Last data update: Sep 30, 2024. (Total: 47785 publications since 2009)
Records 1-14 (of 14 Records) |
Query Trace: Kroger A [original query] |
---|
Correction: Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule, United States, 2020
Freedman M , Kroger A , Hunter P , Ault KA . Ann Intern Med 2020 172 (9) 640 The 2020 adult immunization schedule from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (1) contained an inaccuracy regarding the efficacy of PCV13. The Revised Content and Graphics section states that “PCV13 is a safe and potentially effective vaccine for older adults.” The word “potentially” is inaccurate. The sentence should state: “PCV13 is a safe and effective vaccine for older adults.” |
General recommendations on immunization --- recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)
Kroger AT , Sumaya CV , Pickering LK , Atkinson WL . MMWR Recomm Rep 2011 60 (2) 1-64 This report is a revision of the General Recommendations on Immunization and updates the 2006 statement by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) (CDC. General recommendations on immunization: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. MMWR 2006;55[No. RR-15]). The report also includes revised content from previous ACIP recommendations on the following topics: adult vaccination (CDC. Update on adult immunization recommendations of the immunization practices Advisory Committee [ACIP]. MMWR 1991;40[No. RR-12]); the assessment and feedback strategy to increase vaccination rates (CDC. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices: programmatic strategies to increase vaccination rates-assessment and feedback of provider-based vaccination coverage information. MMWR 1996;45:219-20); linkage of vaccination services and those of the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC program) (CDC. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices: programmatic strategies to increase vaccination coverage by age 2 years-linkage of vaccination and WIC services. MMWR 1996;45:217-8); adolescent immunization (CDC. Immunization of adolescents: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Medical Association. MMWR 1996;45[No. RR-13]); and combination vaccines (CDC. Combination vaccines for childhood immunization: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP], the American Academy of Pediatrics [AAP], and the American Academy of Family Physicians [AAFP]. MMWR 1999;48[No. RR-5]). Notable revisions to the 2006 recommendations include 1) revisions to the tables of contraindications and precautions to vaccination, as well as a separate table of conditions that are commonly misperceived as contraindications and precautions; 2) reordering of the report content, with vaccine risk-benefit screening, managing adverse reactions, reporting of adverse events, and the vaccine injury compensation program presented immediately after the discussion of contraindications and precautions; 3) stricter criteria for selecting an appropriate storage unit for vaccines; 4) additional guidance for maintaining the cold chain in the event of unavoidable temperature deviations; and 5) updated revisions for vaccination of patients who have received a hematopoietic cell transplant. The most recent ACIP recommendations for each specific vaccine should be consulted for comprehensive details. This report, ACIP recommendations for each vaccine, and additional information about vaccinations are available from CDC at http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines. |
American College of Rheumatology Guidance for COVID-19 vaccination in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: Version 5
Curtis JR , Johnson SR , Anthony DD , Arasaratnam RJ , Baden LR , Bass AR , Calabrese C , Gravallese EM , Harpaz R , Kroger A , Sadun RE , Turner AS , Williams EA , Mikuls TR . Arthritis Rheumatol 2023 75 (1) E1-e16 OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the use of COVID-19 vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: A task force was assembled that included 9 rheumatologists/immunologists, 2 infectious diseases specialists, and 2 public health physicians. After agreeing on scoping questions, an evidence report was created that summarized the published literature and publicly available data regarding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, as well as literature for other vaccines in RMD patients. Task force members rated their agreement with draft consensus statements on a 9-point numerical scoring system, using a modified Delphi process and the RAND/University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method, with refinement and iteration over 2 sessions. Consensus was determined based on the distribution of ratings. RESULTS: Despite a paucity of direct evidence, statements were developed by the task force and agreed upon with consensus to provide guidance for use of the COVID-19 vaccines, including supplemental/booster dosing, in RMD patients and to offer recommendations regarding the use and timing of immunomodulatory therapies around the time of vaccination. CONCLUSION: These guidance statements are intended to provide direction to rheumatology health care providers on how to best use COVID-19 vaccines and to facilitate implementation of vaccination strategies for RMD patients. |
Reply.
