<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<recommendedContent xmlns="http://api.mspoke.com">
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_432"
                     title="Short Needle May Short HBV Protection for Obese (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.014"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Vaccines/tb/18348?impressionId=1265741896906"
                     
      &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="0.013"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/Pneumonia/tb/18317?impressionId=1265741896906"
                     
      &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_413"
                     title="ICAO: In Obesity, Fat Legs Better than Fat Middles (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.012"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/Obesity/tb/18322?impressionId=1265741896906"
                     
      Having less abdominal fat but more leg fat may play a role in maintaining metabolic health in obese women, but not in heavy men, researchers found.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Metabolically healthy obese women had significantly more leg fat compared with metabolically unfit women, and smaller waist circumference (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.05), Sarah Appleton, a postgraduate student at the University of Adelaide in Australia, and colleagues reported at the International Congress on Abdominal Obesity in Hong Kong.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;When there&apos;s no significant differences in total body fat, the high levels of leg fat but low levels of central fat &quot;makes you think this is a protective factor against developing metabolic complications of their obesity, including diabetes,&quot; Appleton told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Smaller studies have shown that metabolically healthy obese patients have less visceral fat compared with insulin-resistant obese patients, suggesting these may be protective factors that limit the development of metabolic disease.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, normal-weight patients with cardiometabolic risk factors, who are labeled as &quot;metabolically obese,&quot; have higher abdominal adiposity compared with metabolically healthy normal-weight patients. They&apos;re also at increased risk for diabetes and heart disease.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To examine the relationship, the researchers conducted dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scans of body composition in 1,604 patients who were over age 50 and participated in the North West Adelaide Health Study. They were stratified in four categories: metabolically obese normal-weight, metabolically healthy normal weight, metabolically healthy obese, and metabolically unfit obese.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Metabolic obesity was defined by having two or more metabolic risk factors including high triglycerides, low HDL cholesterol, high blood pressure, high fasting plasma glucose, or diabetes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers also measured waist circumference.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They found that among normal-weight women, the metabolically obese had significantly more total fat and more trunk fat compared with those who were metabolically healthy (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.05). There were no differences in waist circumference or lean mass.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Among obese women, the metabolically healthy had no significant differences in total body fat, compared with the metabolically unfit. But they had significantly more leg fat, a smaller waist circumference, and the same amounts of lean mass.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;We would have expected to see that metabolically healthy obese ladies would have more leg fat, but also more lean mass and less central fat, since this combination is protective against developing diabetes,&quot; Appleton said, &quot;but we didn&apos;t see that related to lean mass, which was surprising.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Normal-weight men who had metabolic problems had significantly more total fat and trunk (chest and abdominal) fat than metabolically healthy ones, but no differences in lean mass.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;And for obese men, there were no significant differences between the metabolically fit and unfit, which &quot;was a surprise,&quot; Appleton said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Men generally have much less fat and more lean mass,&quot; she added. &quot;Women are the other way around, so maybe it&apos;s not so surprising to see these effects specifically in women.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers did find that among all overweight patients, both male and female, metabolic health was associated with significantly lower waist circumference.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;We know specifically that fat around the abdomen is dangerous because it can drain into your blood very easily and have direct effects on organs including the liver and pancreas,&quot; Appleton said. &quot;The theory is that distribution of fat and maybe an alternative inflammatory profile protects obese ladies from developing the metabolic consequences you&apos;d expect to see in people who are obese.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Appleton said the study may have implications for clinical practice, adding that physicians should assess both BMI and waist circumference to determine disease risk. Moreover, physicians &quot;need to focus on healthy weight loss in a way that protects lean mass but also reduces dangerous fat deposits including central adiposity.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It also goes to show that &quot;just because somebody looks thin,&quot; Appleton added, &quot;doesn&apos;t mean they&apos;re healthy.&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 researchers 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_368"
                     title="Lancet Retracts 1998 MMR-Autism Paper"
                     score="0.011"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Vaccines/tb/18255?impressionId=1265741896906"
                     
      &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="0.011"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Vaccines/tb/18232?impressionId=1265741896906"
                     
      &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>