Last data update: Jun 17, 2024. (Total: 47034 publications since 2009)
Records 1-30 (of 31 Records) |
Query Trace: Morgan RL [original query] |
---|
Use of the Pfizer pentavalent meningococcal vaccine among persons aged ≥10 years: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2023
Collins JP , Crowe SJ , Ortega-Sanchez IR , Bahta L , Campos-Outcalt D , Loehr J , Morgan RL , Poehling KA , McNamara LA . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2024 73 (15) 345-350 Meningococcal disease is a life-threatening invasive infection caused by Neisseria meningitidis. Two quadrivalent (serogroups A, C, W, and Y) meningococcal conjugate vaccines (MenACWY) (MenACWY-CRM [Menveo, GSK] and MenACWY-TT [MenQuadfi, Sanofi Pasteur]) and two serogroup B meningococcal vaccines (MenB) (MenB-4C [Bexsero, GSK] and MenB-FHbp [Trumenba, Pfizer Inc.]), are licensed and available in the United States and have been recommended by CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). On October 20, 2023, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of a pentavalent meningococcal vaccine (MenACWY-TT/MenB-FHbp [Penbraya, Pfizer Inc.]) for prevention of invasive disease caused by N. meningitidis serogroups A, B, C, W, and Y among persons aged 10-25 years. On October 25, 2023, ACIP recommended that MenACWY-TT/MenB-FHbp may be used when both MenACWY and MenB are indicated at the same visit for the following groups: 1) healthy persons aged 16-23 years (routine schedule) when shared clinical decision-making favors administration of MenB vaccine, and 2) persons aged ≥10 years who are at increased risk for meningococcal disease (e.g., because of persistent complement deficiencies, complement inhibitor use, or functional or anatomic asplenia). Different manufacturers' serogroup B-containing vaccines are not interchangeable; therefore, when MenACWY-TT/MenB-FHbp is used, subsequent doses of MenB should be from the same manufacturer (Pfizer Inc.). This report summarizes evidence considered for these recommendations and provides clinical guidance for the use of MenACWY-TT/MenB-FHbp. |
Pneumococcal vaccine for adults aged 19 years: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, United States, 2023
Kobayashi M , Pilishvili T , Farrar JL , Leidner AJ , Gierke R , Prasad N , Moro P , Campos-Outcalt D , Morgan RL , Long SS , Poehling KA , Cohen AL . MMWR Recomm Rep 2023 72 (3) 1-39 This report compiles and summarizes all published recommendations from CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for use of pneumococcal vaccines in adults aged ≥19 years in the United States. This report also includes updated and new clinical guidance for implementation from CDC. | | Before 2021, ACIP recommended 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) alone (up to 2 doses), or both a single dose of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) in combination with 1–3 doses of PPSV23 in series (PCV13 followed by PPSV23), for use in U.S. adults depending on age and underlying risk for pneumococcal disease. In 2021, two new pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs), a 15-valent and a 20-valent PCV (PCV15 and PCV20), were licensed for use in U.S. adults aged ≥18 years by the Food and Drug Administration. | | ACIP recommendations specify the use of either PCV20 alone or PCV15 in series with PPSV23 for all adults aged ≥65 years and for adults aged 19–64 years with certain underlying medical conditions or other risk factors who have not received a PCV or whose vaccination history is unknown. In addition, ACIP recommends use of either a single dose of PCV20 or ≥1 dose of PPSV23 for adults who have started their pneumococcal vaccine series with PCV13 but have not received all recommended PPSV23 doses. Shared clinical decision-making is recommended regarding use of a supplemental PCV20 dose for adults aged ≥65 years who have completed their recommended vaccine series with both PCV13 and PPSV23. | | Updated and new clinical guidance for implementation from CDC includes the recommendation for use of PCV15 or PCV20 for adults who have received PPSV23 but have not received any PCV dose. The report also includes clinical guidance for adults who have received 7-valent PCV (PCV7) only and adults who are hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. |
Development of an international glossary for clinical guidelines collaboration
Christensen RE , Yi MD , Kang BY , Ibrahim SA , Anvery N , Dirr M , Adams S , Amer YS , Bisdorff A , Bradfield L , Brown S , Earley A , Fatheree LA , Fayoux P , Getchius T , Ginex P , Graham A , Green CR , Gresele P , Hanson H , Haynes N , Hegedüs L , Hussein H , Jakhmola P , Kantorova L , Krishnasamy R , Krist A , Landry G , Lease ED , Ley L , Marsden G , Meek T , Meremikwu M , Moga C , Mokrane S , Mujoomdar A , Newton S , O'Flynn N , Perkins GD , Smith EJ , Prematunge C , Rychert J , Saraco M , Schünemann HJ , Senerth E , Sinclair A , Shwayder J , Stec C , Tanni S , Taske N , Temple-Smolkin RL , Thomas L , Thomas S , Tonnessen B , Turner AS , Van Dam A , van Doormaal M , Wan YL , Ventura CB , McFarlane E , Morgan RL , Ogunremi T , Alam M . J Clin Epidemiol 2023 158 84-91 OBJECTIVE: Clinical practice guidelines are often created through collaboration among organizations. Use of inconsistent terminology may cause poor communication and delays. This study aimed to develop a glossary of terms related to collaboration in guideline development. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A literature review of collaborative guidelines was performed to develop an initial list of terms related to guideline collaboration. The list of terms was presented to the members of the Guideline International Network Guidelines Collaboration Working Group, who provided presumptive definitions for each term and proposed additional terms to be included. The revised list was subsequently reviewed by an international, multidisciplinary panel of expert stakeholders. Recommendations received during this pre-Delphi review were implemented to augment an initial draft glossary. The glossary was then critically evaluated and refined through two rounds of Delphi surveys and a virtual consensus meeting with all panel members as Delphi participants. RESULTS: Forty-nine experts participated in the pre-Delphi survey and 44 participated in the two-round Delphi process. Consensus was reached for 37 terms and definitions. CONCLUSION: Uptake and utilization of this guideline collaboration glossary by key organizations and stakeholder groups may facilitate collaboration among guideline-producing organizations by improving communication, minimizing conflicts, and increasing guideline development efficiency. |
Effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine as evidence for policy action: A rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of non-randomized studies.
