Advisory Committee On Immunization Practices Research Articles

Current COVID-19 vaccine trials in high-income countries: are placebo-controlled trials ethical?

Current COVID-19 vaccine trials in high-income countries: are placebo-controlled trials ethical?

COVID-19 Vaccine Safety in Adolescents Aged 12-17 Years - United States, December 14, 2020-July 16, 2021.

As of July 30, 2021, among the three COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the United States, only the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine is authorized for adolescents aged 12-17 years. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for use in persons aged ≥16 years on December 11, 2020 (1); the EUA was expanded to include adolescents aged 12-15 years on May 10, 2021 (2), based on results from a Phase 3 clinical trial (3). Beginning in June 2021, cases of myocarditis and myopericarditis (hereafter, myocarditis) after receipt of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine began to be reported, primarily among young males after receipt of the second dose (4,5). On June 23, 2021, CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) reviewed available data and concluded that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination to individual persons and the population outweigh the risks for myocarditis and recommended continued use of the vaccine in persons aged ≥12 years (6). To further characterize safety of the vaccine, adverse events after receipt of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and adverse events and health impact assessments reported in v-safe (a smartphone-based safety surveillance system) were reviewed for U.S. adolescents aged 12-17 years during December 14, 2020-July 16, 2021. As of July 16, 2021, approximately 8.9 million U.S. adolescents aged 12-17 years had received Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.* VAERS received 9,246 reports after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination in this age group; 90.7% of these were for nonserious adverse events and 9.3% were for serious adverse events, including myocarditis (4.3%). Approximately 129,000 U.S. adolescents aged 12-17 years enrolled in v-safe after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination; they reported local (63.4%) and systemic (48.9%) reactions with a frequency similar to that reported in preauthorization clinical trials. Systemic reactions were more common after dose 2. CDC and FDA continue to monitor vaccine safety and provide data to ACIP to guide COVID-19 vaccine recommendations.

Immunization Update 2021

Immunization Update 2021

Editorial introductions

Editorial introductions

Acceptability of Adolescent COVID-19 Vaccination Among Adolescents and Parents of Adolescents - United States, April 15-23, 2021.

On May 10, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expanded its Emergency Use Authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to include adolescents aged 12-15 years; this authorization was followed by interim recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for the vaccine among this age group (1). Using data from nonprobability-based Internet panel surveys administered by the Healthcare and Public Perceptions of Immunizations (HaPPI) Survey Collaborative, the acceptability of adolescent COVID-19 vaccination and self-reported factors increasing vaccination intent were assessed among independently recruited samples of 985 adolescents aged 13-17 years and 1,022 parents and guardians (parents) of adolescents aged 12-17 years during April 15-April 23, 2021, prior to vaccine authorization for this age group. Approximately one quarter (27.6%) of parents whose adolescents were already vaccine-eligible (i.e., aged 16-17 years) reported their adolescent had received ≥1 COVID-19 vaccine dose, similar to the proportion reported by vaccine-eligible adolescents aged 16-17 years (26.1%). However, vaccine receipt reported by parents of adolescents differed across demographic groups; parents identifying as female or Hispanic, or who had an education lower than a bachelor's degree reported the lowest adolescent COVID-19 vaccination receipt. Among parents of unvaccinated adolescents aged 12-17 years, 55.5% reported they would "definitely" or "probably" have their adolescent receive a COVID-19 vaccination. Among unvaccinated adolescents aged 13-17 years, 51.7% reported they would "definitely" or "probably" receive a COVID-19 vaccination. Obtaining more information about adolescent COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy, as well as school COVID-19 vaccination requirements, were the most commonly reported factors that would increase vaccination intentions among both parents and adolescents. Federal, state, and local health officials and primary care professionals were the most trusted sources of COVID-19 vaccine information among both groups. Efforts focusing on clearly communicating to the public the benefits and safety of COVID-19 vaccination for adolescents, particularly by health care professionals, could help increase confidence in adolescent COVID-19 vaccine and vaccination coverage.

Adults Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-United States, March-June and October-December 2020: Implications for the Potential Effects of COVID-19 Tier-1 Vaccination on Future Hospitalizations and Outcomes.

