Surveillance for Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in US Children Aged 5-11 Years Who Received Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, November 2021 through March 2022.

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is a complication of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection; in the United States, reporting of MIS-C after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination is required for vaccine safety monitoring. Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was authorized for children aged 5-11 years on 29 October 2021. Covering a period when approximately 7 million children received vaccine, surveillance for MIS-C ≤ 90 days postvaccination using passive systems identified 58 children with MIS-C and laboratory evidence of past/recent SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 4 without evidence. During a period with extensive SARS-CoV-2 circulation, MIS-C illness in children after COVID-19 vaccination who lacked evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was rare (<1 per million vaccinated children).

National, Regional, State, and Selected Local Area Vaccination Coverage Among Adolescents Aged 13-17 Years - United States, 2015.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends that adolescents aged 11-12 years routinely receive vaccines to prevent diseases, including human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated cancers, pertussis, and meningococcal disease (1). To assess vaccination coverage among adolescents in the United States, CDC analyzed data collected regarding 21,875 adolescents through the 2015 National Immunization Survey-Teen (NIS-Teen).* During 2014-2015, coverage among adolescents aged 13-17 years increased for each HPV vaccine dose among males, including ≥1 HPV vaccine dose (from 41.7% to 49.8%), and increased modestly for ≥1 HPV vaccine dose among females (from 60.0% to 62.8%) and ≥1 quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) dose (from 79.3% to 81.3%). Coverage with ≥1 HPV vaccine dose was higher among adolescents living in households below the poverty level, compared with adolescents in households at or above the poverty level.(†) HPV vaccination coverage (≥1, ≥2, or ≥3 doses) increased in 28 states/local areas among males and in seven states among females. Despite limited progress, HPV vaccination coverage remained lower than MenACWY and tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap) coverage, indicating continued missed opportunities for HPV-associated cancer prevention.

Human papillomavirus vaccination: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

This report summarizes the epidemiology of human papillomavirus (HPV) and associated diseases, describes the licensed HPV vaccines, provides updated data from clinical trials and postlicensure safety studies, and compiles recommendations from CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for use of HPV vaccines. Persistent infection with oncogenic HPV types can cause cervical cancer in women as well as other anogenital and oropharyngeal cancers in women and men. HPV also causes genital warts. Two HPV vaccines are licensed in the United States. Both are composed of type-specific HPV L1 protein, the major capsid protein of HPV. Expression of the L1 protein using recombinant DNA technology produces noninfectious virus-like particles (VLPs). Quadrivalent HPV vaccine (HPV4) contains four HPV type-specific VLPs prepared from the L1 proteins of HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18. Bivalent HPV vaccine (HPV2) contains two HPV type-specific VLPs prepared from the L1 proteins of HPV 16 and 18. Both vaccines are administered in a 3-dose series. ACIP recommends routine vaccination with HPV4 or HPV2 for females aged 11 or 12 years and with HPV4 for males aged 11 or 12 years. Vaccination also is recommended for females aged 13 through 26 years and for males aged 13 through 21 years who were not vaccinated previously. Males aged 22 through 26 years may be vaccinated. ACIP recommends vaccination of men who have sex with men and immunocompromised persons (including those with HIV infection) through age 26 years if not previously vaccinated. As a compendium of all current recommendations for use of HPV vaccines, information in this report is intended for use by clinicians, vaccination providers, public health officials, and immunization program personnel as a resource. ACIP recommendations are reviewed periodically and are revised as indicated when new information and data become available.

National, Regional, State, and Selected Local Area Vaccination Coverage Among Adolescents Aged 13-17 Years--United States, 2014.

Routine immunization is recommended for adolescents aged 11-12 years by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for protection against diseases including pertussis, meningococcal disease, and human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated cancers. To assess vaccination coverage among adolescents, CDC analyzed data collected regarding 20,827 adolescents through the 2014 National Immunization Survey-Teen (NIS-Teen). From 2013 to 2014, coverage among adolescents aged 13-17 years increased for all routinely recommended vaccines: from 84.7% to 87.6% for ≥1 tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine dose, from 76.6% to 79.3% for ≥1 meningococcal conjugate (MenACWY) vaccine dose, from 56.7% to 60.0% and from 33.6% to 41.7% for ≥1 HPV vaccine dose among females and males, respectively.† Coverage differed by state and local area. Despite overall progress in vaccination coverage among adolescents, HPV vaccination coverage continues to lag behind Tdap and MenACWY coverage at state and national levels. Seven public health jurisdictions achieved significant increases in ≥1- or ≥3-dose HPV vaccination coverage among females in 2014, demonstrating that substantial improvement in HPV vaccination coverage is feasible.