Wallace M , Collins JP , Moline H , Plumb ID , Godfrey M , Morgan RL , Campos-Outcalt D , Oliver SE , Dooling K , Gargano JW . PLoS One 2022 17 (12) e0278624 In December 2020, an interim recommendation for the use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥16 years was made under Food and Drug Administration's Emergency Use Authorization. In preparation for Biologics License Application approval, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to inform the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee for Immunization Practice's (ACIP) decision-making for a standard recommendation. We conducted a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine effectiveness (VE) against symptomatic COVID-19, hospitalization due to COVID-19, death due to COVID-19, and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. We identified studies through August 20, 2021 from an ongoing systematic review conducted by the International Vaccine Access Center and the World Health Organization. We evaluated each study for risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled estimates were calculated using meta-analysis. The body of evidence for each outcome was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We identified 80 articles, selected 35 for full-text review, and included 26. The pooled VE of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was 92.4% (95% CI: 87.5%-95.3%) against symptomatic COVID-19 with moderate evidence certainty (eight studies), 94.3% (95% CI: 87.9%-97.3%) against hospitalization due to COVID-19 with moderate certainty (eight studies), 96.1% (95% CI: 91.5%-98.2%) against death due to COVID-19 with moderate certainty (four studies), and 89.3% (88.4%-90.1%) against asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection with very low certainty (two studies). The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine demonstrated high effectiveness in all pre-specified outcomes and extended knowledge of the vaccine's benefits to outcomes and populations not informed by the RCTs. Use of an existing systematic review facilitated a rapid meta-analysis to inform an ACIP policy decision. This approach can be utilized as additional COVID-19 vaccines are considered for standard recommendations by ACIP. |
Use of 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine among U.S. Children: Updated Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2022
Kobayashi M , Farrar JL , Gierke R , Leidner AJ , Campos-Outcalt D , Morgan RL , Long SS , Poehling KA , Cohen AL . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022 71 (37) 1174-1181 The 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13 [Prevnar 13, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc, a subsidiary of Pfizer, Inc]) and the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23 [Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC]) have been recommended for U.S. children, and the recommendations vary by age group and risk group (1,2). In 2021, 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV15 [Vaxneuvance, Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC]) was licensed for use in adults aged ≥18 years (3). On June 17, 2022, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved an expanded usage for PCV15 to include persons aged 6 weeks-17 years, based on studies that compared antibody responses to PCV15 with those to PCV13 (4). PCV15 contains serotypes 22F and 33F (in addition to the PCV13 serotypes) conjugated to CRM197 (genetically detoxified diphtheria toxin). On June 22, 2022, CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended use of PCV15 as an option for pneumococcal conjugate vaccination of persons aged <19 years according to currently recommended PCV13 dosing and schedules (1,2). ACIP employed the Evidence to Recommendation (EtR) Framework,* using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)(†) approach to guide its deliberations regarding use of these vaccines. Risk-based recommendations on use of PPSV23 for persons aged 2-18 years with certain underlying medical conditions(§) that increase the risk for pneumococcal disease have not changed. |
Prevention and control of seasonal influenza with vaccines: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2022-23 Influenza Season
Grohskopf LA , Blanton LH , Ferdinands JM , Chung JR , Broder KR , Talbot HK , Morgan RL , Fry AM . MMWR Recomm Rep 2022 71 (1) 1-28 THIS REPORT UPDATES THE 2021-22 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON IMMUNIZATION PRACTICES (ACIP) CONCERNING THE USE OF SEASONAL INFLUENZA VACCINES IN THE UNITED STATES: (MMWR Recomm Rep 2021;70[No. RR-5]:1-24). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. For each recipient, a licensed and age-appropriate vaccine should be used. With the exception of vaccination for adults aged ≥65 years, ACIP makes no preferential recommendation for a specific vaccine when more than one licensed, recommended, and age-appropriate vaccine is available. All seasonal influenza vaccines expected to be available in the United States for the 2022-23 season are quadrivalent, containing hemagglutinin (HA) derived from one influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 virus, one influenza A(H3N2) virus, one influenza B/Victoria lineage virus, and one influenza B/Yamagata lineage virus. Inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV4s), recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4) are expected to be available. Trivalent influenza vaccines are no longer available, but data that involve these vaccines are included for reference. INFLUENZA VACCINES MIGHT BE AVAILABLE AS EARLY AS JULY OR AUGUST, BUT FOR MOST PERSONS WHO NEED ONLY 1 DOSE OF INFLUENZA VACCINE FOR THE SEASON, VACCINATION SHOULD IDEALLY BE OFFERED DURING SEPTEMBER OR OCTOBER. HOWEVER, VACCINATION SHOULD CONTINUE AFTER OCTOBER AND THROUGHOUT THE SEASON AS LONG AS INFLUENZA VIRUSES ARE CIRCULATING AND UNEXPIRED VACCINE IS AVAILABLE. FOR MOST ADULTS (PARTICULARLY ADULTS AGED ≥65 YEARS) AND FOR PREGNANT PERSONS IN THE FIRST OR SECOND TRIMESTER, VACCINATION DURING JULY AND AUGUST SHOULD BE AVOIDED UNLESS THERE IS CONCERN THAT VACCINATION LATER IN THE SEASON MIGHT NOT BE POSSIBLE. CERTAIN CHILDREN AGED 6 MONTHS THROUGH 8 YEARS NEED 2 DOSES; THESE CHILDREN SHOULD RECEIVE THE FIRST DOSE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER VACCINE IS AVAILABLE, INCLUDING DURING JULY AND AUGUST. VACCINATION DURING JULY AND AUGUST CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR CHILDREN OF ANY AGE WHO NEED ONLY 1 DOSE FOR THE SEASON AND FOR PREGNANT PERSONS WHO ARE IN THE THIRD TRIMESTER IF VACCINE IS AVAILABLE DURING THOSE MONTHS: UPDATES DESCRIBED IN THIS REPORT REFLECT DISCUSSIONS DURING PUBLIC MEETINGS OF ACIP THAT WERE HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 2021; JANUARY 12, 2022; FEBRUARY 23, 2022; AND JUNE 22, 2022. PRIMARY UPDATES TO THIS REPORT INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING THREE TOPICS: 1) THE COMPOSITION OF 2022-23 U.S. SEASONAL INFLUENZA VACCINES; 2) UPDATES TO THE DESCRIPTION OF INFLUENZA VACCINES EXPECTED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR THE 2022-23 SEASON, INCLUDING ONE INFLUENZA VACCINE LABELING CHANGE THAT OCCURRED AFTER THE PUBLICATION OF THE 2021-22 ACIP INFLUENZA RECOMMENDATIONS; AND 3) UPDATES TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING VACCINATION OF ADULTS AGED ≥65 YEARS. FIRST, THE COMPOSITION OF 2022-23 U.S. INFLUENZA VACCINES INCLUDES UPDATES TO THE INFLUENZA A(H3N2) AND INFLUENZA B/VICTORIA LINEAGE COMPONENTS. U.S.