Search

Clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines currently authorized for emergency use in the United States (Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen [Johnson & Johnson]) indicate that these vaccines have high efficacy against symptomatic disease, including moderate to severe illness (1-3). In addition to clinical trials, real-world assessments of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness are critical in guiding vaccine policy and building vaccine confidence, particularly among populations at higher risk for more severe illness from COVID-19, including older adults. To determine the real-world effectiveness of the three currently authorized COVID-19 vaccines among persons aged ≥65 years during February 1-April 30, 2021, data on 7,280 patients from the COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET) were analyzed with vaccination coverage data from state immunization information systems (IISs) for the COVID-NET catchment area (approximately 4.8 million persons). Among adults aged 65-74 years, effectiveness of full vaccination in preventing COVID-19-associated hospitalization was 96% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 94%-98%) for Pfizer-BioNTech, 96% (95% CI = 95%-98%) for Moderna, and 84% (95% CI = 64%-93%) for Janssen vaccine products. Effectiveness of full vaccination in preventing COVID-19-associated hospitalization among adults aged ≥75 years was 91% (95% CI = 87%-94%) for Pfizer-BioNTech, 96% (95% CI = 93%-98%) for Moderna, and 85% (95% CI = 72%-92%) for Janssen vaccine products. COVID-19 vaccines currently authorized in the United States are highly effective in preventing COVID-19-associated hospitalizations in older adults. In light of real-world data demonstrating high effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines among older adults, efforts to increase vaccination coverage in this age group are critical to reducing the risk for COVID-19-related hospitalization.

In December 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for the Pfizer BioNTech (https://www. pfizer.com) and Moderna (https://www.modernatx. com) 2-dose primary mRNA COVID-19 vaccine [...]

Although more common among adults, severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and hospitalization can occur in children. Among >8,300 hospitalized children 5-11 years of age, 1/3 required intensive care (1,2). Children can [...]

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]

Although severe COVID-19 illness and hospitalization are more common among older adults, children can also be affected (1). More than 3 million cases of COVID-19 had been reported among infants and children aged <5 years (children) as of December 2, 2022 (2). One in four children hospitalized with COVID-19 required intensive care; 21.2% of cases of COVID-19-related multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) occurred among children aged 1-4 years, and 3.2% of MIS-C cases occurred among infants aged <1 year (1,3). On June 17, 2022, the Food and Drug Administration issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for children aged 6 months-5 years and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for children aged 6 months-4 years. To assess COVID-19 vaccination coverage among children aged 6 months-4 years in the United States, coverage with ≥1 dose* and completion of the 2-dose or 3-dose primary vaccination series † were assessed using vaccine administration data for the 50 U.S. states and District of Columbia submitted from June 20 (after COVID-19 vaccine was first authorized for this age group) through December 31, 2022. As of December 31, 2022, ≥1-dose COVID-19 vaccination coverage among children aged 6 months-4 years was 10.1% and was 5.1% for series completion. Coverage with ≥1 dose varied by jurisdiction (range = 2.1% [Mississippi] to 36.1% [District of Columbia]) as did coverage with a completed series (range = 0.7% [Mississippi] to 21.4% [District of Columbia]), respectively. By age group, 9.7 % of children aged 6-23 months and 10.2% of children aged 2-4 years received ≥1 dose; 4.5% of children aged 6-23 months and 5.4% of children aged 2-4 years completed the vaccination series. Among children aged 6 months-4 years, ≥1-dose COVID-19 vaccination coverage was lower in rural counties (3.4%) than in urban counties (10.5%). Among children aged 6 months-4 years who received at least the first dose, only 7.0% were non-Hispanic Black or African American (Black), and 19.9% were Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic), although these demographic groups constitute 13.9% and 25.9% of the population, respectively (4). COVID-19 vaccination coverage among children aged 6 months-4 years is substantially lower than that among older children (5). Efforts are needed to improve vaccination coverage among children aged 6 months-4 years to reduce COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality., 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.

Approximately 60 million persons in the United States live in rural counties, representing almost one fifth (19.3%) of the population.* In September 2020, COVID-19 incidence (cases per 100,000 population) in rural counties surpassed that in urban counties (1). Rural communities often have a higher proportion of residents who lack health insurance, live with comorbidities or disabilities, are aged ≥65 years, and have limited access to health care facilities with intensive care capabilities, which places these residents at increased risk for COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality (2,3). To better understand COVID-19 vaccination disparities across the urban-rural continuum, CDC analyzed county-level vaccine administration data among adults aged ≥18 years who received their first dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, or a single dose of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine (Johnson & Johnson) during December 14, 2020-April 10, 2021 in 50 U.S. jurisdictions (49 states and the District of Columbia [DC]). Adult COVID-19 vaccination coverage was lower in rural counties (38.9%) than in urban counties (45.7%) overall and among adults aged 18-64 years (29.1% rural, 37.7% urban), those aged ≥65 years (67.6% rural, 76.1% urban), women (41.7% rural, 48.4% urban), and men (35.3% rural, 41.9% urban). Vaccination coverage varied among jurisdictions: 36 jurisdictions had higher coverage in urban counties, five had higher coverage in rural counties, and five had similar coverage (i.e., within 1%) in urban and rural counties; in four jurisdictions with no rural counties, the urban-rural comparison could not be assessed. A larger proportion of persons in the most rural counties (14.6%) traveled for vaccination to nonadjacent counties (i.e., farther from their county of residence) compared with persons in the most urban counties (10.3%). As availability of COVID-19 vaccines expands, public health practitioners should continue collaborating with health care providers, pharmacies, employers, faith leaders, and other community partners to identify and address barriers to COVID-19 vaccination in rural areas (2)., 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.

