From December 2020 through March 2023, the COVID-19 vaccination efforts in long-term care (LTC) settings, identified many gaps and opportunities to improve public health capacity to support vaccine distribution, education, and documentation of COVID-19 vaccines administered to LTC residents and staff. Partner engagement at the local, state, and federal levels helped establish pathways for dissemination of information, improve access and delivery of vaccines, and expand reporting of vaccine administration data to monitor the impact of COVID-19 vaccination in LTC settings. Sustaining the improvements to the vaccine infrastructure in LTC settings that were created or enhanced during the COVID-19 vaccination efforts is critical for the protection of residents and staff against COVID-19 and other vaccine preventable respiratory outbreaks in the future.

This report updates the previously published summary of recommendations for vaccinating health-care personnel (HCP) in the United States (CDC. Immunization of health-care workers: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP] and the Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee [HICPAC]. MMWR 1997;46[No. RR-18]). This report was reviewed by and includes input from the Healthcare (formerly Hospital) Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. These updated recommendations can assist hospital administrators, infection-control practitioners, employee health clinicians, and HCP in optimizing infection prevention and control programs. The recommendations for vaccinating HCP are presented by disease in two categories: 1) those diseases for which vaccination or documentation of immunity is recommended because of risks to HCP in their work settings for acquiring disease or transmitting to patients and 2) those for which vaccination might be indicated in certain circumstances. Background information for each vaccine-preventable disease and specific recommendations for use of each vaccine are presented. Certain infection-control measures that relate to vaccination also are included in this report. In addition, ACIP recommendations for the remaining vaccines that are recommended for certain or all adults are summarized, as are considerations for catch-up and travel vaccinations and for work restrictions. This report summarizes all current ACIP recommendations for vaccination of HCP and does not contain any new recommendations or policies. The recommendations provided in this report apply, but are not limited, to HCP in acute-care hospitals; long-term-care facilities (e.g., nursing homes and skilled nursing facilities); physician's offices; rehabilitation centers; urgent care centers, and outpatient clinics as well as to persons who provide home health care and emergency medical services.

In December 2020, 11 months after identifying the first laboratory-confirmed case of COVID-19 in the United States, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized emergency use of two COVID-19 vaccines. To prepare the public for a large-scale vaccination campaign and build confidence in COVID-19 vaccines, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded more than 200 partners and developed a national Vaccinate with Confidence (VwC) COVID-19 framework to support Americans in their decision to get vaccinated. The evolving nature of the pandemic and highly variable confidence in vaccines across populations has resulted in many unique complexities and challenges to reaching universally high vaccination coverage. Here, we describe how 23 professional health associations and national partner organizations, focused solely on building vaccine confidence, operationalized CDC's VwC COVID-19 framework from February 2021 to March 2022. Capturing how partners deployed and adapted their activities to meet a shifting pandemic landscape, which began with high demand for vaccines that waned over time, is an important first step to understanding how this new strategy was utilized and could be implemented for future surges in COVID-19 cases and other routine immunization efforts. Going forward, evaluation of partner activities should be prioritized to capture learnings and assess VwC program effectiveness.

The revised Standards for Adult Immunization Practice ("Standards"), published in 2014, recommend routine vaccination assessment, strong provider recommendation, vaccine administration or referral, and documentation of vaccines administered into immunization information systems (IIS). We assessed clinician and pharmacist implementation of the Standards in the United States from 2016 to 2018. Participating clinicians (family and internal medicine physicians, obstetricians-gynecologists, specialty physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners) and pharmacists responded using an internet panel survey. Weighted proportion of clinicians and pharmacists reporting full implementation of each component of the Standards were calculated. Adjusted prevalence ratio (APR) estimates of practice characteristics associated with self-reported implementation of the Standards are also presented. Across all medical specialties, the percentages of clinicians and pharmacists implementing the vaccine assessment and recommendation components of the Standards were >80.0%. However, due to low IIS documentation, full implementation of the Standards was low overall, ranging from 30.4% for specialty medicine to 45.8% in family medicine clinicians. The presence of an immunization champion (APR, 1.40 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.26 to 1.54]), use of standing orders (APR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.27 to 1.57]), and use of a patient reminder-recall system (APR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.26 to 1.54]) were positively associated with adherence to the Standards by clinicians. Similar results were observed for pharmacists. Nonetheless, vaccination improvement strategies, i.e., having standing orders in place, empowering an immunization champion, and using patient recall-reminder systems were underutilized in clinical settings; full implementation of the Standards was inconsistent across all health care provider practices.

