Search

The article presents the discussion on COVID-19 vaccine booster doses being safe and maintaining protection after receipt of a primary vaccination series. Topics include continued risk for COVID-19–related illness and the benefits and safety of bivalent booster vaccination; and vaccination improving COVID-19 bivalent booster coverage among adolescents and adults.

Context and objective: Epidemiological studies show the apparent link between excessive alcohol consumption and hypertension. However, the association between alcohol intake and blood pressure among non-hypertensive individuals is scarcely examined. Methods: This analysis included participants in the 1999-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey who were aged 20 to 84 years without a diagnosis of cardiovascular disease, hypertension or pregnancy, whose systolic/diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP) was lower than 140/90 mmHg, who were not on antihypertensive medication, and who consumed 12 drinks or more during the past 12 months (N = 3957). Average drinking volume (average alcohol intake per day), usual drinking quantity (drinks per day when drinking) and frequency of binge drinking were used to predict SBP/DBP. Covariates included age, gender, race/ethnicity, education level, smoking status, average physical activity level, and daily hours spent on TV/video/computer. Results: Drinking volume was directly associated with higher SBP in a linear dependent manner (an increment of 10 g of alcohol per day increased average SBP by 1 mmHg among both men and women). Drinking above the US Dietary Guidelines (men more than two drinks and women more than one drink per drinking day) was associated with higher SBP. Binge drinking was associated with both higher SBP and higher DBP. Average intake greater than two drinks per day was particularly associated with higher DBP among women (P = 0.0003). Conclusion: This analysis from a population-based survey indicates a direct association between higher alcohol consumption and a higher prevalence of prehypertension among non-hypertensive drinkers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: We explore the relationships between socially assigned race ("How do other people usually classify you in this country?"), self-identified race/ethnicity, and excellent or very good general health status. We then take advantage of subgroups which are discordant on self-identified race/ethnicity and socially assigned race to examine whether being classified by others as White conveys an advantage in health status, even for those who do not self-identify as White. Methods: Analyses were conducted using pooled data from the eight states that used the Reactions to Race module of the 2004 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Results: The agreement of socially assigned race with self-identified race/ethnicity varied across the racial/ethnic groups currently defined by the United States government. Included among those usually classified by others as White were 26.8% of those who self-identified as Hispanic, 47.6% of those who self-identified as American Indian, and 59.5% of those who self-identified with More than one race. Among those who self-identified as Hispanic, the age-, education-, and language-adjusted proportion reporting excellent or very good health was 8.7 percentage points higher for those socially assigned as White than for those socially assigned as Hispanic (P= .04); among those who self-identified as American Indian, that proportion was 15.4 percentage points higher for those socially assigned as White than for those socially assigned as American Indian (P= .05); and among those who self-identified with More than one race, that proportion was 23.6 percentage points higher for those socially assigned as White than for those socially assigned as Black (P<.01). On the other hand, no significant differences were found between those socially assigned as White who self-identified as White and those socially assigned as White who self-identified as Hispanic, as American Indian, or with More than one race. Conclusions: Being classified by others as White is associated with large and statistically significant advantages in health status, no matter how one self-identifies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data from the National Immunization Survey-Child (NIS-Child) were analyzed to estimate coverage with childhood vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices among U.S. children by age 24 months. Coverage with nearly all vaccines was lower among children born in 2020 and 2021 than it was among those born in 2018 and 2019, with declines ranging from 1.3 to 7.8 percentage points. Analyses of NIS-Child data for earlier birth cohorts have not revealed such widespread declines in routine childhood vaccination coverage. Coverage among children born during 2020-2021 varied by race and ethnicity, health insurance status, poverty status, urbanicity, and jurisdiction. Compared with non-Hispanic White children, coverage with four of the 17 vaccine measures was lower among non-Hispanic Black or African American children as well as Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic) and non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native children. Coverage was also generally lower among those covered by Medicaid or other nonprivate insurance, uninsured children, children living below the federal poverty level, and children living in rural areas. Coverage varied widely by jurisdiction, especially coverage with ≥2 doses of influenza vaccine. Children born during 2020-2021 were born during or after the period of major disruption of primary care from the COVID-19 pandemic. Providers should review children's histories and recommend needed vaccinations during every clinical encounter. Addressing financial barriers, access issues, vaccine hesitancy, and vaccine-related misinformation can also help to increase coverage, reduce disparities, and protect all children from vaccine-preventable diseases. Strategies that have been found effective include implementation of standing orders and reminder and recall systems, strong physician recommendations to vaccinate, and use of immunization information systems to identify areas of lower coverage that could benefit from targeted interventions to increase immunization rates., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Introduction: The Vaccines for Children (VFC) program was established in 1994 to provide recommended vaccines at no cost to eligible children and help ensure that all U.S. children are protected from life-threatening vaccine-preventable diseases., Methods: CDC analyzed data from the 2012-2022 National Immunization Survey-Child (NIS-Child) to assess trends in vaccination coverage with ≥1 dose of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR), 2-3 doses of rotavirus vaccine, and a combined 7-vaccine series, by VFC program eligibility status, and to examine differences in coverage among VFC-eligible children by sociodemographic characteristics. VFC eligibility was defined as meeting at least one of the following criteria: 1) American Indian or Alaska Native; 2) insured by Medicaid, Indian Health Service (IHS), or uninsured; or 3) ever received at least one vaccination at an IHS-operated center, Tribal health center, or urban Indian health care facility., Results: Overall, approximately 52.2% of U.S. children were VFC eligible. Among VFC-eligible children born during 2011-2020, coverage by age 24 months was stable for ≥1 MMR dose (88.0%-89.9%) and the combined 7-vaccine series (61.4%-65.3%). Rotavirus vaccination coverage by age 8 months was 64.8%-71.1%, increasing by an average of 0.7 percentage points annually. Among all children born in 2020, coverage was 3.8 (≥1 MMR dose), 11.5 (2-3 doses of rotavirus vaccine), and 13.8 (combined 7-vaccine series) percentage points lower among VFC-eligible than among non-VFC-eligible children., Conclusions and Implications for Public Health Practice: Although the VFC program has played a vital role in increasing and maintaining high levels of childhood vaccination coverage for 30 years, gaps remain. Enhanced efforts must ensure that parents and guardians of VFC-eligible children are aware of, have confidence in, and are able to obtain all recommended vaccines for their children., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

