples were obtained at baseline and two months after the final injection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The two groups did not differ significantly with respect to median age (21), BMI (~40), deltoid skinfold (41 mm), triceps skinfold (~40 mm), days between vaccine doses one and three (~135), and days from third vaccine dose to titer assessment (65).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At the end of the study, 24 patients had completed the immunization protocol, 10 in the one-inch group and 14 in the 1.5-inch group.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Patients vaccinated with a one-inch needle had a median antibody titer of 189.8 mIU/mL compared with 345.4 mIU/mL for patients vaccinated with the 1.5-inch needle (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.03).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The between-group difference remained significant in analyses that excluded an outlier from the 1.5-inch group (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.047) and that excluded the only two male patients in the study (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.035).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;As we continue to experience high rates of obesity in the U.S. and throughout the world, additional evidence-based research on optimizing the effective delivery of immunizations to adolescents and young adults will be critical,&quot; the authors wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Following updated needle length recommendations will be a first step toward improving the health of our youth and young adults by preventing vaccine-preventable diseases.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was supported by federal grants and awards. GlaxoSmithKline provided the vaccine.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The authors had no disclosures.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_410"
                     title="Most Adults Are Not Getting Necessary Vaccinations"
                     score="0.011"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/Pneumonia/tb/18317?impressionId=1265751027178"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Public health experts say they&apos;re concerned about the low number of U.S. adults who receive recommended vaccinations  --  and in particular about seniors who aren&apos;t immunized against pneumonia.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As of 2008, one-third of people 65 and older had not received the pneumococcal vaccine, according to a report issued by the Trust for America&apos;s Health (TFAH), the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In 36 states, 30% or more of their older residents had not received the vaccine.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The worst coverage was in the District of Columbia, where 45.6% of seniors had not been vaccinated. Even in the best performing state, Oregon, more than a quarter (26.8%) of older people had not received the one-time shot.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Among all adults, the investigators also found extremely low rates of immunization against tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (2.1%), shingles (&amp;lt;2%), human papillomavirus (10%), and seasonal influenza (36.1%).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The vaccination efforts around the 2009 H1N1 outbreak actually showed how well our public health system can react to vaccinate millions of people in a very short amount of time,&quot; L.J. Tan, PhD, director of medicine and public health for the American Medical Association, told reporters in a conference call.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;But I think our response also clearly demonstrated that we do have a lack of a strategy and a system for vaccinating adults.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Added Jeffrey Levi, PhD, executive director of TFAH, &quot;We need a national strategy to make vaccines a regular part of medical care and to educate Americans about the effectiveness and safety of vaccines.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Doing so could avoid 40,000 to 50,000 deaths from vaccine-preventable illnesses and save about $10 billion in healthcare costs each year, he said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But, according to William Schaffner, MD, chair of IDSA&apos;s immunization working group and a co-author of the report, there are many obstacles to adult vaccination efforts.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;First, unlike children in school, adults lack widespread institutional access to immunizations nor is there a way to require most adults to undergo vaccination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, there are limited interactions with the healthcare system because, also unlike in children, care in adults generally revolves around acute care and not well care visits.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Insurance coverage also plays a major role in low vaccination rates among adults, and not just in the uninsured or underinsured.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Most insurance plans do not cover routine vaccination, Schaffner said, a situation that would change under pending healthcare reform legislation in Congress. That would require insurers to pay for all vaccinations recommended by the CDC&apos;s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Schaffner also cited what he called misunderstandings and misinformation regarding the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and the limited support for research, development, and production of vaccines as reasons for low immunization rates among adults.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;It&apos;s a shame that we aren&apos;t focusing enough resources on the science to prevent disease and we don&apos;t have a system where we can better protect people by getting them all of the vaccines that are currently available,&quot; he said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Tan outlined several recommendations the report makes to increase adult vaccination rates, starting with the creation of a program to provide vaccine coverage to uninsured individuals.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also, he said, the CDC and local and state health departments should be given more funding to conduct public education campaigns to increase awareness about the importance of vaccination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For their part, physicians should adopt practices to enable them to offer their adult patients vaccines at appropriate visits, like general physicals and cancer screenings, and to make a review of vaccination history a part of standard care.&lt;/p&gt;

