Planning for the future of maternal immunization: Building on lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic.

As the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic unfolded, the clinical and public health community raced to understand SARS-CoV-2 infection and develop life-saving vaccines. Pregnant persons were disproportionately impacted, experiencing more severe illness and adverse pregnancy outcomes. And yet, when COVID-19 vaccines became available in late 2020, safety and efficacy data were not available to inform their use during pregnancy because pregnant persons were excluded from pre-authorization clinical trials. Concerns about vaccine safety during pregnancy and misinformation linking vaccination and infertility circulated widely, creating a lack of vaccine confidence. Many pregnant people initially chose not to get vaccinated, and while vaccination rates rose after safety and effectiveness data became available, COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was suboptimal and varied across racial and ethnic distribution of the pregnant population. The COVID-19 pandemic experience provided valuable insights that can inform current and future approaches to maternal vaccination against.

Design and Implementation of a Federal Program to Engage Community Partners to Reduce Disparities in Adult COVID-19 Immunization Uptake, United States, 2021-2022.

Vaccination disparities are part of a larger system of health inequities among racial and ethnic groups in the United States. To increase vaccine equity of racial and ethnic populations, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) designed the Partnering for Vaccine Equity program in January 2021, which funded and supported national, state, local, and community organizations in 50 states-which include Indian Health Service Tribal Areas; Washington, DC; and Puerto Rico-to implement culturally tailored activities to improve access to, availability of, and confidence in COVID-19 and influenza vaccines. To increase vaccine uptake at the local level, CDC partnered with national organizations such as the National Urban League and Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum to engage community-based organizations to take action. Lessons learned from the program include the importance of directly supporting and engaging with the community, providing tailored messages and access to vaccines to reach communities where they are, training messengers who are trusted by those in the community, and providing support to funded partners through trainings on program design and implementation that can be institutionalized and sustained beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Building on these lessons will ensure CDC and other public health partners can continue to advance vaccine equity, increase vaccine uptake, improve health outcomes, and build trust with communities as part of a comprehensive adult immunization infrastructure.

Influenza, Tdap, and COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage and Hesitancy Among Pregnant Women - United States, April 2023.

Influenza, tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap), and COVID-19 vaccines can reduce the risk for influenza, pertussis, and COVID-19 among pregnant women and their infants. To assess influenza, Tdap, and COVID-19 vaccination coverage among women pregnant during the 2022-23 influenza season, CDC analyzed data from an Internet panel survey conducted during March 28-April 16, 2023. Among 1,814 survey respondents who were pregnant at any time during October 2022-January 2023, 47.2% reported receiving influenza vaccine before or during their pregnancy. Among 776 respondents with a live birth by their survey date, 55.4% reported receiving Tdap vaccine during pregnancy. Among 1,252 women pregnant at the time of the survey, 27.3% reported receipt of a COVID-19 bivalent booster dose before or during the current pregnancy. Data from the same questions included in surveys conducted during influenza seasons 2019-20 through 2022-23 show that the proportion of pregnant women who reported being very hesitant about influenza and Tdap vaccinations during pregnancy increased from 2019-20 to 2022-23. Pregnant women who received a provider recommendation for vaccination were less hesitant about influenza and Tdap vaccines. Promotion of efforts to improve vaccination coverage among pregnant women, such as provider recommendation for vaccination and informative conversations with patients to address vaccine hesitancy, might reduce vaccine hesitancy and increase coverage with these important vaccines to protect mothers and their infants against severe respiratory diseases.

Safety and Effectiveness of Maternal COVID-19 Vaccines Among Pregnant People and Infants.

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.

Association Between Influenza Vaccination During Pregnancy and Infant Influenza Vaccination.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between influenza vaccination during pregnancy and infant influenza vaccination. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of individuals aged 15-49 years who were continually privately insured from August 2017 to May 2019 and had singleton live births between September 2017 and February 2018 and their infants. Influenza vaccination coverage was assessed for pregnant people during the 2017-2018 influenza season and for their infants during the 2018-2019 season using the 2017-2019 MarketScan data. Multivariate log-binomial regressions were conducted to examine the association between influenza vaccination during pregnancy and infant influenza vaccination. RESULTS: Of the 34,919 pregnant people in this analysis, 14,168 (40.6%) received influenza vaccination during pregnancy. Of the infants born to people vaccinated during pregnancy, 90.0% received at least one dose of influenza vaccine during the 2018-2019 season and 75.5% received at least two doses. Of the infants born to those not vaccinated during pregnancy, 66.3% received at least one dose of influenza vaccine and 51.8% received at least two doses. At-least-one-dose coverage was 35.7% higher (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 1.34, 95% CI 1.33-1.36) and at-least-two-dose coverage was 45.8% higher (aRR 1.43, 95% CI 1.41-1.46) for infants born to people who received influenza vaccination during pregnancy compared with infants born to people who did not. CONCLUSION: Our results show a positive and statistically significant relationship between influenza vaccination during pregnancy and infant influenza vaccination status in their first season eligible for vaccination. Interventions to increase influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant people may also increase infant influenza vaccination coverage, offering greater protection against serious complications of influenza in both vulnerable populations.

