ABSTRACT
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a major cause of respiratory illness and hospitalization in older adults during fall and winter in the United States. The 2023-2024 RSV season was the first during which RSV vaccination was recommended for U.S. adults aged ≥60 years, using shared clinical decision-making. On June 26, 2024, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to update this recommendation as follows: a single dose of any Food and Drug Administration-approved RSV vaccine (Arexvy [GSK]; Abrysvo [Pfizer]; or mResvia [Moderna]) is now recommended for all adults aged ≥75 years and for adults aged 60-74 years who are at increased risk for severe RSV disease. Adults who have previously received RSV vaccine should not receive another dose. This report summarizes the evidence considered for these updated recommendations, including postlicensure data on vaccine effectiveness and safety, and provides clinical guidance for the use of RSV vaccines in adults aged ≥60 years. These updated recommendations are intended to maximize RSV vaccination coverage among persons most likely to benefit, by clarifying who is at highest risk and by reducing implementation barriers associated with the previous shared clinical decision-making recommendation. Continued postlicensure monitoring will guide future recommendations.
Subject(s)
Advisory Committees , Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections , Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccines , Humans , Aged , United States , Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections/prevention & control , Middle Aged , Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccines/administration & dosage , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.ABSTRACT
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a cause of severe respiratory illness in older adults. In May 2023, the Food and Drug Administration approved the first vaccines for prevention of RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease in adults aged ≥60 years. Since May 2022, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccines Adult Work Group met at least monthly to review available evidence regarding the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of these vaccines among adults aged ≥60 years. On June 21, 2023, ACIP voted to recommend that adults aged ≥60 years may receive a single dose of an RSV vaccine, using shared clinical decision-making. This report summarizes the body of evidence considered for this recommendation and provides clinical guidance for the use of RSV vaccines in adults aged ≥60 years. RSV vaccines have demonstrated moderate to high efficacy in preventing RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease and have the potential to prevent substantial morbidity and mortality among older adults; postmarketing surveillance will direct future guidance.
Subject(s)
Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccines , Respiratory Tract Diseases , Humans , United States , Aged , Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccines/therapeutic use , Advisory Committees , Immunization , Vaccination , Immunization ScheduleABSTRACT
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the leading cause of hospitalization among U.S. infants. Nirsevimab (Bevfortus, Sanofi and AstraZeneca) is recommended to prevent RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) in infants. In August 2023, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved RSVpreF vaccine (Abrysvo, Pfizer Inc.) for pregnant persons as a single dose during 32-36 completed gestational weeks (i.e., 32 weeks and zero days' through 36 weeks and 6 days' gestation) to prevent RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease in infants aged <6 months. Since October 2021, CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) RSV Vaccines Pediatric/Maternal Work Group has reviewed RSV epidemiology and evidence regarding safety, efficacy, and potential economic impact of pediatric and maternal RSV prevention products, including RSVpreF vaccine. On September 22, 2023, ACIP and CDC recommended RSVpreF vaccine using seasonal administration (i.e., during September through end of January in most of the continental United States) for pregnant persons as a one-time dose at 32-36 weeks' gestation for prevention of RSV-associated LRTI in infants aged <6 months. Either maternal RSVpreF vaccination during pregnancy or nirsevimab administration to the infant is recommended to prevent RSV-associated LRTI among infants, but both are not needed for most infants. All infants should be protected against RSV-associated LRTI through use of one of these products.