BackgroundBecause of the increased risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) initially prioritized COVID-19 vaccination for persons in long-term care facilities (LTCF), persons aged ≥65 years, and persons aged 16–64 years with high-risk medical conditions when there is limited vaccine supply. We compared characteristics and severe outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States between early and later in the pandemic categorized by groups at higher risk of severe COVID-19.MethodsObservational study of sampled patients aged ≥18 years who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and admitted to one of 14 academic hospitals in the United States during March–June and October–December 2020. Demographic and clinical information were gathered from electronic health record data.ResultsAmong 647 patients, 91% met ≥1 of the following risk factors for severe COVID-19 [91% March-June (n = 434); 90% October–December (n = 213)]; 19% were LTCF residents, 45% were aged ≥65-years, and 84% had ≥1 high-risk condition. The proportion of patients who resided in a LTCF declined significantly (25% vs 6%) from early to later pandemic periods. Compared with patients at lower risk for severe COVID-19, in-hospital mortality was higher among patients at high risk for severe COVID-19 (20% vs 7%); these differences were consistently observed between March–June and October–December.ConclusionsMost adults hospitalized with COVID-19 were those recommended to be prioritized for vaccination based on risk for developing severe COVID-19. These findings highlight the continued urgency to vaccinate patients at high risk for severe COVID-19 and monitor vaccination impact on hospitalizations and outcomes.

Use of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine After Reports of Myocarditis Among Vaccine Recipients: Update from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, June 2021.

In December 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 (BNT162b2) vaccine and the Moderna COVID-19 (mRNA-1273) vaccine,† and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued interim recommendations for their use in persons aged ≥16 years and ≥18 years, respectively.§ In May 2021, FDA expanded the EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to include adolescents aged 12-15 years; ACIP recommends that all persons aged ≥12 years receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are mRNA vaccines encoding the stabilized prefusion spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Both mRNA vaccines were authorized and recommended as a 2-dose schedule, with second doses administered 21 days (Pfizer-BioNTech) or 28 days (Moderna) after the first dose. After reports of myocarditis and pericarditis in mRNA vaccine recipients,¶ which predominantly occurred in young males after the second dose, an ACIP meeting was rapidly convened to review reported cases of myocarditis and pericarditis and discuss the benefits and risks of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in the United States. Myocarditis is an inflammation of the heart muscle; if it is accompanied by pericarditis, an inflammation of the thin tissue surrounding the heart (the pericardium), it is referred to as myopericarditis. Hereafter, myocarditis is used to refer to myocarditis, pericarditis, or myopericarditis. On June 23, 2021, after reviewing available evidence including that for risks of myocarditis, ACIP determined that the benefits of using mRNA COVID-19 vaccines under the FDA's EUA clearly outweigh the risks in all populations, including adolescents and young adults. The EUA has been modified to include information on myocarditis after receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. The EUA fact sheets should be provided before vaccination; in addition, CDC has developed patient and provider education materials about the possibility of myocarditis and symptoms of concern, to ensure prompt recognition and management of myocarditis.

Immunization calculation engine: An open source immunization evaluation and forecasting system.

IntroductionThe immunization calculation engine (ICE) is a free, open‐source immunization forecasting evaluation and software system whose default immunization schedule supports all routine childhood, adolescent, and adult immunizations based on the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). ICE utilizes its immunization rules and patient data to evaluate and return the validity of each immunization in the patient's history along with one or more evaluation reasons. It also returns a recommendation for each vaccine group along with one or more recommendation reasons.MethodsIn January 2020, ICE was first released as a Docker image along with the traditional zip archive file which had been used up to that point. Docker enables software providers to easily distribute their software so that it can be run “out of the box” in the user's local environment. Software running in Docker containers drastically reduces the complexity of software distribution and set up.ResultsClinical systems of many types use ICE. The project began within the public health arena as a feature of Immunization Information Systems (IIS), but electronic health records (EHR) and personal health records (PHR) have also deployed ICE. While it is not possible to identify the specific impact of ICE on clinical care without additional research, it should be pointed out that once deployed within an IIS, EHR, or PHR the display of ICE results is performed for every patient viewed by a user and often for every patient appearing on a report. In a typical month, thousands if not millions of evaluations and forecasts are performed by ICE and displayed to the users.ConclusionsThe ICE Project believes in minimizing the barriers to installing and using ICE anywhere. To that end, there is no registration required to download the source code or runtime code for the ICE service and its default rule. Similarly, the Project created a Docker image of ICE to facilitate easy and seamless implementation.