Use of 9-valent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine: updated HPV vaccination recommendations of the advisory committee on immunization practices.

During its February 2015 meeting, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended 9-valent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine (9vHPV) (Gardasil 9, Merck and Co., Inc.) as one of three HPV vaccines that can be used for routine vaccination. HPV vaccine is recommended for routine vaccination at age 11 or 12 years. ACIP also recommends vaccination for females aged 13 through 26 years and males aged 13 through 21 years not vaccinated previously. Vaccination is also recommended through age 26 years for men who have sex with men and for immunocompromised persons (including those with HIV infection) if not vaccinated previously. 9vHPV is a noninfectious, virus-like particle (VLP) vaccine. Similar to quadrivalent HPV vaccine (4vHPV), 9vHPV contains HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18 VLPs. In addition, 9vHPV contains HPV 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 VLPs. 9vHPV was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on December 10, 2014, for use in females aged 9 through 26 years and males aged 9 through 15 years. For these recommendations, ACIP reviewed additional data on 9vHPV in males aged 16 through 26 years. 9vHPV and 4vHPV are licensed for use in females and males. Bivalent HPV vaccine (2vHPV), which contains HPV 16, 18 VLPs, is licensed for use in females. This report summarizes evidence considered by ACIP in recommending 9vHPV as one of three HPV vaccines that can be used for vaccination and provides recommendations for vaccine use.

Parental attitudes toward human papillomavirus vaccination: evaluation of an educational intervention, 2008.

The authors' objectives were to improve human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine educational materials and to determine whether parents who received those materials had improved attitudes about the vaccine. Pretests were sent to 411 parents of girls 11-18 years of age who had not yet received the HPV vaccine. The authors then randomly assigned 270 respondents to an intervention (educational flyer and posttest) or comparison (posttest only) group. The authors conducted a mixed-method analysis of intervention group feedback on improving the flyer and used paired t tests and analysis of covariance to describe within- and between-group attitude changes. The overall posttest response rate was 76%. Among intervention group respondents (n = 131), 88% had a positive impression of the flyer, and 43% reported that it made them more likely to vaccinate their daughters with HPV vaccine in the future. Parents who received the flyer also showed a statistically significant increase in mean attitude scores regarding perceived HPV vaccine safety and access to HPV vaccine information; mean scores also increased among the comparison group, but the changes were not statistically significant. Educational materials improved HPV vaccine knowledge and attitudes among parents and might have helped motivate some parents to have their daughters vaccinated.

Successful Use of Interventions in Combination to Improve Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Coverage Rates Among Adolescents-Chicago, 2013 to 2015.

In 2013, National Immunization Survey-Teen data indicated that >40% of female adolescents had not initiated the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine series and >60% had not completed the series, documenting vaccination rates much lower than those for other vaccines recommended for adolescents. The Chicago Department of Public Health (CDPH) was 1 of 22 jurisdictions nationwide to receive a Prevention and Public Health Fund award through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to improve HPV vaccination rates among adolescents. The CDPH implemented 5 interventions targeting the public, clinicians and their staff, and diverse immunization and cancer prevention stakeholders. Compared with 2013 jurisdiction-specific HPV vaccination rates among all adolescents, Chicago's HPV vaccination rates were increased significantly in 2014 and 2015. This article details the methods and results of Chicago's successful interventions, the particular strengths as well as barriers encountered, and future steps necessary for sustaining improvement.

