Effectiveness of Bivalent mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Preventing COVID-19-Related Thromboembolic Events Among Medicare Enrollees Aged ≥65 Years and Those with End Stage Renal Disease - United States, September 2022-March 2023.

COVID-19 has been associated with an increased risk for thromboembolic events, including ischemic stroke, venous thromboembolism, and myocardial infarction. Studies have reported lower rates of COVID-19-related thromboembolic events among persons who received the COVID-19 vaccine compared with persons who did not, but rigorous estimates of vaccine effectiveness (VE) in preventing COVID-19-related thromboembolic events are lacking. This analysis estimated the incremental benefit of receipt of a bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine after receiving an original monovalent COVID-19 vaccine. To estimate VE of a bivalent mRNA COVID-19 dose in preventing thromboembolic events compared with original monovalent COVID-19 vaccine doses only, two retrospective cohort studies were conducted among Medicare fee-for-service enrollees during September 4, 2022-March 4, 2023. Effectiveness of a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose against COVID-19-related thromboembolic events compared with that of original vaccine alone was 47% (95% CI = 45%-49%) among Medicare enrollees aged ≥65 years and 51% (95% CI = 39%-60%) among adults aged ≥18 years with end stage renal disease receiving dialysis. VE was similar among Medicare beneficiaries with immunocompromise: 46% (95% CI = 42%-49%) among adults aged ≥65 years and 45% (95% CI = 24%-60%) among those aged ≥18 years with end stage renal disease. To help prevent complications of COVID-19, including thromboembolic events, adults should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccination.

A summary of the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP) use of a benefit-risk assessment framework during the first year of COVID-19 vaccine administration in the United States.

To inform Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP) COVID-19 vaccine policy decisions, we developed a benefit-risk assessment framework that directly compared the estimated benefits of COVID-19 vaccination to individuals (e.g., prevention of COVID-19-associated hospitalization) with risks associated with COVID-19 vaccines. This assessment framework originated following the identification of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) after Janssen COVID-19 vaccination in April 2021. We adapted the benefit-risk assessment framework for use in subsequent policy decisions, including the adverse events of myocarditis and Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) following mRNA and Janssen COVID-19 vaccination respectively, expansion of COVID-19 vaccine approvals or authorizations to new age groups, and use of booster doses. Over the first year of COVID-19 vaccine administration in the United States (December 2020-December 2021), we used the benefit-risk assessment framework to inform seven different ACIP policy decisions. This framework allowed for rapid and direct comparison of the benefits and potential harms of vaccination, which may be helpful in informing other vaccine policy decisions. The assessments were a useful tool for decision-making but required reliable and granular data to stratify analyses and appropriately focus on populations most at risk for a specific adverse event. Additionally, careful decision-making was needed on parameters for data inputs. Sensitivity analyses were used where data were limited or uncertain; adjustments in the methodology were made over time to ensure the assessments remained relevant and applicable to the policy questions under consideration.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' Updated Interim Recommendation for Allocation of COVID-19 Vaccine - United States, December 2020.

The first vaccines for prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States were authorized for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (1) and recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in December 2020.* However, demand for COVID-19 vaccines is expected to exceed supply during the first months of the national COVID-19 vaccination program. ACIP advises CDC on population groups and circumstances for vaccine use.† On December 1, ACIP recommended that 1) health care personnel§ and 2) residents of long-term care facilities¶ be offered COVID-19 vaccination first, in Phase 1a of the vaccination program (2). On December 20, 2020, ACIP recommended that in Phase 1b, vaccine should be offered to persons aged ≥75 years and frontline essential workers (non-health care workers), and that in Phase 1c, persons aged 65-74 years, persons aged 16-64 years with high-risk medical conditions, and essential workers not recommended for vaccination in Phase 1b should be offered vaccine.** These recommendations for phased allocation provide guidance for federal, state, and local jurisdictions while vaccine supply is limited. In its deliberations, ACIP considered scientific evidence regarding COVID-19 epidemiology, ethical principles, and vaccination program implementation considerations. ACIP's recommendations for COVID-19 vaccine allocation are interim and might be updated based on changes in conditions of FDA Emergency Use Authorization, FDA authorization for new COVID-19 vaccines, changes in vaccine supply, or changes in COVID-19 epidemiology.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' Interim Recommendation for Allocating Initial Supplies of COVID-19 Vaccine - United States, 2020.