Hepatitis A Virus Infections Among Men Who Have Sex with Men — Eight U.S. States, 2017–2018

During 1995-2011, the overall incidence of hepatitis A decreased by 95% in the United States from 12 cases per 100,000 population during 1995 to 0.4 cases per 100,000 population during 2011, and then plateaued during 2012─2015. The incidence increased by 294% during 2016-2018 compared with the incidence during 2013-2015, with most cases occurring among populations at high risk for hepatitis A infection, including persons who use illicit drugs (injection and noninjection), persons who experience homelessness, and men who have sex with men (MSM) (1-3). Previous outbreaks among persons who use illicit drugs and MSM led to recommendations issued in 1996 by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for routine hepatitis A vaccination of persons in these populations (4). Despite these long-standing recommendations, vaccination coverage rates among MSM remain low (5). In 2017, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene contacted CDC after public health officials noted an increase in hepatitis A infections among MSM. Laboratory testing* of clinical specimens identified strains of the hepatitis A virus (HAV) that subsequently matched strains recovered from MSM in other states. During January 1, 2017-October 31, 2018, CDC received reports of 260 cases of hepatitis A among MSM from health departments in eight states, a substantial increase from the 16 cases reported from all 50 states during 2013-2015. Forty-eight percent (124 of 258) of MSM patients were hospitalized for a median of 3 days. No deaths were reported. In response to these cases, CDC supported state and local health departments with public health intervention efforts to decrease HAV transmission among MSM populations. These efforts included organizing multistate calls among health departments to share information, providing guidance on developing targeted outreach and managing supplies for vaccine campaigns, and conducting laboratory testing of clinical specimens. Targeted outreach for MSM to increase awareness about hepatitis A infection and improve access to vaccination services, such as providing convenient locations for vaccination, are needed to prevent outbreaks among MSM.

Mandatory HPV Vaccination; Opportunity to Save Lives, Improve Readiness and Cut Costs.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted infection (STI) in the U.S. military and accounts for more healthcare visits than the next two most common STIs combined. Human papillomavirus is preventable with a safe, effective, prophylactic vaccine that has been available since 2006, yet vaccination rates remain low. The vaccine is approved for females and males aged 9-45 years for prevention of HPV-related dysplasia and cancers. Although it is recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), it is not part of the U.S. military's mandatory vaccine list. Human papillomavirus does not just affect female service members-male service members have a higher reported seropositive rate than their civilian counterparts and can develop oropharyngeal, anal, or penile cancers as sequelae of HPV. Oropharyngeal cancer, more common in males, is the fastest growing and most prevalent HPV-related cancer in the USA. Several countries, such as Australia and Sweden, have successfully implemented mandatory vaccine programs and have seen rates of HPV-related diseases, including cancer, decline significantly. Some models project that cervical cancer, which is the fifth-most common cancer in active duty women, will be eliminated in the next 20 years as a result of mandatory vaccination programs. Between higher seropositive rates and lack of widespread vaccination, HPV dysplasia and cancer result in lost work time, decreased force readiness, negative monetary implications, and even separation from service. With more than half of the 1.3 million service members in the catch-up vaccination age range of less than 26 years of age, we are poised to have a profound impact through mandatory active duty service member vaccination. Although multiple strategies for improving vaccination rates have been proposed, mandatory vaccination would be in line with current joint service policy that requires all ACIP-recommended vaccines. It is time to update the joint service guidelines and add HPV vaccine to the list of mandatory vaccines.