-LICENSED INFLUENZA VACCINES WILL CONTAIN HA DERIVED FROM AN INFLUENZA A/VICTORIA/2570/2019 (H1N1)PDM09-LIKE VIRUS (FOR EGG-BASED VACCINES) OR AN INFLUENZA A/WISCONSIN/588/2019 (H1N1)PDM09-LIKE VIRUS (FOR CELL CULTURE-BASED OR RECOMBINANT VACCINES); AN INFLUENZA A/DARWIN/9/2021 (H3N2)-LIKE VIRUS (FOR EGG-BASED VACCINES) OR AN INFLUENZA A/DARWIN/6/2021 (H3N2)-LIKE VIRUS (FOR CELL CULTURE-BASED OR RECOMBINANT VACCINES); AN INFLUENZA B/AUSTRIA/1359417/2021 (VICTORIA LINEAGE)-LIKE VIRUS; AND AN INFLUENZA B/PHUKET/3073/2013 (YAMAGATA LINEAGE)-LIKE VIRUS. SECOND, THE APPROVED AGE INDICATION FOR THE CELL CULTURE-BASED INACTIVATED INFLUENZA VACCINE, FLUCELVAX QUADRIVALENT (CCIIV4), WAS CHANGED IN OCTOBER 2021 FROM ≥2 YEARS TO ≥6 MONTHS. THIRD, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR VACCINATION OF ADULTS AGED ≥65 YEARS HAVE BEEN MODIFIED. ACIP RECOMMENDS THAT ADULTS AGED ≥65 YEARS PREFERENTIALLY RECEIVE ANY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING HIGHER DOSE OR ADJUVANTED INFLUENZA VACCINES: QUADRIVALENT HIGH-DOSE INACTIVATED INFLUENZA VACCINE (HD-IIV4), QUADRIVALENT RECOMBINANT INFLUENZA VACCINE (RIV4), OR QUADRIVALENT ADJUVANTED INACTIVATED INFLUENZA VACCINE (AIIV4). IF NONE OF THESE THREE VACCINES IS AVAILABLE AT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR VACCINE ADMINISTRATION, THEN ANY OTHER AGE-APPROPRIATE INFLUENZA VACCINE SHOULD BE USED: THIS REPORT FOCUSES ON RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE USE OF VACCINES FOR THE PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF SEASONAL INFLUENZA DURING THE 2022-23 INFLUENZA SEASON IN THE UNITED STATES. A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND A LINK TO THE MOST RECENT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT CONTAINING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ARE AVAILABLE AT: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/flu.html. These recommendations apply to U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines used according to Food and Drug Administration-licensed indications. Updates and other information are available from CDC's influenza website (https://www.cdc.gov/flu). Vaccination and health care providers should check this site periodically for additional information. |
Interim Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for Use of Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccines in Children Aged 6 Months-5 Years - United States, June 2022.
Fleming-Dutra KE , Wallace M , Moulia DL , Twentyman E , Roper LE , Hall E , Link-Gelles R , Godfrey M , Woodworth KR , Anderson TC , Rubis AB , Shanley E3rd , Jones JM , Morgan RL , Brooks O , Talbot HK , Lee GM , Bell BP , Daley M , Meyer S , Oliver SE . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022 71 (26) 859-868 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. |
Use of JYNNEOS (smallpox and monkeypox vaccine, live, nonreplicating) for preexposure vaccination of persons at risk for occupational exposure to orthopoxviruses: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2022
Rao AK , Petersen BW , Whitehill F , Razeq JH , Isaacs SN , Merchlinsky MJ , Campos-Outcalt D , Morgan RL , Damon I , Sánchez PJ , Bell BP . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022 71 (22) 734-742 Certain laboratorians and health care personnel can be exposed to orthopoxviruses through occupational activities. Because orthopoxvirus infections resulting from occupational exposures can be serious, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has continued to recommend preexposure vaccination for these persons since 1980 (1), when smallpox was eradicated (2). In 2015, ACIP made recommendations for the use of ACAM2000, the only orthopoxvirus vaccine available in the United States at that time (3). During 2020-2021, ACIP considered evidence for use of JYNNEOS, a replication-deficient Vaccinia virus vaccine, as an alternative to ACAM2000. In November 2021, ACIP unanimously voted in favor of JYNNEOS as an alternative to ACAM2000 for primary vaccination and booster doses. With these recommendations for use of JYNNEOS, two vaccines (ACAM2000 and JYNNEOS) are now available and recommended for preexposure prophylaxis against orthopoxvirus infection among persons at risk for such exposures. |
Use of a modified preexposure prophylaxis vaccination schedule to prevent human rabies: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2022
Rao AK , Briggs D , Moore SM , Whitehill F , Campos-Outcalt D , Morgan RL , Wallace RM , Romero JR , Bahta L , Frey SE , Blanton JD . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022 71 (18) 619-627 Human rabies is an acute, progressive encephalomyelitis that is nearly always fatal once symptoms begin. Several measures have been implemented to prevent human rabies in the United States, including vaccination of targeted domesticated and wild animals, avoidance of behaviors that might precipitate an exposure (e.g., provoking high-risk animals), awareness of the types of animal contact that require postexposure prophylaxis (PEP), and use of proper personal protective equipment when handling animals or laboratory specimens. PEP is widely available in the United States and highly effective if administered after an exposure occurs. A small subset of persons has a higher level of risk for being exposed to rabies virus than does the general U.S. population; these persons are recommended to receive preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), a series of human rabies vaccine doses administered before an exposure occurs, in addition to PEP after an exposure. PrEP does not eliminate the need for PEP; however, it does simplify the rabies PEP schedule (i.e., eliminates the need for rabies immunoglobulin and decreases the number of vaccine doses required for PEP). As rabies epidemiology has evolved and vaccine safety and efficacy have improved, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendations to prevent human rabies have changed. During September 2019-November 2021, the ACIP Rabies Work Group considered updates to the 2008 ACIP recommendations by evaluating newly published data, reviewing frequently asked questions, and identifying barriers to adherence to previous ACIP rabies vaccination recommendations. Topics were presented and discussed during six ACIP meetings. The following modifications to PrEP are summarized in this report: 1) redefined risk categories; 2) fewer vaccine doses in the primary vaccination schedule; 3) flexible options for ensuring long-term protection, or immunogenicity; 4) less frequent or no antibody titer checks for some risk groups; 5) a new minimum rabies antibody titer (0.5 international units [IUs]) per mL); and 6) clinical guidance, including for ensuring effective vaccination of certain special populations. |
Universal hepatitis B vaccination in adults aged 19-59 years: Updated Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2022
Weng MK , Doshani M , Khan MA , Frey S , Ault K , Moore KL , Hall EW , Morgan RL , Campos-Outcalt D , Wester C , Nelson NP . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022 71 (13) 477-483 Hepatitis B (HepB) vaccines have demonstrated safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy during the past 4 decades (1,2). However, vaccination coverage among adults has been suboptimal, limiting further reduction in hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections in the United States. This Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendation expands the indicated age range for universal HepB vaccination to now include adults aged 19-59 years. Removing the risk factor assessment previously recommended to determine vaccine eligibility in this adult age group (2) could increase vaccination coverage and decrease hepatitis B cases. |
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' Recommendation for Use of Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine in Adults Aged ≥18 Years and Considerations for Extended Intervals for Administration of Primary Series Doses of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines - United States, February 2022.