Subject(s)
Communicable Diseases , Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections , Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccines , Respiratory Syncytial Virus, Human , Respiratory Tract Infections , Female , Humans , Infant , Pregnancy , Advisory Committees , Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections/epidemiology , Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections/prevention & control , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , United States/epidemiology , VaccinationABSTRACT
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the leading cause of hospitalization among U.S. infants. In July 2023, the Food and Drug Administration approved nirsevimab, a long-acting monoclonal antibody, for passive immunization to prevent RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection among infants and young children. Since October 2021, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Maternal and Pediatric RSV Work Group has reviewed evidence on the safety and efficacy of nirsevimab among infants and young children. On August 3, 2023, ACIP recommended nirsevimab for all infants aged <8 months who are born during or entering their first RSV season and for infants and children aged 8-19 months who are at increased risk for severe RSV disease and are entering their second RSV season. On the basis of pre-COVID-19 pandemic patterns, nirsevimab could be administered in most of the continental United States from October through the end of March. Nirsevimab can prevent severe RSV disease among infants and young children at increased risk for severe RSV disease.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Communicable Diseases , Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections , Respiratory Syncytial Virus, Human , Humans , Infant , Advisory Committees , Immunization , Pandemics , Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections/epidemiology , Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections/prevention & control , United States/epidemiologyABSTRACT
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a cause of severe respiratory illness in older adults. In May 2023, the Food and Drug Administration approved the first vaccines for prevention of RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease in adults aged ≥60 years. Since May 2022, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccines Adult Work Group met at least monthly to review available evidence regarding the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of these vaccines among adults aged ≥60 years. On June 21, 2023, ACIP voted to recommend that adults aged ≥60 years may receive a single dose of an RSV vaccine, using shared clinical decision-making. This report summarizes the body of evidence considered for this recommendation and provides clinical guidance for the use of RSV vaccines in adults aged ≥60 years. RSV vaccines have demonstrated moderate to high efficacy in preventing RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease and have the potential to prevent substantial morbidity and mortality among older adults; postmarketing surveillance will direct future guidance.
Subject(s)
Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections , Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccines , Respiratory Syncytial Virus, Human , Respiratory Tract Diseases , Humans , United States , Aged , Advisory Committees , Immunization , Vaccination , Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections/prevention & control , Immunization ScheduleABSTRACT
Throughout the national public health emergency declared in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, CDC, guided by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), has offered evidence-based recommendations for the use of COVID-19 vaccines in U.S. populations after each regulatory action by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). During August 2022-April 2023, FDA amended its Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) to authorize the use of a single, age-appropriate, bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose (i.e., containing components from the ancestral and Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strains in equal amounts) for all persons aged ≥6 years, use of bivalent COVID-19 vaccine doses for children aged 6 months-5 years, and additional bivalent doses for immunocompromised persons and adults aged ≥65 years (1). ACIP voted in September 2022 on the use of the bivalent vaccine, and CDC made recommendations after the September vote and subsequently, through April 2023, with input from ACIP. This transition to a single bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose for most persons, with additional doses for persons at increased risk for severe disease, facilitates implementation of simpler, more flexible recommendations. Three COVID-19 vaccines are currently available for use in the United States and recommended by ACIP: 1) the bivalent mRNA Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, 2) the bivalent mRNA Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, and 3) the monovalent adjuvanted, protein subunit-based Novavax COVID-19 vaccine.* As of August 31, 2022, monovalent mRNA vaccines based on the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain are no longer authorized for use in the United States (1).
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Child , Adult , Humans , United States/epidemiology , BNT162 Vaccine , 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273 , Pandemics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Vaccines, CombinedABSTRACT
Evidence has consistently demonstrated that COVID-19 messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines are safe when given during pregnancy. COVID-19 mRNA vaccines protect pregnant people and their infants who are too young to receive COVID-19 vaccines. Although generally protective, monovalent vaccine effectiveness was lower during SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant predominance, in part due to changes in the Omicron spike protein. Bivalent vaccines, that combine ancestral strain and Omicron variant, may improve protection against Omicron variants. Everyone, including pregnant people, should stay up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccines and bivalent booster, when eligible.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious , Female , Pregnancy , Infant , Humans , COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Family , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/prevention & controlABSTRACT
