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' 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.

Improving Immunization Coverage in Special Populations.

This highlights the key recommendations for immunization in the setting of chronic disease, children and adults with special needs, and health care providers. Immunization is an effective strategy to reduce the burden of suffering and cost of care from chronic disease. Standard child and adolescent and adult immunization schedules identify categories of high-risk conditions and chronic diseases. Clinicians need to develop systems to evaluate patients' risk factors and tailor immunization recommendations to their individual needs. Patients with intellectual disabilities, neurologic and neurodevelopmental disorders, and autism are at higher risk for vaccine-preventable illness and face significant health disparities.

Developing standardized competencies to strengthen immunization systems and workforce.

Despite global support for immunization as a core component of the human right to health and the maturity of immunization programs in low- and middle-income countries throughout the world, there is no comprehensive description of the standardized competencies needed for immunization programs at the national, multiple sub-national, and community levels. The lack of defined and standardized competencies means countries have few guidelines to help them address immunization workforce planning, program management, and performance monitoring. Potential consequences resulting from the lack of defined competencies include inadequate or inefficient distribution of resources to support the required functions and difficulties in adequately managing the health workforce. In 2015, an international multi-agency working group convened to define standardized competencies that national immunization programs could adapt for their own workforce planning needs. The working group used a stepwise approach to ensure that the competencies would align with immunization programs' objectives. The first step defined the attributes of a successful immunization program. The group then defined the work functions needed to achieve those attributes. Based on the work functions, the working group defined specific competencies. This process resulted in three products: (1) Attributes of an immunization program described within eight technical domains at four levels within a health system: National, Provincial, District/Local, and Community; (2) 229 distinct functions within those eight domains at each of the four levels; and (3) 242 competencies, representing eight technical domains and two foundational domains (Management and Leadership and Vaccine Preventable Diseases and Program). Currently available as a working draft and being tested with immunization projects in several countries, the final document will be published by WHO as normative guidelines. Vertical immunization programs as well as integrated systems can customize the framework to suit their needs. Standardized competencies can support immunization program improvements and help strengthen effective health systems.

Preferences for health economics presentations among vaccine policymakers and researchers.

PURPOSE: Measure the preferences of decision makers and researchers associated with the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the recommended format for presenting health economics studies to the ACIP. METHODS: We conducted key informant interviews and an online survey of current ACIP work group members, and current and previous ACIP voting members, liaison representatives, and ex-officio members to understand preferences for health economics presentations. These preferences included the presentation of results and sensitivity analyses, the role of health economics studies in decision making, and strategies to improve guidelines for presenting health economics studies. Best-worst scaling was used to measure the relative value of seven attributes of health economics presentations in vaccine decision making. RESULTS: The best-worst scaling survey had a response rate of 51% (n = 93). Results showed that summary results were the most important attribute for decision making (mean importance score: 0.69) and intermediate outcomes and disaggregated results were least important (mean importance score: -0.71). Respondents without previous health economics experience assigned sensitivity analysis lower importance and relationship of the results to other studies higher importance than the experienced group (sensitivity analysis scores: -0.15 vs. 0.15 respectively; relationship of the results: 0.13 vs. -0.12 respectively). Key informant interviews identified areas for improvement to include additional information on the quality of the analysis and increased role for liaisons familiar with health economics. CONCLUSION: Additional specificity in health economics presentations could allow for more effective presentations of evidence for vaccine decision making.

Planning and Implementing Immunization Billing Programs at State and Local Health Departments: Barriers and Possible Solutions.

CONTEXT: Before participating in a project funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, most state and local health departments (LHDs) were not seeking reimbursement or being fully reimbursed by insurance plans for the cost of immunization services (including vaccine costs and administration fees) they provided to insured patients. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Billables Project was designed to enable state and LHDs to bill public and private insurance plans for immunization services provided to insured patients. OBJECTIVE: Identify and describe key barriers state and LHDs may encounter while planning and implementing a billing program, as well as possible solutions for overcoming those barriers. DESIGN: This study used reports from Billables Project participants to explore barriers they encountered when planning and implementing a billing program and steps taken to address those barriers. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-eight state immunization programs. RESULTS: Based on project participants' reports, barriers were noted in 7 categories: (1) funding and costs, (2) staff, (3) health department characteristics, (4) third-party payers and insurance plans, (5) software, (6) patient insurance status, and (7) other barriers. Possible solutions for overcoming those barriers included hiring or seeking external help, creating billing guides and training modules, streamlining workflows, and modifying existing software systems. CONCLUSION: Overcoming barriers during planning and implementation of a billing program can be challenging for state and LHDs, but the experiences and suggestions of past Billables Project participants can help guide future billing program efforts.