Decreases in COVID-19 Cases, Emergency Department Visits, Hospital Admissions, and Deaths Among Older Adults Following the Introduction of COVID-19 Vaccine - United States, September 6, 2020-May 1, 2021.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, older U.S. adults have been at increased risk for severe COVID-19-associated illness and death (1). On December 14, 2020, the United States began a nationwide vaccination campaign after the Food and Drug Administration's Emergency Use Authorization of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended prioritizing health care personnel and residents of long-term care facilities, followed by essential workers and persons at risk for severe illness, including adults aged ≥65 years, in the early phases of the vaccination program (2). By May 1, 2021, 82%, 63%, and 42% of persons aged ≥65, 50-64, and 18-49 years, respectively, had received ≥1 COVID-19 vaccine dose. CDC calculated the rates of COVID-19 cases, emergency department (ED) visits, hospital admissions, and deaths by age group during November 29-December 12, 2020 (prevaccine) and April 18-May 1, 2021. The rate ratios comparing the oldest age groups (≥70 years for hospital admissions; ≥65 years for other measures) with adults aged 18-49 years were 40%, 59%, 65%, and 66% lower, respectively, in the latter period. These differential declines are likely due, in part, to higher COVID-19 vaccination coverage among older adults, highlighting the potential benefits of rapidly increasing vaccination coverage.

Demonstrating the capacity of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization for timely responses to post-market vaccine monitoring signals: Canada's experience with the live-attenuated influenza vaccine.

Over the last several years, the recommended use of the live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) for children has evolved in the United States (US) in response to evidence of a potential decrease in LAIV effectiveness based on post-market monitoring. These issues were not observed in Canada or elsewhere; consequently, recommendations from Canada's National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) and the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on whether to use LAIV differed for two influenza seasons (2016-2017 and 2017-2018). This retrospective describes how NACI arrived at its recommendations in response to post-market signals of reduced LAIV performance from the US in 2013-2014 and again in 2015-2016. NACI's experience with LAIV marks the first time in Canada where a preferential recommendation on the use of an influenza vaccine in a routine immunization program was reversed. This experience highlights the importance of ongoing post-market monitoring of vaccines, international collaboration and careful consideration of local context to inform vaccine recommendations. NACI's capacity for timely responses to post-market vaccine performance signals will facilitate responsiveness to similar post-market monitoring signals from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines.

Evaluation of Immunity for Mumps among Vaccinated Medical Students.

Healthcare workers are considered at higher risk for mumps infection than the general population. Since 2017, the national immunization plan recommended the administration of a dose of measles–mumps–rubella (MMR) vaccine to the healthcare operators who are unable to demonstrate a complete vaccination history or that are seronegative for at least one of the three agents. Regarding mumps infection, based on actual concerns regarding the loss of protection over the years after vaccination, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended to administer a third dose of vaccine to operators previously vaccinated with two doses of MMR vaccine who belong to a group at increased risk of mumps infection in the event of an epidemic. This guideline, however, is not currently followed in Italy, resulting in a potential risk for vaccinated operators to become unprotected from mumps over the years. The aim of our study is to evaluate the persistence of a protective antibody level for mumps among medical students vaccinated during infancy or adolescence, at the start of their hospital internship. We retrospectively evaluated mumps-specific IgG levels in a group of medical students, in the period from 1 January to 31 December 2020. We evaluated the persistence of the detectable level of mumps-specific antibodies in relation to their vaccinal status, gender and time elapsed from vaccination. We found that 17.4% (65 subjects) of our sample were seronegative for mumps. The univariate analysis showed a significant difference in serological protection between male and female gender (77.0% vs. 86.2%; p < 0.05 with chi2 test) and between age classes (86.5% vs. 76.4%; p < 0.05 for subjects aged 18–23 years and over 23 years, respectively). Female gender was significantly related to higher serological protection even after adjusting for age classes and number of vaccine doses administered in a multivariate analysis model. Our study shows a substantial percentage of subjects lacking a protective mumps titer among medical students who were vaccinated in childhood. Given the higher risk of infection among those subjects, routine pre-employment screening should be performed among those operators regardless of their vaccination history and a third dose of MMR should be offered to unprotected students.

Physician attitudes regarding the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Adult Immunization Schedule

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) was created out of the need to formalize vaccine recommendations for the United States. Annually, ACIP delivers recommendations to the CDC director for guidance about United States vaccine use and publishes the Adult Immunization Schedule. Updated schedules feature changes to vaccine recommendations as well as changes to the schedule’s usability for physicians. The objective of this study was to determine physicians’ attitudes about the Adult Immunization Schedule. Surveys were administered to a sentinel physician network from October 2019 through January 2020. Physicians that responded were comfortable using the Adult Immunization Schedule, but reported confusion about some medical condition-based indications. Physicians reported a lack engagement with mobile applications, CDC Vaccine Schedules and Shots by STFM (the Society for Teachers of Family Medicine). Future work should focus on increasing clarity regarding the recommendations with medical condition-based indications and increasing knowledge of mobile applications for physicians.

