4.5 Article

Vaccine patterns among patients diagnosed with Guillain-Barre Syndrome and matched counterparts in a Medicare supplemental population, 2000-2020

期刊

VACCINE
卷 41, 期 39, 页码 5763-5768

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.08.014

关键词

Guillain-Barre Syndrome; GBS; Vaccine; Vaccines; Weighted mean cumulative count; ACIP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vaccine use decreases after the diagnosis of Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), indicating a disconnect between clinical practice and current recommendations.
Some vaccines have a small risk of Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), a rare autoimmune disorder characterized by paralysis if untreated. The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) guidelines do not consider GBS a precaution for future vaccines unless GBS developed within six weeks after a tetanus-toxoid-containing vaccine or influenza vaccine. Our goal was to describe vaccine patterns before and after GBS diagnosis. We matched each of 709 patients diagnosed with GBS from 2002 to 2020 with Medicare supplemental insurance to 10 counterparts without GBS (1:10) on age and sex. Propensity score-based weighting balanced covariates between groups, and we estimated weighted mean cumulative counts (wMCC) of vaccines/person before and after GBS diagnosis. Among patients with GBS, 7% were diagnosed within 42 days after a vaccine. Prior to GBS diagnosis, the wMCC of vaccines per person was similar between GBS cases and matched counterparts, but after two years of follow-up, GBS patients received 21 fewer vaccines/100 people than counterparts (wMCC difference -0.21 vaccines/person, 95% CI -0.24 to -0.18); GBS patients received 16 vaccines/100 people while matched counterparts received 36/100. Vaccine use was reduced following GBS diagnosis despite no ACIP precaution for most (93%) patients in this study. The observed drop in vaccines after GBS diagnosis indicates a disconnect between clinical practice and current recommendations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据