Vital Signs: Influenza Hospitalizations and Vaccination Coverage by Race and Ethnicity-United States, 2009-10 Through 2021-22 Influenza Seasons.

Introduction: CDC estimates that influenza resulted in 9-41 million illnesses, 140,000-710,000 hospitalizations, and 12,000-52,000 deaths annually during 2010-2020. Persons from some racial and ethnic minority groups have historically experienced higher rates of severe influenza and had lower influenza vaccination coverage compared with non-Hispanic White (White) persons. This report examines influenza hospitalization and vaccination rates by race and ethnicity during a 12-13-year period (through the 2021-22 influenza season). Methods: Data from population-based surveillance for laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalizations in selected states participating in the Influenza-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET) from the 2009-10 through 2021-22 influenza seasons (excluding 2020-21) and influenza vaccination coverage data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) from the 2010-11 through 2021-22 influenza seasons were analyzed by race and ethnicity. Results: From 2009-10 through 2021-22, age-adjusted influenza hospitalization rates (hospitalizations per 100,000 population) were higher among non-Hispanic Black (Black) (rate ratio [RR] = 1.8), American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN; RR = 1.3), and Hispanic (RR = 1.2) adults, compared with the rate among White adults. During the 2021-22 season, influenza vaccination coverage was lower among Hispanic (37.9%), AI/AN (40.9%), Black (42.0%), and other/multiple race (42.6%) adults compared with that among White (53.9%) and non-Hispanic Asian (Asian) (54.2%) adults; coverage has been consistently higher among White and Asian adults compared with that among Black and Hispanic adults since the 2010-11 season. The disparity in vaccination coverage by race and ethnicity was present among those who reported having medical insurance, a personal health care provider, and a routine medical checkup in the past year. Conclusions and Implications for Public Health Practice: Racial and ethnic disparities in influenza disease severity and influenza vaccination coverage persist. Health care providers should assess patient vaccination status at all medical visits and offer (or provide a referral for) all recommended vaccines. Tailored programmatic efforts to provide influenza vaccination through nontraditional settings, along with national and community-level efforts to improve awareness of the importance of influenza vaccination in preventing illness, hospitalization, and death among racial and ethnic minority communities might help address health care access barriers and improve vaccine confidence, leading to decreases in disparities in influenza vaccination coverage and disease severity.

COVID-19 vaccination coverage and intent among women aged 18-49 years by pregnancy status, United States, April-November 2021.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant and postpartum women are at increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19. We assessed COVID-19 vaccination coverage, intent, and attitudes among women of reproductive age overall and by pregnancy status in the United States. METHODS: Data from the National Immunization Survey Adult COVID Module collected during April 22-November 27, 2021, were analyzed to assess COVID-19 vaccination (receipt of ≥1 dose), intent for vaccination, and attitudes towards vaccination among women aged 18-49 years overall and by pregnancy status (trying to get pregnant, currently pregnant, breastfeeding, and not trying to get pregnant or currently pregnant or breastfeeding). Logistic regression and predictive marginals were used to generate unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs and aPRs). Trend analyses were conducted to assess monthly changes in vaccination and intent. RESULTS: Our analyses included 110,925 women aged 18-49 years. COVID-19 vaccination coverage (≥1 dose) was 63.2% overall (range from 53.3% in HHS Region 4 to 76.5% in HHS Region 1). Vaccination coverage was lowest among pregnant women (45.1%), followed by women who were trying to get pregnant (49.5%), women who were breastfeeding (51.5%), and all other women (64.9%). Non-Hispanic (NH) Black women who were pregnant or breastfeeding had significantly lower vaccination coverage (aPR: 0.74 and 0.66, respectively) than NH White women. DISCUSSION: Our findings are consistent with other studies showing lower vaccination coverage among pregnant individuals, with substantially lower vaccination coverage among NH Black women who are pregnant or breastfeeding. Given the overlapping and disproportionate risks of COVID-19 and maternal mortality among Black women, it is critical that COVID-19 vaccination be strongly recommended for these populations and all women of reproductive age. Healthcare and public health providers may take advantage of every opportunity to encourage vaccination and enlist the assistance of community leaders, particularly in communities with low vaccination coverage.