Comparing human papillomavirus vaccine knowledge and intentions among parents of boys and girls.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the United States. Previous research suggests some differences between male and female adolescents in correlates of vaccine receipt and reasons for non-vaccination; few studies examine both sexes together. This analysis assessed knowledge and attitudes related to HPV disease and vaccination, intention to vaccinate, and reasons for delayed vaccination or non-vaccination among parents of boys and girls 13-17 y old in 50 states, the District of Columbia, and selected local areas. METHODS: National Immunization Survey-Teen 2013 data were analyzed and gender differences examined. RESULTS: In this sample, adolescent boys were more likely than girls to be unvaccinated and less likely to have completed the HPV vaccination series (p < 0.005 for both). Parents of girls were more likely than parents of boys to report a provider recommendation for HPV vaccination (65.0% vs. 42.1%). Only 29% of girls' parents reported a provider recommendation to begin vaccination by 11-12 y old. Among unvaccinated teens, parental intention to vaccinate in the next 12 months did not differ by sex, but reasons for vaccination or non-vaccination did. Many parents do not know the recommended number of HPV doses. CONCLUSIONS: Gender differences in provider vaccination recommendations and reasons for vaccination might partially explain differential HPV uptake by male and female adolescents. Clinicians should offer strong recommendations for HPV vaccination at 11-12 y old for both girls and boys. To reduce missed opportunities, HPV vaccination should be presented in the context of, and given concurrently with, other routinely administered vaccines.

Adolescents' Self-Reported Recall of Anticipatory Guidance Provided During Well-Visits at Nine Medical Clinics in San Diego, California, 2009-2011.

PURPOSE: Anticipatory guidance (AG) is recommended for adolescent well care. AG recall is important in the event sequence that might lead to behavioral change, reduced health risk, and improved health. We assessed factors influencing adolescents' self-reported recall of specific AG topics. METHODS: Through convenience sampling of nine clinics in San Diego, California, 872 adolescents (429 aged 11-13 years; 443 aged 14-17 years) who had received well visits completed standardized surveys between 2009 and 2011. Adolescents were asked to report recall of either 17 or 23 age-appropriate AG topics that were analyzed in five categories (health maintenance; social/emotional, safety/violence; smoking/substance abuse, and puberty/sexual health); a summary score for all categories was developed. Summary scores' associations with demographic variables, visit characteristics (including having time without parents present [private time]), clinic procedures, and lead physician attitudes were assessed. RESULTS: AG recall was independently associated with adolescents having private time with clinicians, completing previsit questionnaires, reporting the well visit was helpful, and the well visit lasting at least 10 minutes. Higher summary recall scores were observed among adolescents who received care in clinics providing AG at both sick and well visits and having policies encouraging private time. Clinic electronic medical record use for AG prompts was associated with recall of fewer topics. CONCLUSIONS: To increase adolescents' AG recall and potentially foster behavior change, our results suggest medical providers should adopt procedures advocated by professional societies, including assuring adolescents receive private time during visits, increasing visit time during well visits, using patient-completed questionnaires, and providing AG during all visits.

Effect of provider prompts on adolescent immunization rates: a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: Adolescent immunization rates are suboptimal. Experts recommend provider prompts at health care visits to improve rates. We assessed the impact of either electronic health record (EHR) or nurse- or staff-initiated provider prompts on adolescent immunization rates. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial, allocating practices in 1 of 2 practice-based research networks (PBRN) to provider prompts or standard-of-care control. Ten primary care practices participated, 5 intervention and 5 controls, each matched in pairs on urban, suburban, or rural location and practice type (pediatric or family medicine), from a PBRN in Greater Rochester, New York (GR-PBRN); and 12 practices, 6 intervention, 6 controls, similarly matched, from a national pediatric continuity clinic PBRN (CORNET). The study period was 1 year per practice, ranging from June 2011 to January 2013. Study participants were adolescents 11 to 17 years attending these 22 practices; random sample of chart reviews per practice for baseline and postintervention year to assess immunization rates (n = 7,040 total chart reviews for adolescents with >1 visit in a period). The intervention was an EHR prompt (4 GR-PBRN and 5 CORNET practice pairs) (alert) that appeared on providers' computer screens at all office visits, indicating the specific immunizations that adolescents were recommended to receive. Staff prompts (1 GR-PBRN pair and 1 CORNET pair) in the form of a reminder sheet was placed on the provider's desk in the exam room indicating the vaccines due. We compared immunization rates, stratified by PBRN, for routine vaccines (meningococcus, pertussis, human papillomavirus, influenza) at study beginning and end. RESULTS: Intervention and control practices within each PBRN were similar at baseline for demographics and immunization rates. Immunization rates at the study end for adolescents who were behind on immunizations at study initiation were not significantly different for intervention versus control practices for any vaccine or combination of vaccines. Results were similar for each PBRN and also when only EHR-based prompts was assessed. For example, at study end, 3-dose human papillomavirus vaccination rates for GR-PBRN intervention versus control practices were 51% versus 53% (adjusted odds ratio 0.96; 95% confidence interval 0.64-1.34); CORNET intervention versus control rates were 50% versus 42% (adjusted odds ratio 1.06; 95% confidence interval 0.68-1.88). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In both a local and national setting, provider prompts failed to improve adolescent immunization rates. More rigorous practice-based changes are needed.