    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_368"
                     title="Lancet Retracts 1998 MMR-Autism Paper"
                     score="0.01"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Vaccines/tb/18255?impressionId=1265751027178"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Editors of &lt;em&gt;The Lancet&lt;/em&gt; have retracted the 1998 study that first suggested autism might be caused by the MMR vaccine, less than a week after an official rebuke to the paper&apos;s lead author, Andrew Wakefield, MBBS, and two co-authors.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a brief note posted on the journal&apos;s Web site, &lt;em&gt;Lancet&lt;/em&gt; editors wrote, &quot;It has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al. are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation.... Therefore, we fully retract this paper from the published record.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Evidence presented in a Jan. 28 hearing before the U.K. General Medical Council&apos;s Fitness to Practise Panel persuaded the journal that the paper had misrepresented how the study was conducted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;msgBody&quot;&gt;The council, which has no direct American equivalent, is an independent, nationwide regulatory body that registers doctors and enforces standards of medical practice in the U.K.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Hospital records and other sources contradicted findings of a 2004 investigation by Wakefield&apos;s institution, the Royal Free and University College, that the study had been properly vetted by an institutional review board.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The claims in the original paper that children were &apos;consecutively referred&apos; and that investigations were &apos;approved&apos; by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false,&quot; according to the &lt;em&gt;Lancet&lt;/em&gt; editors.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The editor of Britain&apos;s other leading medical journal, &lt;em&gt;BMJ&lt;/em&gt;, congratulated &lt;em&gt;The Lancet&lt;/em&gt; for its action.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;This will help to restore faith in this globally important vaccine and in the integrity of the scientific literature,&quot; according to a statement from Fiona Godlee, MB, BChir, BSc.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the 1998 paper, Wakefield and colleagues reported on findings in 12 children who, they said, had developed intestinal inflammation and autistic symptoms following MMR vaccination. They suggested that the inflammation released gut proteins into the circulation that eventually migrated to the brain, causing permanent damage reflected in autism symptoms.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The report and the ensuing mass-media publicity sparked consternation among parents and the medical community. Vaccination rates in Britain and the U.S. dropped sharply, and measles rates spiked in consequence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although subsequent population-based research and other studies have failed to confirm a causal link between MMR vaccines and autism, a vocal group of parents of autistic children continues to insist that it is real. They call Wakefield a hero.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, a nearly decade-long investigation by a British journalist, Brian Deer, uncovered discrepancies between the &lt;em&gt;Lancet&lt;/em&gt; paper and hospital records and other sources. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Autism/12850&quot; mce_href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Autism/12850&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Father of Vaccine-Autism Link Said to Have Fudged Data&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Whereas the &lt;em&gt;Lancet&lt;/em&gt; paper indicated that, in most cases, symptoms developed within days of vaccination, the records indicated that this was true only for one child, according to Deer&apos;s account in the &lt;em&gt;Times of London&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The patients&apos; records also indicated that five of the children had psychosocial problems before vaccination, said the &lt;em&gt;Times&lt;/em&gt;, but the &lt;em&gt;Lancet&lt;/em&gt; paper described them as &quot;developmentally normal.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, the &lt;em&gt;Lancet&lt;/em&gt; paper described abnormal intestinal pathology results in the children, but the hospital pathology reports showed no findings of inflammation, the &lt;em&gt;Times&lt;/em&gt; report said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At last week&apos;s hearing, the U.K.&apos;s General Medical Council panel heard evidence that Wakefield had taken blood samples from children attending his son&apos;s birthday party and performed spinal taps on other children in a hospital without due regard for their safety.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The panel found Wakefield guilty of more than 30 charges that he had acted unethically in conducting the study. He could be stripped of his license to practice in Britain, but no ruling has been made yet.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Two of Wakefield&apos;s 12 co-authors on the 1998 paper, John Walker-Smith, MD, and Simon Murch, PhD, were also found to have committed ethical violations. The other 10 co-authors had previously repudiated the paper&apos;s findings and were not charged.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Wakefield was in London while the hearing took place but did not attend. Afterward, he told reporters he was innocent of wrongdoing and would continue his research.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Wakefield is now based at Thoughtful House, a private autism research and treatment facility in Austin, Texas. After the panel&apos;s ruling, it issued a statement expressing disappointment and calling the charges &quot;unfounded and unfair.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;

