Kristin Goddard

Overdose Education and Naloxone for Patients Prescribed Opioids in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study of Primary Care Staff

ABSTRACTBACKGROUNDThe rate of fatal unintentional pharmaceutical opioid poisonings has increased substantially since the late 1990s. Naloxone is an effective opioid antidote that can be prescribed to patients for bystander use in the event of an overdose. Primary care clinics represent settings in which large populations of patients prescribed opioids could be reached for overdose education and naloxone prescription.OBJECTIVEOur aim was to investigate the knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about overdose education and naloxone prescription among clinical staff in primary care.DESIGNThis was a qualitative study using focus groups to elucidate both clinic-level and provider-level barriers and facilitators.SETTINGTen primary care internal medicine, family medicine and infectious disease/HIV practices in three large Colorado health systems.METHODSA focus group guide was developed based on behavioral theory. Focus group transcripts were coded for manifest and latent meaning, and analyzed for themes using a recursive approach that included inductive and deductive analysis.RESULTSThemes emerged in four content areas related to overdose education and naloxone prescription: knowledge, barriers, benefits and facilitators. Clinical staff (N = 56) demonstrated substantial knowledge gaps about naloxone and its use in outpatient settings. They expressed uncertainty about who to prescribe naloxone to, and identified a range of logistical barriers to its use in practice. Staff also described fears about offending patients and concerns about increased risk behaviors in patients prescribed naloxone. When considering naloxone, some providers reflected critically and with discomfort on their own opioid prescribing. These barriers were balanced by beliefs that prescribing naloxone could prevent death and result in safer opioid use behaviors.LIMITATIONSFindings from these qualitative focus groups may not be generalizable to other settings.CONCLUSIONIn addition to evidence gaps, logistical and attitudinal barriers will need to be addressed to enhance uptake of overdose education and naloxone prescription for patients prescribed opioids for pain.

Development of an Interactive Social Media Tool for Parents With Concerns About Vaccines

Objective. Describe a process for designing, building, and evaluating a theory-driven social media intervention tool to help reduce parental concerns about vaccination. Method. We developed an interactive web-based tool using quantitative and qualitative methods (e.g., survey, focus groups, individual interviews, and usability testing). Results. Survey results suggested that social media may represent an effective intervention tool to help parents make informed decisions about vaccination for their children. Focus groups and interviews revealed four main themes for development of the tool: Parents wanted information describing both benefits and risks of vaccination, transparency of sources of information, moderation of the tool by an expert, and ethnic and racial diversity in the visual display of people. Usability testing showed that parents were satisfied with the usability of the tool but had difficulty with performing some of the informational searches. Based on focus groups, interviews, and usability evaluations, we made additional revisions to the tool’s content, design, functionality, and overall look and feel. Conclusion. Engaging parents at all stages of development is critical when designing a tool to address concerns about childhood vaccines. Although this can be both resource- and time-intensive, the redesigned tool is more likely to be accepted and used by parents. Next steps involve a formal evaluation through a randomized trial.

White Paper on studying the safety of the childhood immunization schedule in the Vaccine Safety Datalink.

While the large majority of parents in the U.S. vaccinate their children according to the recommended immunization schedule, some parents have refused or delayed vaccinating, often citing safety concerns. In response to public concern, the U.S. Institute of Medicine (IOM) evaluated existing research regarding the safety of the recommended immunization schedule. The IOM concluded that although available evidence strongly supported the safety of the currently recommended schedule as a whole, additional observational research was warranted to compare health outcomes between fully vaccinated children and those on a delayed or alternative schedule. In addition, the IOM identified the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) as an important resource for conducting this research. Guided by the IOM findings, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) commissioned a White Paper to assess how the VSD could be used to study the safety of the childhood immunization schedule. Guided by subject matter expert engagement, the resulting White Paper outlines a 4 stage approach for identifying exposure groups of undervaccinated children, presents a list of health outcomes of highest priority to examine in this context, and describes various study designs and statistical methods that could be used to analyze the safety of the schedule. While it appears feasible to study the safety of the recommended immunization schedule in settings such as the VSD, these studies will be inherently complex, and as with all observational studies, will need to carefully address issues of confounding and bias. In light of these considerations, decisions about conducting studies of the safety of the schedule will also need to assess epidemiological evidence of potential adverse events that could be related to the schedule, the biological plausibility of an association between an adverse event and the schedule, and public concern about the safety of the schedule.

