Search

SUMMARYAcute respiratory infections (ARI) are the leading cause of death worldwide in children aged <5 years, and understanding contributing factors to their seasonality is important for targeting and implementing prevention strategies. In tropical climates, ARI typically peak during the pre-rainy and rainy seasons. One hypothesis is that rainfall leads to more time spent indoors, thus increasing exposure to other people and in turn increasing the risk of ARI. A case-crossover study design in 718 Bangladeshi children aged <5 years was used to evaluate this hypothesis. During a 3-month period with variable rainfall, rainfall was associated with ARI [odds ratio (OR) 2·97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1·87-4·70]; some evidence of an increased strength of association as household crowding increased was found (3 people/room, OR 3·31, 95% CI 2·03-5·38), but there was a lack of association in some of the most crowded households (5 to <6 people/room, OR 1·55, 95% CI 0·54-4·47). These findings suggest that rainfall may be increasing exposure to crowded conditions, thus leading to an increased risk of ARI, but that additional factors not captured by this analysis may also play a role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Two doses of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) are recommended for children <9 years old receiving vaccine for the first time, but compliance is suboptimal. This study assessed the need for a second dose of TIV in this age group.Methods. In this prospective, open-label study, 232 influenza vaccine-naive 5-8-year-olds enrolled in a health maintenance organization received 2 doses of TIV in fall 2004. Serum for antibody titer measurement was obtained at 3 time points (n=222). Parents completed diaries for 5 days.Results. Both doses of vaccine were well tolerated. The strongest predictor of a protective antibody response (>/=1 : 40) after 1 dose of TIV was baseline seropositive status. In multivariate analysis adjusting for age, sex, and baseline serostatus, the proportion of children with protective antibody responses was significantly higher after 2 doses than after 1 dose of TIV for each antigen (P<.001, for A/H1N1; P=.01, for A/H3N2; P<.001, for B). Age and sex were not independently predictive of a protective antibody response. Over one-third of children had antibody responses <1:40 for the type B vaccine component, even after 2 doses.Conclusions. The present study supports the need for 2 doses of TIV in 5-8-year-olds receiving TIV for the first time. Efforts to increase compliance with the 2-dose recommendation are warranted. Copyright © 2006 Infectious Diseases Society of America [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the 2004-2005 influenza season, the supply of vaccine to the United States was significantly reduced. In response, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices issued interim recommendations for prioritizing vaccination. Given trends in racial/ethnic disparities in vaccination for influenza, the authors assessed the impact of the shortage on those historically less likely to be vaccinated. Using data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, they considered vaccination coverage among those non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic Blacks, and Hispanics who had priority for being vaccinated during the 2004-2005 influenza season. The vaccine shortage had a significant negative effect on coverage among adults aged 65 years or older across the three racial/ethnic groups. Yet, the magnitude of the disparities in coverage did not change significantly from previous seasons. This finding may imply similar patterns of vaccine-seeking behavior during shortage and nonshortage years. No racial/ethnic differences were seen among adults aged 18-64 years, which likely reflects the higher percentage of health-care workers in this age group. Yearly monitoring of influenza vaccine coverage is important to assess the long-term impact of shortages on overall coverage and gaps in coverage between racial/ethnic groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report summarizes recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) concerning influenza vaccination of health-care personnel (HCP) in the United States. These recommendations apply to HCP in acute care hospitals, nursing homes, skilled nursing facilities, physician's offices, urgent care centers, and outpatient clinics, and to persons who provide home health care and emergency medical services. The recommendations are targeted at health-care facility administrators, infection-control professionals, and occupational health professionals responsible for influenza vaccination programs and influenza infection-control programs in their institutions. HICPAC and ACIP recommend that all HCP be vaccinated annually against influenza. Facilities that employ HCP are strongly encouraged to provide vaccine to their staff by using evidence-based approaches that maximize vaccination rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report updates the 2004 recommendations by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of influenza vaccine and antiviral agents (CDC. Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. MMWR 2004;53[No. RR-6]:1-40). The 2005 recommendations include new or updated information regarding 1) vaccination of persons with conditions leading to compromise of the respiratory system; 2) vaccination of health-care workers; 3) clarification of the role of live, attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) in vaccine shortage situations; 4) the 2005-06 trivalent vaccine virus strains: A/California/7/2004 (H3N2)-like, A/New Caledonia/20/99 (HINI)-like, and B/Shanghai/361 /2002-like antigens (for the A/California/7/2004 [H3N2J-like antigen, manufacturers may use the antigenically equivalent A/New York/55/2004 virus, and for the B/Shanghai/361/2002-like antigen, manufacturers may use the antigenically equivalent B/Jilin/20/2003 virus or B/Jiangsu/10/2003 virus); and 5) the assessment of vaccine supply, timing of influenza vaccination, and prioritization of inactivated vaccine in shortage situations. A link to this report and other information can be accessed at http://www.cdc.gov/flu. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report updates the 2003 recommendations by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on the use of influenza vaccine and antiviral agents (CDC. Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. MMWR 2003;52[No. RR-8]:1--34). The 2004 recommendations include new or updated information regarding 1) influenza vaccine for children aged 6--23 months; 2) vaccination of health-care workers with live, attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV); 3) personnel who may administer LAIV; 4) the 2004--05 trivalent inactivated vaccine virus strains: A/Fujian/411/2002 (H3N2)-like, A/New Caledonia/20/99 (H1N1)-like, and B/Shanghai/361/2002-like antigens (for the A/Fujian/411/2002 (H3N2)-like antigen, manufacturers may use the antigenically equivalent A/Wyoming/3/2003 [H3N2] virus, and for the B/Shanghai/361/2002-like antigen, manufacturers may use the antigenically equivalent B/Jilin/20/2003 virus or B/Jiangsu/10/2003 virus); and 5) the assessment of vaccine supply and timing of influenza vaccination. A link to this report and other information regarding influenza can be accessed at http://www.cdc.gov/flu. