Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Recommended Immunization Schedule for Adults Aged 19 Years or Older - United States, 2023.

At its October 2022 meeting, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices* (ACIP) approved the Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule for Ages 19 Years or Older, United States, 2023. The 2023 adult immunization schedule summarizes ACIP recommendations, including several changes to the cover page, tables, notes, and appendix from the 2022 immunization schedule.† This schedule can be found on the CDC immunization schedule website (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules). Health care providers are advised to use the cover page, tables, notes, and appendix together to determine recommended vaccinations for patient populations. This adult immunization schedule is recommended by ACIP (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip) and approved by CDC (https://www.cdc.gov), 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 (https://www.acog.org), the American College of Nurse-Midwives (https://www.midwife.org), the American Academy of Physician Associates (https://www.aapa.org), the American Pharmacists Association (https://www.pharmacist.com), and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (https://shea-online.org).

Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Recommended Immunization Schedule for Children and Adolescents Aged 18 Years or Younger - United States, 2023.

At its October 2022 meeting, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices* (ACIP) approved the Recommended Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule for Ages 18 Years or Younger, United States, 2023. The 2023 child and adolescent immunization schedule, available on the CDC immunization schedule website (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules), summarizes ACIP recommendations, including several changes from the 2022 immunization schedule† on the cover page, tables, notes, and appendix. Health care providers are advised to use the tables, notes, and appendix together to determine recommended vaccinations for patient populations. This immunization schedule is recommended by ACIP (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip) and approved by CDC (https://www.cdc.gov), the American Academy of Pediatrics (https://www.aap.org), the American Academy of Family Physicians (https://www.aafp.org), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (http://www.acog.org), the American College of Nurse-Midwives (https://www.midwife.org), the American Academy of Physician Associates (https://www.aapa.org), and the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners (https://www.napnap.org).

Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Recommended Immunization Schedule for Children and Adolescents Aged 18 Years or Younger - United States, 2022.

At its November 2021 meeting, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices* (ACIP) approved the Recommended Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule for Ages 18 Years or Younger-United States, 2022. The 2022 child and adolescent immunization schedule, found on the CDC immunization schedule website (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules), summarizes ACIP recommendations, including several changes from the 2021 immunization schedule† on the cover page, tables, and notes. The 2022 child and adolescent schedule also includes a newly created appendix that lists the contraindications and precautions for all vaccine types in the schedule. Health care providers are advised to use the tables, notes, and appendix together. This immunization schedule is recommended by ACIP (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip) and approved by CDC (https://www.cdc.gov), the American Academy of Pediatrics (https://www.aap.org), the American Academy of Family Physicians (https://www.aafp.org), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (http://www.acog.org), the American College of Nurse-Midwives (https://www.midwife.org), the American Academy of Physician Associates (https://www.aapa.org), and the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners (https://www.napnap.org).

Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Recommended Immunization Schedule for Adults Aged 19 Years or Older - United States, 2022.

At its November 2021 meeting, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices* (ACIP) approved the Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule for Ages 19 Years or Older, United States, 2022. The 2022 adult immunization schedule summarizes ACIP recommendations, including several changes to the cover page, tables, and notes from the 2021 immunization schedule.† In addition, the 2022 adult immunization schedule provides an appendix that lists the contraindications to and precautions for all routinely recommended vaccines in the schedule. This schedule can be found on the CDC immunization schedule website (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules). Health care providers are advised to use the cover page, tables, notes, and appendix together. This adult immunization schedule is recommended by ACIP (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip) and approved by CDC (https://www.cdc.gov), 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 (https://www.acog.org), the American College of Nurse-Midwives (https://www.midwife.org), the American Academy of Physician Associates (https://www.aapa.org), and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (https://www.shea-online.org).

Universal Hepatitis B Vaccination in Adults Aged 19-59 Years: Updated Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2022.

Hepatitis B (HepB) vaccines have demonstrated safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy during the past 4 decades (1,2). However, vaccination coverage among adults has been suboptimal, limiting further reduction in hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections in the United States. This Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendation expands the indicated age range for universal HepB vaccination to now include adults aged 19-59 years. Removing the risk factor assessment previously recommended to determine vaccine eligibility in this adult age group (2) could increase vaccination coverage and decrease hepatitis B cases.