Use of the Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccine: updated interim recommendations from the advisory committee on immunization practices: United States, December 2021

On February 27, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccine (Janssen Biotech, Inc., a Janssen Pharmaceutical company, Johnson & Johnson), and on February 28, 2021, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued an interim recommendation for its use as a single-dose primary vaccination in persons aged ≥18 years (1,2). On April 13, 2021, CDC and FDA recommended a pause in the use of Janssen COVID-19 vaccine after reports of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), a rare condition characterized by low platelets and thrombosis, including at unusual sites such as the cerebral venous sinus (cerebral venous sinus thrombosis [CVST]), after receipt of the vaccine.* ACIP rapidly convened two emergency meetings to review reported cases of TTS, and 10 days after the pause commenced, ACIP reaffirmed its interim recommendation for use of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥18 years, but included a warning regarding rare clotting events after vaccination, primarily among women aged 18­49 years (3). In July, after review of an updated benefit-risk assessment accounting for risks of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and TTS, ACIP concluded that benefits of vaccination with Janssen COVID-19 vaccine outweighed risks. Through ongoing safety surveillance and review of reports from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), additional cases of TTS after receipt of Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, including deaths, were identified. On December 16, 2021, ACIP held an emergency meeting to review updated data on TTS and an updated benefit-risk assessment. At that meeting, ACIP made a recommendation for preferential use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines over the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, including both primary and booster doses administered to prevent COVID-19, for all persons aged ≥18 years. The Janssen COVID-19 vaccine may be considered in some situations, including for persons with a contraindication to receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Since June 2020, ACIP has convened 23 public meetings to review data on the epidemiology of COVID-19 and the use of COVID-19 vaccines, including nine during which Janssen COVID-19 vaccine-related data were reviewed. The ACIP COVID-19 Vaccines Work Group, comprising experts in infectious diseases, vaccinology, vaccine safety, public health, and ethics, has held weekly meetings to review COVID-19 surveillance data, evidence for vaccine efficacy and safety, and implementation considerations for COVID-19 vaccines. In addition, the COVID-19 Vaccines Safety Technical Work Group (VaST), consisting of independent vaccine safety experts and established to provide expert consultation on COVID-19 vaccine safety issues, has reviewed safety data from the COVID-19 vaccination program during weekly meetings. After TTS was first identified in the United States in April 2021, a benefit-risk assessment for the use of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine was presented to ACIP using an adapted Evidence to Recommendations (EtR) framework.† In the setting of limited COVID-19 vaccine supply in the United States at that time, ACIP reaffirmed its interim recommendations for the use of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥18 years under FDA's EUA, which was updated to include a warning that rare clotting events might occur after vaccination, primarily among women aged 18­49 years (3). Updates to the benefit-risk assessment were also reviewed by ACIP in June 2021, after an increased risk for myocarditis, particularly in males aged 12­29 years, was observed after receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines; and again, in July 2021, after an increased number of cases of GBS were identified following administration of Janssen COVID-19 vaccine (4,5). After each review, ACIP determined that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination in preventing COVID-19 morbidity and associated mortality outweighed the risks for these rare, but serious adverse events; however, the balance of benefits and risks varied by age and sex. Ongoing postauthorization safety surveillance identified additional TTS cases and associated deaths after Janssen COVID-19 vaccination, and updated safety data were reviewed by VaST in December 2021. The COVID-19 Vaccines Work Group also reviewed an updated benefit-risk assessment of COVID-19 vaccines in the setting of new safety findings and sufficient COVID-19 vaccine supply in the United States. In addition, FDA updated the EUA fact sheets with additional TTS data in December 2021.§ A summary of the data reviewed and discussions from both VaST and the ACIP COVID-19 Vaccines Work Group were presented to ACIP during their emergency meeting on December 16, 2021.

Use of the Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 Vaccine: Updated Interim Recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, December 2021.

On February 27, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccine (Janssen Biotech, Inc., a Janssen Pharmaceutical company, Johnson & Johnson), and on February 28, 2021, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued an interim recommendation for its use as a single-dose primary vaccination in persons aged ≥18 years (1,2). On April 13, 2021, CDC and FDA recommended a pause in the use of Janssen COVID-19 vaccine after reports of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), a rare condition characterized by low platelets and thrombosis, including at unusual sites such as the cerebral venous sinus (cerebral venous sinus thrombosis [CVST]), after receipt of the vaccine.* ACIP rapidly convened two emergency meetings to review reported cases of TTS, and 10 days after the pause commenced, ACIP reaffirmed its interim recommendation for use of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥18 years, but included a warning regarding rare clotting events after vaccination, primarily among women aged 18-49 years (3). In July, after review of an updated benefit-risk assessment accounting for risks of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and TTS, ACIP concluded that benefits of vaccination with Janssen COVID-19 vaccine outweighed risks. Through ongoing safety surveillance and review of reports from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), additional cases of TTS after receipt of Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, including deaths, were identified. On December 16, 2021, ACIP held an emergency meeting to review updated data on TTS and an updated benefit-risk assessment. At that meeting, ACIP made a recommendation for preferential use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines over the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, including both primary and booster doses administered to prevent COVID-19, for all persons aged ≥18 years. The Janssen COVID-19 vaccine may be considered in some situations, including for persons with a contraindication to receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Need for Contraceptive Services Among Women of Reproductive Age - 45 Jurisdictions, United States, 2017-2019.