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report summarizes recommendations by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for using intranasally administered, trivalent, cold-adapted, live, attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV), which was approved for use in the United States on June 17, 2003 (FluMistT, produced by MedImmune, Inc., Gaithersburg, Maryland). LAIV is currently approved for use among healthy persons (i.e., those not at high risk for complications from influenza infection) aged 5--49 years. This report includes information regarding 1) vaccine composition and mechanisms of action; 2) comparison between LAIV and trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine; 3) effectiveness and safety of LAIV; 4) transmission and stability of LAIV viruses; 5) recommendations and contraindications for using LAIV; and 6) dosage and administration of LAIV. This report supplements the 2003 ACIP recommendations regarding prevention and control of influenza (CDC. Prevention and Control of Influenza: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report updates the 2002 recommendations by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on the use of influenza vaccine and antiviral agents (CDC. Prevention and Control of Influenza: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. MMWR 2002;51[No. RR-3]:1-31). The 2003 recommendations include new or updated information regarding 1) the timing of influenza vaccination by age and risk group; 2) influenza vaccine for children aged 6-23 months; 3) the 2003-2004 trivalent inactivated vaccine virus strains: A/Moscow/10/99 (H3N2)-like, A/New Caledonia/20/99 (H1N1)-like, and B/Hong Kong/330/2001-like antigens (for the A/Moscow/10/99 [H3N2]-like antigen, manufacturers will use the antigenically equivalent A/Panama/2007/99 [H3N2] virus, and for the B/Hong Kong/330/2001-like antigen, manufacturers will use either B/Hong Kong/330/2001 or the antigenically equivalent B/Hong Kong/1434/2002); 4) availability of certain influenza vaccine doses with reduced thimerosal content, including single 0.25 mL-dose syringes; and 5) manufacturers of influenza vaccine for the U.S. market. Although the optimal time to vaccinate against influenza is October and November, vaccination in December and later continues to be strongly recommended. A link to this report and other information regarding influenza can be accessed at http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/flu/fluvirus.htm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report updates the 2001 recommendations by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of influenza vaccine and antiviral agents (MMWR 2001;50[No. RR-4]:1--44). The 2002 recommendations include new or updated information regarding 1) the timing of influenza vaccination by risk group; 2) influenza vaccine for children aged 6--23 months; 3) the 2002--2003 trivalent vaccine virus strains: A/Moscow/10/99 (H3N2)-like, A/New Caledonia/20/99 (H1N1)-like, and B/Hong Kong/330/2001-like strains; and 4) availability of certain influenza vaccine doses with reduced thimerosal content. A link to this report and other information related to influenza can be accessed at the website for the Influenza Branch, Division of Viral and Rickettsial Diseases, National Center for Infectious Diseases, CDC, at http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/flu/fluvirus.htm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report updates the 2000 recommendations by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on the use of influenza vaccine and antiviral agents (MMWR 2000;49[No. RR-3]:1-38). The 2001 recommendations include new or updated information regarding a) the cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination; b) the influenza vaccine supply; c) neuraminidase-inhibitor antiviral drugs; d) the 2001-2002 trivalent vaccine virus strains, which are A/Moscow/10/ 99 (H3N2)-like, A/New Caledonia/20/99 (H1N1)-like, and B/Sichuan/379/99-like strains; and e) extension of the optimal time period for vaccination through November. A link to this report and other information regarding influenza can be accessed at the website for the Influenza Branch, Division of Viral and Rickettsial Diseases, National Center for Infectious Diseases, CDC at . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Although the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of influenza vaccination are well established for persons aged 65 years or older, the benefits for healthy adults younger than 65 years are less clear.Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and cost-benefit of influenza vaccine in preventing influenza-like illness (ILI) and reducing societal costs of ILI among healthy working adults.Design: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted during 2 influenza seasons.Setting and Participants: Healthy adults aged 18 to 64 years and employed full-time by a US manufacturing company (for 1997-1998 season, n = 1184; for 1998-1999 season, n = 1191).Interventions: For each season, participants were randomly assigned to receive either trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (n = 595 in 1997-1998 and n = 587 in 1998-1999) or sterile saline injection (placebo; n = 589 in 1997-1998 and n = 604 in 1998-1999). Participants in 1997-1998 were rerandomized if they participated in 1998-1999.Main Outcome Measures: Influenza-like illnesses and associated physician visits and work absenteeism reported in biweekly questionnaires by all participants, and serologically confirmed influenza illness among 23% of participants in each year (n = 275 in 1997-1998; n = 278 in 1998-1999); societal cost of ILI per vaccinated vs unvaccinated person.Results: For 1997-1998 and 1998-1999, respectively, 95% (1130/1184) and 99% (1178/1191) of participants had complete follow-up, and 23% in each year had serologic testing. In 1997-1998, when the vaccine virus differed from the predominant circulating viruses, vaccine efficacy against serologically confirmed influenza illness was 50% (P =.33). In this season, vaccination did not reduce ILI, physician visits, or lost workdays; the net societal cost was $65.59 per person compared with no vaccination. In 1998-1999, the vaccine and predominant circulating viruses were well matched. Vaccine efficacy was 86% (P =.001), and vaccination reduced ILI, physician visits, and lost workdays by 34%, 42%, and 32%, respectively. However, vaccination resulted in a net societal cost of $11.17 per person compared with no vaccination.Conclusion: Influenza vaccination of healthy working adults younger than 65 years can reduce the rates of ILI, lost workdays, and physician visits during years when the vaccine and circulating viruses are similar, but vaccination may not provide overall economic benefits in most years. JAMA. 2000;284:1655-1663. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The first outbreak of avian influenza A (H5N1) occurred among humans in Hong Kong in 1997. To estimate the risk of person-to-person transmission, a retrospective cohort study was conducted to compare the prevalence of H5N1 antibody among health care workers (HCWs) exposed to H5N1 case-patients with the prevalence among nonexposed HCWs. Information on H5N1 case-patient and poultry exposures and blood samples for H5N1-specific antibody testing were collected. Eight (3.7%) of 217 exposed and 2 (0.7%) of 309 nonexposed HCWs were H5N1 seropositive (P=.01). The difference remained significant after controlling for poultry exposure (P=.01). This study presents the first epidemiologic evidence that H5N1 viruses were transmitted from patients to HCWs. Human-to-human transmission of avian influenza may increase the chances for the emergence of a novel influenza virus with pandemic potential. Copyright © 2000 The University of Chicago [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Influenza epidemics are responsible for an average of approximately 20,000 deaths per year in the United States. The main method for preventing influenza and its severe complications is influenza vaccination. Influenza-specific antiviral drugs are an important adjunct to vaccine but are not a substitute for vaccine. In the United States, four antiviral agents are approved for preventing or treating influenza: amantadine, rimantadine, zanamivir, and oseltamivir. Amantadine has been available in the United States since 1976, and rimantadine has been available since 1993. This report provides information on two neuraminidase inhibitors, zanamivir and oseltamivir, which were approved in 1999. Neuraminidase inhibitors are a new class of antiviral drugs that inhibit influenza A and B viruses. Zanamivir is approved for treatment of uncomplicated acute illness caused by influenza virus in persons aged >12 years who have been symptomatic for no more than 2 days. Oseltamivir is approved for treatment of uncomplicated illness caused by influenza infection in adults aged >18 years who have been symptomatic for no more than 2 days. Neither zanamivir nor oseltamivir is approved for influenza prophylaxis. This report and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) 1999 recommendations on influenza prevention and control (MMWR 1999;48[No.RR-4]:1-28) can be accessed at the website for the Influenza Branch, Division of Viral and Rickettsial Diseases, National Center for Infectious Diseases, CDC, at or at the MMWR website at . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A descriptive, exploratory study of 69 male and female employers was done in a small rural community to determine their attitudes toward breastfeeding or expressing milk in the workplace. Business variables, such as experience working with women who have breastfed and knowledge of other businesses who have employed breastfeeding women, appeared to be better predictors of a positive level of support toward breastfeeding in the workplace than personal attributes, such as age, education level, and personal history with a spouse or friend who breastfed. The health care provider needs to become instrumental in promoting breastfeeding in the workplace by focusing on the positive effects on the business and providing employers with successful examples of workplace breastfeeding programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Within 5 months after the earliest detection of human influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 virus, we found molecular and culture evidence of the virus in healthy US show pigs. The mixing of humans and pigs at swine shows possibly could further the geographic and cross-species spread of influenza A viruses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most estimates of US deaths associated with influenza circulation have been similar despite the use of different approaches. However, a recently published estimate suggested that previous estimates substantially overestimated deaths associated with influenza, and concluded that substantial numbers of deaths during a future pandemic could be prevented because of improvements in medical care. We reviewed the data sources and methods used to estimate influenza-associated deaths. We suggest that discrepancies between the recent estimate and previous estimates of the number of influenza-associated deaths are attributable primarily to the use of different outcomes and methods. We also believe that secondary bacterial infections will likely result in substantial morbidity and mortality during a future influenza pandemic, despite medical progress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During December 2020 through May 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Immunization Services Division supported and executed the largest vaccine distribution effort in U.S. history, delivering nearly one billion doses of COVID-19 vaccine to vaccine providers in all 50 states, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, Federated States of Micronesia, American Samoa, Marshall Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, and Palau. While existing infrastructure, ordering, and distribution mechanisms were in place from the Vaccines for Children Program (VFC) and experience had been gained during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic and incorporated into influenza vaccination pandemic planning, the scale and complexity of the national mobilization against a novel coronavirus resulted in many previously unforeseen challenges, particularly related to transporting and storing the majority of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccine at frozen and ultra-cold temperatures. This article describes the infrastructure supporting the distribution of U.S. government-purchased COVID-19 vaccines that was in place pre-pandemic, and the infrastructure, processes, and communications efforts developed to support the heightened demands of the COVID-19 vaccination program, and describes lessons learned., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) and health care personnel (HCP) working in these facilities are at high risk for COVID-19-associated mortality. As of March 2021, deaths among LTCF residents and HCP have accounted for almost one third (approximately 182,000) of COVID-19-associated deaths in the United States (1). Accordingly, LTCF residents and HCP were prioritized for early receipt of COVID-19 vaccination and were targeted for on-site vaccination through the federal Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program (2). In December 2020, CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) launched COVID-19 vaccination modules, which allow U.S. LTCFs to voluntarily submit weekly facility-level COVID-19 vaccination data.* CDC analyzed data submitted during March 1-April 4, 2021, to describe COVID-19 vaccination coverage among a convenience sample of HCP working in LTCFs, by job category, and compare HCP vaccination coverage rates with social vulnerability metrics of the surrounding community using zip code tabulation area (zip code area) estimates. Through April 4, 2021, a total of 300 LTCFs nationwide, representing approximately 1.8% of LTCFs enrolled in NHSN, reported that 22,825 (56.8%) of 40,212 HCP completed COVID-19 vaccination. † Vaccination coverage was highest among physicians and advanced practice providers (75.1%) and lowest among nurses (56.7%) and aides (45.6%). Among aides (including certified nursing assistants, nurse aides, medication aides, and medication assistants), coverage was lower in facilities located in zip code areas with higher social vulnerability (social and structural factors associated with adverse health outcomes), corresponding to vaccination disparities present in the wider community (3). Additional efforts are needed to improve LTCF immunization policies and practices, build confidence in COVID-19 vaccines, and promote COVID-19 vaccination. CDC and partners have prepared education and training resources to help educate HCP and promote COVID-19 vaccination coverage among LTCF staff members. § ., 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.