Global Immunizations: Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Worldwide.

BACKGROUND: Immunizations are one of the most important health interventions of the 20th century, yet people in many areas of the world do not receive adequate immunizations. Approximately 3 million people worldwide die every year from vaccine-preventable diseases; about half of these deaths are young children and infants. Global travel is more common; diseases that were once localized now can be found in communities around the world. PROBLEM: Multiple barriers to immunizations have been identified. Healthcare access, cost, and perceptions of safety and trust in healthcare are factors that have depressed global immunization rates. INTERVENTIONS: Several global organizations have focused on addressing these barriers as part of their efforts to increase immunization rates. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, The World Health Organization, and the United Nations Children's Emergency Fund each have a part of their organization that is concentrated on immunizations. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Maternal child nurses worldwide can assist in increasing immunization rates. Nurses can participate in outreach programs to ease the burden of patients and families in accessing immunizations. Nurses can work with local and global organizations to make immunizations more affordable. Nurses can improve trust and knowledge about immunizations in their local communities. Nurses are a powerful influence in the struggle to increase immunization rates, which is a vital aspect of global health promotion and disease prevention.

Guidance for Assessment of Poliovirus Vaccination Status and Vaccination of Children Who Have Received Poliovirus Vaccine Outside the United States.

In 1988, the World Health Assembly resolved to eradicate poliomyelitis (polio). Since then, wild poliovirus (WPV) cases have declined by >99.9%, from an estimated 350,000 cases of polio each year to 74 cases in two countries in 2015 (1). This decrease was achieved primarily through the use of trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (tOPV), which contains types 1, 2, and 3 live, attenuated polioviruses. Since 2000, the United States has exclusively used inactivated polio vaccine (IPV), which contains all three poliovirus types (2,3). In 2013, the World Health Organization (WHO) set a target of a polio-free world by 2018 (4). Of the three WPV types, type 2 was declared eradicated in September 2015. To remove the risk for infection with circulating type 2 vaccine-derived polioviruses (cVDPV), which can lead to paralysis similar to that caused by WPV, all OPV-using countries simultaneously switched in April 2016 from tOPV to bivalent OPV (bOPV), which contains only types 1 and 3 polioviruses (5). This report summarizes current Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendations for poliovirus vaccination and provides CDC guidance, in the context of the switch from tOPV to bOPV, regarding assessment of vaccination status and vaccination of children who might have received poliovirus vaccine outside the United States, to ensure that children living in the United States (including immigrants and refugees) are protected against all three poliovirus types. This guidance is not new policy and does not change the recommendations of ACIP for poliovirus vaccination in the United States. Children living in the United States who might have received poliovirus vaccination outside the United States should meet ACIP recommendations for poliovirus vaccination, which require protection against all three poliovirus types by age-appropriate vaccination with IPV or tOPV. In the absence of vaccination records indicating receipt of these vaccines, only vaccination or revaccination in accordance with the age-appropriate U.S. IPV schedule is recommended. Serology to assess immunity for children with no or questionable documentation of poliovirus vaccination will no longer be an available option and therefore is no longer recommended, because of increasingly limited availability of antibody testing against type 2 poliovirus.

State-Level Immunization Information Systems: Potential for Childhood Immunization Data Linkages.

Objectives Sources of immunization data include state registries or immunization information systems (IIS), medical records, and surveys. Little is known about the quality of these data sources or the feasibility of using IIS data for research. We assessed the feasibility of collecting immunization information for a national children's health study by accessing existing IIS data and comparing the completeness of these data against medical record abstractions (MRA) and parent report. Staff time needed to obtain IIS and MRA data was assessed. Methods We administered a questionnaire to state-level IIS representatives to ascertain availability and completeness of their data for research and gather information about data formats. We evaluated quality of data from IIS, medical records, and reports from parents of 119 National Children's Study participants at three locations. Results IIS data were comparable to MRA data and both were more complete than parental report. Agreement between IIS and MRA data was greater than between parental report and MRA, suggesting IIS and MRA are better sources than parental report. Obtaining IIS data took less staff time than chart review, making IIS data linkage for research a preferred choice. Conclusions IIS survey results indicate data can be obtained by researchers using data linkages. IIS are an accessible and feasible child immunization information source and these registries reduce reliance on parental report or medical record abstraction. Researchers seeking to link IIS data with large multi-site studies should consider acquiring IIS data, but may need strategies to overcome barriers to data completeness and linkage.

