Multidisciplinary, evidence-based consensus guidelines for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in high-risk populations, Spain, 2016.

Introduction: Although human papillomavirus (HPV) routine vaccination programmes have been implemented around the world and recommendations have been expanded to include other high-risk individuals, current recommendations often differ between countries in Europe, as well as worldwide. Aim: To find and summarise the best available evidence of HPV vaccination in high-risk patients aiding clinicians and public health workers in the day-to-day vaccine decisions relating to HPV in Spain. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the immunogenicity, safety and efficacy/effectiveness of HPV vaccination in high-risk populations between January 2006 and June 2016. HPV vaccination recommendations were established with levels of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Results: A strong recommendation about HPV vaccination was made in the following groups: HIV infected patients aged 9-26 years; men who have sex with men aged 9-26 years; women with precancerous cervical lesions; patients with congenital bone marrow failure syndrome; women who have received a solid organ transplant or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation aged 9-26 years; and patients diagnosed with recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. Conclusions: Data concerning non-routine HPV vaccination in populations with a high risk of HPV infection and associated lesions were scarce. We have developed a document to evaluate and establish evidence-based guidelines on HPV vaccination in high-risk populations in Spain, based on best available scientific evidence

Reactogenicity to the mRNA-1273 Booster According to Previous mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination

COVID-19-vaccination; Adverse reactions; Booster doseVacunación de COVID-19; Reacciones adversas; Dosis de refuerzoVacunació de COVID-19; Reaccions adverses; Dosi de reforçThe objective of this study was to assess the local and systemic adverse reactions after the administration of a COVID-19 mRNA-1273 booster between December 2021 and February 2022 by comparing the type of mRNA vaccine used as primary series (mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2) and homologous versus heterologous booster in health care workers (HCW). A cross-sectional study was performed in HCW at a tertiary hospital in Barcelona, Spain. A total of 17% of booster recipients responded to the questionnaire. The frequency of reactogenicity after the mRNA-1273 booster (88.5%) was similar to the mRNA-1273 primary doses (85.8%), and higher than the BNT162b2 primary doses (71.1%). The reactogenicity was similar after receiving a heterologous booster compared to a homologous booster (88.0% vs. 90.2%, p = 0.3), and no statistically significant differences were identified in any local or systemic reactions. A higher frequency of medical leave was identified in the homologous booster dose group vs. the heterologous booster dose group (AOR 1.45; 95% CI: 1.00–2.07; p = 0.045). Our findings could be helpful in improving vaccine confidence toward heterologous combinations in the general population and in health care workers

Adherence and Toxicity during the Treatment of Latent Tuberculous Infection in a Referral Center in Spain

Latent tuberculosis infection; Toxicity; Tuberculosis screeningInfecció tuberculosa latent; Toxicitat; Cribratge de tuberculosiInfección tuberculosa latente; Toxicidad; Cribado de tuberculosisThe screening and treatment of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) in countries with a low incidence of TB is a key strategy for the elimination of tuberculosis (TB). However, treatment can result in adverse events (AEs) and have poor adherence. This study aimed to describe treatment outcomes and AEs for LTBI patients at two departments in Vall d'Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona, Spain. A retrospective study was conducted on all persons treated for LTBI between January 2018 and December 2020. Variables collected included demographics, the reason for LTBI screening and treatment initiation, AEs related to treatment, and treatment outcome. Out of 261 persons who initiated LTBI treatment, 145 (55.6%) were men, with a median age of 42.1 years. The indications for LTBI screening were household contact of a TB case in 96 (36.8%) persons, immunosuppressive treatment in 84 (32.2%), and recently arrived migrants from a country with high TB incidence in 81 (31.0%). Sixty-three (24.1%) persons presented at least one AE during treatment, and seven (2.7%) required definitive discontinuation of treatment. In the multivariate analysis, AE development was more frequent in those who started LTBI treatment due to immunosuppression. Overall, 226 (86.6%) completed treatment successfully. We concluded that LTBI screening and treatment groups had different risks for adverse events and treatment outcomes. Persons receiving immunosuppressive treatment were at higher risk of developing AEs, and recently arrived immigrants from countries with a high incidence of TB had greater LTFU. A person-centered adherence and AE management plan is recommended.A.M.L. was supported by a postdoctoral grant “Juan Rodés” (JE21/00027) from the Instituto de Salud Carlos through the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, Spain

A single-dose strategy for immunization with live attenuated vaccines is an effective option before treatment initiation in multiple sclerosis patients