Ensuring access to contraceptive services is an important strategy for preventing unintended pregnancies, which account for nearly one half of all U.S. pregnancies (1) and are associated with adverse maternal and infant health outcomes (2). Equitable, person-centered contraceptive access is also important to ensure reproductive autonomy (3). Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data collected during 2017-2019 were used to estimate the proportion of women aged 18-49 years who were at risk for unintended pregnancy* and had ongoing or potential need for contraceptive services.† During 2017-2019, in the 45 jurisdictions§ from which data were collected, 76.2% of women aged 18-49 years were considered to be at risk for unintended pregnancy, ranging from 67.0% (Alaska) to 84.6% (Georgia); 60.7% of women had ongoing or potential need for contraceptive services, ranging from 45.3% (Puerto Rico) to 73.7% (New York). For all jurisdictions combined, the proportion of women who were at risk for unintended pregnancy and had ongoing or potential need for contraceptive services varied significantly by age group, race/ethnicity, and urban-rural status. Among women with ongoing or potential need for contraceptive services, 15.2% used a long-acting reversible method (intrauterine device or contraceptive implant), 25.0% used a short-acting reversible method (injectable, pill, transdermal patch, or vaginal ring), and 29.5% used a barrier or other reversible method (diaphragm, condom, withdrawal, cervical cap, sponge, spermicide, fertility-awareness-based method, or emergency contraception). In addition, 30.3% of women with ongoing or potential need were not using any method of contraception. Data in this report can be used to help guide jurisdictional planning to deliver contraceptive services, reduce unintended pregnancies, ensure that the contraceptive needs of women and their partners are met, and evaluate efforts to increase access to contraception.

Decline in Receipt of Vaccines by Medicare Beneficiaries During the COVID-19 Pandemic - United States, 2020.

On March 13, 2020, the United States declared a national emergency concerning the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak (1). In response, many state and local governments issued shelter-in-place or stay-at-home orders, restricting nonessential activities outside residents' homes (2). CDC initially issued guidance recommending postponing routine adult vaccinations, which was later revised to recommend continuing to administer routine adult vaccines (3). In addition, factors such as disrupted operations of health care facilities and safety concerns regarding exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, resulted in delay or avoidance of routine medical care (4), likely further affecting delivery of routine adult vaccinations. Medicare enrollment and claims data of Parts A (hospital insurance), B (medical insurance), and D (prescription drug insurance) were examined to assess the change in receipt of routine adult vaccines during the pandemic. Weekly receipt of four vaccines (13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine [PCV13], 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine [PPSV23], tetanus-diphtheria or tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine [Td/Tdap], and recombinant zoster vaccine [RZV]) by Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years during January 5-July 18, 2020, was compared with that during January 6-July 20, 2019, for the total study sample and by race and ethnicity. Overall, weekly administration rates of the four examined vaccines declined by up to 89% after the national emergency declaration in mid-March (1) compared with those during the corresponding period in 2019. During the first week following the national emergency declaration, the weekly vaccination rates were 25%-62% lower than those during the corresponding week in 2019. After reaching their nadirs of 70%-89% below 2019 rates in the second to third week of April 2020, weekly vaccination rates gradually began to recover through mid-July, but by the last study week were still lower than were those during the corresponding period in 2019, with the exception of PPSV23. Vaccination declined sharply for all vaccines studied, overall and across all racial and ethnic groups. While the pandemic continues, vaccination providers should emphasize to patients the importance of continuing to receive routine vaccinations and provide reassurance by explaining the procedures in place to ensure patient safety (3).

Required examinations and tests before initiating contraception: Provider practices from a national cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVE(S): We estimated the prevalence of requiring specific examinations or tests before providing contraception in a nationwide survey of family planning providers. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of public-sector health centers and office-based physicians providing family planning services across the United States in 2019 (n = 1395). We estimated the weighted proportion of providers (or their health center or practice) who required blood pressure measurement, pelvic examination (bimanual examination and cervical inspection), Papanicolaou (Pap) smear, clinical breast examination (CBE), and chlamydia and gonorrhea (CT/GC) screening before initiating hormonal or intrauterine contraception (IUC) for healthy women. We performed multivariable regression to identify factors associated with pelvic examination practices aligned with clinical recommendations; these recommendations classify examinations and tests as recommended or unnecessary before initiation of specific contraceptive methods. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 51%. Most providers required blood pressure measurement before initiating each method. Unnecessary CBE, Pap smears, and CT/GC screening were required by 14% to 33% of providers across methods. Fifty-two to 62% of providers required recommended pelvic examination before IUC placement; however, 16% to 23% of providers required unnecessary pelvic examinations before non-intrauterine hormonal method initiation. Factors associated with recommendation-aligned pelvic examination practices included having a higher proportion of patients using public funding (Medicaid or other assistance) and more recently completing formal clinical training. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half (47%) of providers did not require necessary pelvic examination before placing IUC. Conversely, many providers required unnecessary examinations and tests before contraception initiation for patients. IMPLICATIONS: Most providers required the few recommended examinations and tests for safe contraceptive provision. Reduction of unnecessary examinations and tests may reduce barriers to contraceptive access. There are also opportunities to increase use of recommended examinations, as up to 48% of providers did not require recommended pelvic examination before IUC.

