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.

Influenza causes considerable morbidity and mortality in the United States. Between 2010 and 2020, an estimated 9-41 million cases resulted in 140,000-710,000 hospitalizations and 12,000-52,000 deaths annually (1). As the United States enters the 2021-22 influenza season, the potential impact of influenza illnesses is of concern given that influenza season will again coincide with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which could further strain overburdened health care systems. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends routine annual influenza vaccination for the 2021-22 influenza season for all persons aged ≥6 months who have no contraindications (2). To assess the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on influenza vaccination coverage, the percentage change between administration of at least 1 dose of influenza vaccine during September-December 2020 was compared with the average administered in the corresponding periods in 2018 and 2019. The data analyzed were reported from 11 U.S. jurisdictions with high-performing state immunization information systems.* Overall, influenza vaccine administration was 9.0% higher in 2020 compared with the average in 2018 and 2019, combined. However, in 2020, the number of influenza vaccine doses administered to children aged 6-23 months and children aged 2-4 years, was 13.9% and 11.9% lower, respectively than the average for each age group in 2018 and 2019. Strategic efforts are needed to ensure high influenza vaccination coverage among all age groups, especially children aged 6 months-4 years who are not yet eligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Administration of influenza vaccine and a COVID-19 vaccine among eligible populations is especially important to reduce the potential strain that influenza and COVID-19 cases could place on health care systems already overburdened by 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.

Objective: To quantify vaccinations administered outside minimum and maximum recommended ages and to determine attendant costs of revaccination by analyzing immunization information system (IIS) records., Study Design: We analyzed deidentified records of doses administered during 2014 to persons aged <18 years within 6 IIS sentinel sites (10% of the US population). We quantified doses administered outside of recommended ages according to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices childhood immunization schedule and prescribing information in package inserts, and calculated revaccination costs. To minimize misreporting bias, we analyzed publicly funded doses for which reported lot numbers and vaccine types were consistent., Results: Among 3 394 047 doses with maximum age recommendations, 9755 (0.3%) were given after the maximum age. One type of maximum age violation required revaccination: 1344 (0.7%) of 194 934 doses of the 0.25-mL prefilled syringe formulation of quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (Fluzone Quadrivalent, Sanofi Pasteur, Swiftwater, PA) were administered at age ≥36 months (revaccination cost, $111 964). We identified a total of 7 529 165 childhood, adolescent, and lifespan doses with minimum age recommendations, 9542 of which (0.1%) were administered before the minimum age. The most common among these violations were quadrivalent injectable influenza vaccines (3835, or 0.7% of 526 110 doses administered before age 36 months) and Kinrix (GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Rixensart, Belgium; DTaP-IPV) (2509, or 1.2% of 208 218 doses administered before age 48 months). The cost of revaccination for minimum age violations (where recommended) was $179 179., Conclusion: Administration of vaccines outside recommended minimum and maximum ages is rare, reflecting a general adherence to recommendations. Error rates were higher for several vaccines, some requiring revaccination. Vaccine schedule complexity and confusion among similar products might contribute to errors. Minimization of errors reduces wastage, excess cost, and inconvenience for parents and patients., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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]

COVID-19 booster dose vaccination has been crucial in ensuring protection against COVID-19 including recently predominant Omicron variants. Because vaccines against newer SARS-CoV- 2 variants are likely to be recommended in future, it will be valuable to understand past booster dose uptake among different demographic groups. Using U.S. vaccination data, this study examined intervals between primary series completion and receipt of first booster dose (monovalent or bivalent) during August 2021 - October 2022 among persons ≥12 years of age who had completed a COVID-19 vaccine primary series by October 2021. Sub-populations who were late booster recipients (received a booster dose ≥12 months after the primary series) or received no booster dose included persons <35 years old, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen vaccine primary dose recipients, persons in certain racial and ethnic groups, and persons living in rural and more socially vulnerable areas, and in the South region of the United States; these groups may benefit the most from public health outreach efforts to achieve timely COVID-19 vaccination completion in future. [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]