In 2021, the CDC Director declared that racism is a serious threat to public health,* reflecting a growing awareness of racism as a cause of health inequities, health disparities, and disease. Racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19-related hospitalization and death (1,2) illustrate the need to examine root causes, including experiences of discrimination. This report describes the association between reported experiences of discrimination in U.S. health care settings and COVID-19 vaccination status and intent to be vaccinated by race and ethnicity during April 22, 2021-November 26, 2022, based on the analysis of interview data collected from 1,154,347 respondents to the National Immunization Survey-Adult COVID Module (NIS-ACM). Overall, 3.5% of adults aged ≥18 years reported having worse health care experiences compared with persons of other races and ethnicities (i.e., they experienced discrimination), with significantly higher percentages reported by persons who identified as non-Hispanic Black or African American (Black) (10.7%), non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN) (7.2%), non-Hispanic multiple or other race (multiple or other race) (6.7%), Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic) (4.5%), non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (NHOPI) (3.9%), and non-Hispanic Asian (Asian) (2.8%) than by non-Hispanic White (White) persons (1.6%). Unadjusted differences in prevalence of being unvaccinated against COVID-19 among respondents reporting worse health care experiences than persons of other races and ethnicities compared with those who reported that their health care experiences were the same as those of persons of other races and ethnicities were statistically significant overall (5.3) and for NHOPI (19.2), White (10.5), multiple or other race (5.7), Black (4.6), Asian (4.3), and Hispanic (2.6) adults. Findings were similar for vaccination intent. Eliminating inequitable experiences in health care settings might help reduce some disparities in receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

COVID-19 vaccine booster doses are safe and maintain protection after receipt of a primary vaccination series and reduce the risk for serious COVID-19-related outcomes, including emergency department visits, hospitalization, and death (1,2). CDC recommended an updated (bivalent) booster for adolescents aged 12-17 years and adults aged ≥18 years on September 1, 2022 (3). The bivalent booster is formulated to protect against the Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants of SARS-CoV-2 as well as the original (ancestral) strain (3). Based on data collected during October 30-December 31, 2022, from the National Immunization Survey-Child COVID Module (NIS-CCM) (4), among all adolescents aged 12-17 years who completed a primary series, 18.5% had received a bivalent booster dose, 52.0% had not yet received a bivalent booster but had parents open to booster vaccination for their child, 15.1% had not received a bivalent booster and had parents who were unsure about getting a booster vaccination for their child, and 14.4% had parents who were reluctant to seek booster vaccination for their child. Based on data collected during October 30-December 31, 2022, from the National Immunization Survey-Adult COVID Module (NIS-ACM) (4), 27.1% of adults who had completed a COVID-19 primary series had received a bivalent booster, 39.4% had not yet received a bivalent booster but were open to receiving booster vaccination, 12.4% had not yet received a bivalent booster and were unsure about getting a booster vaccination, and 21.1% were reluctant to receive a booster. Adolescents and adults in rural areas had a much lower primary series completion rate and up-to-date vaccination coverage. Bivalent booster coverage was lower among non-Hispanic Black or African American (Black) and Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic) adolescents and adults compared with non-Hispanic White (White) adolescents and adults. Among adults who were open to receiving booster vaccination, 58.9% reported not having received a provider recommendation for booster vaccination, 16.9% had safety concerns, and 4.4% reported difficulty getting a booster vaccine. Among adolescents with parents who were open to getting a booster vaccination for their child, 32.4% had not received a provider recommendation for any COVID-19 vaccination, and 11.8% had parents who reported safety concerns. Although bivalent booster vaccination coverage among adults differed by factors such as income, health insurance status, and social vulnerability index (SVI), these factors were not associated with differences in reluctance to seek booster vaccination. Health care provider recommendations for COVID-19 vaccination; dissemination of information by trusted messengers about the continued risk for COVID-19-related illness and the benefits and safety of bivalent booster vaccination; and reducing barriers to vaccination could improve COVID-19 bivalent booster coverage among adolescents and adults., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Laurie D. Elam-Evans is chair of the Epidemiology Section of the American Public Health Association. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.