Vaccination Patterns in Children After Autism Spectrum Disorder Diagnosis and in Their Younger Siblings

Importance In recent years, rates of vaccination have been declining. Whether this phenomenon disproportionately affects children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or their younger siblings is unknown. Objectives To investigate if children after receiving an ASD diagnosis obtain their remaining scheduled vaccines according to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendations and to compare the vaccination patterns of younger siblings of children with ASD with the vaccination patterns of younger siblings of children without ASD. Design, Setting, and Participants This investigation was a retrospective matched cohort study. The setting was 6 integrated health care delivery systems across the United States within the Vaccine Safety Datalink. Participants were children born between January 1, 1995, and September 30, 2010, and their younger siblings born between January 1, 1997, and September 30, 2014. The end of follow-up was September 30, 2015. Exposures Recommended childhood vaccines between ages 1 month and 12 years. Main Outcome and Measure The proportion of children who received all of their vaccine doses according to ACIP recommendations. Results The study included 3729 children with ASD (676 [18.1%] female), 592 907 children without ASD, and their respective younger siblings. Among children without ASD, 250 193 (42.2%) were female. For vaccines recommended between ages 4 and 6 years, children with ASD were significantly less likely to be fully vaccinated compared with children without ASD (adjusted rate ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.85-0.88). Within each age category, vaccination rates were significantly lower among younger siblings of children with ASD compared with younger siblings of children without ASD. The adjusted rate ratios varied from 0.86 for siblings younger than 1 year to 0.96 for those 11 to 12 years old. Parents who had a child with ASD were more likely to refuse at least 1 recommended vaccine for that child’s younger sibling and to limit the number of vaccines administered during the younger sibling’s first year of life. Conclusions and Relevance Children with ASD and their younger siblings were undervaccinated compared with the general population. The results of this study suggest that children with ASD and their younger siblings are at increased risk of vaccine-preventable diseases.

No association between influenza vaccination during pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes

BACKGROUND Pregnant women are recommended to receive inactivated influenza vaccination anytime during pregnancy. Studies have investigated the impact of influenza vaccination during pregnancy on birth outcomes and results on preterm birth have been inconsistent. METHODS We conducted a retrospective cohort study among children born at a gestational age≥24weeks from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2015 at Kaiser Permanente Northern California facilities (KPNC). We evaluated the association between maternal influenza vaccination during pregnancy and risk of preterm birth, small and large for gestational age, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), respiratory distress syndrome, low birth weight, and low Apgar score. We ascertained the dates of maternal influenza vaccination, conception, and delivery, as well as birth outcomes from KPNC inpatient and outpatient databases. Conditional multivariate Cox regression and logistic regression analyses were used to determine the association between maternal vaccination during pregnancy and risk of each birth outcome. RESULTS The study included 145,869 children. Maternal influenza vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with risk of small or large for gestational age births, preterm birth, need for mechanical ventilation at birth, respiratory distress syndrome, admission to the NICU, low birth weight, or low Apgar score. However, when we did not control for immortal time bias, the risk of preterm birth (odds ratio [OR]=0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.72) was lower among infants of vaccinated mothers. CONCLUSION We found no association between maternal influenza vaccination during pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes. When investigating preterm birth outcome in association with vaccination during pregnancy, immortal time bias should be taken into account in the analysis.

Kaiser Permanente Northern California pregnancy database: Description and proof of concept study

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE We describe the establishment of a dynamic database linking mothers to newborns with the goal of studying vaccine safety in both pregnant women and their children and provide results of a study utilizing this database as a proof of concept. METHODS All Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) live births and their mothers were eligible for inclusion in the pregnancy database. We used the medical record number (MRN), a unique identifier, to retrieve information about events that occurred during the pregnancy and at delivery and linked this same MRN to newborns for post-partum follow up. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate the association between receipt of tetanus, diphtheria and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine during pregnancy and fever 0-3days after the first dose of diphtheria tetanus and acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccine in the infant. The study included infants who were born at ⩾37weeks gestation from January 1, 2009 - October 1, 2015 and who received their first DTaP vaccine between 6 and 10weeks of age. We utilized diagnostic codes from inpatient, emergency department, outpatient clinics, and telephone calls. We identified fever using ICD 9 code 780.6, recorded temperature ⩾101 degree Fahrenheit, or parental report. RESULTS The database contained the starting and ending date of each pregnancy and basic demographic characteristics of mothers and infants. There were 859,699 women and 873,753 children in the database as of January 2016. The proof of concept study included 148,699 infants. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, Tdap vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with infant fever 0-3daysafter first dose of DTaP (adjusted odds ratio=0.92, 95% CI 0.82-1.04). CONCLUSION The KPNC pregnancy database can be used for studies investigating exposure during pregnancy and outcomes in mothers and/or infants, particularly monitoring vaccine safety and effectiveness.

Using a Handheld Device for Patient Data Collection: A Pilot for Medical Countermeasures Surveillance.

