UNASSIGNED: In 2019, the United States Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) updated their meningococcal serogroup B (MenB) vaccination recommendation for 16-‍23-year-olds from individual to shared clinical decision-making (SCDM). SCDM recommendations are individually based and informed by a decision process between patients and healthcare providers (HCPs). MenB vaccination among 16-23-year-olds remains low. We examined recorded conversations in which MenB vaccine-related discussions between HCPs and patients/caregivers took place, and how these interactions changed following the updated SCDM recommendation.
UNASSIGNED: An analysis of recordings where MenB vaccination was discussed between HCPs and patients (16-‍23 years old)/caregivers was conducted using retrospective anonymized dialogue data (January 2015-October 2022). Shared decision-making strength was measured using a modified OPTION5 framework.
UNASSIGNED: Of 97 included recorded conversations, the average duration was 11.3 min. Within these conversations, MenB disease was discussed for 0.25 min (38.9% of words in total vaccine-preventable diseases discussion) and MenB vaccination was discussed for 1.36 min (60.9% of words in total vaccine discussion), on average. HCPs spoke 78.8% of MenB vaccine-related words and most (99.0%) initiated the MenB vaccination discussion. In 40.2% of recordings, HCPs acknowledged the MenB vaccine without providing a clear recommendation. HCP recommendations often favored MenB vaccination (87.0%) and recommendations were 21.4% stronger post-recommendation change to SCDM. As measured by the modified OPTION5 framework, most recordings did not reflect a high degree of shared decision-making between HCPs and patients/caregivers.
UNASSIGNED: MenB vaccination discussions were brief, and the degree of shared decision-making was low. Targeted education of HCPs and patients/caregivers may improve MenB vaccination awareness, SCDM implementation, and vaccine uptake.
Meningitis is a serious and sometimes deadly disease. In the United States (US), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that 16–23-year-olds get vaccinated against meningococcal serogroup B (MenB), which causes a specific type of meningitis called invasive meningococcal disease. As of 2019, the CDC recommends that healthcare providers and patients or their caregivers have a shared decision-making discussion about deciding to get vaccinated against MenB. Despite these recommendations, vaccination against MenB among 16–23-year-olds is very low. Only about 3 in 10 17-year-olds had received the MenB vaccine in 2022. We studied conversations between healthcare providers and patients or their caregivers that included discussions of MenB vaccination. These discussions were largely brief and led by the healthcare providers. We found that healthcare providers most often made recommendations that were in favor of their patients getting vaccinated against MenB. However, we also found that healthcare providers missed many opportunities to have these shared decision-making discussions about MenB vaccination with patients or their caregivers. Providing education and resources for patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers focused on increasing awareness about MenB vaccination and the role they can play in having shared decision-making discussions may lead to more adolescents and young adults getting vaccinated against MenB. More research is needed to find out how we can improve MenB vaccination coverage in the US.

Some vaccines have a small risk of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), a rare autoimmune disorder characterized by paralysis if untreated. The CDC\'s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) guidelines do not consider GBS a precaution for future vaccines unless GBS developed within six weeks after a tetanus-toxoid-containing vaccine or influenza vaccine. Our goal was to describe vaccine patterns before and after GBS diagnosis. We matched each of 709 patients diagnosed with GBS from 2002 to 2020 with Medicare supplemental insurance to 10 counterparts without GBS (1:10) on age and sex. Propensity score-based weighting balanced covariates between groups, and we estimated weighted mean cumulative counts (wMCC) of vaccines/person before and after GBS diagnosis. Among patients with GBS, 7% were diagnosed within 42 days after a vaccine. Prior to GBS diagnosis, the wMCC of vaccines per person was similar between GBS cases and matched counterparts, but after two years of follow-up, GBS patients received 21 fewer vaccines/100 people than counterparts (wMCC difference -0.21 vaccines/person, 95% CI -0.24 to -0.18); GBS patients received 16 vaccines/100 people while matched counterparts received 36/100. Vaccine use was reduced following GBS diagnosis despite no ACIP precaution for most (93%) patients in this study. The observed drop in vaccines after GBS diagnosis indicates a disconnect between clinical practice and current recommendations.