[Improving vaccination social marketing by monitoring the web]. / Migliorare il marketing sociale in tema di vaccinazioni "presidiando" il Web.

Immunisation is one of the most important and cost- effective interventions in Public Health because of their significant positive impact on population health.However, since Jenner's discovery there always been a lively debate between supporters and opponents of vaccination; Today the antivaccination movement spreads its message mostly on the web, disseminating inaccurate data through blogs and forums, increasing vaccine rejection.In this context, the Società Italiana di Igiene (SItI) created a web project in order to fight the misinformation on the web regarding vaccinations, through a series of information tools, including scientific articles, educational information, video and multimedia presentations The web portal (http://www.vaccinarsi.org) was published in May 2013 and now is already available over one hundred web pages related to vaccinations Recently a Forum, a periodic newsletter and a Twitter page have been created. There has been an average of 10,000 hits per month. Currently our users are mostly healthcare professionals. The visibility of the site is very good and it currently ranks first in the Google's search engine, taping the word "vaccinarsi" The results of the first four months of activity are extremely encouraging and show the importance of this project; furthermore the application for quality certification by independent international Organizations has been submitted.

United States private schools have higher rates of exemptions to school immunization requirements than public schools.

OBJECTIVE: To compare medical, religious, and personal belief immunization exemption rates between private and public schools in US. STUDY DESIGN: Exemption rates were calculated using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention School Immunization Assessment Surveys for the 2009-2010 school year excluding states with incomplete survey data. Standardized exemption rates weighted on enrollments in public and private schools were calculated. Differences in exemption rates between public and private schools were tested using Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: The overall state exemption rate was higher in US private than public schools, 4.25% (SD 4.27) vs 1.91% (1.67), P = .0001 and private schools had higher exemption rates for all types of exemptions; medical 0.58% (0.71) vs 0.34% (0.34) respectively (P = .0004), religious 2.09% (3.14) vs 0.83% (1.05) respectively (P = .0001), and personal belief 6.10% (4.12) vs 2.79% (1.57), respectively (P = .006). Overall exemption rates were significantly higher in states that allowed personal belief exemptions. CONCLUSIONS: Exemption rates were significantly higher in US private than in public schools. Children attending private schools may be at higher risk of vaccine-preventable diseases than public school children.

Indicators to assess National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs).

A National Immunization Technical Advisory Group (NITAG) is an expert advisory committee that provides evidence-based recommendations to the Ministry of Health (MoH) to guide immunization programs and policies. The World Health Organization (WHO), the Initiative for Supporting National Independent Immunization and Vaccine Advisory Committees (SIVAC) at Agence de Médecine Préventive (AMP) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US CDC) engaged NITAG stakeholders and technical partners in the development of indicators to assess the effectiveness of NITAGs. A list of 17 process, output and outcome indicators was developed and tested in 14 countries to determine whether they were understandable, feasible to collect, and useful for the countries. Based on the findings, a revised version of the indicators is proposed for self-assessment in the countries, as well as for global monitoring of the NITAGs.

Decomposing Kenyan socio-economic inequalities in skilled birth attendance and measles immunization.

INTRODUCTION: Skilled birth attendance (SBA) and measles immunization reflect two aspects of a health system. In Kenya, their national coverage gaps are substantial but could be largely improved if the total population had the same coverage as the wealthiest quintile. A decomposition analysis allows identifying the factors that influence these wealth-related inequalities in order to develop appropriate policy responses. The main objective of the study was to decompose wealth-related inequalities in SBA and measles immunization into their contributing factors. METHODS: Data from the Kenyan Demographic and Health Survey 2008/09 were used. The study investigated the effects of socio-economic determinants on [1] coverage and [2] wealth-related inequalities of SBA utilization and measles immunization. Techniques used were multivariate logistic regression and decomposition of the concentration index (C). RESULTS: SBA utilization and measles immunization coverage differed according to household wealth, parent's education, skilled antenatal care visits, birth order and father's occupation. SBA utilization further differed across provinces and ethnic groups. The overall C for SBA was 0.14 and was mostly explained by wealth (40%), parent's education (28%), antenatal care (9%), and province (6%). The overall C for measles immunization was 0.08 and was mostly explained by wealth (60%), birth order (33%), and parent's education (28%). Rural residence (-19%) reduced this inequality. CONCLUSION: Both health care indicators require a broad strengthening of health systems with a special focus on disadvantaged sub-groups.