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has led to a global pandemic that has disrupted all sectors of society. Less than 1 year after the SARS-CoV-2 genome was first sequenced, an application* for Emergency Use Authorization for a candidate vaccine has been filed with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). However, even if one or more vaccine candidates receive authorization for emergency use, demand for COVID-19 vaccine is expected to exceed supply during the first months of the national vaccination program. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) advises CDC on population groups and circumstances for vaccine use.† ACIP convened on December 1, 2020, in advance of the completion of FDA's review of the Emergency Use Authorization application, to provide interim guidance to federal, state, and local jurisdictions on allocation of initial doses of COVID-19 vaccine. ACIP recommended that, when a COVID-19 vaccine is authorized by FDA and recommended by ACIP, both 1) health care personnel§ and 2) residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs)¶ be offered vaccination in the initial phase of the COVID-19 vaccination program (Phase 1a**).†† In its deliberations, ACIP considered scientific evidence of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology, vaccination program implementation, and ethical principles.§§ The interim recommendation might be updated over the coming weeks based on additional safety and efficacy data from phase III clinical trials and conditions of FDA Emergency Use Authorization.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' Ethical Principles for Allocating Initial Supplies of COVID-19 Vaccine - United States, 2020.

To reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its associated impacts on health and society, COVID-19 vaccines are essential. The U.S. government is working to produce and deliver safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines for the entire U.S. population. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)* has broadly outlined its approach for developing recommendations for the use of each COVID-19 vaccine authorized or approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization or licensure (1). ACIP's recommendation process includes an explicit and transparent evidence-based method for assessing a vaccine's safety and efficacy as well as consideration of other factors, including implementation (2). Because the initial supply of vaccine will likely be limited, ACIP will also recommend which groups should receive the earliest allocations of vaccine. The ACIP COVID-19 Vaccines Work Group and consultants with expertise in ethics and health equity considered external expert committee reports and published literature and deliberated the ethical issues associated with COVID-19 vaccine allocation decisions. The purpose of this report is to describe the four ethical principles that will assist ACIP in formulating recommendations for the allocation of COVID-19 vaccine while supply is limited, in addition to scientific data and implementation feasibility: 1) maximize benefits and minimize harms; 2) promote justice; 3) mitigate health inequities; and 4) promote transparency. These principles can also aid state, tribal, local, and territorial public health authorities as they develop vaccine implementation strategies within their own communities based on ACIP recommendations.

Comparison of US County-Level Public Health Performance Rankings With County Cluster and National Rankings: Assessment Based on Prevalence Rates of Smoking and Obesity and Motor Vehicle Crash Death Rates.

Importance: Health departments can be grouped together based on sociodemographic characteristics of the population served. Comparisons within these groups can then help with monitoring and improving the health of their populations. Objective: To compare county-level percentile rankings on outcomes of smoking, motor vehicle crash deaths, and obesity within sociodemographic peer clusters vs nationwide rankings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, population-based study of demographic and health data from the 2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and the 2016 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation County Health Rankings data set was conducted at 3139 of 3143 US counties and county-equivalents. Four locations were excluded due to incomplete data. Data analysis was conducted between January and August 2017. Exposures: Random forest algorithms were used to identify sociodemographic characteristics most associated with the outcomes of interest. These characteristics were race and ethnicity, educational attainment, age, marital status, employment status, sex, and health insurance status. k-means clustering was used to cluster counties based on these sociodemographic characteristics and the percentage of the county classified as rural. Main Outcomes and Measures: County-level smoking prevalence, motor vehicle crash death rate, and obesity prevalence. County percentile rankings on the outcomes of interest were compared in the national context and the within-cluster context. Results: A total of 318 856 967 individuals (mean [SD] individuals per county, 101 579.2 [326 315]; 161 911 910 women [50.8%]) were represented by the 3139 counties used in this analysis. Eight distinct sociodemographic clusters throughout the United States were found. Cluster-specific percentile rankings for both smoking prevalence and motor vehicle crash death rates improved more than 70 percentile points for several counties in the rural, American Indian cluster compared with the nationwide percentiles. Conversely, the young, urban, middle to high socioeconomic status cluster included counties with cluster-specific percentile rankings that declined by 60 percentile points or more compared with the nationwide rankings for all 3 outcomes of interest. Conclusions and Relevance: Comparing county health outcomes on a nationwide or statewide basis fails to adequately account for sociodemographic context. Clustering counties by sociodemographic factors related to the outcome of interest allows a better understanding of other factors that may be shaping the prevalence of health outcomes. These groupings may also aid learning exchange.