Safety Monitoring of the Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 Vaccine - United States, March-April 2021.

On February 27, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Janssen (Ad.26.COV2.S) COVID-19 vaccine (Janssen Biotech, Inc., a Janssen Pharmaceutical company, Johnson & Johnson) (1). The Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, the third COVID-19 vaccine authorized for use in the United States, uses a replication-incompetent human adenoviral type 26 vector platform* (2) and is administered as a single intramuscular dose, whereas the first two authorized vaccines use an mRNA platform and require 2 doses. On February 28, 2021, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued interim recommendations for use of Janssen COVID-19 vaccine among persons aged ≥18 years (3). During April 13-23, CDC and FDA recommended a pause in use of Janssen vaccine after reports of six cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) with thrombocytopenia (platelet count <150,000/μL of blood) among Janssen vaccine recipients (4). Similar thrombotic events, primarily among women aged <60 years, have been described in Europe after receipt of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, which uses a replication-incompetent chimpanzee adenoviral vector (5-7). The U.S. CVST cases that prompted the pause in Janssen vaccination, as well as subsequently detected CVST cases, are described elsewhere (8). This report summarizes adverse events among Janssen vaccine recipients, including non-CVST cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), a passive surveillance system, and through v-safe, an active monitoring system. As of April 21, 2021, 7.98 million doses of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine had been administered. Among 13,725 VAERS reports reviewed, 97% were classified as nonserious and 3% as serious,† including three reports among women of cases of thrombosis in large arteries or veins accompanied by thrombocytopenia during the second week after vaccination. These three cases and the previously detected CVST cases are consistent with 17 cases of TTS,§ a newly defined condition. Approximately 338,700 Janssen COVID-19 vaccine recipients completed at least one v-safe survey during the week after vaccination; 76% reported a systemic reaction, 61% reported a local reaction, and 34% reported a health impact.¶ Fatigue and pain were commonly reported symptoms in both VAERS and v-safe. The overall safety profile is consistent with preauthorization clinical trials data. Prompt review of U.S. vaccine safety data detected three additional cases of non-CVST TTS, in addition to the previously recognized CVST cases that initiated the pause in use of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine. Ongoing monitoring of adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination, including vaccination with the Janssen single-dose vaccine, is essential for evaluating the risks and benefits of each vaccine.

Associations between ACA-related policies and a clinical recommendation with HPV vaccine initiation.

We examined associations between the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) provisions, 2011 Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendation, and 2014 ACA-related health insurance reforms with HPV vaccine initiation rates by sex and health insurance type. Using 2009-2015 public and private health insurance claims for 551,764 males and females aged 9-26years (referred to as youth) from Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, we conducted linear regression models to examine the associations between three policy changes and HPV vaccine initiation rates by sex and health insurance type. In 2009, HPV vaccine initiation rates for males and females were 0.003 and 0.604 per 100 enrollees, respectively. Among males, the 2010 ACA provisions and ACIP recommendation were associated with significant increases in HPV vaccine uptake among those with private plans (0.207 [0.137, 0.278] and 0.419 [0.353, 0.486], respectively) and Medicaid (0.157 [0.083, 0.230] and 0.322 [0.257, 0.386], respectively). Among females, the 2010 ACA provisions were associated with significant increases in HPV vaccine uptake among Medicaid enrollees only (0.123 [0.033, 0.214]). The ACA-related health insurance reforms were associated with significant increases in HPV vaccine uptake for male and female Medicaid enrollees (0.257 [0.137, 0.377] and 0.214 [0.102, 0.327], respectively), but no differences among privately insured youth. By 2015, there were no differences in HPV vaccine initiation rates between males (0.278) and females (0.305). Both ACA provisions and the ACIP recommendation were associated with significant increases in HPV vaccine initiation rates among privately and publicly insured males in three New England states, closing the gender gap. In contrast, females and youth with private insurance did not exhibit the same changes in HPV vaccine uptake over the study period.