Compared with other age groups, older adults (defined here as persons aged ≥65 years) are at higher risk for COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality and have therefore been prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination (1,2). Ensuring access to vaccines for older adults has been a focus of federal, state, and local response efforts, and CDC has been monitoring vaccination coverage to identify and address disparities among subpopulations of older adults (2). Vaccine administration data submitted to CDC were analyzed to determine the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccination initiation among adults aged ≥65 years by demographic characteristics and overall. Characteristics of counties with low vaccination initiation rates were quantified using indicators of social vulnerability data from the 2019 American Community Survey.* During December 14, 2020-April 10, 2021, nationwide, a total of 42,736,710 (79.1%) older adults had initiated vaccination. The initiation rate was higher among men than among women and varied by state. On average, counties with low vaccination initiation rates (<50% of older adults having received at least 1 vaccine dose), compared with those with high rates (≥75%), had higher percentages of older adults without a computer, living in poverty, without Internet access, and living alone. CDC, state, and local jurisdictions in partnerships with communities should continue to identify and implement strategies to improve access to COVID-19 vaccination for older adults, such as assistance with scheduling vaccination appointments and transportation to vaccination sites, or vaccination at home if needed for persons who are homebound. † Monitoring demographic and social factors affecting COVID-19 vaccine access for older adults and prioritizing efforts to ensure equitable access to COVID-19 vaccine are needed to ensure high coverage among this group., 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 U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program began in December 2020, and ensuring equitable COVID-19 vaccine access remains a national priority.* COVID-19 has disproportionately affected racial/ethnic minority groups and those who are economically and socially disadvantaged (1,2). Thus, achieving not just vaccine equality (i.e., similar allocation of vaccine supply proportional to its population across jurisdictions) but equity (i.e., preferential access and administra-tion to those who have been most affected by COVID-19 disease) is an important goal. The CDC social vulnerability index (SVI) uses 15 indicators grouped into four themes that comprise an overall SVI measure, resulting in 20 metrics, each of which has national and state-specific county rankings. The 20 metric-specific rankings were each divided into lowest to highest tertiles to categorize counties as low, moderate, or high social vulnerability counties. These tertiles were combined with vaccine administration data for 49,264,338 U.S. residents in 49 states and the District of Columbia (DC) who received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose during December 14, 2020-March 1, 2021. Nationally, for the overall SVI measure, vaccination coverage was higher (15.8%) in low social vulnerability counties than in high social vulnerability counties (13.9%), with the largest coverage disparity in the socioeconomic status theme (2.5 percentage points higher coverage in low than in high vulnerability counties). Wide state variations in equity across SVI metrics were found. Whereas in the majority of states, vaccination coverage was higher in low vulnerability counties, some states had equitable coverage at the county level. CDC, state, and local jurisdictions should continue to monitor vaccination coverage by SVI metrics to focus public health interventions to achieve equitable coverage with 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.