To inform Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP) COVID-19 vaccine policy decisions, we developed a benefit-risk assessment framework that directly compared the estimated benefits of COVID-19 vaccination to individuals (e.g., prevention of COVID-19-associated hospitalization) with risks associated with COVID-19 vaccines. This assessment framework originated following the identification of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) after Janssen COVID-19 vaccination in April 2021. We adapted the benefit-risk assessment framework for use in subsequent policy decisions, including the adverse events of myocarditis and Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) following mRNA and Janssen COVID-19 vaccination respectively, expansion of COVID-19 vaccine approvals or authorizations to new age groups, and use of booster doses. Over the first year of COVID-19 vaccine administration in the United States (December 2020-December 2021), we used the benefit-risk assessment framework to inform seven different ACIP policy decisions. This framework allowed for rapid and direct comparison of the benefits and potential harms of vaccination, which may be helpful in informing other vaccine policy decisions. The assessments were a useful tool for decision-making but required reliable and granular data to stratify analyses and appropriately focus on populations most at risk for a specific adverse event. Additionally, careful decision-making was needed on parameters for data inputs. Sensitivity analyses were used where data were limited or uncertain; adjustments in the methodology were made over time to ensure the assessments remained relevant and applicable to the policy questions under consideration.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends starting the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine series between 9 and 12 years, at an age that the provider deems optimal for acceptance and completion of the vaccination series. This recommendation differs from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which recommends HPV vaccination be initiated at age 11 or 12 years, stating the series can be started at age 9 years. This commentary discusses the reasoning behind AAP\'s decision to differ from ACIP, as the AAP and ACIP schedules are essentially harmonized for all other vaccines. Reasons include recognition that (1) vaccination uptake is suboptimal; (2) offering vaccination earlier offers provider\'s flexibility in introducing the vaccine; (3) initiating the vaccine at age 9 or 10 may be preferable for parents or adolescents who do not want to receive ≥3 concomitant vaccines at age 11 or 12; (4) earlier initiation may disentangle HPV recommendations from discussions of sexuality; (5) earlier recommendation might alleviate HPV vaccine hesitancy \"fatigue;\" (6) the immune response is robust at younger ages with no evidence of waning protection; and (7) there is a dearth of evidence supporting starting the recommendation at age 11 or 12 within the \"adolescent immunization platform.\"

In 2019, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) incorporated the terminology \"shared clinical decision-making\" (SDM) into recommendations for two adult vaccines.
To assess among general internal medicine physicians (GIMs) and family physicians (FPs) nationally (1) attitudes about and experience with ACIP SDM recommendations, (2) knowledge of insurance reimbursement for vaccines with SDM recommendations, (3) how SDM recommendations are incorporated into vaccine forecasting software, and (4) physician and practice characteristics associated with not knowing how to implement SDM.
Survey conducted in October 2019-January 2020 by mail or internet based on preference.
Networks of GIMs and FPs recruited from American College of Physicians (ACP) and American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) who practice ≥ 50% in primary care. Post-stratification quota sampling performed to ensure networks similar to ACP and AAFP memberships.
Responses on 4-point Likert scales (attitudes/experiences), true/false options (knowledge), and categorical response options (forecasting). Multivariable modeling with outcome of \"not knowing how to implement SDM\" conducted.
Response rate was 64% (617/968). Most physicians strongly/somewhat agreed SDM requires more time than routine recommendations (90%FP; 95%GIM, p = 0.02) and that they need specific talking points to guide SDM discussions (79%FP; 84%GIM, p = NS). There was both support for SDM recommendations for certain vaccines (81%FP; 75%GIM, p = 0.06) and agreement that SDM creates confusion (64%FP; 76%GIM, p = 0.001). Only 41%FP and 43%GIM knew vaccines recommended for SDM would be covered by most health insurance. Overall, 38% reported SDM recommendations are displayed as \"recommended\" and 23% that they did not result in any recommendation in forecasting software. In adjusted multivariable models, GIMs [risk ratio 1.44 (1.15-1.81)] and females [1.28 (1.02-1.60)] were significantly associated with not knowing how to implement SDM recommendations CONCLUSIONS: To be successful in a primary care setting, SDM for adult vaccination will require thoughtful implementation with decision-making support for patients and physicians.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a group of medical and public health experts, normally meets 3 times per year to develop recommendations for vaccine use in the United States. Because of the severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, there are several SARS-CoV-2 vaccines currently in late-stage clinical trials, so the ACIP is now meeting monthly for single day meetings, with plans to continue standard 2- to 3-day meetings as per usual (February, June, and October). Emergency meetings of ACIP may occur if a vaccine candidate receives an Emergency Use Authorization from the food and drug administration (FDA). This Update provides a combined summary of the August 26 and September 22, 2020, meetings, both of which focused completely on Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. The representatives from the American Academy of Pediatrics (Y. A. M. and D. W. K.) and the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (S. T. O.) are present as liaisons to the ACIP.