On June 18, 2022, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued interim recommendations for use of the 2-dose monovalent Moderna COVID-19 vaccine as a primary series for children aged 6 months-5 years* and the 3-dose monovalent Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine as a primary series for children aged 6 months-4 years, based on safety, immunobridging, and limited efficacy data from clinical trials (1-3). Monovalent mRNA vaccine effectiveness (VE) against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was evaluated using the Increasing Community Access to Testing (ICATT) program, which provides SARS-CoV-2 testing to persons aged ≥3 years at pharmacy and community-based testing sites nationwide§ (4,5). Among children aged 3-5 years with one or more COVID-19-like illness symptoms¶ for whom a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) was performed during August 1, 2022-February 5, 2023, VE of 2 monovalent Moderna doses (complete primary series) against symptomatic infection was 60% (95% CI = 49% to 68%) 2 weeks-2 months after receipt of the second dose and 36% (95% CI = 15% to 52%) 3-4 months after receipt of the second dose. Among symptomatic children aged 3-4 years with NAATs performed during September 19, 2022-February 5, 2023, VE of 3 monovalent Pfizer-BioNTech doses (complete primary series) against symptomatic infection was 31% (95% CI = 7% to 49%) 2 weeks-4 months after receipt of the third dose; statistical power was not sufficient to estimate VE stratified by time since receipt of the third dose. Complete monovalent Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech primary series vaccination provides protection for children aged 3-5 and 3-4 years, respectively, against symptomatic infection for at least the first 4 months after vaccination. CDC expanded recommendations for use of updated bivalent vaccines to children aged ≥6 months on December 9, 2022 (6), which might provide increased protection against currently circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants (7,8). Children should stay up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccines, including completing the primary series; those who are eligible should receive a bivalent vaccine dose.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Child , United States/epidemiology , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19 Vaccines , 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273 , COVID-19 Testing , mRNA Vaccines , Vaccines, CombinedABSTRACT
The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron sublineage XBB was first detected in the United States in August 2022.* XBB together with a sublineage, XBB.1.5, accounted for >50% of sequenced lineages in the Northeast by December 31, 2022, and 52% of sequenced lineages nationwide as of January 21, 2023. COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) can vary by SARS-CoV-2 variant; reduced VE has been observed against some variants, although this is dependent on the health outcome of interest. The goal of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program is to prevent severe disease, including hospitalization and death (1); however, VE against symptomatic infection can provide useful insight into vaccine protection against emerging variants in advance of VE estimates against more severe disease. Data from the Increasing Community Access to Testing (ICATT) national pharmacy program for SARS-CoV-2 testing were analyzed to estimate VE of updated (bivalent) mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against symptomatic infection caused by BA.5-related and XBB/XBB.1.5-related sublineages among immunocompetent adults during December 1, 2022January 13, 2023. Reduction or failure of spike gene (S-gene) amplification (SGTF) in real-time reverse transcriptionpolymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was used as a proxy indicator of infection with likely BA.5-related sublineages and S-gene target presence (SGTP) of infection with likely XBB/XBB.1.5-related sublineages (2). Among 29,175 nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) with SGTF or SGTP results available from adults who had previously received 24 monovalent COVID-19 vaccine doses, the relative VE of a bivalent booster dose given 23 months earlier compared with no bivalent booster in persons aged 1849 years was 52% against symptomatic BA.5 infection and 48% against symptomatic XBB/XBB.1.5 infection. As new SARS-CoV-2 variants emerge, continued vaccine effectiveness monitoring is important. Bivalent vaccines appear to provide additional protection against symptomatic BA.5-related sublineage and XBB/XBB.1.5-related sublineage infections in persons who had previously received 2, 3, or 4 monovalent vaccine doses. All persons should stay up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccines, including receiving a bivalent booster dose when they are eligible.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , United States/epidemiology , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Vaccines, Combined , COVID-19 Testing , Vaccine Efficacy , RNA, MessengerABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In 2020, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States experienced surges in healthcare needs, which challenged capacity throughout the healthcare system. Stay-at-home orders in many jurisdictions, cancellation of elective procedures, and closures of outpatient medical offices disrupted patient access to care. To inform symptomatic persons about when to seek care and potentially help alleviate the burden on the healthcare system, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and partners developed the CDC Coronavirus Self-Checker ("Self-Checker"). This interactive tool assists individuals seeking information about COVID-19 to determine the appropriate level of care by asking demographic, clinical, and