The revised Standards for Adult Immunization Practice ("Standards"), published in 2014, recommend routine vaccination assessment, strong provider recommendation, vaccine administration or referral, and documentation of vaccines administered into immunization information systems (IIS). We assessed clinician and pharmacist implementation of the Standards in the United States from 2016 to 2018. Participating clinicians (family and internal medicine physicians, obstetricians-gynecologists, specialty physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners) and pharmacists responded using an internet panel survey. Weighted proportion of clinicians and pharmacists reporting full implementation of each component of the Standards were calculated. Adjusted prevalence ratio (APR) estimates of practice characteristics associated with self-reported implementation of the Standards are also presented. Across all medical specialties, the percentages of clinicians and pharmacists implementing the vaccine assessment and recommendation components of the Standards were >80.0%. However, due to low IIS documentation, full implementation of the Standards was low overall, ranging from 30.4% for specialty medicine to 45.8% in family medicine clinicians. The presence of an immunization champion (APR, 1.40 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.26 to 1.54]), use of standing orders (APR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.27 to 1.57]), and use of a patient reminder-recall system (APR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.26 to 1.54]) were positively associated with adherence to the Standards by clinicians. Similar results were observed for pharmacists. Nonetheless, vaccination improvement strategies, i.e., having standing orders in place, empowering an immunization champion, and using patient recall-reminder systems were underutilized in clinical settings; full implementation of the Standards was inconsistent across all health care provider practices., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Regarding the present manuscript, the following co-authors do not report and conflicts of interest: Charleigh J. Granade, Amy Parker-Fiebelkorn, Carla L. Black, Anup Srivastav, Chelsea S. Lutz, Carolyn B. Bridges, and David K. Kim. Because the data presented in this manuscript was collected through a contractual agreement between CDC and Abt. Associates, the following co-authors report a conflict of interest: Sarah W. Ball, Rebecca G. Devlin, and Ann J. Cloud.., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To identify the most important reasons underlying decisions to stock or not stock adult vaccines., Study Design: US physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and administrators of internal medicine, family medicine, obstetrics/gynecology, and multispecialty practices who were involved in vaccine stocking decisions (N = 125) completed a best-worst scaling survey online between February and April 2018., Methods: Sixteen potential factors influencing stocking decisions were developed based on key informant interviews and focus groups. Respondents selected factors that were most and least important in vaccine stocking decisions. Relative importance scores for the best-worst scaling factors were calculated. Survey respondents described which vaccines their practice stocks and reasons for not stocking specific vaccines. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the respondent's involvement in vaccine decision making, role in the organization, specialty, and affiliation status, as well as practice characteristics such as practice size, insurance mix, and patient age mix., Results: Relative importance scores for stocking vaccines were highest for "cost of purchasing vaccine stock," "expense of maintaining vaccine inventory," and "lack of adequate reimbursement for vaccine acquisition and administration." Most respondents (97%) stocked influenza vaccines, but stocking rates of other vaccines varied from 39% (meningococcal B) to 83% (tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis). Best-worst scaling results were consistent across respondent subgroups, although the range of vaccine types stocked differed by practice type., Conclusions: Economic factors associated with the purchase and maintenance of vaccine inventory and inadequate reimbursement for vaccination services were the most important to decision makers when considering whether to stock or not stock vaccines for adults.