Wallace M , Moulia D , Blain AE , Ricketts EK , Minhaj FS , Link-Gelles R , Curran KG , Hadler SC , Asif A , Godfrey M , Hall E , Fiore A , Meyer S , Su JR , Weintraub E , Oster ME , Shimabukuro TT , Campos-Outcalt D , Morgan RL , Bell BP , Brooks O , Talbot HK , Lee GM , Daley MF , Oliver SE . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022 71 (11) 416-421 The mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine is a lipid nanoparticle-encapsulated, nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccine encoding the stabilized prefusion spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. During December 2020, the vaccine was granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued an interim recommendation for use among persons aged 18 years (1), which was adopted by CDC. During December 19, 2020-January 30, 2022, approximately 204 million doses of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine were administered in the United States (2) as a primary series of 2 intramuscular doses (100 g [0.5 mL] each) 4 weeks apart. On January 31, 2022, FDA approved a Biologics License Application (BLA) for use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine (Spikevax, ModernaTX, Inc.) in persons aged 18 years (3). On February 4, 2022, the ACIP COVID-19 Vaccines Work Group conclusions regarding recommendations for the use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine were presented to ACIP at a public meeting. The Work Group's deliberations were based on the Evidence to Recommendation (EtR) Framework,* which incorporates the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach() to rank evidence quality. In addition to initial clinical trial data, ACIP considered new information gathered in the 12 months since issuance of the interim recommendations, including additional follow-up time in the clinical trial, real-world vaccine effectiveness studies, and postauthorization vaccine safety monitoring. ACIP also considered comparisons of mRNA vaccine effectiveness and safety in real-world settings when first doses were administered 8 weeks apart instead of the original intervals used in clinical trials (3 weeks for BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech] COVID-19 vaccine and 4 weeks for Moderna COVID-19 vaccine). Based on this evidence, CDC has provided guidance that an 8-week interval might be optimal for some adolescents and adults. The additional information gathered since the issuance of the interim recommendations increased certainty that the benefits of preventing symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, and death outweigh vaccine-associated risks of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. On February 4, 2022, ACIP modified its interim recommendation to a standard recommendation() for use of the fully licensed Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged 18 years. |
Use of 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine and 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine among U.S. Adults: Updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2022
Kobayashi M , Farrar JL , Gierke R , Britton A , Childs L , Leidner AJ , Campos-Outcalt D , Morgan RL , Long SS , Talbot HK , Poehling KA , Pilishvili T . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022 71 (4) 109-117 In 2021, 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) (PCV20) (Wyeth Pharmaceuticals LLC, a subsidiary of Pfizer Inc.) and 15-valent PCV (PCV15) (Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.) were licensed by the Food and Drug Administration for adults aged ≥18 years, based on studies that compared antibody responses to PCV20 and PCV15 with those to 13-valent PCV (PCV13) (Wyeth Pharmaceuticals LLC, a subsidiary of Pfizer Inc.). Antibody responses to two additional serotypes included in PCV15 were compared to corresponding responses after PCV13 vaccination, and antibody responses to seven additional serotypes included in PCV20 were compared with those to the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) (Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.). On October 20, 2021, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended use of either PCV20 alone or PCV15 in series with PPSV23 for all adults aged ≥65 years, and for adults aged 19-64 years with certain underlying medical conditions or other risk factors* who have not previously received a PCV or whose previous vaccination history is unknown. ACIP employed the Evidence to Recommendation (EtR) framework,(†) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)(§) approach to guide its deliberations regarding use of these vaccines. Before this, PCV13 and PPSV23 were recommended for use for U.S. adults and the recommendations varied by age and risk groups. This was simplified in the new recommendations. |
A memorandum of understanding has facilitated guideline development involving collaborating groups
Alam M , Getchius TS , Schünemann H , Amer YS , Bak A , Fatheree LA , Ginex P , Jakhmola P , Marsden GL , McFarlane E , Meremikwu M , Taske N , Temple-Smolkin RL , Ventura C , Burgers J , Bradfield L , O'Brien MD , Einhaus K , Kopp IB , Munn Z , Scudeller L , Schaefer C , Ibrahim SA , Kang BY , Ogunremi T , Morgan RL . J Clin Epidemiol 2021 144 8-15 OBJECTIVE: Collaboration between groups can facilitate the development of high-quality guidelines. While collaboration is often desirable, misunderstandings can occur. One method to minimize misunderstandings is the pre-specification of terms of engagement in a memorandum of understanding (MOU). This study considered when an MOU may be most helpful, and which key elements should be included. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An international panel of representatives from guideline groups was convened. A literature review to identify publications and other documents relevant to the establishment of MOUs between two or more guideline groups, supplemented by available source documents, was used to inform development of a draft MOU resource. This was iteratively refined until consensus was achieved. RESULTS: The level of detail in an MOU may vary based on institutional preferences and the particular collaboration. Elements within an MOU include those pertaining to: (1) scope and purpose; (2) leadership and team; (3) methods and commitment; (4) review and endorsement; and (5) publication and dissemination. CONCLUSION: Since groups may have different expectations regarding how a collaboration will unfold, an MOU may mitigate preventable misunderstandings. The result may be a higher likelihood of producing a guideline without disruption and delay. |
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' Interim Recommendations for Additional Primary and Booster Doses of COVID-19 Vaccines - United States, 2021.