    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_349"
                     title="Motavizumab Reduces Preemie Lung Infections (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.009"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Vaccines/tb/18232?impressionId=1265751027178"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Premature babies who received preventative treatment with motavizumab (Medi-524) suffered fewer outpatient respiratory infections than those taking palivizumab (Synagis), the current standard of treatment, a large new trial found.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Compared with children who received palivizumab, those treated with motavizumab had similar rates of hospitalization for respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.503 to 1.083) and a 50% reduction in outpatient, RSV-specific, medically attended lower respiratory tract infection, or MALRI (2.0% vs 3.9%; &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.005), according to a report in the January issue of &lt;em&gt;Pediatrics&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Although not better than palivizumab in reducing RSV-associated hospitalizations, motavizumab did demonstrate a significant reduction in outpatient MALRI compared with palivizumab,&quot; Xavier Carbonell-Estrany, MD, PhD, of Hospital Cl&amp;#237;nic, in Barcelona, Spain, and colleagues wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;As such, motavizumab may offer an improved alternative for preventing serious RSV disease in high-risk infants and children.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Most otherwise healthy patients recover within a week or two from RSV, which infects the lungs and breathing passages. However, the infection can be severe in people who are vulnerable, including premature infants and older children who were born prematurely. It&apos;s the most common cause of bronchiolitis and pneumonia in U.S. children in their first year of life, researchers noted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Palivizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody recommended for prevention of RSV in children at high risk. Monthly treatments of high-risk youngsters have been found to reduce RSV-related hospitalizations by 50%, compared with placebo.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Motavizumab, an investigational monoclonal antibody related to palivizumab, proved more potent at neutralizing the RSV virus in animal studies. Early trials indicated the drug was well-tolerated at treatment doses and reduced viral counts in the nasal aspirates of children hospitalized with RSV.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Both drugs are manufactured by MedImmune, the sponsor of this phase III clinical trial.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the double-blind, multinational study, Carbonell-Estrany and colleagues randomly assembled 6,635 preterm infants (6 months and younger) and children (2 years and younger) suffering from chronic lung disease resulting from premature birth.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They were randomized to five 15 mg/kg monthly doses of palivizumab or motavizumab between November 2004 and May 2006. The trial was conducted in 24 countries.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The primary objective was to compare the efficacy of the two drugs at preventing a child from being hospitalized due to respiratory symptoms from an RSV infection, preventing a child already hospitalized from contracting a new infection, and preventing deaths from RSV.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Of the 6,513 children who received full treatment with the drugs, 43 (1.4%) of those who received motavizumab and 59 (1.9%) of those who received palivizumab were hospitalized for RSV infections (95% CI 0.490 to 1.081).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The study also compared the drugs&apos; efficacy at preventing RSV-specific outpatient MALRIs. Of the 2,283 outpatients who received full treatment with the drugs, 23 (2%) who received motavizumab and 45 (3.9%) who received palivizumab contracted RSV infections (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.005).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors noted that while the drugs had similar overall safety profiles, participants who took motavizumab had more cutaneous reactions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;In this large, multinational, well controlled trial, motavizumab was shown to be noninferior to palivizumab for prevention of RSV hospitalization (primary end point) and was superior to palivizumab for reduction of RSV-specific outpatient MALRI (a secondary end point),&quot; the authors wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was funded by MedImmune, the manufacturer of motavizumab.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Several of the authors reported being employees of MedImmune or receiving consulting and research services fees from MedImmune and Abbott International.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
</recommendedContent>