Search

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) is highly effective at preventing hospitalization due to SARS-CoV-2 infection and booster and additional primary dose COVID-19 vaccinations increase protection (1-3). During August-November 2021, a series of Emergency Use Authorizations and recommendations, including those for an additional primary dose for immunocompromised persons and a booster dose for persons aged ≥18 years, were approved because of reduced immunogenicity in immunocompromised persons, waning vaccine effectiveness over time, and the introduction of the highly transmissible B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant (4,5). Adults aged ≥65 years are at increased risk for COVID-19-associated hospitalization and death and were one of the populations first recommended a booster dose in the U.S. (5,6). Data on COVID-19 vaccinations reported to CDC from 50 states, the District of Columbia (DC), and eight territories and freely associated states were analyzed to ascertain coverage with booster or additional primary doses among adults aged ≥65 years. During August 13-November 19, 2021, 18.7 million persons aged ≥65 years received a booster or additional primary dose of COVID-19 vaccine, constituting 44.1% of 42.5 million eligible* persons in this age group who previously completed a primary vaccination series. † Coverage was similar by sex and age group, but varied by primary series vaccine product and race and ethnicity, ranging from 30.3% among non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native persons to 50.5% among non-Hispanic multiple/other race persons. Strategic efforts are needed to encourage eligible persons aged ≥18 years, especially those aged ≥65 years and those who are immunocompromised, to receive a booster and/or additional primary dose to ensure maximal protection against COVID-19., 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.

Background: Coverage levels for many recommended adult vaccinations are low. The cost-effectiveness research literature on adult vaccinations has not been synthesized in recent years, which may contribute to low awareness of the value of adult vaccinations and to their under-utilization. We assessed research literature since 1980 to summarize economic evidence for adult vaccinations included on the adult immunization schedule., Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, EconLit, and Cochrane Library from 1980 to 2016 and identified economic evaluation or cost-effectiveness analysis for vaccinations targeting persons aged ≥18 years in the U.S. or Canada. After excluding records based on title and abstract reviews, the remaining publications had a full-text review from two independent reviewers, who extracted economic values that compared vaccination to "no vaccination" scenarios., Results: The systematic searches yielded 1688 publications. After removing duplicates, off-topic publications, and publications without a "no vaccination" comparison, 78 publications were included in the final analysis (influenza = 25, pneumococcal = 18, human papillomavirus = 9, herpes zoster = 7, tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis = 9, hepatitis B = 9, and multiple vaccines = 1). Among outcomes assessing age-based vaccinations, the percent indicating cost-savings was 56% for influenza, 31% for pneumococcal, and 23% for tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis vaccinations. Among age-based vaccination outcomes reporting $/QALY, the percent of outcomes indicating a cost per QALY of ≤$100,000 was 100% for influenza, 100% for pneumococcal, 69% for human papillomavirus, 71% for herpes zoster, and 50% for tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis vaccinations., Conclusions: The majority of published studies report favorable cost-effectiveness profiles for adult vaccinations, which supports efforts to improve the implementation of adult vaccination recommendations., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

This article provides immunization recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for adults aged 19 years or older. The purpose of the immunization schedule is to consolidate and summarize updates to ACIP recommendations on vaccination of adults and to assist providers in implementing current ACIP recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2021, HHS Office of Minority Health and CDC developed a composite measure of social vulnerability called the Minority Health Social Vulnerability Index (MHSVI) to assess the needs of communities most vulnerable to COVID-19. The MHSVI extends the CDC Social Vulnerability Index with two new themes on healthcare access and medical vulnerability. This analysis examines COVID-19 vaccination coverage by social vulnerability using the MHSVI. County-level COVID-19 vaccine administration data among persons aged ≥18 years reported to CDC from 12/14/20 to 01/31/22 were analyzed. U.S. counties from 50 states and DC were categorized into tertiles of vulnerability (low, moderate, and high) for the composite MHSVI measure and each of the 34 indicators. Vaccination coverage (≥1 dose, primary series completion, and receipt of a booster dose) was calculated by tertiles for the composite MHSVI measure and each indicator. Counties with lower per capita income, higher proportion of individuals with no high school diploma, living below poverty, ≥65 years of age, with a disability, and in mobile homes had lower vaccination uptake. However, counties with larger proportions of racial/ethnic minorities and individuals speaking English less than "very well" had higher coverage. Counties with fewer primary care physicians and greater medical vulnerabilities had lower ≥ 1 dose vaccination coverage. Furthermore, counties of high vulnerability had lower primary series completion and receipt of a booster dose. There were no clear patterns in COVID-19 vaccination coverage by tertiles for the composite measure. Results from the new components in the MHSVI identify needs to prioritize persons in counties with greater medical vulnerabilities and limited access to health care, who are at greater risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes. Findings suggest that using a composite measure to characterize social vulnerability might mask disparities in COVID-19 vaccination uptake that would have otherwise been observed using specific indicators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article provides immunization recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for adults aged 19 years or older. The purpose of the immunization schedule is to consolidate and summarize updates to ACIP recommendations on vaccination of adults and to assist providers in implementing current ACIP recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To identify demographic factors associated with delaying or not receiving a second dose of the 2-dose primary mRNA COVID-19 vaccine series, we matched 323 million single Pfizer-BioNTech (https://www.pfizer.com) and Moderna (https://www.modernatx.com) COVID-19 vaccine administration records from 2021 and determined whether second doses were delayed or missed. We used 2 sets of logistic regression models to examine associated factors. Overall, 87.3% of recipients received a timely second dose (≤42 days between first and second dose), 3.4% received a delayed second dose (>42 days between first and second dose), and 9.4% missed the second dose. Persons more likely to have delayed or missed the second dose belonged to several racial/ethnic minority groups, were 18-39 years of age, lived in more socially vulnerable areas, and lived in regions other than the northeastern United States. Logistic regression models identified specific subgroups for providing outreach and encouragement to receive subsequent doses on time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Pregnant women are at increased risk of complications from influenza, and infants are at increased risk of pertussis. Maternal influenza and Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis) vaccination can reduce risk of these infections and related complications. Our objective was to estimate vaccination coverage with influenza and Tdap vaccines during pregnancy among women with a recent live birth. Methods: An opt-in Internet panel survey was conducted from March 28 to April 10, 2018 among pregnant and recently pregnant women. Respondents with a live birth from August 1, 2017 through the date in which the participant completed the survey were included in the analysis. Receipt of influenza vaccination since July 1, 2017 and Tdap vaccination during pregnancy were assessed by sociodemographic characteristics, receipt of a health care provider (HCP) recommendation and/or offer of vaccination, and vaccination-related knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs. Results: Less than a third (30.3%) of women with a live birth were unvaccinated during their pregnancy with both Tdap and influenza vaccines. Almost a third (32.8%) of the women reported being vaccinated with both vaccines. The majority (73.0%) of women reported receiving an HCP recommendation for both vaccines, and 54.2% of women were offered both vaccines by an HCP. Reasons for nonvaccination included negative attitudes toward influenza vaccine and lack of awareness about Tdap vaccination during pregnancy. Conclusions: Maternal Tdap and influenza vaccinations can prevent morbidity and mortality among infants and their mothers, yet many pregnant women are unvaccinated with either Tdap or influenza vaccines. Clinic-based education, along with interventions, such as standing orders and provider reminders, are strategies to increase maternal vaccination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]