Surveillance for transmission and antibiotic adverse events among neonates and adults exposed to a healthcare worker with pertussis.

BACKGROUND: During a hospital obstetric rotation, a medical student demonstrated classic symptoms of pertussis. The diagnosis was confirmed by isolation of Bordetella pertussis. Because this exposure occurred in a high-risk hospital setting, control measures were undertaken to prevent transmission and illness. OBJECTIVES: To identify secondary cases of pertussis, to determine compliance with chemoprophylaxis recommendations, and to monitor for adverse events associated with chemoprophylaxis following a hospital exposure to pertussis. PATIENTS: More than 500 individuals were potentially exposed, including 168 neonates; antimicrobial chemoprophylaxis was administered to 281 individuals. Fifty-eight neonates and 194 adults began azithromycin chemoprophylaxis; 18 neonates and 2 adults began erythromycin chemoprophylaxis. METHODS: Active surveillance was instituted for (1) secondary cases of pertussis among healthcare coworkers, obstetric patients, their neonates, and labor companions and (2) antibiotic compliance and tolerance. RESULTS: No secondary cases of pertussis were confirmed by laboratory tests; however, 26 suspected cases and 5 clinically compatible cases were identified. Antibiotic courses were completed by 95% of the individuals who initiated therapy. Neonates taking azithromycin had statistically significantly less gastrointestinal distress compared with neonates taking erythromycin (12% vs 50%; P = .002); there were no cases of infantile hypertrophic pyloric stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: Although it was not possible to assess the effectiveness of the antibiotic regimens, the lack of laboratory-confirmed secondary cases suggests control measures were successful. Data from the 58 neonates who received azithromycin suggest it may be well tolerated in this age group.

Adolescents' perspectives on vaccination outside the traditional medical home: a survey of urban middle and high school students.

Eleventh- and 6th-grade students from an urban public school district were surveyed concerning vaccination outside the traditional medical home. Survey response rates were 50% for 11th- and 73% for 6th-grade students. Seventy-two percent of 11th-grade students reported that public health clinics were definitely or probably acceptable locations for vaccination; 70% reported this for emergency departments, 65% for school-based health centers, 55% for family planning clinics, and 44% for obstetrics/gynecology clinics. Corresponding percentages for 6th-grade students were 60% for public health clinics, 49% for emergency departments, 39% for school-based health centers, and 36% for family planning clinics. Sixth-grade students were not asked about obstetrics/gynecology clinics. Forty-seven percent of respondents identified a doctor's office as the "best" setting to receive vaccines, more than identified any other setting. We concluded that vaccination in one or more settings outside the traditional medical home was acceptable to most adolescents.

Increasing adolescent immunization rates in primary care: strategies physicians use and would consider implementing.

Strategies to increase adolescent immunization rates have been suggested, but little is documented about which strategies clinicians actually use or would consider. In spring 2010, we surveyed primary care physicians from 2 practice-based research networks (PBRNs): Greater Rochester PBRN (GR-PBRN) and national pediatric COntinuity Research NETwork (CORNET). Network clinicians received mailed or online surveys (response rate 76%, n=148). The GR-PBRN patient population (51% suburban, 33% rural, and 16% urban) differed from that served by CORNET (85% urban). For nonseasonal vaccines recommended for adolescents, many GR-PBRN and CORNET practices reported using nurse prompts to providers at preventive visits (61% and 52%, respectively), physician education (53% and 53%), and scheduled vaccine-only visits (91% and 82%). Strategies not used that clinicians frequently indicated they would consider included patient reminder/recall and prompts to providers via nurses or electronic health records. As preventive visits and immunization recommendations grow more complex, using technology to support immunization delivery to adolescents might be effective.

Limited awareness of vaccines recommended for adolescents and other results from two national consumer health surveys in the United States.