Mbaeyi S , Oliver SE , Collins JP , Godfrey M , Goswami ND , Hadler SC , Jones J , Moline H , Moulia D , Reddy S , Schmit K , Wallace M , Chamberland M , Campos-Outcalt D , Morgan RL , Bell BP , Brooks O , Kotton C , Talbot HK , Lee G , Daley MF , Dooling K . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021 70 (44) 1545-1552 Three COVID-19 vaccines are currently approved under a Biologics License Application (BLA) or authorized under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and recommended for primary vaccination by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in the United States: the 2-dose mRNA-based Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines and the single-dose adenovirus vector-based Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccine (1,2) (Box 1). In August 2021, FDA amended the EUAs for the two mRNA COVID-19 vaccines to allow for an additional primary dose in certain immunocompromised recipients of an initial mRNA COVID-19 vaccination series (1). During September-October 2021, FDA amended the EUAs to allow for a COVID-19 vaccine booster dose following a primary mRNA COVID-19 vaccination series in certain recipients aged ≥18 years who are at increased risk for serious complications of COVID-19 or exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19), as well as in recipients aged ≥18 years of Janssen COVID-19 vaccine (1) (Table). For the purposes of these recommendations, an additional primary (hereafter additional) dose refers to a dose of vaccine administered to persons who likely did not mount a protective immune response after initial vaccination. A booster dose refers to a dose of vaccine administered to enhance or restore protection by the primary vaccination, which might have waned over time. Health care professionals play a critical role in COVID-19 vaccination efforts, including for primary, additional, and booster vaccination, particularly to protect patients who are at increased risk for severe illness and death. |
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' Interim Recommendation for Use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine in Children Aged 5-11 Years - United States, November 2021.
Woodworth KR , Moulia D , Collins JP , Hadler SC , Jones JM , Reddy SC , Chamberland M , Campos-Outcalt D , Morgan RL , Brooks O , Talbot HK , Lee GM , Bell BP , Daley MF , Mbaeyi S , Dooling K , Oliver SE . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021 70 (45) 1579-1583 The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 (BNT162b2) vaccine is a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccine encoding the prefusion spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. On August 23, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a Biologics License Application (BLA) for use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, marketed as Comirnaty (Pfizer, Inc.), in persons aged ≥16 years (1). The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is also recommended for adolescents aged 12-15 years under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) (1). All persons aged ≥12 years are recommended to receive 2 doses (30 μg, 0.3 mL each), administered 3 weeks apart (2,3). As of November 2, 2021, approximately 248 million doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine had been administered to persons aged ≥12 years in the United States.* On October 29, 2021, FDA issued an EUA amendment for a new formulation of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for use in children aged 5-11 years, administered as 2 doses (10 μg, 0.2 mL each), 3 weeks apart (Table) (1). On November 2, 2021, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued an interim recommendation(†) for use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in children aged 5-11 years for the prevention of COVID-19. To guide its deliberations regarding recommendations for the vaccine, ACIP used the Evidence to Recommendation (EtR) Framework(§) and incorporated a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.(¶) The ACIP recommendation for the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in children aged 5-11 years under an EUA is interim and will be updated as additional information becomes available. The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine has high efficacy (>90%) against COVID-19 in children aged 5-11 years, and ACIP determined benefits outweigh risks for vaccination. Vaccination is important to protect children against COVID-19 and reduce community transmission of SARS-CoV-2. |
Use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine in Persons Aged ≥16 Years: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, September 2021.
Dooling K , Gargano JW , Moulia D , Wallace M , Rosenblum HG , Blain AE , Hadler SC , Plumb ID , Moline H , Gerstein J , Collins JP , Godfrey M , Campos-Outcalt D , Morgan RL , Brooks O , Talbot HK , Lee GM , Daley MF , Oliver SE . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021 70 (38) 1344-1348 The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2) is a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside mRNA vaccine encoding the prefusion spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine consists of 2 intramuscular doses (30 μg, 0.3 mL each) administered 3 weeks apart. In December 2020, the vaccine was granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as well as an interim recommendation for use among persons aged ≥16 years by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) (1). In May 2021, the EUA and interim ACIP recommendations for Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine were extended to adolescents aged 12-15 years (2). During December 14, 2020-September 1, 2021, approximately 211 million doses of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine were administered in the United States.* On August 23, 2021, FDA approved a Biologics License Application for use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, Comirnaty (Pfizer, Inc.), in persons aged ≥16 years (3). The ACIP COVID-19 Vaccines Work Group's conclusions regarding the evidence for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine were presented to ACIP at a public meeting on August 30, 2021. To guide its deliberations regarding the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, ACIP used the Evidence to Recommendation (EtR) Framework,(†) and incorporated a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.(§) In addition to initial clinical trial data, ACIP considered new information gathered in the 8 months since issuance of the interim recommendation for Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, including additional follow-up time in the clinical trial, real-world vaccine effectiveness studies, and postauthorization vaccine safety monitoring. The additional information increased certainty that benefits from prevention of asymptomatic infection, COVID-19, and associated hospitalization and death outweighs vaccine-associated risks. On August 30, 2021, ACIP issued a recommendation(¶) for use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥16 years for the prevention of COVID-19. |
An international needs assessment survey of guideline developers demonstrates variability in resources and challenges to collaboration between organizations
Sultan S , Siedler MR , Morgan RL , Ogunremi T , Dahm P , Fatheree LA , Getchius TSD , Ginex PK , Jakhmola P , McFarlane E , Murad MH , Temple Smolkin RL , Amer YS , Alam M , Kang BY , Falck-Ytter Y , Mustafa RA . J Gen Intern Med 2021 37 (11) 2669-2677 BACKGROUND: The development of rigorous, high-quality clinical guidelines increases the need for resources and skilled personnel within guideline-producing organizations. While collaboration between organizations provides a unique opportunity to pool resources and save time and effort, the collaboration presents its own unique challenges. OBJECTIVE: To assess the perceived needs and current challenges of guideline producers worldwide related to guideline development and collaboration efforts. DESIGN: Survey questions were developed by the Guidelines International Network and the US GRADE Network, pilot-tested among attendees of a guideline development workshop, and disseminated electronically using convenience and snowball sampling methods. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 171 respondents representing 30 countries and more than 112 unique organizations were included in this analysis. MAIN MEASURES: The survey included free-response, multiple-choice, and seven-point Likert-scale questions. Questions assessed respondents' perceived value of guidelines, resource availability and needs, guideline development processes, and collaboration efforts of their organization. KEY RESULTS: Time required to develop high-quality systematic reviews and guidelines was the most relevant need (median=7; IQR=5.5-7). In-house resources to conduct literature searches (median=4; IQR=3-6) and the resources to develop rigorous guidelines rapidly (median=4; IQR=2-5) were perceived as the least available resources. Difficulties reconciling differences in guideline methodology (median=6; IQR=4-7) and the time required to establish collaborative agreements (median=6; IQR=5-6) were the most relevant barriers to collaboration between organizations. Results also indicated a general need for improvement in conflict of interest (COI) disclosure policies. CONCLUSION: The survey identified organizational challenges in supporting rigorous guideline development, including the time, resources, and personnel required. Connecting guideline developers to existing databases of high-quality systematic reviews and the use of freely available online platforms may facilitate guideline development. Guideline-producing organizations may also consider allocating resources to hiring or training personnel with expertise in systematic review methodologies or utilizing resources more effectively by establishing collaborations with other organizations. |
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' Interim Recommendation for Use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine in Adolescents Aged 12-15 Years - United States, May 2021.