Curtis JR , Johnson SR , Anthony DD , Arasaratnam RJ , Baden LR , Gravallese EM , Bass AR , Calabrese C , Harpaz R , Kroger A , Sadun RE , Turner AS , Williams EA , Mikuls TR . Arthritis Rheumatol 2021 73 (9) 1769-1770 We appreciate the comment by Dr. Mortezavi and colleagues describing COVID‐19 vaccine response and the frequency of disease worsening in patients receiving tofacitinib. The ACR COVID‐19 Vaccine Clinical Guidance Task Force was aware of the 2 studies cited and appreciate their summary of the results. We would point out that in the rheumatoid arthritis study by Winthrop et al (1), patients receiving tofacitinib in Study A had a lower likelihood of a satisfactory response to pneumococcal vaccination (45.1%) compared to placebo‐treated patients (68.4%), a difference of 23.3% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] −36.6, −9.6%). The differences were numerically even larger for patients receiving concomitant tofacitinib and methotrexate (31.6% of patients with a satisfactory response, difference of −30.2% [95% CI] −47.3, −11.4%) compared to methotrexate monotherapy. Our challenge was in considering the appropriateness of extrapolating results from vaccine studies of influenza, pneumococcal, and tetanus toxoid vaccines to make inferences regarding the anticipated response to vaccination against SARS–CoV‐2, a novel antigen to which most individuals have not previously been exposed. | | The Task Force recognized that infection rates, and perhaps response to vaccinations against those infections, might be heterogeneous according to pathogen. For example, JAK inhibitors approximately double the incidence of herpes zoster compared to biologics such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, yet they do not meaningfully increase rates of other infections (e.g., pneumonia) (1, 2, 3). We noted that in the Oral Strategy study, adalimumab‐treated patients receiving vaccination with the live herpes zoster vaccine had lower incidence rates of herpes zoster (0.0 per 100 patient‐years) compared to non‐vaccinated patients (incidence rate 2.1 per 100 patient‐years) (4). In contrast, and recognizing that numbers were small, tofacitinib‐treated patients had similar rates of herpes zoster regardless of vaccination (incidence rate 3.0 per 100 patient‐years in vaccinated versus 2.2 per 100 patient‐years in unvaccinated patients). | | We also appreciate the data provided by Dr. Mortezavi and colleagues regarding the rate of disease worsening in patients whose treatment with tofacitinib was briefly interrupted. At ~ 2 weeks, the mean worsening in the 4‐variable DAS28 of 0.7 units was of smaller magnitude than typically considered the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for the DAS28 (i.e., >1.2 units) (5). The MCID for defining disease worsening using the CDAI in patients who had moderate disease activity at the start of treatment is undefined, although a 1‐unit change in each of the 4 CDAI components (tender joint count, swollen joint count, patient global, and physician global) is often considered to be the measurement error for each of these (6). Taken together, the mean amount of disease worsening associated with brief interruptions in therapy seems small and likely not of clinical importance for most patients, especially in light of the guidance recommending that JAK inhibitors be withheld for 1 week at the time of each vaccine administration, rather than for 2 consecutive weeks. | | Ultimately, we await prospective data regarding the influence of JAK inhibitors and other immunomodulatory therapies used at the time of COVID‐19 vaccination on immunogenicity and correlates of serologic protection. Since the ACR COVID‐19 Vaccine Guidance is a living document, our plan is to rapidly update it and incorporate new evidence as it accumulates. |
American College of Rheumatology Guidance for COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases: Version 3.
Curtis JR , Johnson SR , Anthony DD , Arasaratnam RJ , Baden LR , Bass AR , Calabrese C , Gravallese EM , Harpaz R , Kroger A , Sadun RE , Turner AS , Williams EA , Mikuls TR . Arthritis Rheumatol 2021 73 (10) e60-e75 OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: A task force was assembled that included 9 rheumatologists/immunologists, 2 infectious disease specialists, and 2 public health physicians. After agreeing on scoping questions, an evidence report was created that summarized the published literature and publicly available data regarding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, as well as literature for other vaccines in RMD patients. Task force members rated their agreement with draft consensus statements on a 9-point numerical scoring system, using a modified Delphi process and the RAND/University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method, with refinement and iteration over 2 sessions. Consensus was determined based on the distribution of ratings. RESULTS: Despite a paucity of direct evidence, 74 draft guidance statements were developed by the task force and agreed upon with consensus to provide guidance for use of the COVID-19 vaccines in RMD patients and to offer recommendations regarding the use and timing of immunomodulatory therapies around the time of vaccination. CONCLUSION: These guidance statements, made in the context of limited clinical data, are intended to provide direction to rheumatology health care providers on how to best use COVID-19 vaccines and to facilitate implementation of vaccination strategies for RMD patients. |
American College of Rheumatology Guidance for COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases: Version 4.