Medical countermeasures (MCMs) are medical products used during public health emergencies. This study, conducted within the Mini-Sentinel Initiative, sought to develop the patient identification and matching processes necessary to assess safety outcomes for MCMs. A handheld device was used to collect identifying information (e.g., name, birthdate, and sex) from the drivers licenses of 421 individuals presenting for routine care at their primary care medical office. Overall, 374 individuals (88.8%) could be linked to their electronic health data using drivers license information. The device was also pilot-tested at a seasonal influenza immunization clinic: detailed vaccine information (e.g., lot number and manufacturer) was captured with a high degree of accuracy. This investigation demonstrated that a handheld device is a feasible means of collecting patient identity and medical product receipt data. This capacity should be useful for safety surveillance of MCMs, particularly when dispensed in settings outside the traditional health-care delivery system.

Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in Preventing Influenza-associated Hospitalizations During Pregnancy: A Multi-country Retrospective Test Negative Design Study, 2010–2016

BACKGROUND To date, no study has examined influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) against laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalizations during pregnancy. METHODS The Pregnancy Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network (PREVENT) consisted of public health or healthcare systems with integrated laboratory, medical, and vaccination records in Australia, Canada (Alberta and Ontario), Israel, and the United States (California, Oregon, and Washington). Sites identified pregnant women aged 18 through 50 years whose pregnancies overlapped with local influenza seasons from 2010 through 2016. Administrative data were used to identify hospitalizations with acute respiratory or febrile illness (ARFI) and clinician-ordered real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) testing for influenza viruses. Overall IVE was estimated using the test-negative design and adjusting for site, season, season timing, and high-risk medical conditions. RESULTS Among 19450 hospitalizations with an ARFI discharge diagnosis (across 25 site-specific study seasons), only 1030 (6%) of the pregnant women were tested for influenza viruses by rRT-PCR. Approximately half of these women had pneumonia or influenza discharge diagnoses (54%). Influenza A or B virus infections were detected in 598/1030 (58%) of the ARFI hospitalizations with influenza testing. Across sites and seasons, 13% of rRT-PCR-confirmed influenza-positive pregnant women were vaccinated compared with 22% of influenza-negative pregnant women; the adjusted overall IVE was 40% (95% confidence interval = 12%-59%) against influenza-associated hospitalization during pregnancy. CONCLUSION Between 2010 and 2016, influenza vaccines offered moderate protection against laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalizations during pregnancy, which may further inform the benefits of maternal influenza vaccination programs.

The Pregnancy Vaccine Effectiveness Network (PREVENT): Establishing a Multi-Country Cohort to Estimate Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) against Hospitalized Influenza during Pregnancy

Abstract Background Pregnant women are at greater risk of complications from influenza (flu) infection than the general population. Although vaccination is an effective method to prevent influenza, the vaccine is underutilized during pregnancy. A challenge to maternal flu vaccination is the paucity of data about the effectiveness of inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV) in preventing severe outcomes in pregnant women. To inform policy and address this knowledge gap, CDC developed a multi-country collaboration to investigate the preventive value of IIV during pregnancy during multiple flu seasons. We present the progress to date of this Network. Methods PREVENT was established in April 2016 to: i) estimate incidence of influenza and vaccination rates; ii) describe epidemiologic characteristics associated with illness; and iii) estimate IIV effectiveness in preventing hospitalizations during pregnancy associated with RT PCR -confirmed influenza. We selected sites that could identify the population of women known to be pregnant during flu seasons and integrate their hospitalization data, clinical laboratory testing, and vaccination records. We will assess VE using the case test-negative control design and use meta-analyses to pool VE estimates across sites and account for significant differences. Primary analyses will be completed by August 2017. Results Seven sites in Australia, Canada, Israel, and the US were selected; a protocol and data dictionary were finalized. We identified 1,024 pregnant women hospitalized with acute respiratory illness and RT-PCR tested, during six influenza seasons (2010–11 through 2015–16). Of the qualifying women, 550 (54%) tested positive for flu. Positivity varied by site (range 41% (US)–61.8% (Ontario, CAN)), and vaccination coverage varied across sites and seasons (range 7.3% (Ontario, CAN)–46% (US)). Analyses will examine flu season characteristics, vaccination patterns, and clinical and birth outcomes related to respiratory illness during pregnancy and flu incidence. Conclusion Laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalization during pregnancy is a relatively low-frequency event. Pooling data across multiple sites offers a way to estimate VE against severe influenza outcomes in pregnant women that is informative to influenza vaccine policy. Disclosures A. Naleway, MedImmune: Investigator, Research grant; Pfizer: Investigator, Research grant; Merck: Investigator, Grant recipient; N. P. Klein, GSK: Investigator, Research grant; sanofi pasteur: Investigator, Grant recipient; Merck & Co: Investigator, Grant recipient; MedImmune: Investigator, Grant recipient; Protein Science: Investigator, Research grant; Pfizer: Investigator, Grant recipient; S. Irving, Medimmune/AstraZeneca: Investigator, Research support