COVID-19 Vaccines: Vagaries and Vacillations

All healthcare workers, including dental professionals are foot soldiers in the battle against the COVID-19 pandemic. Indeed, in the USA, dental practitioners and dental students are now recruited to deliver COVID-19 vaccines to the general population to expedite vaccine uptake, and rapidly suppress the pandemic. There are many unknowns in the evolving COVID-19 vaccine story, although we now see the true situation in a better light, with the rapid emergence of data from numerous countries, including UK, where the vaccine has currently been administered to millions. The situation is further compounded by the reported vagaries of the increasing number of brand-name vaccines, manufactured on both the new and old vaccine platforms, the purported or real, vaccine adverse effects, the emergence of possible vaccine-resistant viral variants, and the resultant low vaccine uptake due to vacillating public opinion. In this COVID-19 Commentary, we provide an update on the efficacy of the vaccines and the prevalence of adverse effects, as well as a summary of useful information for dental care workers on vaccine protocols appertaining to special situations, as promulgated both by the UK Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, and the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

Extent of and Reasons for Vaccine Hesitancy in Adults at High-Risk for Pneumococcal Disease.

To determine the extent of and reasons for hesitancy toward vaccination among adults at high-risk for pneumococcal disease. Cross-sectional. Online survey in March-April 2019 via QuestionPro. Tennessee adults (18-64 years) at high-risk of pneumococcal disease (n = 1,002). Modified version of the validated Vaccine Hesitancy Scale assessed vaccine-related beliefs, reasons for hesitancy, external influences on vaccination, and prior vaccination. Descriptive and inferential statistics provided an overview of the responses and comparisons among subgroups. Logistic regression determined the odds of being hesitant using the listed beliefs and influencers as predictors. Thematic analysis was performed on the qualitative data gathered from free response questions throughout the survey. Analysis included 1,002 complete responses (12% response rate [total viewed = 8,331]) with 34.3% indicating hesitancy toward one or more recommended vaccinations, with 53% of which indicating hesitancy to the pneumococcal vaccine despite it being recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for all respondents. The odds of vaccine hesitancy or resistance were higher in minorities (OR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.19-2.11), those not believing others like them get vaccinated (OR: 1.82; 95% CI: 1.262-2.613), and respondents recalling negative media about vaccines (OR: 2.56; 95% CI: 1.797-3.643). Patients at high-risk of pneumococcal disease lack awareness of the need for the recommended vaccine, and provider education may need improving to increase vaccination in this population.

Estimated Medicaid Costs Associated with Hepatitis A During an Outbreak - West Virginia, 2018-2019.

Hepatitis A is a vaccine-preventable disease caused by the hepatitis A virus (HAV). Transmission of the virus most commonly occurs through the fecal-oral route after close contact with an infected person. Widespread outbreaks of hepatitis A among persons who use illicit drugs (injection and noninjection drugs) have increased in recent years (1). The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends routine hepatitis A vaccination for children and persons at increased risk for infection or severe disease, and, since 1996, has recommended hepatitis A vaccination for persons who use illicit drugs (2). Vaccinating persons who are at-risk for HAV infection is a mainstay of the public health response for stopping ongoing person-to-person transmission and preventing future outbreaks (1). In response to a large hepatitis A outbreak in West Virginia, an analysis was conducted to assess total hepatitis A-related medical costs during January 1, 2018-July 31, 2019, among West Virginia Medicaid beneficiaries with a confirmed diagnosis of HAV infection. Among the analysis population, direct clinical costs ranged from an estimated $1.4 million to $5.6 million. Direct clinical costs among a subset of the Medicaid population with a diagnosis of a comorbid substance use disorder ranged from an estimated $1.0 million to $4.4 million during the study period. In addition to insight on preventing illness, hospitalization, and death, the results from this study highlight the potential financial cost jurisdictions might incur when ACIP recommendations for hepatitis A vaccination, especially among persons who use illicit drugs, are not followed (2).

2021 U.S. Adult Immunization Schedule

Sponsoring Organization: U.S. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Background Most of the thunder in the vaccine world this year belongs