Abortion Surveillance - United States, 2018.

PROBLEM/CONDITION: CDC conducts abortion surveillance to document the number and characteristics of women obtaining legal induced abortions and number of abortion-related deaths in the United States. PERIOD COVERED: 2018. DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM: Each year, CDC requests abortion data from the central health agencies for 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City. For 2018, 49 reporting areas voluntarily provided aggregate abortion data to CDC. Of these, 48 reporting areas provided data each year during 2009-2018. Census and natality data were used to calculate abortion rates (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years) and ratios (number of abortions per 1,000 live births), respectively. Abortion-related deaths from 2017 were assessed as part of CDC's Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System (PMSS). RESULTS: A total of 619,591 abortions for 2018 were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. Among 48 reporting areas with data each year during 2009-2018, in 2018, a total of 614,820 abortions were reported, the abortion rate was 11.3 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years, and the abortion ratio was 189 abortions per 1,000 live births. From 2017 to 2018, the total number of abortions and abortion rate increased 1% (from 609,095 total abortions and from 11.2 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years, respectively), and the abortion ratio increased 2% (from 185 abortions per 1,000 live births). From 2009 to 2018, the total number of reported abortions, abortion rate, and abortion ratio decreased 22% (from 786,621), 24% (from 14.9 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years), and 16% (from 224 abortions per 1,000 live births), respectively. In 2018, women in their 20s accounted for more than half of abortions (57.7%). In 2018 and during 2009-2018, women aged 20-24 and 25-29 years accounted for the highest percentages of abortions; in 2018, they accounted for 28.3% and 29.4% of abortions, respectively, and had the highest abortion rates (19.1 and 18.5 per 1,000 women aged 20-24 and 25-29 years, respectively). By contrast, adolescents aged <15 years and women aged ≥40 years accounted for the lowest percentages of abortions (0.2% and 3.6%, respectively) and had the lowest abortion rates (0.4 and 2.6 per 1,000 women aged <15 and ≥40 years, respectively). However, abortion ratios in 2018 and throughout 2009-2018 were highest among adolescents (aged ≤19 years) and lowest among women aged 25-39 years. Abortion rates decreased from 2009 to 2018 for all women, regardless of age. The decrease in abortion rate was highest among adolescents compared with women in any other age group. From 2009 to 2013, the abortion rates decreased for all age groups and from 2014 to 2018, the abortion rates decreased for all age groups, except for women aged 30-34 years and those aged ≥40 years. In addition, from 2017 to 2018, abortion rates did not change or decreased among women aged ≤24 and ≥40 years; however, the abortion rate increased among women aged 25-39 years. Abortion ratios also decreased from 2009 to 2018 among all women, except adolescents aged <15 years. The decrease in abortion ratio was highest among women aged ≥40 years compared with women in any other age group. The abortion ratio decreased for all age groups from 2009 to 2013; however, from 2014 to 2018, abortion ratios only decreased for women aged ≥35 years. From 2017 to 2018, abortion ratios increased for all age groups, except women aged ≥40 years. In 2018, approximately three fourths (77.7%) of abortions were performed at ≤9 weeks' gestation, and nearly all (92.2%) were performed at ≤13 weeks' gestation. In 2018, and during 2009-2018, the percentage of abortions performed at >13 weeks' gestation remained consistently low (≤9.0%). In 2018, the highest proportion of abortions were performed by surgical abortion at ≤13 weeks' gestation (52.1%), followed by early medical abortion at ≤9 weeks' gestation (38.6%), surgical abortion at >13 weeks' gestation (7.8%), and medical abortion at >9 weeks' gestation (1.4%); all other methods were uncommon (<0.1%). Among those that were eligible (≤9 weeks' gestation), 50.0% of abortions were early medical abortions. In 2017, the most recent year for which PMSS data were reviewed for pregnancy-related deaths, two women were identified to have died as a result of complications from legal induced abortion. INTERPRETATION: Among the 48 areas that reported data continuously during 2009-2018, decreases were observed during 2009-2017 in the total number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions, and these decreases resulted in historic lows for this period for all three measures. These decreases were followed by 1%-2% increases across all measures from 2017 to 2018. PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION: The data in this report can help program planners and policymakers identify groups of women with the highest rates of abortion. Unintended pregnancy is a major contributor to induced abortion. Increasing access to and use of effective contraception can reduce unintended pregnancies and further reduce the number of abortions performed in the United States.

Influenza and Tdap Vaccination Coverage Among Pregnant Women - United States, April 2020.