In December 2020, two COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) were authorized for emergency use in the United States for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).* Because of limited initial vaccine supply, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) prioritized vaccination of health care personnel † and residents and staff members of long-term care facilities (LTCF) during the first phase of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program (1). Both vaccines require 2 doses to complete the series. Data on vaccines administered during December 14, 2020-January 14, 2021, and reported to CDC by January 26, 2021, were analyzed to describe demographic characteristics, including sex, age, and race/ethnicity, of persons who received ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine (i.e., initiated vaccination). During this period, 12,928,749 persons in the United States in 64 jurisdictions and five federal entities § initiated COVID-19 vaccination. Data on sex were reported for 97.0%, age for 99.9%, and race/ethnicity for 51.9% of vaccine recipients. Among persons who received the first vaccine dose and had reported demographic data, 63.0% were women, 55.0% were aged ≥50 years, and 60.4% were non-Hispanic White (White). More complete reporting of race and ethnicity data at the provider and jurisdictional levels is critical to ensure rapid detection of and response to potential disparities in COVID-19 vaccination. As the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program expands, public health officials should ensure that vaccine is administered efficiently and equitably within each successive vaccination priority category, especially among those at highest risk for infection and severe adverse health outcomes, many of whom are non-Hispanic Black (Black), non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN), and Hispanic persons (2,3)., 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 August 2017, Hurricane Harvey caused unprecedented flooding and devastation to the Houston metropolitan area (1). Mold exposure was a serious concern because investigations after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita (2005) had documented extensive mold growth in flood-damaged homes (2,3). Because mold exposure can cause serious illnesses known as invasive mold infections (4,5), and immunosuppressed persons are at high risk for these infections (6,7), several federal agencies recommend that immunosuppressed persons avoid mold-contaminated sites (8,9). To assess the extent of exposure to mold and flood-damaged areas among persons at high risk for invasive mold infections after Hurricane Harvey, CDC and Texas health officials conducted a survey among 103 immunosuppressed residents in Houston. Approximately half of the participants (50) engaged in cleanup of mold and water-damaged areas; these activities included heavy cleanup (23), such as removing furniture or removing drywall, or light cleanup (27), such as wiping down walls or retrieving personal items. Among immunosuppressed persons who performed heavy cleanup, 43% reported wearing a respirator, as did 8% who performed light cleanup. One participant reported wearing all personal protective equipment (PPE) recommended for otherwise healthy persons (i.e., respirator, boots, goggles, and gloves). Immunosuppressed residents who are at high risk for invasive mold infections were exposed to mold and flood-damaged areas after Hurricane Harvey; recommendations from health care providers to avoid exposure to mold and flood-damaged areas could mitigate the risk to immunosuppressed persons., Competing Interests: Luis Ostrosky-Zeichner reports grants and personal fees from Astellas, personal fees from Merck & Co., grants and personal fees from Pfizer, grants and personal fees from Cidara, grants and personal fees from Scynexis, personal fees from F2G, grants from Amplyx, personal fees from Mayne, personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from NovaDigm, personal fees from United Medical, and personal fees from Stendhal outside the submitted work. Dimitrios P. Kontoyiannis reports honoraria for lectures from Merck & Co., Gilead, and United Medicine and also reports consulting fees from Merck & Co., Astellas, Cidara, Amplyx, and Mayne. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

On January 13, 2018, at 8:07 a.m. Hawaii Standard Time, an errant emergency alert was sent to persons in Hawaii. An employee at the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency (EMA) sent the errant alert via the Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) system and the Emergency Alert System (EAS) during a ballistic missile preparedness drill, advising persons to seek shelter from an incoming ballistic missile. WEA delivers location-based warnings to wireless carrier systems, and EAS sends alerts via television and radio (1). After 38 minutes, at 8:45 a.m., Hawaii EMA retracted the alert via WEA and EAS (2). To understand the impact of the alert, social media responses to the errant message were analyzed. Data were extracted from Twitter* using a Boolean search for tweets (Twitter postings) posted on January 13 regarding the false alert. Tweets were analyzed during two 38-minute periods: 1) early (8:07-8:45 a.m.), the elapsed time the errant alert circulated until the correction was issued and 2) late (8:46-9:24 a.m.), the same amount of elapsed time after issuance of the correction. A total of 5,880 tweets during the early period and 8,650 tweets during the late period met the search criteria. Four themes emerged during the early period: information processing, information sharing, authentication, and emotional reaction. During the late period, information sharing and emotional reaction themes persisted; denunciation, insufficient knowledge to act, and mistrust of authority also emerged as themes. Understanding public interpretation, sharing, and reaction to social media messages related to emergencies can inform development and dissemination of accurate public health messages to save lives during a crisis., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

The emergency response to Zika virus disease required coordinated efforts and heightened collaboration among federal, state, local, and territorial public health jurisdictions. CDC activated its Emergency Operations Center on January 21, 2016, with seven task forces to support the national response. The State Coordination Task Force, which functions as a liaison between jurisdictions and federal operations during a response, coordinated the development of CDC Guidelines for Development of State and Local Risk-based Zika Action Plans, which included a Zika Preparedness Checklist (1). The checklist summarized recommendations covering topics from the seven task forces. In July 2016, CDC's Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response (OPHPR) awarded $25 million in supplemental funding to 53 jurisdictions (41 states, eight territories, and four metropolitan areas) to support Zika preparedness and response activities. In December 2016, CDC awarded an additional $25 million to 21 of the 53 jurisdictions at the greatest risk for seeing Zika in their communities based on the presence of the mosquito responsible for spreading Zika, history of local transmission, or a high volume of travelers from Zika-affected areas. The additional $25 million was part of the $350 million in Zika supplemental funding provided to CDC by Congress in 2016* (2,3). Funded jurisdictions reported progress through the checklist at five quarterly points throughout the response. Data were analyzed to assess planning and response activities. Among the 53 jurisdictions, the percentage that reported having a Zika virus readiness, response, and recovery plan increased from 26% in June 2016 to 64% in July 2017. Overall, Zika planning and response activities increased among jurisdictions from June 2016 to July 2017. The recent Zika virus outbreak underscores the importance of strengthening state, local, and territorial health department capacity for rapid response to emerging threats., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.