Curtis JR , Johnson SR , Anthony DD , Arasaratnam RJ , Baden LR , Bass AR , Calabrese C , Gravallese EM , Harpaz R , Kroger A , Sadun RE , Turner AS , Williams EA , Mikuls TR . Arthritis Rheumatol 2022 74 (5) e21-e36 OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the use of COVID-19 vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: A task force was assembled that included 9 rheumatologists/immunologists, 2 infectious disease specialists, and 2 public health physicians. After agreeing on scoping questions, an evidence report was created that summarized the published literature and publicly available data regarding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, as well as literature for other vaccines in RMD patients. Task force members rated their agreement with draft consensus statements on a 9-point numerical scoring system, using a modified Delphi process and the RAND/University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method, with refinement and iteration over 2 sessions. Consensus was determined based on the distribution of ratings. RESULTS: Despite a paucity of direct evidence, statements were developed by the task force and agreed upon with consensus to provide guidance for use of the COVID-19 vaccines, including supplemental/booster dosing, in RMD patients and to offer recommendations regarding the use and timing of immunomodulatory therapies around the time of vaccination. CONCLUSION: These guidance statements are intended to provide direction to rheumatology health care providers on how to best use COVID-19 vaccines and to facilitate implementation of vaccination strategies for RMD patients. |
American College of Rheumatology Guidance for COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases: Version 2.
Curtis JR , Johnson SR , Anthony DD , Arasaratnam RJ , Baden LR , Bass AR , Calabrese C , Gravallese EM , Harpaz R , Kroger A , Sadun RE , Turner AS , Williams EA , Mikuls TR . Arthritis Rheumatol 2021 73 (8) e30-e45 OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: A task force was assembled that included 9 rheumatologists/immunologists, 2 infectious disease specialists, and 2 public health physicians. After agreeing on scoping questions, an evidence report was created that summarized the published literature and publicly available data regarding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, as well as literature for other vaccines in RMD patients. Task force members rated their agreement with draft consensus statements on a 9-point numerical scoring system, using a modified Delphi process and the RAND/University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method, with refinement and iteration over 2 sessions. Consensus was determined based on the distribution of ratings. RESULTS: Despite a paucity of direct evidence, 74 draft guidance statements were developed by the task force and agreed upon with consensus to provide guidance for use of the COVID-19 vaccines in RMD patients and to offer recommendations regarding the use and timing of immunomodulatory therapies around the time of vaccination. CONCLUSION: These guidance statements, made in the context of limited clinical data, are intended to provide direction to rheumatology health care providers on how to best use COVID-19 vaccines and to facilitate implementation of vaccination strategies for RMD patients. |
American College of Rheumatology Guidance for COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases - Version 1.
