Shared Clinical Decision-Making Recommendations for Adult Immunization: What Do Physicians Think?

Use of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccines in Adults Aged ≥60 Years: Updated Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2024

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a major cause of respiratory illness and hospitalization in older adults during fall and winter in the United States. The 2023-2024 RSV season was the first during which RSV vaccination was recommended for U.S. adults aged ≥60 years, using shared clinical decision-making. On June 26, 2024, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to update this recommendation as follows: a single dose of any Food and Drug Administration-approved RSV vaccine (Arexvy [GSK]; Abrysvo [Pfizer]; or mResvia [Moderna]) is now recommended for all adults aged ≥75 years and for adults aged 60-74 years who are at increased risk for severe RSV disease. Adults who have previously received RSV vaccine should not receive another dose. This report summarizes the evidence considered for these updated recommendations, including postlicensure data on vaccine effectiveness and safety, and provides clinical guidance for the use of RSV vaccines in adults aged ≥60 years. These updated recommendations are intended to maximize RSV vaccination coverage among persons most likely to benefit, by clarifying who is at highest risk and by reducing implementation barriers associated with the previous shared clinical decision-making recommendation. Continued postlicensure monitoring will guide future recommendations.

The impact of regional disparities on the availability of meningococcal vaccines in the US

BACKGROUND

In the United States (US), three types of vaccines are available to prevent invasive meningococcal disease (IMD), a severe and potentially fatal infection: quadrivalent conjugate vaccines against serogroups A, C, W, Y (MenACWY), and monovalent vaccines against serogroup B (MenB) as well as a newly licensed pentavalent vaccine (MenABCWY) protecting against serogroup A, B, C, W, and Y. The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) routinely recommends MenACWY vaccine for all 11- to 12-year-olds with a booster dose at 16 years. MenB vaccination is recommended based on shared clinical decision-making (SCDM) for 16- to 23-year-olds. Recently, the pentavalent meningococcal vaccine (MenABCWY) was recommended by the ACIP. Meningococcal vaccine uptake is suboptimal across the country, particularly among individuals with lower socioeconomic status (SES), despite these recommendations. The objective of the spatial analyses was to assess the relationship between stocking of MenACWY and MenB vaccines, area-level SES, and state-level policies.

METHODS

The number of MenACWY and MenB doses stocked by vaccinators was obtained from IQVIA and the CDC's Vaccine for Children (VFC) program and compiled into a county-level dataset from 2016 to 2019. SES, as measured using the CDC's Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), state-level school recommendations, and universal purchasing programs were among the main county-level covariates included to control for factors likely influencing stocking. Data were stratified by public and private market. Bayesian spatial regression models were developed to quantify the variations in rates of stocking and the relative rates of stocking of both vaccines.

RESULTS

After accounting for county-level characteristics, lower SES counties tended to have fewer doses of MenB relative to MenACWY on both public and private markets. Lower SES counties tended to have more supply of public vs. private doses. Universal purchasing programs had a strong effect on the markets for both vaccines shifting nearly all doses to the public market. School vaccination strategy was key for improving stocking rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the results show that MenACWY has greater stock relative to MenB across the US. This difference is exacerbated in vulnerable areas without school entry requirements for vaccination and results in inequity of vaccine availability. Beyond state-level policy and SES differences, SCDM recommendations may be a contributing factor, although this was not directly assessed by our model.

HPV Vaccine Awareness, Past Behaviors, and Future Intentions Among a Diverse Sample of Fathers Aged 27 to 45 Years: A National Survey

Men aged 27 to 45 are eligible for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination as of 2019, yet relatively little is known about whether they have received or intend to receive it. We conducted a cross-sectional, online survey among fathers aged 27 to 45 between March and April 2022, to assess associations between HPV vaccination awareness, behaviors, intentions, and psychosocial constructs from the Health Belief Model. We examined the characteristics of those who had (a) heard of the HPV vaccine, (b) already received ≥ 1 dose, and (c) intentions for future vaccination among those who had never been vaccinated. Among 400 men who completed the survey, 32% were not aware of the HPV vaccine. Among those who were aware, 41% had received ≥ 1 dose. Sixty-three percent of unvaccinated men reported that they intended to get vaccinated in the future. Multivariable logistic regression analyses revealed that age and race/ethnicity were associated with having been vaccinated previously. Among the unvaccinated, multivariable logistic regression analyses revealed that those with a higher perceived risk of HPV-associated cancer had 3.73 greater odds of reporting they would seek vaccination compared to those with lower perceived risk (95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.28, 12.3]). We did not find perceived benefits, barriers, or decision self-efficacy to be related to future vaccine intentions. Since recommendations for this group include shared clinical decision-making, public health efforts should focus on raising awareness of vaccine eligibility, emphasizing risk factors for HPV-associated cancers so that individuals have an accurate perception of risk, and encouraging conversation between men and their providers.