PURPOSE: This study describes the vaccine-related knowledge and attitudes of adolescents aged 11-18 years and parents of adolescents aged 11-18 years. METHODS: We analyzed the 2007 HealthStyles and YouthStyles surveys related to vaccine knowledge and attitudes of parents (n = 1,208) and adolescents (n = 1,087). RESULTS: In all, 21% of parents and 11% of adolescents correctly identified the three vaccines recommended at the time of the survey for adolescents. Regarding the hypothetical scenario that minor adolescents should be allowed to consent to vaccination without parental knowledge, 70% of parents and 72% of adolescents disagreed. The majority of parents and adolescents recognized the importance of vaccines in protecting an adolescent's health yet a substantial minority of both groups also reported concerns about vaccine safety. CONCLUSIONS: Many parents and adolescents surveyed were not aware of all vaccine recommendations for adolescents and did not support adolescents receiving vaccinations independent of parental knowledge and/or consent.

Parents' acceptance of adolescent immunizations outside of the traditional medical home.

PURPOSE: Numerous barriers to vaccination exist for adolescents. Using the medical home as the sole source of adolescent vaccination has potential limitations. The objectives of the present study were to examine parents' acceptance of adolescent vaccination outside of the medical home and parents' preferred setting for adolescent vaccination. METHODS: A standardized, pilot-tested telephone survey was administered to a stratified random sample (n = 1,998) of Colorado households between August 2007 and February 2008. Households with English-speaking parents and adolescent(s) aged 11-17 years were eligible. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 43%; there were no significant differences between respondents and nonrespondents for three known demographic variables. Although most parents (78%) preferred a doctor's office for adolescent vaccination, a majority were also definitively or probably accepting of vaccination in public health clinics (74%), school health clinics (70%), obstetrics and gynecology clinics (69%; asked for females only), and emergency departments (67%). Parents were less accepting of vaccination in family planning clinics (41%) and retail-based clinics (36%). Perceived convenience and adolescents' comfort in the setting were positively associated with vaccination acceptance in most settings; concern with keeping track of vaccines given outside of the medical home was negatively associated with acceptance. Parents in rural areas were more likely than parents in urban areas to identify a setting outside of the medical home as the preferred "best" setting for vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Most parents assessed a doctors' office as the best setting for adolescent vaccination. However, vaccination in certain settings outside of the medical home seems to be acceptable to many parents.

Adolescent immunization delivery in school-based health centers: a national survey.

PURPOSE: Vaccinating adolescents in a variety of settings may be needed to achieve high vaccination coverage. School-based health centers (SBHCs) provide a wide range of health services, but little is known about immunization delivery in SBHCs. The objective of this investigation was to assess, in a national random sample of SBHCs, adolescent immunization practices and perceived barriers to vaccination. METHODS: One thousand SBHCs were randomly selected from a national database. Surveys were conducted between November 2007 and March 2008 by Internet and standard mail. RESULTS: Of 815 survey-eligible SBHCs, 521 (64%) responded. Of the SBHCs, 84% reported vaccinating adolescents, with most offering tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis, meningococcal conjugate, and human papillomavirus vaccines. Among SBHCs that vaccinated adolescents, 96% vaccinated Medicaid-insured and 98% vaccinated uninsured students. Although 93% of vaccinating SBHCs participated in the Vaccines for Children program, only 39% billed private insurance for vaccines given. A total of 69% used an electronic database or registry to track vaccines given, and 83% sent reminders to adolescents and/or their parents if immunizations were needed. For SBHCs that did not offer vaccines, difficulty billing private insurance was the most frequently cited barrier to vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Most SBHCs appear to be fully involved in immunization delivery to adolescents, offering newly recommended vaccines and performing interventions such as reminder/recall to improve immunization rates. Although the number of SBHCs is relatively small, with roughly 2000 nationally, SBHCs appear to be an important vaccination resource, particularly for low income and uninsured adolescents who may have more limited access to vaccination elsewhere.

Preventing cervical cancer : overviews of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program and 2 US immunization programs.

Three federal programs with the potential to reduce cervical cancer incidence, morbidity, and mortality, especially among underserved populations, are administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP), the Vaccines for Children (VFC) Program, and the Section 317 immunization grant program. The NBCCEDP provides breast and cervical cancer screening and diagnostic services to uninsured and underinsured women. The VFC program and the Section 317 immunization grant program provide vaccines, including human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, to targeted populations at no cost for these vaccines. This article describes the programs, their histories, populations served, services offered, and roles in preventing cervical cancer through HPV vaccination and cervical cancer screening. Potential long-term reduction in healthcare costs resulting from HPV vaccination is also discussed. As an example of an initiative to vaccinate uninsured women aged 19-26 years through a cancer services program, a state-based effort that was recently launched in New York, is highlighted.