MomsTalkShots, tailored educational app, improves vaccine attitudes: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Many pregnant women and parents have concerns about vaccines. This analysis examined the impact of MomsTalkShots, an individually tailored educational application, on vaccine attitudes of pregnant women and mothers. METHODS: MomsTalkShots was the patient-level component of a multi-level intervention to improve maternal and infant vaccine uptake that also included provider- and practice-level interventions. The impact of these interventions was studied using a two-by-two factorial design, randomizing at both the patient- and the practice-level. Study staff recruited pregnant women from a diverse set of prenatal care practices in Colorado and Georgia between June 2017 and July 2018. All participants (n = 2087) received a baseline survey of maternal and infant vaccine intentions and attitudes, and two follow-up surveys at least 1 month and 1 year after their infant's birth, respectively. Half of participants (n = 1041) were randomly assigned to receive educational videos through MomsTalkShots, algorithmically tailored to their vaccine intentions, attitudes, and demographics. Since the practice/provider intervention did not appear impactful, this analysis focused on MomsTalkShots regardless of the practice/provider intervention. RESULTS: By 1 month post-birth, MomsTalkShots increased perceived risk of maternal influenza disease (61% among MomsTalkShots recipients vs 55% among controls; Odds Ratio: 1.61, 95% Confidence Interval: 1.23-2.09), confidence in influenza vaccine efficacy (73% vs 63%; OR: 1.97, 95%CI: 1.47-2.65), and perceived vaccine knowledge (55% vs 48%; OR: 1.39, 95%CI: 1.13-1.72). Among those intending not to vaccinate at baseline, MomsTalkShots increased perceived risk of maternal influenza disease (38% vs 32%; OR: 2.07, 95%CI: 1.15-3.71) and confidence in influenza vaccine efficacy (44% vs 28%; OR: 2.62, 95%CI: 1.46-4.69). By 1 year post-birth, MomsTalkShots increased perceived vaccine knowledge (62% vs 50%; OR: 1.74, 95%CI: 1.36-2.24) and trust in vaccine information from obstetricians and pediatricians (64% vs 55%; OR: 1.53, 95%CI: 1.17-2.00). Among those uncertain about vaccinating at baseline, MomsTalkShots increased perceived vaccine knowledge (47% vs 12%; OR: 6.89, 95%CI: 1.52-31.25) and reduced infant vaccine safety concerns (71% vs 91%; OR: 0.24, 95%CI: 0.06-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: MomsTalkShots improved pregnant women's and mothers' knowledge and perceptions of maternal and infant vaccines and the diseases they prevent, and offers a scalable tool to address vaccine hesitancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at Clinicaltrials.gov on 13/09/2016 (registration number: NCT02898688).

Learning from maternal voices on COVID-19 vaccine uptake: Perspectives from pregnant women living in the Midwest on the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccine.

The aim of this study was to understand COVID-19 vaccine perceptions and decision-making among a racially/ethnically diverse population of pregnant and lactating women in the Midwest. Pregnant female participants (N = 27) at least 18 years. or older living in the Midwest were recruited to participate in a maternal voices survey. A mix-methods approach was used to capture the perceptions of maternal voices concerning the COVID-19 vaccine. Participants completed an online survey on COVID-19 disease burden, vaccine knowledge, and readiness for uptake. A total of 27 participants completed the Birth Equity Network Maternal Voices survey. Most participants were African American (64%). Sixty-three percent intend to get the vaccine. Only 25% felt at-risk for contracting COVID-19, and 74% plan to consult their provider about getting the COVID-19 vaccine. At least 66% had some concerns about the safety of the vaccine. Participants indicated a willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, especially if recommended by their provider. We found little racial/ethnic differences in perceptions of COVID-19 and low vaccine hesitancy.

Recommendations for Delivering COVID-19 Vaccine in Jails: Evidence from Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, and Missouri.

We report on data we collected from a 2018 survey examining jails' human papillomavirus virus vaccine delivery capacity and on a secondary analysis we conducted to describe factors similarly associated with delivery planning for the COVID-19 vaccine. We provide recommendations for delivering the COVID-19 vaccine in jails, based on evidence from Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, and Missouri. Our key finding is that jails have limited staff to implement vaccination and will require collaboration between jail administrators, jail medical staff, and local health departments.

Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Recommended Immunization Schedule for Adults Aged 19 Years or Older - United States, 2021.

At its October 2020 meeting, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)* approved the Recommended Immunization Schedule for Adults Aged 19 Years or Older, United States, 2021. After the Emergency Use Authorization of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine by the Food and Drug Administration, ACIP issued an interim recommendation for use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥16 years at its December 12, 2020, emergency meeting (1). In addition, ACIP approved an amendment to include COVID-19 vaccine recommendations in the child and adolescent and adult immunization schedules. After Emergency Use Authorization of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine by the Food and Drug Administration, ACIP issued an interim recommendation for use of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥18 years at its December 19, 2020, emergency meeting (2).

Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Recommended Immunization Schedule for Children and Adolescents Aged 18 Years or Younger - United States, 2021.

At its October 2020 meeting, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices* (ACIP) approved the 2021 Recommended Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule for Ages 18 Years or Younger. After Emergency Use Authorization of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), ACIP issued an interim recommendation for use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥16 years at its December 12, 2020, meeting (1). In addition, ACIP approved an amendment to include COVID-19 vaccine recommendations in the child and adolescent immunization schedule. After Emergency Use Authorization of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine by FDA, ACIP issued an interim recommendation for use of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥18 years at its December 19, 2020, emergency meeting (2).

Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Recommended Immunization Schedule for Adults Aged 19 Years or Older - United States, 2020.

At its October 2019 meeting, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)* voted to recommend approval of the 2020 Recommended U.S. Adult Immunization Schedule for Persons Aged 19 Years and Older. The 2020 adult immunization schedule, available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/index.html,† summarizes ACIP recommendations in two tables and accompanying notes. This 2020 adult immunization schedule has been approved by the CDC Director, the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American College of Nurse-Midwives. Health care providers are advised to use the tables and the notes together.

Final efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety analyses of a nine-valent human papillomavirus vaccine in women aged 16-26 years: a randomised, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Primary analyses of a study in young women aged 16-26 years showed efficacy of the nine-valent human papillomavirus (9vHPV; HPV 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58) vaccine against infections and disease related to HPV 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58, and non-inferior HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18 antibody responses when compared with quadrivalent HPV (qHPV; HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18) vaccine. We aimed to report efficacy of the 9vHPV vaccine for up to 6 years following first administration and antibody responses over 5 years. METHODS: We undertook this randomised, double-blind, efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety study of the 9vHPV vaccine study at 105 study sites in 18 countries. Women aged 16-26 years old who were healthy, with no history of abnormal cervical cytology, no previous abnormal cervical biopsy results, and no more than four lifetime sexual partners were randomly assigned (1:1) by central randomisation and block sizes of 2 and 2 to receive three intramuscular injections over 6 months of 9vHPV or qHPV (control) vaccine. All participants, study investigators, and study site personnel, laboratory staff, members of the sponsor's study team, and members of the adjudication pathology panel were masked to vaccination groups. The primary outcomes were incidence of high-grade cervical disease (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3, adenocarcinoma in situ, invasive cervical carcinoma), vulvar disease (vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3, vulvar cancer), and vaginal disease (vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3, vaginal cancer) related to HPV 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 and non-inferiority (excluding a decrease of 1·5 times) of anti-HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18 geometric mean titres (GMT). Tissue samples were adjudicated for histopathology diagnosis and tested for HPV DNA. Serum antibody responses were assessed by competitive Luminex immunoassay. The primary evaluation of efficacy was a superiority analysis in the per-protocol efficacy population, supportive efficacy was analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population, and the primary evaluation of immunogenicity was a non-inferiority analysis. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00543543. FINDINGS: Between Sept 26, 2007, and Dec 18, 2009, we recruited and randomly assigned 14 215 participants to receive 9vHPV (n=7106) or qHPV (n=7109) vaccine. In the per-protocol population, the incidence of high-grade cervical, vulvar and vaginal disease related to HPV 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 was 0·5 cases per 10 000 person-years in the 9vHPV and 19·0 cases per 10 000 person-years in the qHPV groups, representing 97·4% efficacy (95% CI 85·0-99·9). HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18 GMTs were non-inferior in the 9vHPV versus qHPV group from month 1 to 3 years after vaccination. No clinically meaningful differences in serious adverse events were noted between the study groups. 11 participants died during the study follow-up period (six in the 9vHPV vaccine group and five in the qHPV vaccine group); none of the deaths were considered vaccine-related. INTERPRETATION: The 9vHPV vaccine prevents infection, cytological abnormalities, high-grade lesions, and cervical procedures related to HPV 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. Both the 9vHPV vaccine and qHPV vaccine had a similar immunogenicity profile with respect to HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18. Vaccine efficacy was sustained for up to 6 years. The 9vHPV vaccine could potentially provide broader coverage and prevent 90% of cervical cancer cases worldwide. FUNDING: Merck & Co, Inc.

Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Knowledge and Intention Among Adult Inmates in Kansas, 2016-2017.

OBJECTIVES: To assess human papillomavirus (HPV) knowledge and vaccine awareness, intention, and uptake among adult inmates in Kansas jails. METHODS: We administered a survey with questions adapted from the US National Cancer Institute's Health Information National Trends Survey to 571 adult inmates in 3 Kansas jails from October 10 to 12, 2016, and January 25 to 27, 2017, to assess HPV knowledge and vaccine awareness, intention, and uptake. RESULTS: Although most adults across demographic groups recognized HPV as causing cervical cancer, knowledge was lower about other HPV-related cancers. Vaccine awareness was higher for women (70%) than men (41%). Only 8% of age-eligible men reported ever receiving the vaccine. Most adults across demographic groups reported "definitely" wanting to get the vaccine if offered in jail at no cost. CONCLUSIONS: Low uptake of HPV vaccine and high interest in receiving the vaccine in jails may indicate that vaccination availability for jail populations needs to be reexamined. Public Health Implications. Expanding HPV vaccine programs or partnerships to facilitate vaccine provision in jails could increase inmates' knowledge of and intention to receive vital health services.

Cervical Cancer Screening in the United States-Affiliated Pacific Islands: Options and Opportunities.

OBJECTIVE: Successful cervical cancer screening in the United States-Affiliated Pacific Islands (USAPI) is limited by geographic, political, economic, and logistic factors. An expert panel convened to examine screening in each of the 6 island jurisdictions and to explore options beyond cytology-based screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-one representatives of American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecology, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, government agencies, the World Health Organization, Pan American Health Organization, health representatives of the 6 Pacific island jurisdictions, Puerto Rico, and several academic institutions met in a 2-day meeting to explore options to improve access and coverage of cervical cancer screening in the USAPI. RESULTS: Cytology-based screening is less widely accessed and less successful in the USAPI than in the United States in general. Barriers include geographic isolation, cultural factors, and lack of resources. Cytology-based screening requires multiple visits to complete the process from screening to treatment. Screen-and-treat regimens based on visual inspection with acetic acid or human papillomavirus requiring 1 or 2 visits have the potential to improve cervical cancer prevention in the USAPI. CONCLUSIONS: The standard US algorithm of cytology screening followed by colposcopy and treatment is less effective in geographically and culturally isolated regions such as the USAPI. Alternate technologies, both high tech, such as primary human papillomavirus screening, and low tech, such as visual inspection with acetic acid, have shown promise in resource-poor countries and may have applicability in these US jurisdictions.

Use of primary high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: interim clinical guidance.

In 2011, the American Cancer Society, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology updated screening guidelines for the early detection of cervical cancer and its precursors. Recommended screening strategies were cytology and cotesting (cytology in combination with hrHPV testing). These guidelines also addressed the use of hrHPV testing alone as a primary screening approach, which was not recommended for use at that time. There is now a growing body of evidence for screening with primary hrHPV testing, including a prospective US-based registration study. Thirteen experts including representatives from the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Cancer Society, American Society of Cytopathology, College of American Pathologists, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology, convened to provide interim guidance for primary hrHPV screening. This guidance panel was specifically triggered by an application to the FDA for a currently marketed HPV test to be labeled for the additional indication of primary cervical cancer screening. Guidance was based on literature review and review of data from the FDA registration study, supplemented by expert opinion. This document aims to provide information for healthcare providers who are interested in primary hrHPV testing and an overview of the potential advantages and disadvantages of this strategy for screening as well as to highlight areas in need of further investigation.