nonclinical questions during an online "conversation." OBJECTIVE: This paper describes user characteristics, trends in use, and recommendations delivered by the Self-Checker between March 23, 2020, and April 19, 2021, for pursuing appropriate levels of medical care depending on the severity of user symptoms. METHODS: User characteristics and trends in completed conversations that resulted in a care message were analyzed. Care messages delivered by the Self-Checker were manually classified into three overarching conversation themes: (1) seek care immediately; (2) take no action, or stay home and self-monitor; and (3) conversation redirected. Trends in 7-day averages of conversations and COVID-19 cases were examined with development and marketing milestones that potentially impacted Self-Checker user engagement. RESULTS: Among 16,718,667 completed conversations, the Self-Checker delivered recommendations for 69.27% (n=11,580,738) of all conversations to "take no action, or stay home and self-monitor"; 28.8% (n=4,822,138) of conversations to "seek care immediately"; and 1.89% (n=315,791) of conversations were redirected to other resources without providing any care advice. Among 6.8 million conversations initiated for self-reported sick individuals without life-threatening symptoms, 59.21% resulted in a recommendation to "take no action, or stay home and self-monitor." Nearly all individuals (99.8%) who were not sick were also advised to "take no action, or stay home and self-monitor." CONCLUSIONS: The majority of Self-Checker conversations resulted in advice to take no action, or stay home and self-monitor. This guidance may have reduced patient volume on the medical system; however, future studies evaluating patients' satisfaction, intention to follow the care advice received, course of action, and care modality pursued could clarify the impact of the Self-Checker and similar tools during future public health emergencies.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , United States , Pandemics , Communication , Patient Satisfaction , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.ABSTRACT
As of October 28, 2022, a total of 28,244* monkeypox (mpox) cases have been reported in the United States during an outbreak that has disproportionately affected gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) (1). JYNNEOS vaccine (Modified Vaccinia Ankara vaccine, Bavarian Nordic), administered subcutaneously as a 2-dose (0.5 mL per dose) series (with doses administered 4 weeks apart), was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2019 to prevent smallpox and mpox disease (2); an FDA Emergency Use Authorization issued on August 9, 2022, authorized intradermal administration of 0.1 mL per dose, increasing the number of persons who could be vaccinated with the available vaccine supply (3). A previous comparison of mpox incidence during July 31-September 3, 2022, among unvaccinated, but vaccine-eligible men aged 18-49 years and those who had received ≥1 JYNNEOS vaccine dose in 32 U.S. jurisdictions, found that incidence among unvaccinated persons was 14 times that among vaccinated persons (95% CI = 5.0-41.0) (4). During September 4-October 1, 2022, a total of 205,504 persons received JYNNEOS vaccine dose 2 in the United States.§ To further examine mpox incidence among persons who were unvaccinated and those who had received either 1 or 2 JYNNEOS doses, investigators analyzed data on 9,544 reported mpox cases among men¶ aged 18-49 years during July 31-October 1, 2022, from 43 U.S. jurisdictions,** by vaccination status. During this study period, mpox incidence (cases per 100,000 population at risk) among unvaccinated persons was 7.4 (95% CI = 6.0-9.1) times that among persons who received only 1 dose of JYNNEOS vaccine ≥14 days earlier and 9.6 (95% CI = 6.9-13.2) times that among persons who received dose 2 ≥14 days earlier. The observed distribution of subcutaneous and intradermal routes of administration of dose 1 among vaccinated persons with mpox was not different from the expected distribution. This report provides additional data suggesting JYNNEOS vaccine provides protection against mpox, irrespective of whether the vaccine is administered intradermally or subcutaneously. The degree and durability of such protection remains unclear. Persons eligible for mpox vaccination should receive the complete 2-dose series to optimize strength of protection (5).
Subject(s)
Mpox (monkeypox) , Sexual and Gender Minorities , Humans , Male , Homosexuality, Male , United States/epidemiology , United States Food and Drug Administration , Mpox (monkeypox)/prevention & control , Smallpox Vaccine/administration & dosageABSTRACT
Four COVID-19 vaccines are currently approved for primary series vaccination in the United States under a Biologics License Application or authorized under an emergency use authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and recommended for primary series vaccination by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP): 1) the 2- or 3-dose monovalent mRNA BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech, Comirnaty) COVID-19 vaccine; 2) the 2- or 3-dose monovalent mRNA mRNA-1273 (Moderna, Spikevax) COVID-19 vaccine; 3) the single-dose adenovirus vector-based Ad26.COV.S (Janssen [Johnson & Johnson]) COVID-19 vaccine; and 4) the 2-dose adjuvanted, protein subunit-based NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) COVID-19 vaccine. The number of doses recommended is based on recipient age and immunocompromise status (1). For additional protection, FDA has amended EUAs to allow for COVID-19 booster doses in eligible persons (1). Because COVID-19 vaccines have demonstrated decreased effectiveness during the period when the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) of SARS-CoV-2 predominated, bivalent booster doses (i.e., vaccine with equal components from the ancestral and Omicron strains) were considered for the express purpose of improving protection conferred by COVID-19 vaccine booster doses (2). During September-October 2022, FDA authorized bivalent mRNA vaccines for use as a booster dose in persons aged ≥5 years who completed any FDA-approved or FDA-authorized primary series and removed EUAs for monovalent COVID-19 booster doses (1). Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna bivalent booster vaccines each contain equal amounts of spike mRNA from the ancestral and Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strains. After the EUA amendments, ACIP and CDC recommended that all persons aged ≥5 years receive 1 bivalent mRNA booster dose ≥2 months after completion of any FDA-approved or FDA-authorized monovalent primary series or monovalent booster doses.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Humans , Advisory Committees , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunization , RNA, Messenger , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology , VaccinationABSTRACT
The NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) COVID-19 vaccine is a recombinant spike (rS) protein nanoparticle vaccine with Matrix-M adjuvant to protect against infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. On July 13, 2022, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Novavax vaccine for primary COVID-19 immunization of unvaccinated adults aged ≥18 years, administered as 2 doses (5 µg rS and 50 µg Matrix-M adjuvant in each dose) 3 weeks apart (1). On July 19, 2022, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued an interim recommendation for use of the Novavax vaccine in persons aged ≥18 years for the prevention of COVID-19.* In the per-protocol efficacy analysis, vaccine efficacy (VE) against reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 was 89.6% (95% CI = 82.4%-93.8%). The Alpha variant (B.1.1.7) of SARS-CoV-2 was the predominant circulating variant during the period of case accrual for VE assessments. Cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were reported in temporal association with vaccination, suggesting a possible causal relationship. The ACIP recommendation for the use of the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine is interim and will be updated as additional information becomes available. The adjuvanted, protein subunit-based Novavax COVID-19 vaccine provides an additional option for unvaccinated adults, increasing flexibility for the public and for vaccine providers. Vaccination is important for protection against COVID-19.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Adolescent , Adult , Advisory Committees , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , Immunization , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology , VaccinationABSTRACT
On June 17, 2022, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) amendments for the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine for use in children aged 6 months5 years, administered as 2 doses (25 µg [0.25 mL] each), 4 weeks apart, and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) COVID-19 vaccine for use in children aged 6 months4 years, administered as 3 doses (3 µg [0.2 mL] each), at intervals of 3 weeks between doses 1 and 2 and ≥8 weeks between doses 2 and 3. On June 18, 2022, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued separate interim recommendations for use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in children aged 6 months5 years and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in children aged 6 months4 years for the prevention of COVID-19.* Both the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines met the criteria for immunobridging, which is the comparison of neutralizing antibody levels postvaccination in young children with those in young adults in whom efficacy had been demonstrated. Descriptive efficacy analyses were also conducted for both Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines during the period when the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) predominated. No specific safety concerns were identified among recipients of either vaccine. ACIP recommendations for the use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in children aged 6 months5 years and 6 months4 years, respectively, are interim and will be updated as additional information becomes available. Vaccination is important for protecting children aged 6 months5 years against COVID-19.
Subject(s)
Humans , Infant , Child, Preschool , Child , COVID-19/prevention & control , BNT162 Vaccine/administration & dosage , 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273/administration & dosage , Immunization Programs/standards , BNT162 Vaccine/adverse effects , 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273/adverse effectsABSTRACT
On June 17, 2022, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) amendments for the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine for use in children aged 6 months-5 years, administered as 2 doses (25 µg [0.25 mL] each), 4 weeks apart, and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) COVID-19 vaccine for use in children aged 6 months-4 years, administered as 3 doses (3 µg [0.2 mL] each), at intervals of 3 weeks between doses 1 and 2 and ≥8 weeks between doses 2 and 3. On June 18, 2022, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued separate interim recommendations for use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in children aged 6 months-5 years and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in children aged 6 months-4 years for the prevention of COVID-19.* Both the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines met the criteria for immunobridging, which is the comparison of neutralizing antibody levels postvaccination in young children with those in young adults in whom efficacy had been demonstrated. Descriptive efficacy analyses were also conducted for both Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines during the period when the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) predominated. No specific safety concerns were identified among recipients of either vaccine. ACIP recommendations for the use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in children aged 6 months-5 years and 6 months-4 years, respectively, are interim and will be updated as additional information becomes available. Vaccination is important for protecting children aged 6 months-5 years against COVID-19.