Curtis JR , Johnson SR , Anthony DD , Arasaratnam RJ , Baden LR , Bass AR , Calabrese C , Gravallese EM , Harpaz R , Kroger A , Sadun RE , Turner AS , Anderson Williams E , Mikuls TR . Arthritis Rheumatol 2021 73 (7) 1093-1107 OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the use of COVID-19 vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: A task force was assembled that included 9 rheumatologists/immunologists, 2 infectious disease specialists, and 2 public health physicians. After agreeing on scoping questions, an evidence report was created that summarized the published literature and publicly available data regarding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, as well as literature for other vaccines in RMD patients. Task force members rated their agreement with draft consensus statements on a 1 to 9 point numerical rating scale using a modified Delphi process and the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method, with refinement and iteration over two sessions. Consensus was determined based on the distribution of ratings. RESULTS: Despite a paucity of direct evidence, seventy-four draft guidance statements were developed by the task force and agreed upon with consensus to provide guidance for use of the COVID-19 vaccines in RMD patients and to offer recommendations regarding the use and timing of immunomodulatory therapies around the time of vaccination. CONCLUSION: These guidance statements, made in the context of limited clinical data, are intended to provide direction to rheumatology healthcare providers on how to best use COVID-19 vaccines and to facilitate implementation of vaccination strategies for RMD patients. |
Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule, United States, 2020
Freedman M , Kroger A , Hunter P , Ault KA . Ann Intern Med 2020 172 (5) 337-347 In October 2019, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted to approve the Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule for Ages 19 Years or Older, United States, 2020. The 2020 adult immunization schedule, available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/adult.html, summarizes ACIP recommendations in two tables and accompanying notes (Figure). The full ACIP recommendations for each vaccine are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/index.html. The 2020 schedule has also been approved by the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and by the American College of Physicians (https://www.acponline.org), the American Academy of Family Physicians (https://www.aafp.org), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (http://www.acog.org), and the American College of Nurse-Midwives (https://www.midwife.org). |
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended immunization schedule for adults aged 19 years or older - United States, 2020
Freedman MS , Hunter P , Ault K , Kroger A . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020 69 (5) 133-135 At its October 2019 meeting, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted to recommend approval of the 2020 Recommended U.S. Adult Immunization Schedule for Persons Aged 19 Years and Older. The 2020 adult immunization schedule, available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/index.html) summarizes ACIP recommendations in two tables and accompanying notes. This 2020 adult immunization schedule has been approved by the CDC Director, the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American College of Nurse-Midwives. Health care providers are advised to use the tables and the notes together. |
Frequency and cost of live vaccines administered too soon after prior live vaccine in children aged 12months through 6years, 2014-2017
Kirtland KA , Lin X , Kroger AT , Myerburg S , Rodgers L . Vaccine 2019 37 (46) 6868-6873 OBJECTIVE: To identify number of children who received live vaccines outside recommended intervals between doses and calculate corrective revaccination costs. METHODS: We analyzed >1.6 million vaccination records for children aged 12months through 6years from six immunization information system (IIS) Sentinel Sites from 2014-15 when live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV, FluMist(R) Quadrivalent) was recommended for use, and from 2016-17, when not recommended for use. Depending on the vaccine, insufficient intervals between live vaccine doses are less than 24 or 28days from a preceding live vaccine dose. Private and public purchase costs of vaccines were used to determine revaccination costs of live vaccine doses administered during the live vaccine conflict interval. Measles, mumps, rubella (MMR), varicella, combined MMRV, and LAIV were live vaccines evaluated in this study. RESULTS: Among 946,659 children who received at least one live vaccine dose from 2014-15, 4,873 (0.5%) received at least one dose too soon after a prior live vaccine (revaccination cost, $786,413) with a median conflict interval of 16days. Among 704,591 children who received at least one live vaccine dose from 2016-17, 1,001 (0.1%) received at least one dose too soon after a prior live vaccine (revaccination cost, $181,565) with a median conflict interval of 14days. The live vaccine most frequently administered outside of the recommended intervals was LAIV from 2014-15, and varicella from 2016-17. CONCLUSIONS: Live vaccine interval errors were rare (0.5%), indicating an adherence to recommendations. If all invalid doses were corrected by revaccination over the two time periods, the cost within the IIS Sentinel Sites would be nearly one million dollars. Provider awareness about live vaccine conflicts, especially with LAIV, could prevent errors, and utilization of clinical decision support functionality within IISs and Electronic Health Record Systems can facilitate better vaccination practices. |
Lifestyle factors and mortality among adults with diabetes: findings from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Potsdam study