Background: Provider concern regarding insurance non-payment for vaccines is a common barrier to provision of adult immunizations. We examined current adult vaccination billing and payment associated with two managed care populations to identify reasons for non-payment of immunization insurance claims., Methods: We assessed administrative data from 2014 to 2015 from Blue Care Network of Michigan, a nonprofit health maintenance organization, and Blue Cross Complete of Michigan, a Medicaid managed care plan, to determine rates of and reasons for non-payment of adult vaccination claims across patient-care settings, insurance plans, and vaccine types. We compared commercial and Medicaid payment rates to Medicare payment rates and examined patient cost sharing., Results: Pharmacy-submitted claims for adult vaccine doses were almost always paid (commercial 98.5%; Medicaid 100%). As the physician office accounted for the clear majority (79% commercial; 69% Medicaid) of medical (non-pharmacy) vaccination services, we limited further analyses of both commercial and Medicaid medical claims to the physician office setting. In the physician office setting, rates of payment were high with commercial rates of payment (97.9%) greater than Medicaid rates (91.6%). Reasons for non-payment varied, but generally related to the complexity of adult vaccine recommendations (patient diagnosis does not match recommendations) or insurance coverage (complex contracts, multiple insurance payers). Vaccine administration services were also generally paid. Commercial health plan payments were greater for both vaccine dose and vaccine administration than Medicare payments; Medicaid paid a higher amount for the vaccine dose, but less for vaccine administration than Medicare. Patients generally had very low (commercial) or no (Medicaid) cost-sharing for vaccination., Conclusions: Adult vaccine dose claims were usually paid. Medicaid generally had higher rates of non-payment than commercial insurance., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend annual influenza vaccination of persons ≥6 months old. However, in 2016-17, only 43.3% of U.S. adults reported receiving an influenza vaccination. Limited awareness about the cost-effectiveness (CE) or the economic value of influenza vaccination may contribute to low vaccination coverage. In 2017, we conducted a literature review to survey estimates of the CE of influenza vaccination of adults compared to no vaccination. We also summarized CE estimates of other common preventive interventions that are recommended for adults by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Results are presented as costs in US$2015 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved. Among adults aged 18-64, the CE of influenza vaccination ranged from $8000 to $39,000 per QALY. Assessments for adults aged ≥65 yielded lower CE ratios, ranging from being cost-saving to $15,300 per QALY. Influenza vaccination was cost-saving to $85,000 per QALY for pregnant women in moderate or severe influenza seasons and $260,000 per QALY in low-incidence seasons. For other preventive interventions, CE estimates ranged from cost-saving to $170,000 per QALY saved for breast cancer screening among women aged 50-74, from cost-saving to $16,000 per QALY for colorectal cancer screening, and from $27,000 to $600,000 per QALY for hypertension screening and treatment. Influenza vaccination in adults appears to have a similar CE profile as other commonly utilized preventive services for adults. Efforts to improve adult vaccination should be considered by adult-patient providers, healthcare systems and payers given the health and economic benefits of influenza vaccination., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Acute hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections in the United States occur predominantly among persons aged 30-59 years. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends vaccination of adults at increased risk for HBV infection. Completing the hepatitis B (HepB) vaccine dose-series is critical for optimal immune response., Objectives: CDC funded 14 health departments (awardees) from 2012 to 2015 to implement a pilot HepB vaccination program for high-risk adults. We evaluated the pilot program to assess vaccine utilization; vaccine dose-series completion, including by vaccination location type; and implementation challenges., Methods: Awardees collaborated with sites providing health care to persons at increased risk for HBV infection. Awardees collected information on doses administered, vaccine dose-series completion, and challenges completing and tracking vaccinations, including use of immunization information systems (IIS). Data were reported by each awardee in aggregate to CDC., Results: Six of 14 awardees administered 47,911 doses and were able to report patient-level dose-series completion. Among persons who received dose 1, 40.4% received dose 2, and 22.3% received dose 3. Local health department clinics had the highest 3-dose-series completion, 60.6% (531/876), followed by federally qualified health centers at 38.0% (923/2432). While sexually transmitted diseases (STD) clinics administered the most doses in total (17,173 [35.8% of 47,911 doses]), 3-dose-series completion was low (17.1%). The 14 awardees reported challenges regarding completing and tracking dose-series, including reaching high-risk adults for follow-up and inconsistencies in use of IIS or other tracking systems across sites., Conclusions: Dose-series completion was low in all settings, but lowest where patients may be less likely to return for follow-up (e.g., STD clinics). Routinely assessing HepB vaccination needs of high-risk adults, including through use of IIS where available, may facilitate HepB vaccine dose-series completion., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Vaccinations are recommended to prevent serious morbidity and mortality. However, providers' concerns regarding costs and payments for providing vaccination services are commonly reported barriers to adult vaccination. Information on the costs of providing vaccination is limited, especially for adults., Methods: We recruited 4 internal medicine, 4 family medicine, 2 pediatric, 2 obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) practices, and 2 community health clinics in North Carolina to participate in a study to assess the economic costs and benefits of providing vaccination services for adults and children. We conducted a time-motion assessment of vaccination-related activities in the provider office and a survey to providers on vaccine management costs. We estimated mean cost per vaccination, minimum and maximum payments received, and income., Results: Across all provider settings, mean cost per vaccine administration was $14 with substantial variation by practice setting (pediatric: $10; community health clinics: $15; family medicine: $17; OBGYN: $23; internal medicine: $23). When receiving the maximum payment, all provider settings had positive income for vaccination services. When receiving the minimum reported payments for vaccination services, pediatric and family medicine practices had positive income, internal medicine, and OBGYN practices had approximately equal costs and payments, and community health clinics had losses or negative income., Conclusions: Overall, vaccination service providers appeared to have small positive income from vaccination services. In some cases, providers experienced negative income, which underscores the need for providers and policymakers to design interventions and system improvements to make vaccination services financially sustainable for all provider types.