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273 , Advisory Committees , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Child , Child, Preschool , Humans , Immunization , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology , Vaccination , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The US public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic has required contact tracing and symptom monitoring at an unprecedented scale. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and several partners created the Text Illness Monitoring (TIM) platform in 2015 to assist US public health jurisdictions with symptom monitoring for potential novel influenza virus outbreaks. Since May 2020, 142 federal, state, and local public health agencies have deployed TIM for COVID-19 symptom monitoring. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility, benefits, and challenges of TIM to help guide decision-making for improvements and expansion to support future public health emergency response efforts. METHODS: We conducted a brief online survey of previous and current TIM administrative users (admin users) from November 28 through December 21, 2020. Closed- and open-ended questions inquired about the onboarding process, decision to use TIM, groups monitored with TIM, comparison of TIM to other symptom monitoring systems, technical challenges and satisfaction with TIM, and user support. A total of 1479 admin users were invited to participate. RESULTS: A total of 97 admin users from 43 agencies responded to the survey. Most admin users represented the Indian Health Service (35/97, 36%), state health departments (26/97, 27%), and local or county health departments (18/97, 19%), and almost all were current users of TIM (85/94, 90%). Among the 43 agencies represented, 11 (26%) used TIM for monitoring staff exclusively, 13 (30%) monitored community members exclusively, and 19 (44%) monitored both staff and community members. Agencies most frequently used TIM to monitor symptom development in contacts of cases among community members (28/43, 65%), followed by symptom development among staff (27/43, 63%) and among staff contacts of cases (24/43, 56%). Agencies also reported using TIM to monitor patients with COVID-19 for the worsening of symptoms among staff (21/43, 49%) and community members (18/43, 42%). When asked to compare TIM to previous monitoring systems, 78% (40/51) of respondents rated TIM more favorably than their previous monitoring system, 20% (10/51) said there was no difference, and 2% (1/51) rated the previous monitoring system more favorably than TIM. Most respondents found TIM favorable in terms of time burden, staff burden, timeliness of the data, and the ability to monitor large population sizes. TIM compared negatively to other systems in terms of effort to enroll participants (ie, persons TIM monitors) and accuracy of the data. Most respondents (76/85, 89%) reported that they would highly or somewhat recommend TIM to others for symptom monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation of TIM showed that agencies used TIM for a variety of purposes and rated TIM favorably compared to previously used monitoring systems. We also identified opportunities to improve TIM; for example, enhancing the flexibility of alert deliveries would better meet admin users' varying needs. We also suggest continuous program evaluation practices to assess and respond to implementation gaps.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Pandemics , Public Health , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
This manuscript describes the history, background, and current structure of the United States Immunization Program, founded upon public- and private-sector partnerships that include federal agencies, state and local health departments, tribal nations and organizations, healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, pharmacies, and a multitude of additional stakeholders. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sets the U.S. adult and childhood immunization schedules based on recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. We review the current immunization schedules; describe the set of surveillance and other systems used to monitor the health impact, coverage levels, and safety of recommended vaccines; and note significant challenges. Vaccines have reduced the incidence of many diseases to historic lows in the US, and have potential to further reduce the burden of respiratory and other infectious diseases in the United States. Though the United States vaccination program has had notable successes in reducing morbidity and mortality from infectious disease, challenges-including disparities in access and vaccine hesitancy-remain. Supporting access to and confidence in vaccines as an essential public health intervention will not only protect individuals from vaccine-preventable diseases; it will also ensure the country is prepared for the next pandemic.
Subject(s)
Immunization Programs , Immunization/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination Coverage/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination Hesitancy , Vaccine-Preventable Diseases , Vaccines/administration & dosage , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Health Promotion , Humans , Immunization Programs/organization & administration , Immunization Programs/trends , Immunization Schedule , Infant , Male , Middle Aged , Population Surveillance , United States/epidemiology , Vaccination , Vaccine-Preventable Diseases/epidemiology , Vaccine-Preventable Diseases/prevention & control , Young AdultABSTRACT
The role of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is to ensure the safety of prescription and nonprescription drugs, dietary supplements, and the food supply, representing more than 20% of US consumer spending. The increased need to monitor imported drugs, drug products and foods, drug shortages, and compounding pharmacies bring the adequacy of FDA funding into question. Performing even at status quo cannot be accomplished if responsibilities increase without equitable funding increases: both from the federal government and fees imposed on FDA-regulated industries. Additionally, scientific advancement, new legislation, and new industries are continually increasing the FDA workload, necessitating commensurate budget increases.