Vaccination of pregnant women with influenza vaccine and tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap) can decrease the risk for influenza and pertussis among pregnant women and their infants. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends that all women who are or might be pregnant during the influenza season receive influenza vaccine, which can be administered at any time during pregnancy (1). ACIP also recommends that women receive Tdap during each pregnancy, preferably during the early part of gestational weeks 27-36 (2,3). Despite these recommendations, vaccination coverage among pregnant women has been found to be suboptimal with racial/ethnic disparities persisting (4-6). To assess influenza and Tdap vaccination coverage among women pregnant during the 2019-20 influenza season, CDC analyzed data from an Internet panel survey conducted during April 2020. Among 1,841 survey respondents who were pregnant anytime during October 2019-January 2020, 61.2% reported receiving influenza vaccine before or during their pregnancy, an increase of 7.5 percentage points compared with the rate during the 2018-19 season. Among 463 respondents who had a live birth by their survey date, 56.6% reported receiving Tdap during pregnancy, similar to the 2018-19 season (4). Vaccination coverage was highest among women who reported receiving a provider offer or referral for vaccination (influenza = 75.2%; Tdap = 72.7%). Compared with the 2018-19 season, increases in influenza vaccination coverage were observed during the 2019-20 season for non-Hispanic Black (Black) women (14.7 percentage points, to 52.7%), Hispanic women (9.9 percentage points, to 67.2%), and women of other non-Hispanic (other) races (7.9 percentage points, to 69.6%), and did not change for non-Hispanic White (White) women (60.6%). As in the 2018-19 season, Hispanic and Black women had the lowest Tdap vaccination coverage (35.8% and 38.8%, respectively), compared with White women (65.5%) and women of other races (54.0%); in addition, a decrease in Tdap vaccination coverage was observed among Hispanic women in 2019-20 compared with the previous season. Racial/ethnic disparities in influenza vaccination coverage decreased but persisted, even among women who received a provider offer or referral for vaccination. Consistent provider offers or referrals, in combination with conversations culturally and linguistically tailored for patients of all races/ethnicities, could increase vaccination coverage among pregnant women in all racial/ethnic groups and reduce disparities in coverage.

Expulsion of intrauterine devices after postpartum placement by timing of placement, delivery type, and intrauterine device type: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To provide updated and more detailed pooled intrauterine device expulsion rates and expulsion risk estimates among women with postpartum intrauterine device placement by timing of insertion, delivery type, and intrauterine device type to inform current intrauterine device insertion practices in the United States. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov through June 2019. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included all studies, of any study design, that examined postpartum placement of Copper T380A (copper) or levonorgestrel-containing intrauterine devices that reported counts of expulsion. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: We evaluated intrauterine device expulsion among women receiving postpartum intrauterine devices in the "immediate" (within 10 minutes), "early inpatient" (>10 minutes to <72 hours), "early outpatient" (72 hours to <4 weeks), and interval (≥4 weeks) time periods after delivery. We assessed study quality using the US Preventive Services Task Force evidence grading system. We calculated pooled absolute rates of partial and complete intrauterine device expulsion separately and estimated adjusted relative risks by the timing of postpartum placement, delivery type, and intrauterine device type using log-binomial multivariable regression. RESULTS: We identified 48 level I to II-3 studies of poor to good quality that reported a total of 7661 intrauterine device placements. Complete intrauterine device expulsion rates varied by timing of placement as follows: 10.2% (range, 0.0-26.7) for immediate; 13.2% (3.5-46.7) for early inpatient; 0% for early outpatient; and 1.8% (0.0-4.8) for interval placements. Complete intrauterine device expulsion rates also varied by delivery type: 14.8% (range, 4.8-43.1) for vaginal and 3.8% (0.0-21.1) for cesarean deliveries. Among immediate postpartum vaginal placements, the expulsion rate for levonorgetrel intrauterine devices was 27.4% (range, 18.8-45.2) and 12.4% (4.8-43.1) for copper intrauterine devices. Compared with interval placement, immediate and early postpartum placements (inpatient and outpatient combined) were associated with greater risk of complete expulsion (adjusted risk ratio, 8.33; 95% confidence interval, 4.32-16.08, and adjusted risk ratio, 5.27; 95% confidence interval, 2.56-10.85, respectively). Among immediate postpartum placements, risk of expulsion was greater for placement after vaginal compared with cesarean deliveries (adjusted risk ratio, 4.57; 95% confidence interval, 3.49-5.99). Among immediate placements at the time of vaginal delivery, levonorgestrel intrauterine devices were associated with a greater risk of expulsion compared with copper intrauterine devices (adjusted risk ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-2.65). CONCLUSION: Although intrauterine device expulsion rates vary by timing of placement, type, and mode of delivery, intrauterine device insertion can take place at any time. Understanding the risk of intrauterine device expulsion at each time period will enable women to make an informed choice about when to initiate use of an intrauterine device in the postpartum period based on their own goals and preferences.

Abortion Surveillance - United States, 2016.