Nothlings U , Ford ES , Kroger J , Boeing H . J Diabetes 2010 2 (2) 112-117 BACKGROUND: Healthy lifestyle behaviors are among the cornerstones of diabetes self-management, but the extent to which healthy lifestyle factors could potentially prevent premature mortality among people with diabetes remains unknown. The aim of the present study was to estimate the reduction in mortality that could be achieved if people with diabetes did not smoke, had a body mass index <30 kg/m2, performed physical activity for >=3.5 h/week, reported better dietary habits, and consumed alcohol moderately. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of 1263 German men and women with diabetes aged 35-65 years who were followed for an average of 7.8 years was used and multivariate Cox regression models for all-cause and cause-specific mortality were calculated. RESULTS: Approximately 7% of study participants had no favorable factors, 24% had one, 35% had two, and 34% had three or more. Compared with participants who had no favorable factors, the reduction in risk was 34% [95% confidence interval (CI) 19%, 63%] for those with one favorable factor, 49% (95% CI 9%, 71%) for those with two, and 63% (95% CI 31%, 80%) for those with three or more. Furthermore, a competing risk analysis did not show any difference in the inverse associations with mortality due to cardiovascular disease, cancer, or other causes. CONCLUSIONS: Favorable lifestyle factors can potentially achieve substantial reductions in premature mortality among people with diabetes. Our results emphasize the importance of helping people with diabetes optimize their lifestyle behaviors. 2010 Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine and Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd. |
Television watching and incident diabetes: findings from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Potsdam Study
Ford ES , Schulze MB , Kröger J , Pischon T , Bergmann MM , Boeing H . J Diabetes 2010 2 (1) 23-27 BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to examine whether the amount of time spent watching television is a potential risk factor for incident diabetes and to what extent this association may be explained by obesity. METHODS: We used data for 23 855 men and women from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Potsdam Study. During an average of 7.8 years of follow-up, 927 participants developed diabetes. Incident diabetes was identified on the basis of self-report and was verified by contacting the patient's attending physician. The amount of time spent watching television was self-reported. RESULTS: The mean time that the participants who developed diabetes watched television was 2.4 h/week, compared with 2.0 h/week for those who did not develop diabetes (P<0.001). After adjusting for age, sex, educational status, smoking status, alcohol use, occupational activity, physical activity, the intake of various foods, and systolic blood pressure, the adjusted hazard ratio for diabetes among participants who watched ≥4 h/day of television compared with those who watched <1 h/day was 1.63 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.17-2.27]. After additional adjustment for waist circumference and body mass index, the hazard ratio was reduced to 1.14 (95% CI: 0.81-1.61). CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, the amount of time spent watching television was an independent predictor of incident diabetes only in models that adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, lifestyle behaviors, and systolic blood pressure. The attenuation of the association after adjusting for anthropometric measures may represent an explanatory mechanism for our findings. |
Healthy living is the best revenge: findings from the European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition-Potsdam study
Ford ES , Bergmann MM , Kroger J , Schienkiewitz A , Weikert C , Boeing H . Arch Intern Med 2009 169 (15) 1355-62 BACKGROUND: Our objective was to describe the reduction in relative risk of developing major chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cancer associated with 4 healthy lifestyle factors among German adults. METHODS: We used data from 23,153 German participants aged 35 to 65 years from the European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition-Potsdam study. End points included confirmed incident type 2 diabetes mellitus, myocardial infarction, stroke, and cancer. The 4 factors were never smoking, having a body mass index lower than 30 (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared), performing 3.5 h/wk or more of physical activity, and adhering to healthy dietary principles (high intake of fruits, vegetables, and whole-grain bread and low meat consumption). The 4 factors (healthy, 1 point; unhealthy, 0 points) were summed to form an index that ranged from 0 to 4. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 7.8 years, 2006 participants developed new-onset diabetes (3.7%), myocardial infarction (0.9%), stroke (0.8%), or cancer (3.8%). Fewer than 4% of participants had zero healthy factors, most had 1 to 3 healthy factors, and approximately 9% had 4 factors. After adjusting for age, sex, educational status, and occupational status, the hazard ratio for developing a chronic disease decreased progressively as the number of healthy factors increased. Participants with all 4 factors at baseline had a 78% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72% to 83%) lower risk of developing a chronic disease (diabetes, 93% [95% CI, 88% to 95%]; myocardial infarction, 81% [95% CI, 47% to 93%]; stroke, 50% [95% CI, -18% to 79%]; and cancer, 36% [95% CI, 5% to 57%]) than participants without a healthy factor. CONCLUSION: Adhering to 4 simple healthy lifestyle factors can have a strong impact on the prevention of chronic diseases. |
- Page last reviewed:Feb 1, 2024
- Page last updated:Sep 30, 2024
- Content source:
- Powered by CDC PHGKB Infrastructure