Wallace M , Woodworth KR , Gargano JW , Scobie HM , Blain AE , Moulia D , Chamberland M , Reisman N , Hadler SC , MacNeil JR , Campos-Outcalt D , Morgan RL , Daley MF , Romero JR , Talbot HK , Lee GM , Bell BP , Oliver SE . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021 70 (20) 749-752 The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 (BNT162b2) vaccine is a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccine encoding the prefusion spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine consists of 2 intramuscular doses (30 μg, 0.3 mL each) administered 3 weeks apart. On December 11, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer, Inc; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) in persons aged ≥16 years (1); on December 12, 2020, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued an interim recommendation for use of the vaccine in the same age group (2). As of May 12, 2021, approximately 141.6 million doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine had been administered to persons aged ≥16 years.* On May 10, 2021, FDA expanded the EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to include adolescents aged 12-15 years (1). On May 12, 2021, ACIP issued an interim recommendation(†) for use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents aged 12-15 years for the prevention of COVID-19. To guide its deliberations regarding the vaccine, ACIP used the Evidence to Recommendation (EtR) Framework,(§) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.(¶) The ACIP recommendation for the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥12 years under an EUA is interim and will be updated as additional information becomes available. |
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' Interim Recommendation for Use of Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine - United States, February 2021.
Oliver SE , Gargano JW , Scobie H , Wallace M , Hadler SC , Leung J , Blain AE , McClung N , Campos-Outcalt D , Morgan RL , Mbaeyi S , MacNeil J , Romero JR , Talbot HK , Lee GM , Bell BP , Dooling K . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021 70 (9) 329-332 On February 27, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Janssen COVID-19 (Ad.26.COV2.S) vaccine (Janssen Biotech, Inc, a Janssen Pharmaceutical company, Johnson & Johnson; New Brunswick, New Jersey). The Janssen COVID-19 vaccine is a recombinant, replication-incompetent adenovirus serotype 26 (Ad26) vector vaccine, encoding the stabilized prefusion spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (1). Vaccination with the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine consists of a single dose (5 × 1010 virus particles per 0.5-mL dose) administered intramuscularly. On February 28, 2021, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued an interim recommendation* for use of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥18 years for the prevention of COVID-19. This vaccine is the third COVID-19 vaccine authorized under an EUA for the prevention of COVID-19 in the United States (2). To guide its deliberations regarding the vaccine, ACIP used the Evidence to Recommendations (EtR) framework,† following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.§ The ACIP recommendation for the use of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine under an EUA is interim and will be updated as additional information becomes available. |
Use of Ebola vaccine: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, United States, 2020
Choi MJ , Cossaboom CM , Whitesell AN , Dyal JW , Joyce A , Morgan RL , Campos-Outcalt D , Person M , Ervin E , Yu YC , Rollin PE , Harcourt BH , Atmar RL , Bell BP , Helfand R , Damon IK , Frey SE . MMWR Recomm Rep 2021 70 (1) 1-12 This report summarizes the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for use of the rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP Ebola vaccine (Ervebo) in the United States. The vaccine contains rice-derived recombinant human serum albumin and live attenuated recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) in which the gene encoding the glycoprotein of VSV was replaced with the gene encoding the glycoprotein of Ebola virus species Zaire ebolavirus. Persons with a history of severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to rice protein should not receive Ervebo. This is the first and only vaccine currently licensed by the Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of Ebola virus disease (EVD). These guidelines will be updated based on availability of new data or as new vaccines are licensed to protect against EVD.ACIP recommends preexposure vaccination with Ervebo for adults aged ≥18 years in the U.S. population who are at highest risk for potential occupational exposure to Ebola virus species Zaire ebolavirus because they are responding to an outbreak of EVD, work as health care personnel at federally designated Ebola treatment centers in the United States, or work as laboratorians or other staff at biosafety level 4 facilities in the United States. Recommendations for use of Ervebo in additional populations at risk for exposure and other settings will be considered and discussed by ACIP in the future. |
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' Interim Recommendation for Use of Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine - United States, December 2020.
Oliver SE , Gargano JW , Marin M , Wallace M , Curran KG , Chamberland M , McClung N , Campos-Outcalt D , Morgan RL , Mbaeyi S , Romero JR , Talbot HK , Lee GM , Bell BP , Dooling K . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021 69 (5152) 1653-1656 On December 18, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Moderna COVID-19 (mRNA-1273) vaccine (ModernaTX, Inc; Cambridge, Massachusetts), a lipid nanoparticle-encapsulated, nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccine encoding the stabilized prefusion spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1). This vaccine is the second COVID-19 vaccine authorized under an EUA for the prevention of COVID-19 in the United States (2). Vaccination with the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine consists of 2 doses (100 μg, 0.5 mL each) administered intramuscularly, 1 month (4 weeks) apart. On December 19, 2020, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued an interim recommendation* for use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥18 years for the prevention of COVID-19. To guide its deliberations regarding the vaccine, ACIP employed the Evidence to Recommendation (EtR) Framework,(†) using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.(§) Use of all COVID-19 vaccines authorized under an EUA, including the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, should be implemented in conjunction with ACIP's interim recommendations for allocating initial supplies of COVID-19 vaccines (3). The ACIP recommendation for the use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine under EUA is interim and will be updated as additional information becomes available. |
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' Interim Recommendation for Use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine - United States, December 2020.