暂无摘要。

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a group of medical and public health experts, meets 3 times per year to develop recommendations for vaccine use in the United States. There are usually 15 voting members; members\' terms are for 4 years. ACIP members and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention staff discuss the epidemiology of vaccine-preventable diseases and vaccine research, effectiveness, safety data, and results from clinical trials. Representatives from the American Academy of Pediatrics (Y. A. M., D. W. K.) and the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (S. T. O.) are present as liaisons to the ACIP. The ACIP met on 23-24 October 2019 to discuss pertussis vaccines, the child/adolescent and adult immunization schedule, influenza vaccine effectiveness and safety, Ebola vaccine, orthopoxvirus vaccines, Dengue vaccine, rabies vaccine, measles, and vaccine safety update.

Two of the leading strategies to prevent cervical cancer are prophylactic human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and routine Papanicolaou (Pap) testing. However, regardless of being vaccinated with first-generation (bivalent and quadrivalent) HPV vaccines at the recommended dosing schedule, many women are still found to have low- and high-grade cervical intraepithelial lesions. Studies have shown that this is largely due to: (1) first-generation vaccines only protecting against 70% of high-risk HPV types that cause cervical cancer (HPVs 16/18) and (2) vaccinated women being more prone to infection with non-protected high-risk HPV types than unvaccinated women. Fortunately, the FDA recently approved a nonavalent vaccine that protects against 5 additional high-risk HPV types that cause 20% of cervical cancers (HPVs 31/33/45/52/58), which is the only HPV vaccine currently available in the United States. Although the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends the nonavalent vaccine in men and women up to the age of 45 years, it does not recommend the nonavalent vaccine in those previously vaccinated with 3 doses of bivalent or quadrivalent vaccine, deeming them \"adequately vaccinated\". As this population is most at risk, this review serves to provide background and argue for a change in their recommendation.

Invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) caused by the bacteria Neisseria meningitidis is rare but potentially fatal. For healthy adolescents, the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends routine vaccination with MenACWY and recommends MenB vaccination under shared clinical decision-making (previously \"Category B\"). The recommendation for MenB vaccination was the first category B recommendation in adolescents, and it is unclear how healthcare providers (HCPs) implement these guidelines. This 2017 web-based survey of US HCPs explored characteristics associated with prescribing or receiving MenB and MenACWY vaccines, HCP knowledge of vaccine recommendations, and real-world practice patterns. Of 529 respondents, 436 prescribed MenB vaccines to their eligible adolescent/young adult patients and 93 prescribed MenACWY vaccines only. MenB vaccine prescribers were more likely to be pediatricians compared with MenACWY vaccine only prescribers, and patients who received MenB vaccines were more likely to be non-Hispanic whites living in shared spaces (eg, college dormitories) than those not receiving the vaccine. Seventy-seven percent of HCPs indicated that they prescribe MenACWY vaccines consistently with ACIP recommendations (to all members of an age group), whereas only 7% indicated that they prescribe MenB vaccines consistently with ACIP recommendations (individual clinical decision making). Patient-related factors, disease-related factors, and guidelines all influenced HCP decisions to prescribe meningococcal vaccines. Providing HCPs with clear guidance on how to initiate discussion of MenB vaccines with patients and their caregivers may aid in fully protecting US adolescents against meningococcal disease caused by 5 of the disease-causing serogroups.