Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39790207›Full record

ArticleCardiovascular diagnosis and therapy2024

Twins with at least one with CHD and their immunisation status in direct comparison-are both twins complying with the German immunisation recommendations?

Julia Remmele, Paul C Helm, Jia Li, Renate Oberhoffer-Fritz, Ulrike M M Bauer, Peter Ewert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Julia RemmeleDepartment of Congenital Heart Disease and Pediatric Cardiology, German Heart Center Munich, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0887-3231
Paul C HelmNational Register for Congenital Heart Defects, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1868-4266
Jia LiDepartment of Congenital Heart Disease and Pediatric Cardiology, German Heart Center Munich, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-3685-1584
Renate Oberhoffer-FritzInstitute of Preventive Pediatrics, Department of Health and Sport Sciences, TUM School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3166-0488
Ulrike M M Bauer *National Register for Congenital Heart Defects, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6317-3609
Peter Ewert *Department of Congenital Heart Disease and Pediatric Cardiology, German Heart Center Munich, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0253-1190

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Patients with congenital heart defects (CHDs) are at higher risk for infectious diseases. This may partly be due to frequent hospital stays and the associated exposure to pathogens. This study aims to provide a comprehensive overview of immunisation coverage among twins in which at least one twin has CHD. Confounding factors from shared environments and genetic components can be controlled through co-twin control analysis, thus minimising confounding effects. Methods: In the framework of the cross-sectional twin study "Same Same, but different?" twins, with at least one of them having CHD aged 3 to 99 years, were recruited nationwide in Germany between August 2019 and December 2022. Their primary immunisation status based on the German Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO) and immunisation against respiratory diseases, including influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), pneumococci, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), were assessed and compared between the twins. Results: In total, 64 twins (128 individuals) were included for direct twin comparison. Overall, 56.3% of the twins reached complete primary immunisation status, negatively influenced by hospitalisation duration [odds ratio (OR): 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.96-0.99; P=0.01]. Compared to their healthy twin, twins with CHD received their rotavirus vaccine significantly later (P=0.04). Only 3.1% of the twins with CHD received the pneumococcal vaccine recommended for high-risk patients. A higher number of catheter interventions can lead to a higher number of patients receiving the pneumococcal vaccine (OR: 1.79; 95% CI: 1.16-2.76; P=0.009). The direct twin comparison showed a significant difference between the twins in vaccination against influenza (P=0.007), although it is recommended for CHD patients and their household contacts-including their twin. A higher number of surgeries (OR: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.12-2.05; P=0.007) and catheter interventions (OR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.00-2.21; P=0.049) increase the probability of influenza vaccination in CHD patients. Conclusions: In the direct twin comparison, twins are similarly vaccinated except for RSV and influenza. Immunisation against influenza in twins should be improved. With new upcoming RSV vaccines, existing recommendations must be reconsidered and adapted. Another disturbing fact is that only 30% of infants are vaccinated against pertussis and pneumococcus within the primary recommended timeframe, even though they are exposed at high risk during infancy. Further education of parents, patients, and medical staff might lead to higher vaccination coverage, especially in pneumococcal vaccines recommended for high-risk patients. We must provide sufficient information on the importance of vaccinations and their side effects for parents' and patients' decision-making.

Indexed as

congenital heart defects (CHD)immunisation‘Same Same but different’Twins studyvaccination

Identifiers

PMID39790207
PMCPMC11707476

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.