Oliver SE , Gargano JW , Marin M , Wallace M , Curran KG , Chamberland M , McClung N , Campos-Outcalt D , Morgan RL , Mbaeyi S , Romero JR , Talbot HK , Lee GM , Bell BP , Dooling K . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020 69 (50) 1922-1924 On December 11, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 (BNT162b2) vaccine (Pfizer, Inc; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccine encoding the prefusion spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1). Vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine consists of 2 doses (30 μg, 0.3 mL each) administered intramuscularly, 3 weeks apart. On December 12, 2020, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued an interim recommendation* for use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥16 years for the prevention of COVID-19. To guide its deliberations regarding the vaccine, ACIP employed the Evidence to Recommendation (EtR) Framework,(†) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.(§) The recommendation for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine should be implemented in conjunction with ACIP's interim recommendation for allocating initial supplies of COVID-19 vaccines (2). The ACIP recommendation for the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine under EUA is interim and will be updated as additional information becomes available. |
CDC recommendations for hepatitis C screening among adults - United States, 2020
Schillie S , Wester C , Osborne M , Wesolowski L , Ryerson AB . MMWR Recomm Rep 2020 69 (2) 1-17 Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a major source of morbidity and mortality in the United States. HCV is transmitted primarily through parenteral exposures to infectious blood or body fluids that contain blood, most commonly through injection drug use. No vaccine against hepatitis C exists and no effective pre- or postexposure prophylaxis is available. More than half of persons who become infected with HCV will develop chronic infection. Direct-acting antiviral treatment can result in a virologic cure in most persons with 8-12 weeks of all-oral medication regimens. This report augments (i.e., updates and summarizes) previously published recommendations from CDC regarding testing for HCV infection in the United States (Smith BD, Morgan RL, Beckett GA, et al. Recommendations for the identification of chronic hepatitis C virus infection among persons born during 1945-1965. MMWR Recomm Rec 2012;61[No. RR-4]). CDC is augmenting previous guidance with two new recommendations: 1) hepatitis C screening at least once in a lifetime for all adults aged >/=18 years, except in settings where the prevalence of HCV infection is <0.1% and 2) hepatitis C screening for all pregnant women during each pregnancy, except in settings where the prevalence of HCV infection is <0.1%. The recommendation for HCV testing that remains unchanged is regardless of age or setting prevalence, all persons with risk factors should be tested for hepatitis C, with periodic testing while risk factors persist. Any person who requests hepatitis C testing should receive it, regardless of disclosure of risk, because many persons might be reluctant to disclose stigmatizing risks. |
Enrollment in HIV care two years after HIV diagnosis in the kingdom of Swaziland: An evaluation of a national program of new linkage procedures
MacKellar DA , Williams D , Storer N , Okello V , Azih C , Drummond J , Nuwagaba-Biribonwoha H , Preko P , Morgan RL , Dlamini M , Byrd J , Agolory S , Baughman AL , McNairy ML , Sahabo R , Ehrenkranz P . PLoS One 2016 11 (2) e0150086 To improve early enrollment in HIV care, the Swaziland Ministry of Health implemented new linkage procedures for persons HIV diagnosed during the Soka Uncobe male circumcision campaign (SOKA, 2011-2012) and the Swaziland HIV Incidence Measurement Survey (SHIMS, 2011). Abstraction of clinical records and telephone interviews of a retrospective cohort of HIV-diagnosed SOKA and SHIMS clients were conducted in 2013-2014 to evaluate compliance with new linkage procedures and enrollment in HIV care at 92 facilities throughout Swaziland. Of 1,105 clients evaluated, within 3, 12, and 24 months of diagnosis, an estimated 14.0%, 24.3%, and 37.0% enrolled in HIV care, respectively, after adjusting for lost to follow-up and non-response. Kaplan-Meier functions indicated lower enrollment probability among clients 14-24 (P = 0.0001) and 25-29 (P = 0.001) years of age compared with clients >35 years of age. At 69 facilities to which clients were referred for HIV care, compliance with new linkage procedures was low: referral forms were located for less than half (46.8%) of the clients, and few (9.6%) were recorded in the appointment register or called either before (0.3%) or after (4.9%) their appointment. Of over one thousand clients newly HIV diagnosed in Swaziland in 2011 and 2012, few received linkage services in accordance with national procedures and most had not enrolled in HIV care two years after their diagnosis. Our findings are a call to action to improve linkage services and early enrollment in HIV care in Swaziland. |
HIV infection status as a predictor of hepatitis C virus RNA testing in primary care
Yartel AK , Morgan RL , Rein DB , Ann Brown K , Kil NB , Massoud OI , Fallon MB , Smith BD . Am J Prev Med 2015 49 (3) 423-7 INTRODUCTION: Receipt of hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA testing following a positive HCV antibody (anti-HCV+) test result to establish current infection is a quality indicator for HCV-related care. This study examines HIV infection status as a predictor of HCV RNA test receipt after an anti-HCV+ result in the primary care setting. METHODS: Electronic medical records of anti-HCV+ patients from a multisite retrospective study of patients aged ≥18 years who utilized one or more primary care outpatient services during 2005-2010 were analyzed in 2014. A multivariable logistic regression model examined the independent relationships between patient characteristics and receipt of HCV RNA testing. RESULTS: Among 1,115 anti-HCV+ patients, 133 (11.9%) were also HIV-positive. Of these, 77.4% (n=103) underwent HCV RNA testing to determine current infection status. By contrast, 66.7% (n=654/980) of anti-HCV+ patients who were HIV-negative received HCV RNA testing. Following multivariable adjustment, the odds of receiving HCV RNA testing were higher among anti-HCV+ patients who were also HIV-positive (AOR=1.9, 95% CI=1.2, 3.0), compared with their HIV-negative counterparts. Elevated alanine aminotransferase level was also associated with receipt of HCV RNA testing (AOR=1.9, 95% CI=1.4, 2.4). Black race was associated with decreased odds of receiving HCV RNA testing (AOR=0.7, 95% CI=0.5, 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: HIV infection status is independently associated with the likelihood of receiving HCV RNA testing following an anti-HCV+ result. One quarter of anti-HCV+ patients who were also HIV-positive and one third of their HIV-negative counterparts, respectively, did not receive testing to establish active HCV infection, which is imperative for appropriate care and treatment. |
Targeted hepatitis C antibody testing interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Aspinall EJ , Doyle JS , Corson S , Hellard ME , Hunt D , Goldberg D , Nguyen T , Falck-Ytter Y , Morgan RL , Smith B , Stoove M , Wiktor SZ , Hutchinson S . Eur J Epidemiol 2015 30 (2) 115-29 Testing for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection may reduce the risk of liver-related morbidity, by facilitating earlier access to treatment and care. This review investigated the effectiveness of targeted testing interventions on HCV case detection, treatment uptake, and prevention of liver-related morbidity. A literature search identified studies published up to 2013 that compared a targeted HCV testing intervention (targeting individuals or groups at increased risk of HCV) with no targeted intervention, and results were synthesised using meta-analysis. Exposure to a targeted testing intervention, compared to no targeted intervention, was associated with increased cases detected [number of studies (n) = 14; pooled relative risk (RR) 1.7, 95 % CI 1.3, 2.2] and patients commencing therapy (n = 4; RR 3.3, 95 % CI 1.1, 10.0). Practitioner-based interventions increased test uptake and cases detected (n = 12; RR 3.5, 95 % CI 2.5, 4.8; and n = 10; RR 2.2, 95 % CI 1.4, 3.5, respectively), whereas media/information-based interventions were less effective (n = 4; RR 1.5, 95 % CI 0.7, 3.0; and n = 4; RR 1.3, 95 % CI 1.0, 1.6, respectively). This meta-analysis provides for the first time a quantitative assessment of targeted HCV testing interventions, demonstrating that these strategies were effective in diagnosing cases and increasing treatment uptake. Strategies involving practitioner-based interventions yielded the most favourable outcomes. It is recommended that testing should be targeted at and offered to individuals who are part of a population with high HCV prevalence, or who have a history of HCV risk behaviour. |
How much management is necessary? Sustaining the benefit of achieving a sustained virologic response to hepatitis C
Morgan RL . J Gastroenterol 2014 49 (11) 1514-5 Described as a silent killer by the media, hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection can be present in the body for 20 years or more before causing serious complications. An estimated 130–150 million persons globally are infected with HCV, among which 350,000–500,000 deaths each year can be attributed to HCV, including HCV-related liver disease, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) [1]. With appropriate screening and treatment, many of these deaths can be prevented. | With the approval of direct-acting antivirals for clinical use in 2011, HCV treatment regimens have demonstrated increased efficacy, fewer side effects, and wider application due to fewer contraindications and greater availability of treatment options [2, 3]. Treatment success is more likely, with 50–90 % of persons treated eradicating the virus (as determined by undetectable RNA) and achieving a sustained virologic response (SVR). |
Evidence synthesis and guideline development in genomic medicine: current status and future prospects.