Background: Although influenza vaccination has been shown to reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) among those with existing cardiovascular disease (CVD), in the 2015-16 season, coverage for persons with heart disease was only 48% in the US., Methods: We built a Monte Carlo (probabilistic) spreadsheet-based decision tree in 2018 to estimate the cost-effectiveness of increased influenza vaccination to prevent MACE readmissions. We based our model on current US influenza vaccination coverage of the estimated 493,750 US acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients from the healthcare payer perspective. We excluded outpatient costs and time lost from work and included only hospitalization and vaccination costs. We also estimated the incremental cost/MACE case averted and incremental cost/QALY gained (ICER) if 75% hospitalized ACS patients were vaccinated by discharge and estimated the impact of increasing vaccination coverage incrementally by 5% up to 95% in a sensitivity analysis, among hospitalized adults aged ≥ 65 years and 18-64 years, and varying vaccine effectiveness from 30-40%., Result: At 75% vaccination coverage by discharge, vaccination was cost-saving from the healthcare payer perspective in adults ≥ 65 years and the ICER was $12,680/QALY (95% CI: 6,273-20,264) in adults 18-64 years and $2,400 (95% CI: -1,992-7,398) in all adults 18 + years. These resulted in ~ 500 (95% CI: 439-625) additional averted MACEs/year for all adult patients aged ≥18 years and added ~700 (95% CI: 578-825) QALYs. In the sensitivity analysis, vaccination becomes cost-saving in adults 18+years after about 80% vaccination rate. To achieve 75% vaccination rate in all adults aged ≥ 18 years will require an additional cost of $3 million. The effectiveness of the vaccine, cost of vaccination, and vaccination coverage rate had the most impact on the results., Conclusion: Increasing vaccination rate among hospitalized ACS patients has a favorable cost-effectiveness profile and becomes cost-saving when at least 80% are vaccinated., Competing Interests: We have the following interests. Danielle Moulia is employed by IHRC, Inc. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products to declare. This does not alter our adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, as detailed online in the guide for authors.

Despite recommendations for vaccinating adults and widespread availability of immunization services (e.g., pharmacy venues, workplace wellness clinics), vaccination rates in the United States remain low. The U.S. National Adult Immunization Plan identified the development of quality measures as a priority and key strategy to address low adult vaccination coverage rates. The use of quality measures can provide incentives for increased utilization of preventive services. To address the lack of adult immunization measures, the National Adult and Influenza Immunization Summit, a coalition of adult immunization partners led by the Immunization Action Coalition, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Vaccine Program Office, spearheaded efforts to (1) identify gaps and priorities in adult immunization quality performance measurement; (2) explore feasibility of data collection on adult immunizations through pilot testing and engaging stakeholders; and (3) develop and test quality measure specifications. This paper outlines the process by which a public-private partnership drove the development of two adult immunization performance measures-an adult immunization status measure for influenza, tetanus and diphtheria (Td) and/or tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap), herpes zoster and pneumococcal vaccines, and a prenatal immunization status measure for influenza and Tdap vaccinations in pregnant women. These measures have recently been added to the 2019 Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS®), a widely used set of performance measures reportable by private health plans., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

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.)

Background: Patient reminders are recommended to increase vaccination rates. The objectives of this study were to estimate the percentage of children 6 months-17 years for whom a patient reminder for influenza vaccination was received by a child's parent or guardian, estimate influenza vaccination coverage by receipt of a patient reminder, and identify factors associated with receipt of a patient reminder., Methods: National Immunization Survey-Flu (NIS-Flu) data for the 2013-14 influenza season were analyzed. Tests of association between patient reminders and demographic characteristics were conducted using Wald chi-square tests and pairwise comparison t-tests. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine variables independently associated with receiving a patient reminder., Results: Approximately 22% of children had a parent or guardian report receiving a patient reminder for influenza vaccination for their child, ranging from 12.9% in Idaho to 41.2% in Mississippi. Children with a patient reminder were more likely to be vaccinated compared with children without a patient reminder (73.7% versus 55.5%). In the multivariable model, reminder receipt was higher for children 6-23 months compared with children 13-17 years, black children compared with white children, and children whose parent completed the survey in English compared with children whose parent completed the survey in a language other than English or Spanish., Conclusions: Although patient reminders are associated with a higher likelihood of influenza vaccination, nationally, less than one-fourth of children had a parent report receiving one. Despite being based on parental report, with its limitations, this study suggests that increasing the number of parents who receive patient reminders for their children may improve vaccination coverage among children., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objectives: To determine the proportion of children whose parents prefer them to receive live, attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) or inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV), examine reasons for preferences, and determine what percentage of vaccinated children receive other than the preferred type of vaccine and why., Methods: Parental-reported data for the 2014-15 and 2015-16 influenza seasons from the National Immunization Survey-Flu (NIS-Flu), a random-digit-dialed, dual frame (landline and cellular telephone) survey of households with children, were analyzed. We calculated the proportions of vaccinated children aged 2-17 years whose parents preferred LAIV, IIV, or had no preference, and the proportions that were vaccinated with other than the preferred type of vaccine., Results: For the 2014-15 and 2015-16 seasons, 55.2% and 53.7%, respectively, of vaccinated children had parents who reported no preference for either IIV or LAIV. The percentage who preferred LAIV was 22.7% and 21.7%, and IIV was 22.1% and 24.7%. The most common reason given by parents for preferring LAIV was the child's fear of needles (70.9%) and for preferring IIV was belief that the shot is more effective (29.0%). Approximately one-third of vaccinated children whose parents preferred LAIV received IIV only., Conclusions: The main finding of this study was that most parents do not have a vaccine type preference for their children. The lack of overwhelming preference is advantageous for the maintenance of vaccination coverage levels during times when one vaccine type is not available or not recommended such as in the 2016-17 and 2017-18 seasons when there was a temporary recommendation not to administer LAIV., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Reminders for influenza vaccination improve influenza vaccination coverage. The purpose of this study was to describe the receipt of reminders for influenza vaccination during the 2011-12 influenza season among US adults., Methods: We analyzed data from the March 2012 National Flu Survey (NFS), a random digit dial telephone survey of adults in the United States. Relative to July 1, 2011, respondents were asked whether they received a reminder for influenza vaccination and the source and type of reminder they received. The association between reminder receipt and demographic variables, and the association between influenza vaccination coverage and receipt of reminders were also examined., Results: Of adults interviewed, 17.2% reported receiving a reminder since July 1, 2011. More than half (65.2%) of the reminders were sent by doctor offices. Hispanics and non-Hispanic blacks were more likely than non-Hispanic whites to report receiving a reminder. Adults who reported having a usual healthcare provider, health insurance, or a high-risk condition were more likely to report receiving reminders than the respective reference group. Adults reporting receipt of reminders were 1.15 times more likely (adjusted prevalence ratio, 95% CI: 1.06-1.25) to report being vaccinated for influenza than adults reporting not receiving reminders., Conclusions: Differences exist in receipt of influenza vaccination reminders among adults. Reminders are important tools to improve adult influenza vaccination coverage. Greater use of reminders may lead to higher rates of adult influenza vaccination coverage and reductions in influenza-related morbidity., (Published 2018. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Despite the proven effectiveness of immunization in preventing morbidity and mortality, adult vaccines remain underutilized. The objective of this study was to describe clinicians' and pharmacists' self-reported implementation of the Standards for Adult Immunization Practice ("the Standards"; i.e., routine assessment, recommendation, and administration/referral for needed vaccines, and documentation of administered vaccines, including in immunization information systems)., Methods: Two Internet panel surveys (one among clinicians and one among pharmacists) were conducted during February-March 2017 and asked respondents about their practice's implementation of the Standards. T-tests assessed associations between clinician medical specialty, vaccine type, and each component of the Standards (March-August 2017)., Results: Implementation of the Standards varied substantially by vaccine and provider type. For example, >80.0% of providers, including obstetrician/gynecologists and subspecialists, assessed for and recommended influenza vaccine. However, 24.3% of obstetrician/gynecologists and 48.9% of subspecialists did not stock influenza vaccine for administration. Although zoster vaccine was recommended by >89.0% of primary care providers, <58.0% stocked the vaccine; by contrast, 91.6% of pharmacists stocked zoster vaccine. Vaccine needs assessments, recommendations, and stocking/referrals also varied by provider type for pneumococcal; tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis; tetanus diphtheria; human papillomavirus; and hepatitis B vaccines., Conclusions: This report highlights gaps in access to vaccines recommended for adults across the spectrum of provider specialties. Greater implementation of the Standards by all providers could improve adult vaccination rates in the U.S. by reducing missed opportunities to recommend vaccinations and either vaccinate or refer patients to vaccine providers., (Copyright © 2018 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. All rights reserved.)

Background: In March 2002, an outbreak of low-pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) A(H7N2) was detected among commercial poultry operations in Virginia., Methods: We performed a serosurvey of 80 government workers involved in efforts to control the outbreak., Results: One study participant who assisted with disposal of infected birds tested positive for neutralizing antibodies to influenza A(H7N2) by microneutralization assay and H7-specific IgM antibodies by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The acute infection was temporally associated with an influenza-like illness that resolved without hospitalization., Conclusion: This study documents the earliest evidence of human infection with an H7 influenza virus of the North American lineage., (© 2018 The Authors. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Financial concerns are often cited by physicians as a barrier to administering routinely recommended vaccines to adults. The purpose of this study was to assess perceived payments and profit from administering recommended adult vaccines and vaccine purchasing practices among general internal medicine (GIM) and family medicine (FM) practices in the United States., Methods: We conducted an interviewer-administered survey from January-June 2014 of practices stratified by specialty (FM or GIM), affiliation (standalone or ≥ 2 practice sites), and level of financial decision-making (independent or larger system level) in FM and GIM practices that responded to a previous survey on adult vaccine financing and provided contact information for follow-up. Practice personnel identified as knowledgeable about vaccine financing and billing responded to questions about payments relative to vaccine purchase price and payment for vaccine administration, perceived profit on vaccination, claim denial, and utilization of various purchasing strategies for private vaccine stocks. Survey items on payment and perceived profit were assessed for various public and private payer types. Descriptive statistics were calculated and responses compared by physician specialty, practice affiliation, and level of financial decision-making., Results: Of 242 practices approached, 43% (n = 104) completed the survey. Reported payment levels and perceived profit varied by payer type. Only for preferred provider organizations did a plurality of respondents report profiting on adult vaccination services. Over half of respondents reported losing money vaccinating adult Medicaid beneficiaries. One-quarter to one-third of respondents reported not knowing about Medicare Part D payment levels for vaccine purchase and vaccine administration, respectively. Few respondents reported negotiating with manufacturers or insurance plans on vaccine purchase prices or payments for vaccination., Conclusions: Practices vaccinating adults may benefit from education and technical assistance related to vaccine financing and billing and greater use of purchasing strategies to decrease upfront vaccine cost., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: In 2012, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) in series with 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) for at-risk adults ≥19; in 2014, it expanded this recommendation to adults ≥65. Primary care physicians' practice, knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding these recommendations are unknown., Methods: Primary care physicians throughout the U.S. were surveyed by E-mail and post from December 2015 to January 2016., Results: Response rate was 66% (617 of 935). Over 95% of respondents reported routinely assessing adults' vaccination status and recommending both vaccines. A majority found the current recommendations to be clear (50% "very clear," 38% "somewhat clear"). Twenty percent found the upfront cost of purchasing PCV13, lack of insurance coverage, inadequate reimbursement, and difficulty determining vaccination history to be "major barriers" to giving these vaccines. Knowledge of recommendations varied, with 83% identifying the PCV13 recommendation for adults ≥65 and only 21% identifying the recommended interval between PCV13 and PPSV23 in an individual <65 at increased risk., Conclusions: Almost all surveyed physicians reported recommending both pneumococcal vaccines, but a disconnect seems to exist between perceived clarity and knowledge of the recommendations. Optimal implementation of these recommendations will require addressing knowledge gaps and reported barriers., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: none declared., (© Copyright 2018 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Objectives: The objective of this study was to quantify the potential retail pharmacy vaccine administration capacity and its possible impact on pandemic influenza vaccine uptake., Methods: We developed a discrete event simulation model by use of ExtendSim software (Imagine That Inc, San Jose, CA) to forecast the potential effect of retail pharmacy vaccine administration on total weekly vaccine administration and the time needed to reach 80% vaccination coverage with a single dose of vaccine per person., Results: Results showed that weekly national vaccine administration capacity increased to 25 million doses per week when retail pharmacist vaccination capacity was included in the model. In addition, the time to achieve 80% vaccination coverage nationally was reduced by 7 weeks, assuming high public demand for vaccination. The results for individual states varied considerably, but in 48 states the inclusion of pharmacies improved time to 80% coverage., Conclusions: Pharmacists can increase the numbers of pandemic influenza vaccine doses administered and reduce the time to achieve 80% single-dose coverage. These results support efforts to ensure pharmacist vaccinators are integrated into pandemic vaccine response planning. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2017;11:587-593).