Exploring the future adult vaccine landscape-crowded schedules and new dynamics

Amidst the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccine innovation has garnered significant attention, but this field was already on the cusp of a groundbreaking renaissance. Propelling these advancements are scientific and technological breakthroughs, alongside a growing understanding of the societal and economic boons vaccines offer, particularly for non-pediatric populations like adults and the immunocompromised. In a departure from previous decades where vaccine launches could be seamlessly integrated into existing processes, we anticipate potentially than 100 novel, risk-adjusted product launches over the next 10 years in the adult vaccine market, primarily addressing new indications. However, this segment is infamous for its challenges: low uptake, funding shortfalls, and operational hurdles linked to delivery and administration. To unlock the societal benefits of this burgeoning expansion, we need to adopt a fresh perspective to steer through the dynamics sparked by the rapid growth of the global adult vaccine market. This article aims to provide that fresh perspective, offering a detailed analysis of the anticipated number of adult vaccine approvals by category and exploring how our understanding of barriers to adult vaccine uptake might evolve. We incorporated pertinent insights from external stakeholder interviews, spotlighting shifting preferences, perceptions, priorities, and decision-making criteria. Consequently, this article aspires to serve as a pivotal starting point for industry participants, equipping them with the knowledge to skillfully navigate the anticipated surge in both volume and complexity.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy between family decision-makers and non-decision-makers among college teachers

BACKGROUND

Teachers with high educational levels significantly impact the health-related knowledge and attitudes of young students and their family members. This study aimed to investigate the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy and associated factors, and compare the differences between decision-makers and non-decision-makers among college teachers.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was administered across mainland China from 4 to 7 August 2021. Overall, 251 college teachers were included using snowball sampling. A multivariable logistic regression model was applied to explore the association between decision-makers and hesitancy to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

RESULTS

Overall, 42.2% of the teachers were hesitant to being vaccinated against COVID-19. The hesitancy rate was lower among primary decision-makers than that among non-decision-makers (34.8% vs. 60.3%, p < .001). Primary decision-makers were less hesitant regarding COVID-19 vaccination than non-decision-makers (OR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.20-0.70); remarkably, whereas those engaged in nursing education versus non-medical related professional education (OR = 2.67, 95% CI 1.29-5.49), and partial versus full-course vaccination recipients (OR = 4.48, 95% CI: 1.76-11.42) were more likely to be hesitant regarding COVID-19 vaccination.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that a high proportion of college teachers in China are hesitant to receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and that primary decision-makers are less likely to exhibit hesitancy to being vaccinated against COVID-19 than non-decision-makers in their family. Family decision-makers among teachers can be considered a priority for COVID-19 vaccine promotion, thereby enhancing vaccine acceptance among vulnerable populations-including older adults and children-and preventing adverse outcomes.KEY MESSAGESQuestion: How prevalent is COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among college teachers? Do differences exist between decision-makers and non-decision-makers?Findings: We found that a substantial proportion of college teachers are hesitant to being vaccinated against COVID-19, and that family decision-makers exhibited a lower hesitancy rate than non-decision-makers.Meaning: Our findings indicate that distinguishing between family decision-makers and non-decision-makers is necessary to facilitate vaccination promotion interventions among college teachers.

Shared clinical decision-making on vaccines: out of sight, out of mind

Clinical decision support systems, which provide automated reminders in electronic health systems, are designed to provide physicians and other health professionals support in clinical decision-making. New clinical guidance from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on a new category of recommendations referred to as "shared clinical decision-making" have left providers struggling to interpret how to best implement recommendations for adult vaccines. The issue at hand is how to ensure that a conversation between the patient and provider occurs. While traditional clinical decision support systems have driven immunization for years, these systems support a binary default opt-in process. The goal for shared decision-making is the discussion rather than the vaccination. The recommended provider-patient conversations need to be supported with both provider guidance as well as tools to ensure vaccines are not omitted from the conversations, particularly as future vaccine candidates progress through the vaccine development pipeline.

Developing Adult Vaccination Ecosystem in India: Current Perspective and the Way Forward

Introduction

A high burden of vaccine-preventable diseases, increasing elderly population, immunosenescence, and emerging drug resistance emphasize the need for robust adult immunization in India. While immunization guidelines from various societies exist, there is inadequate implementation of the same.

Aim

We undertook this narrative review of the adult vaccination ecosystem in India to (i) gain insights into existing adult vaccination practices, (ii) identify barriers to adult vaccination and possible solutions, and (iii) improve collaboration between various stakeholders to help establish adult vaccination centers in the country.

Results

Besides the high cost and lack of insurance coverage, the lack of adult vaccination centers contributes to the low coverage of adult immunization.

Discussion

These challenges can be addressed through multiple approaches including community awareness and immunization programs, setting up mobile vaccination vans, patient/consumer education, and adequate training of healthcare providers. Successful implementation of these strategies requires active collaboration between the government, hospitals, different stakeholders, and policymakers.