Schully SD , Lam TK , Dotson WD , Chang CQ , Aronson N , Birkeland ML , Brewster SJ , Boccia S , Buchanan AH , Calonge N , Calzone K , Djulbegovic B , Goddard KA , Klein RD , Klein TE , Lau J , Long R , Lyman GH , Morgan RL , Palmer CG , Relling MV , Rubinstein WS , Swen JJ , Terry SF , Williams MS , Khoury MJ . Genet Med 2014 17 (1) 63-7 PURPOSE: With the accelerated implementation of genomic medicine, health-care providers will depend heavily on professional guidelines and recommendations. Because genomics affects many diseases across the life span, no single professional group covers the entirety of this rapidly developing field. METHODS: To pursue a discussion of the minimal elements needed to develop evidence-based guidelines in genomics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute jointly held a workshop to engage representatives from 35 organizations with interest in genomics (13 of which make recommendations). The workshop explored methods used in evidence synthesis and guideline development and initiated a dialogue to compare these methods and to assess whether they are consistent with the Institute of Medicine report "Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust." RESULTS: The participating organizations that develop guidelines or recommendations all had policies to manage guideline development and group membership, and processes to address conflicts of interests. However, there was wide variation in the reliance on external reviews, regular updating of recommendations, and use of systematic reviews to assess the strength of scientific evidence. CONCLUSION: Ongoing efforts are required to establish criteria for guideline development in genomic medicine as proposed by the Institute of Medicine. |
Eradication of hepatitis C virus infection and the development of hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis of observational studies
Morgan RL , Baack B , Smith BD , Yartel A , Pitasi M , Falck-Ytter Y . Ann Intern Med 2013 158 329-37 BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a leading cause of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In the United States, this form of cancer occurs in approximately 15,000 persons annually. A systematic review of the evidence is needed to assess the benefits of treatment of HCV-infected persons on development of HCC. PURPOSE: To systematically review observational studies to determine the association between response to HCV therapy and development of HCC among persons at any stage of fibrosis and those with advanced liver disease. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews and Effectiveness from inception through February 2012. STUDY SELECTION: English-language observational studies that compared therapy-derived sustained virologic response (SVR) with no response to therapy among HCV-infected persons, targeted an adult population, and had an average follow-up of at least 2 years. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators independently extracted data into uniform relative risk measures. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to determine the quality of the evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: Thirty studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, and 18 provided adjusted effect estimates that were used to calculate pooled relative risks. Among HCV-infected persons, SVR was associated with reduced risk for HCC (relative risk for all persons, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.18 to 0.31], moderate-quality evidence; advanced liver disease hazard ratio, 0.23 [CI, 0.16 to 0.35], moderate-quality evidence). LIMITATION: In the meta-analyses, some variables could not be controlled for because of the observational design of the included studies. CONCLUSION: Sustained virologic response after treatment among HCV-infected persons at any stage of fibrosis is associated with reduced HCC. The evidence was determined to be of moderate quality. |
Recommendations for the identification of chronic hepatitis C virus infection among persons born during 1945-1965
Smith BD , Morgan RL , Beckett GA , Falck-Ytter Y , Holtzman D , Teo CG , Jewett A , Baack B , Rein DB , Patel N , Alter M , Yartel A , Ward JW . MMWR Recomm Rep 2012 61 1-32 Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is an increasing cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Many of the 2.7-3.9 million persons living with HCV infection are unaware they are infected and do not receive care (e.g., education, counseling, and medical monitoring) and treatment. CDC estimates that although persons born during 1945-1965 comprise an estimated 27% of the population, they account for approximately three fourths of all HCV infections in the United States, 73% of HCV-associated mortality, and are at greatest risk for hepatocellular carcinoma and other HCV-related liver disease. With the advent of new therapies that can halt disease progression and provide a virologic cure (i.e., sustained viral clearance following completion of treatment) in most persons, targeted testing and linkage to care for infected persons in this birth cohort is expected to reduce HCV-related morbidity and mortality. CDC is augmenting previous recommendations for HCV testing (CDC. Recommendations for prevention and control of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and HCV-related chronic disease. MMWR 1998;47[No. RR-19]) to recommend one-time testing without prior ascertainment of HCV risk for persons born during 1945-1965, a population with a disproportionately high prevalence of HCV infection and related disease. Persons identified as having HCV infection should receive a brief screening for alcohol use and intervention as clinically indicated, followed by referral to appropriate care for HCV infection and related conditions. These recommendations do not replace previous guidelines for HCV testing that are based on known risk factors and clinical indications. Rather, they define an additional target population for testing: persons born during 1945-1965. CDC developed these recommendations with the assistance of a work group representing diverse expertise and perspectives. The recommendations are informed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework, an approach that provides guidance and tools to define the research questions, conduct the systematic review, assess the overall quality of the evidence, and determine strength of the recommendations. This report is intended to serve as a resource for health-care professionals, public health officials, and organizations involved in the development, implementation, and evaluation of prevention and clinical services. These recommendations will be reviewed every 5 years and updated to include advances in the published evidence. |
- Page last reviewed:Feb 1, 2024
- Page last updated:Jun 17, 2024
- Content source:
- Powered by CDC PHGKB Infrastructure