Last data update: May 06, 2024. (Total: 46732 publications since 2009)
Records 1-3 (of 3 Records) |
Query Trace: Cloessner E[original query] |
---|
Considerations for use of Ebola vaccine during an emergency response
Walldorf JA , Cloessner EA , Hyde TB , MacNeil A . Vaccine 2017 37 (48) 7190-7200 Vaccination against Ebola virus disease is a tool that may limit disease transmission and deaths in future outbreaks, integrated within traditional Ebola outbreak prevention and control measures. Although a licensed Ebolavirus vaccine (EV) is not yet available, the 2014-2016 West African Ebola outbreak has accelerated EV clinical trials and given public health authorities in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone experience with implementation of emergency ring vaccination. As evidence supporting the use of EV during an outbreak response has become available, public health authorities in at-risk countries are considering how to integrate EV into future emergency Ebola responses and for prevention in high-risk groups, such as healthcare workers and frontline workers (HCW/FLWs), even before an EV is licensed. This review provides an overview of Ebola epidemiology, immunology, and evidence to inform regional and country-level decisions regarding EV delivery during an emergency response and to at-risk populations before a licensed vaccine is available and beyond. Countries or regions planning to use EV will need to assess factors such as the likelihood of a future Ebolavirus outbreak, the most likely species to cause an outbreak, the availability of a safe and effective EV (unlicensed or licensed) for the affected population, capacity to implement Ebola vaccination in conjunction with standard Ebola outbreak control measures, and availability of minimum essential resources and regulatory requirements to implement emergency Ebola vaccination. Potential emergency vaccination strategies for consideration include ring or geographically targeted community vaccination, HCW/FLW vaccination, and mass vaccination. The development of guidelines and protocols for Ebola vaccination will help ensure that activities are standardized, evidence-based, and well-coordinated with overall Ebola outbreak response efforts in the future. |
Administering multiple injectable vaccines during a single visit - summary of findings from the accelerated introduction of inactivated polio vaccine globally
Dolan SB , Patel M , Hampton LM , Burnett E , Ehlman DC , Garon J , Cloessner E , Chmielewski E , Hyde TB , Mantel C , Wallace AS . J Infect Dis 2017 216 S152-S160 Background. In 2013, the World Health Organization's (WHO's) Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) recommended that all 126 countries using only oral polio vaccine (OPV) introduce at least 1 dose of inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) into their routine immunization schedules by the end of 2015. In many countries, the addition of IPV would necessitate delivery of multiple injectable vaccines (hereafter, "multiple injections") during a single visit, with infants receiving IPV alongside pentavalent vaccine (which covers diphtheria, tetanus, and whole-cell pertussis; hepatitis B; and Haemophilus influenzae type b) and pneumococcal vaccine. Unanticipated concerns emerged from countries over acceptability of multiple injections, sites of administration, and safety. We contextualized the issues surrounding multiple injections by documenting concerns associated with administration of >=3 injections, existing evidence in the published literature, and findings of a systematic review on administration practices and techniques. Methods. Concerns associated with multiple-injection visits were documented from meetings and personal communications with immunization program managers. Published literature on the acceptability of multiple injections by providers and caregivers was summarized, and a systematic review of the literature on administration practices was completed on the following topics: spacing between injection sites (ie, vaccine spacing), site of injection, route of injection, and procedural preparedness. WHO and United Nations Children's Fund data from 2013-2015 were used to assess multiple-injection visits included in national immunization schedules. Results. Healthcare provider and caregiver attitudes and practices indicated concerns about infant pain, potential adverse effects, and uncertainty about vaccine effectiveness with multiple-injection visits. Published literature reinforced the record of safety and acceptance of the recommended schedule of IPV by the SAGE, but the evidence was largely from developed countries. Parental acceptance of multiple injections was associated with a positive provider recommendation to the caregiver. Findings of the systematic review identified that the intramuscular route is preferred over the subcutaneous route for vaccine administration and that the vastus lateralis muscle is preferred over the deltoid muscle for intramuscular injections. Recommendations on vaccine spacing and procedural preparedness were based on practical necessities, but comparative evidence was not identified. During 2013-2015, 85 countries added IPV to their immunization schedules, 46 (55%) of which adopted a schedule resulting in 3 injectable vaccines being administered in a single visit. Conclusion. The multiple-injection experience identified gaps in guidance for future vaccine introductions. Global partner organizations quickly mobilized to assess, document, and communicate the existing global experience on multiple-injection visits. This evidence-based approach provided reassurance to opinion leaders, health workers, and professional societies, thus encouraging uptake of IPV as a second or third injection in an accelerated manner globally. |
Timing of HPV vaccine intervals among United States teens with consideration to the current ACIP schedule and the WHO 2-dose schedule
Cloessner EA , Stokley S , Yankey D , Markowitz LE . Hum Vaccin Immunother 2015 0 The current recommendation for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in the United States is for three doses to be administered over a six month period. In April 2014, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended adoption of a two-dose schedule, with doses spaced a minimum of six months apart, for teens who begin the series before age 15. We analyzed data from the 2013 National Immunization Survey-Teen to examine the timing of second and third dose receipt among US adolescents. All analyses were restricted to adolescents age 13-17 years who had adequate provider data. The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test measured differences among socioeconomic groups' time to receive vaccine doses. Logistic regression identified socioeconomic characteristics associated with receiving the second dose of HPV vaccine at least 6 months after the first dose. The median time for teens to receive the second dose of HPV vaccine was 2.6 months after the first dose, and the median time to receive the third dose was 4.9 months after the second dose. Minority teens and teens living below the poverty level took significantly longer to receive doses. Among teens that initiated the HPV vaccine series before age 15 years, 28.6% received the second dose at least 6 months after the first dose. If these teens, who met the WHO criteria for up-to-date HPV vaccination, were classified as having completed a vaccination series, overall coverage in the US would increase 3.9 percentage points, with African American and Hispanic teens having the greatest increases in coverage. |
- Page last reviewed:Feb 1, 2024
- Page last updated:May 06, 2024
- Content source:
- Powered by CDC PHGKB Infrastructure