Background: Recent mumps outbreaks among 2-dose measles mumps rubella (MMR) vaccine recipients have raised questions regarding the potential benefits of a third dose of vaccine (MMR3). If MMR3 provides a sustained elevation in mumps antibody, it may be beneficial for certain at-risk groups or as an outbreak control measure. Methods: Sera were collected immediately prior to MMR3 and at 1 month and 1 year post-MMR3 from 656 healthy adults aged 18-28 years in a nonoutbreak setting. Immunoglobulin G (IgG) was measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using whole mumps virus (commercial ELISA), hemagglutinin (HN; major neutralizing target), and nucleoprotein (NP; immunodominant) antigens. ELISA measurements were compared with in vitro plaque reduction neutralization (PRN) titers, and baseline antibody was compared with post-MMR3 levels. Results: There were modest but statistically significant (P < .05) increases in mumps antibody at 1 month post-MMR3 by all 3 ELISA methods and by PRN titer. At 1 year post-MMR3, mumps antibody declined toward baseline but remained elevated (P < .05). The correlation between PRN titers and ELISA measurements was poor (r(2) = .49), although sera with the highest amount of HN IgG also had the highest PRN titers. Conclusions: Individuals with the lowest baseline PRN titers had the largest increase in frequency of samples that became positive for HN and NP by ELISA. A third dose of MMR may benefit certain individuals with a low level of mumps virus-neutralizing antibody, especially in the context of an outbreak or other high-risk setting. Additionally, poor correlation among serologic tests does not allow effective prediction of PRN titer by ELISA.

Background Although measles was eliminated in the United States in 2000, importations of the virus continue to cause outbreaks. We describe the epidemiologic features of an outbreak of measles that originated from two unvaccinated Amish men in whom measles was incubating at the time of their return to the United States from the Philippines and explore the effect of public health responses on limiting the spread of measles. Methods We performed descriptive analyses of data on demographic characteristics, clinical and laboratory evaluations, and vaccination coverage. Results From March 24, 2014, through July 23, 2014, a total of 383 outbreak-related cases of measles were reported in nine counties in Ohio. The median age of case patients was 15 years (range, <1 to 53); a total of 178 of the case patients (46%) were female, and 340 (89%) were unvaccinated. Transmission took place primarily within households (68% of cases). The virus strain was genotype D9, which was circulating in the Philippines at the time of the reporting period. Measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination coverage with at least a single dose was estimated to be 14% in affected Amish households and more than 88% in the general (non-Amish) Ohio community. Containment efforts included isolation of case patients, quarantine of susceptible persons, and administration of the MMR vaccine to more than 10,000 persons. The spread of measles was limited almost exclusively to the Amish community (accounting for 99% of case patients) and affected only approximately 1% of the estimated 32,630 Amish persons in the settlement. Conclusions The key epidemiologic features of a measles outbreak in the Amish community in Ohio were transmission primarily within households, the small proportion of Amish people affected, and the large number of people in the Amish community who sought vaccination. As a result of targeted containment efforts, and high baseline coverage in the general community, there was limited spread beyond the Amish community. (Funded by the Ohio Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).

Between 2001 and 2014, 78 reported measles cases resulted from transmission in U.S. healthcare facilities and 29 healthcare personnel were infected from occupational exposure, of whom 1 transmitted measles to a patient. The economic impact of preventing and controlling measles transmission in healthcare facilities was $19,000- $114,286 per case.

During 2009-2010, a large US mumps outbreak occurred affecting two-dose vaccinated 9th-12th grade Orthodox Jewish boys attending all-male yeshivas (private, traditional Jewish schools). Our objective was to understand mumps transmission dynamics in this well-vaccinated population. We surveyed 9th-12th grade male yeshivas in Brooklyn, NY with reported mumps case-students between 9/1/2009 and 3/30/2010. We assessed vaccination coverage, yeshiva environmental factors (duration of school day, density, mixing, duration of contact), and whether environmental factors were associated with increased mumps attack rates. Ten yeshivas comprising 1769 9th-12th grade students and 264 self-reported mumps cases were included. The average yeshiva attack rate was 14.5% (median: 13.5%, range: 1-31%), despite two-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccine coverage between 90-100%. School duration was 9-15.5 h/day; students averaged 7 h face-to-face/day with 1-4 study partners. Average daily mean density was 6.6 students per 100 square feet. The number of hours spent face-to-face with a study partner and the number of partners per day showed significant positive associations (p < 0.05) with classroom mumps attack rates in univariate analysis, but these associations did not persist in multivariate analysis. This outbreak was characterized by environmental factors unique to the yeshiva setting (e.g., densely populated environment, prolonged face-to-face contact, mixing among infected students). However, these features were present in all included yeshivas, limiting our ability to discriminate differences. Nonetheless, mumps transmission requires close contact, and these environmental factors may have overwhelmed vaccine-mediated protection increasing the likelihood of vaccine failure among yeshiva students.