PROBLEM/CONDITION: Since 1969, CDC has conducted abortion surveillance to document the number and characteristics of women obtaining legal induced abortions in the United States. PERIOD COVERED: 2016. DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM: Each year, CDC requests abortion data from the central health agencies of 52 reporting areas (the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City). The reporting areas provide this information voluntarily. For 2016, data were received from 48 reporting areas. Abortion data provided by these 48 reporting areas for each year during 2007-2016 were used in trend analyses. Census and natality data were used to calculate abortion rates (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years) and ratios (number of abortions per 1,000 live births), respectively. RESULTS: A total of 623,471 abortions for 2016 were reported to CDC from 48 reporting areas. Among these 48 reporting areas, the abortion rate for 2016 was 11.6 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years, and the abortion ratio was 186 abortions per 1,000 live births. From 2015 to 2016, the total number of reported abortions decreased 2% (from 636,902), the abortion rate decreased 2% (from 11.8 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years), and the abortion ratio decreased 1% (from 188 abortions per 1,000 live births). From 2007 to 2016, the total number of reported abortions decreased 24% (from 825,240), the abortion rate decreased 26% (from 15.6 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years), and the abortion ratio decreased 18% (from 226 abortions per 1,000 live births). In 2016, all three measures reached their lowest level for the entire period of analysis (2007-2016). In 2016 and throughout the period of analysis, women in their 20s accounted for the majority of abortions and had the highest abortion rates. In 2016, women aged 20-24 and 25-29 years accounted for 30.0% and 28.5% of all reported abortions, respectively, and had abortion rates of 19.1 and 17.8 abortions per 1,000 women aged 20-24 and 25-29 years, respectively. By contrast, women aged 30-34, 35-39, and ≥40 years accounted for 18.0%, 10.3%, and 3.5% of all reported abortions, respectively, and had abortion rates of 11.6, 6.9, and 2.5 abortions per 1,000 women aged 30-34, 35-39, and ≥40 years, respectively. From 2007 to 2016, the abortion rate decreased among women in all age groups. In 2016, adolescents aged <15 and 15-19 years accounted for 0.3% and 9.4% of all reported abortions, respectively, and had abortion rates of 0.4 and 6.2 abortions per 1,000 adolescents aged <15 and 15-19 years, respectively. From 2007 to 2016, the percentage of abortions accounted for by adolescents aged 15-19 years decreased 43%, and the abortion rate decreased 56%. This decrease in abortion rate was greater than the decreases for women in any older age group. In contrast to the percentage distribution of abortions and abortion rates by age, abortion ratios in 2016 and throughout the entire period of analysis were highest among adolescents and lowest among women aged 25-39 years. Abortion ratios decreased from 2007 to 2016 for women in all age groups. In 2016, almost two-thirds (65.5%) of abortions were performed at ≤8 weeks' gestation, and nearly all (91.0%) were performed at ≤13 weeks' gestation. Fewer abortions were performed between 14 and 20 weeks' gestation (7.7%) or at ≥21 weeks' gestation (1.2%). During 2007-2016, the percentage of abortions performed at >13 weeks' gestation remained consistently low (8.2%-9.0%). Among abortions performed at ≤13 weeks' gestation, the percentage distributions of abortions by gestational age were highest among those performed at ≤6 weeks' gestation (35.0%-38.4%). In 2016, 27.9% of all abortions were performed by early medical abortion (a nonsurgical abortion at ≤8 weeks' gestation), 59.9% were performed by surgical abortion at ≤13 weeks' gestation, 8.8% were performed by surgical abortion at >13 weeks' gestation, and 3.4% were performed by medical abortion at >8 weeks' gestation; all other methods were uncommon (0.1%). Among those that were eligible for early medical abortion on the basis of gestational age (i.e., performed at ≤8 weeks' gestation), 41.9% were completed by this method. In 2016, women with one or more previous live births accounted for 59.0% of abortions, and women with no previous live births accounted for 41.0%. Women with one or more previous induced abortions accounted for 43.1% of abortions, and women with no previous abortions accounted for 56.9%. Deaths of women associated with complications from abortion are assessed as part of CDC's Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System. In 2015, the most recent year for which data were reviewed for abortion-related deaths, two women were identified to have died as a result of complications from legal induced abortion and for one additional death, it was unknown whether the abortion was induced or spontaneous. INTERPRETATION: Among the 48 areas that reported data every year during 2007-2016, decreases in the total number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions resulted in historic lows for the period of analysis for all three measures of abortion. PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION: The data in this report can help program planners and policymakers identify groups of women with the highest rates of abortion. Unintended pregnancy is the major contributor to induced abortion. Increasing access to and use of effective contraception can reduce unintended pregnancies and further reduce the number of abortions performed in the United States.

Update: Interim Guidance for Health Care Providers for Managing Patients with Suspected E-cigarette, or Vaping, Product Use-Associated Lung Injury - United States, November 2019.