Multiple sclerosis; Infections; VaccinationEsclerosi múltiple; Infeccions; VacunacióEsclerosis múltiple; Infecciones; VacunaciónBackground: Mumps-Measles-Rubella (MMR) and Varicella zoster vaccines (VAR) are live attenuated vaccines, usually administered in a two-dose scheme at least 4 weeks apart. However, single-dose immunization schemes may also be effective and can reduce delays in immunosuppressive treatment initiation in patients with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) who need to be immunized. Objectives: To evaluate the immunogenicity of a single-dose attempt (SDA) versus the standard immunization scheme (SIS) with VAR and/or MMR in pwMS. Methods: Retrospective observational study in pwMS vaccinated against VAR and/or MMR. We compared seroprotection rates and antibody geometric mean titers (GMTs) between the two strategies. Results: Ninety-six patients were included. Thirty-one patients received VAR and 67 MMR. In the SDA group, the seroprotection rate was 66.7% (95% confidence interval (CI): 53.3–78.3) versus 97.2% (95% CI: 85.5–99.9) in the SIS (p < 0.001). For the seroprotected patients, GMTs were similar for both schemes. Conclusion: An SDA of VAR and/or MMR vaccines could be sufficient to protect almost two-thirds of patients. Testing immunogenicity after a single dose of VZ and/or MMR could be included in routine clinical practice to achieve rapid immunization.This study has been funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII) through the project PI19/01606 and co-funded by the European Union and ECTRIMS clinical fellowship awarded to René Carvajal from 2021 to 2022

Local and Systemic Adverse Reactions to mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Comparing Two Vaccine Types and Occurrence of Previous COVID-19 Infection

The aim of this study was to assess adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, comparing the BNT162b2 or the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines and the presence and seriousness of a previous COVID-19 infection. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of vaccinated healthcare workers at a tertiary hospital in Barcelona (Spain). Thirty-eight percent of vaccine recipients responded to the questionnaire. We compared the prevalence of adverse reactions by vaccine type and history of COVID-19 infections. A total of 2373 respondents had received the BNT162b2 vaccine, and 506 the mRNA-1273 vaccine. The prevalence of at least one adverse reaction with doses 1 and 2 was 41% and 70%, respectively, in the BNT162b2 group, and 60% and 92% in the mRNA-1273 group (p &lt; 0.001). The BNT162b2 group reported less prevalence of all adverse reactions. Need for medical leave was significantly more frequent among the mRNA-1273 group (12% versus 4.6% p &lt; 0.001). Interestingly, respondents with a history of allergies or chronic illnesses did not report more adverse reactions. The frequency of adverse reactions with dose 2 was 96% (95% CI 88&ndash;100%) for those with a history of COVID-19 related hospitalization, and 86% (95% CI 83&ndash;89%) for those with mild or moderate symptomatic COVID-19, significantly higher than for participants with no history of COVID-19 infections (67%, 95% CI 65&ndash;69%). Our results could help inform vaccine recipients of the probability of their having adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines

Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness against Hospitalization, Season 2021/22: A Test-Negative Design Study in Barcelona

Background: Vaccination is considered the most effective measure for preventing influenza and its complications. The influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) varies annually due to the evolution of influenza viruses and the update of vaccine composition. Assessing the IVE is crucial to facilitate decision making in public health policies. Aim: to estimate the IVE against hospitalization and its determinants in the 2021/22 season in a Spanish tertiary hospital. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational test-negative design study within the Development of Robust and Innovative Vaccine Effectiveness (DRIVE) project. Hospitalized patients with severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) and an available influenza reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) were selected and classified as cases (positive influenza RT-PCR) or controls (negative influenza RT-PCR). Vaccine information was obtained from electronic clinical records shared by public healthcare providers. Information about potential confounders was obtained from hospital clinical registries. The IVE was calculated by subtracting the ratio of the odds of vaccination in cases and controls from one, as a percentage (IVE = (1 − odds ratio (OR)) × 100). Multivariate IVE estimates were calculated using logistic regression. Results: In total, 260 severe acute respiratory infections (SARI) were identified, of which 34 were positive for influenza, and all were subtype A(H3N2). Fifty-three percent were vaccinated. Adjusted IVE against hospitalization was 26.4% (95% CI −69% to 112%). IVE determinants could not be explored due to sample size limitations. Conclusion: Our data revealed non-significant moderate vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization for the 2021/2022 season