Background: Adults are recommended to receive select vaccinations based on their age, underlying medical conditions, lifestyle, and other considerations. Factors associated with awareness of vaccine-preventable diseases and recommended vaccines among adults in the United States have not been explored., Methods: Data from a 2015 internet panel survey of a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults aged ≥19years were analyzed to assess awareness of selected vaccine-preventable diseases and recommended vaccines for adults. A multivariable logistic regression model with a predictive marginal approach was used to identify factors independently associated with awareness of selected vaccine-preventable infections/diseases and corresponding vaccines., Results: Among the surveyed population, from 24.6 to 72.1% reported vaccination for recommended vaccines. Awareness of vaccine-preventable diseases among adults aged ≥19years ranged from 63.4% to 94.0% (63.4% reported awareness of HPV, 71.5% reported awareness of tetanus, 72.0% reported awareness of pertussis, 75.4% reported awareness of HZ, 75.8% reported awareness of hepatitis B, 83.1% reported awareness of pneumonia, and 94.0% reported awareness of influenza). Awareness of the corresponding vaccines among adults aged ≥19years ranged from 59.3% to 94.1% (59.3% HZ vaccine, 59.6% HPV vaccine, 64.3% hepatitis B vaccine, 66.2% pneumococcal vaccine, 86.3% tetanus vaccines, and 94.1% influenza vaccine). In multivariable analysis, being female and being a college graduate were significantly associated with a higher level of awareness for majority of vaccine-preventable diseases, and being female, being a college graduate, and working as a health care provider were significantly associated with a higher level of awareness for majority of corresponding vaccines., Conclusions: Although adults in this survey reported high levels of awareness for most vaccines recommended for adults, self-reported vaccination coverage was not optimal. Combining interventions known to increase uptake of recommended vaccines, such as patient reminder/recall systems and other healthcare system-based interventions, and ensuring patients' vaccination needs are assessed, are needed to improve vaccination of adults., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Provider recommendations and offers for influenza vaccination improve adult influenza vaccination coverage. Analysis was performed to describe receipt of influenza vaccination recommendations and offers among adults who visited a healthcare provider (HCP) during the 2011-2012 influenza season and describe differences between those receiving and not receiving recommendations and offers for influenza vaccination. Associations between influenza vaccination and receipt of recommendations and offers were examined., Methods: Respondents to a random digit dial telephone survey who had visited a HCP since July 1, 2011 were asked if they had received a recommendation for influenza vaccination. Those receiving a recommendation were asked if they received an offer for vaccination. Participants were characterized by demographic and access to health care variables. Logistic regression was used to examine the relationships between participant characteristics and recommendation alone, between participant characteristics and recommendation and offer, and between influenza vaccination and recommendation and offer., Results: Of those who reported visiting a HCP, 43.8% reported receiving a recommendation for influenza vaccination. Of those who reported receiving a recommendation, 76.6% reported receiving an offer for influenza vaccination. Persons with high-risk conditions and persons over 65 years were more likely to receive recommendations for influenza vaccination when compared to those without high-risk conditions and 18-49 year olds, respectively. Those reporting receipt of a recommendation and offer for influenza vaccination were 1.76 times more likely and those reporting receipt of a recommendation but no offer were 1.72 times more likely to report being vaccinated for influenza controlling for all patient characteristics., Conclusions: Less than half of respondents reported receipt of recommendations and offers of influenza vaccination during the 2011-2012 influenza season and disparities exist between groups. All healthcare providers seeing adults should recommend or offer influenza vaccination for all patients at every visit during the influenza season., (Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

In October 2016, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted to approve the Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule for Adults Aged 19 Years or Older-United States, 2017. The 2017 adult immunization schedule summarizes ACIP recommendations in two figures, footnotes for the figures, and a table of contraindications and precautions for vaccines recommended for adults. These documents are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules. The full ACIP recommendations for each vaccine can be found at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/index.html. The 2017 adult immunization schedule was also reviewed and approved by the American College of Physicians (https://www.acponline.org), the American Academy of Family Physicians (https://www.aafp.org), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (http://www.acog.org), and the American College of Nurse-Midwives (http://www.midwife.org).