CDC, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), state and local health departments, and public health and clinical stakeholders are investigating a nationwide outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) (1). CDC has published recommendations for health care providers regarding EVALI (2-4). Recently, researchers from Utah and New York published proposed diagnosis and treatment algorithms for EVALI (5,6). EVALI remains a diagnosis of exclusion because, at present, no specific test or marker exists for its diagnosis, and evaluation should be guided by clinical judgment. Because patients with EVALI can experience symptoms similar to those associated with influenza or other respiratory infections (e.g., fever, cough, headache, myalgias, or fatigue), it might be difficult to differentiate EVALI from influenza or community-acquired pneumonia on initial assessment; EVALI might also co-occur with respiratory infections. This report summarizes recommendations for health care providers managing patients with suspected or known EVALI when respiratory infections such as influenza are more prevalent in the community than they have been in recent months (7). Recommendations include 1) asking patients with respiratory, gastrointestinal, or constitutional symptoms about the use of e-cigarette, or vaping, products; 2) evaluating those suspected to have EVALI with pulse oximetry and obtaining chest imaging, as clinically indicated; 3) considering outpatient management for clinically stable EVALI patients who meet certain criteria; 4) testing patients for influenza, particularly during influenza season, and administering antimicrobials, including antivirals, in accordance with established guidelines; 5) using caution when considering prescribing corticosteroids for outpatients, because this treatment modality has not been well studied among outpatients, and corticosteroids could worsen respiratory infections; 6) recommending evidence-based treatment strategies, including behavioral counseling, to help patients discontinue using e-cigarette, or vaping, products; and 7) emphasizing the importance of annual influenza vaccination for all persons aged ≥6 months, including patients who use e-cigarette, or vaping products.

Characteristics of Hospitalized and Nonhospitalized Patients in a Nationwide Outbreak of E-cigarette, or Vaping, Product Use-Associated Lung Injury - United States, November 2019.

CDC, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), state and local health departments, and public health and clinical stakeholders are investigating a nationwide outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) (1). As of November 13, 2019, 49 states, the District of Columbia, and two U.S. territories (Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands) have reported 2,172 EVALI cases to CDC, including 42 (1.9%) EVALI-associated deaths. To inform EVALI surveillance, including during the 2019-20 influenza season, case report information supplied by states for hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients with EVALI were analyzed using data collected as of November 5, 2019. Among 2,016 EVALI patients with available data on hospitalization status, 1,906 (95%) were hospitalized, and 110 (5%) were not hospitalized. Demographic characteristics of hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients were similar; most were male (68% of hospitalized versus 65% of nonhospitalized patients), and most were aged <35 years (78% of hospitalized versus 74% of nonhospitalized patients). These patients also reported similar use of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-containing products (83% of hospitalized versus 84% of nonhospitalized patients). Given the similarity between hospitalized and nonhospitalized EVALI patients, the potential for large numbers of respiratory infections during the emerging 2019-20 influenza season, and the potential difficulty in distinguishing EVALI from respiratory infections, CDC will no longer collect national data on nonhospitalized EVALI patients. Further collection of data on nonhospitalized patients will be at the discretion of individual state, local, and territorial health departments. Candidates for outpatient management of EVALI should have normal oxygen saturation (≥95% while breathing room air), no respiratory distress, no comorbidities that might compromise pulmonary reserve, reliable access to care, strong social support systems, and should be able to ensure follow-up within 24-48 hours of initial evaluation and to seek medical care promptly if respiratory symptoms worsen. Health care providers should emphasize the importance of annual influenza vaccination for all persons aged ≥6 months, including persons who use e-cigarette, or vaping, products (2,3).

Update: Interim Guidance for Health Care Providers Evaluating and Caring for Patients with Suspected E-cigarette, or Vaping, Product Use Associated Lung Injury - United States, October 2019.

CDC, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), state and local health departments, and public health and clinical partners are investigating a multistate outbreak of lung injury associated with the use of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette), or vaping, products. In late August, CDC released recommendations for health care providers regarding e-cigarette, or vaping, product use associated lung injury (EVALI) based on limited data from the first reported cases (1,2). This report summarizes national surveillance data describing clinical features of more recently reported cases and interim recommendations based on these data for U.S. health care providers caring for patients with suspected or known EVALI. It provides interim guidance for 1) initial clinical evaluation; 2) suggested criteria for hospital admission and treatment; 3) patient follow-up; 4) special considerations for groups at high risk; and 5) clinical and public health recommendations. Health care providers evaluating patients suspected to have EVALI should ask about the use of e-cigarette, or vaping, products in a nonjudgmental and thorough manner. Patients suspected to have EVALI should have a chest radiograph (CXR), and hospital admission is recommended for patients who have decreased blood oxygen (O2) saturation (<95%) on room air or who are in respiratory distress. Health care providers should consider empiric use of a combination of antibiotics, antivirals, or steroids based upon clinical context. Evidence-based tobacco product cessation strategies, including behavioral counseling, are recommended to help patients discontinue use of e-cigarette, or vaping, products. To reduce the risk of recurrence, patients who have been treated for EVALI should not use e-cigarette, or vaping, products. CDC recommends that persons should not use e-cigarette, or vaping, products that contain tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). At present, CDC recommends persons consider refraining from using e-cigarette, or vaping, products that contain nicotine. Irrespective of the ongoing investigation, e-cigarette, or vaping, products should never be used by youths, young adults, or women who are pregnant. Persons who do not currently use tobacco products should not start using e-cigarette, or vaping, products.