Update on recommendations for use of herpes zoster vaccine

Herpes zoster vaccine (Zostavax [Merck & Co., Inc.]) was licensed in 2006 and recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in 2008 for prevention of herpes zoster (shingles) and its complications among adults aged ≥60 years. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of Zostavax in 2011 for adults aged 50 through 59 years based on a large study of safety and efficacy in this age group. ACIP initially considered the use of herpes zoster vaccine among adults aged 50 through 59 years in June 2011, but declined to recommend the vaccine in this age group, citing shortages of Zostavax and limited data on long-term protection afforded by herpes zoster vaccine. In October 2013, ACIP reviewed the epidemiology of herpes zoster and its complications, herpes zoster vaccine supply, short-term vaccine efficacy in adults aged 50 through 59 years, short- and long- term vaccine efficacy and effectiveness in adults aged ≥60 years, an updated cost-effectiveness analysis, and deliberations of the ACIP herpes zoster work group, all of which are summarized in this report. No vote was taken, and ACIP maintained its current recommendation that herpes zoster vaccine be routinely recommended for adults aged ≥60 years. Meeting minutes are available at http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/meetings-info.html.

Community and patient values for preventing herpes zoster

OBJECTIVES

The US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has recently recommended a new vaccine against herpes zoster (shingles) for routine use in adults aged > or =60 years. However, estimates of the cost effectiveness of this vaccine vary widely, in part because of gaps in the data on the value of preventing herpes zoster. Our aims were to (i) generate comprehensive information on the value of preventing a range of outcomes of herpes zoster; (ii) compare these values among community members and patients with shingles and post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN); and (iii) identify clinical and demographic characteristics that explain the variation in these values.

METHODS

Community members drawn from a nationally representative survey research panel (n = 527) completed an Internet-based survey using time trade-off and willingness-to-pay questions to value a series of scenarios that described cases of herpes zoster with varying pain intensities (on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 represents no pain and 10 represents the worst imaginable pain) and duration (30 days to 1 year). Patients with shingles (n = 382) or PHN (n = 137) [defined as having symptoms for > or =90 days] from two large healthcare systems completed telephone interviews with similar questions to the Internet-based survey and also answered questions about their current experience with herpes zoster. We constructed generalized linear mixed models to evaluate the associations between demographic and clinical characteristics, the length and intensity of the health states and time trade-off and willingness-to-pay values.

RESULTS

In time trade-off questions, community members offered a mean of 89 (95% CI 24, 182) discounted days to avoid the least severe scenario (pain level of 3 for 1 month) and a mean of 162 (95% CI 88, 259) discounted days to avoid the most severe scenario (pain level of 8 for 12 months). Compared with patients with shingles, community members traded more days to avoid low-severity scenarios but similar numbers of days to avoid high-severity scenarios. Compared with patients with PHN, community members traded fewer days to avoid high-severity scenarios. In multivariate analyses, older age was the only characteristic significantly associated with higher time trade-off values. In willingness-to-pay questions, community members offered a mean of $US450 (95% CI 203, 893) to avoid pain of level 3 for 1 month and a mean of $US1384 (95% CI 873, 2050) [year 2005 values] to avoid pain of level 8 for 12 months. Community members traded less money than patients with either shingles or PHN to avoid both low- and high-severity scenarios (p-values <0.05 to <0.001). In multivariate models, male gender, higher income and having experienced shingles or PHN were associated with higher willingness to pay to avoid herpes zoster. When patients were asked to assign a value to avoiding their own case of herpes zoster, those with shingles assigned a mean of 67 days or $US2319, while those with PHN assigned a mean of 206 days or $US18 184. Both the time and monetary value traded were associated with the maximum intensity of the pain the individual had experienced, but neither was associated with the duration of the pain.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe that this study provides the most comprehensive information to date on the value individuals place on preventing herpes zoster, and it includes the only such valuation from nationally representative community members as well as patients with herpes zoster. Community members would trade substantial amounts of time or money to avoid herpes zoster, even in the least severe scenarios. The time trade-off results in this study may differ from those in other studies because of important differences in methods of assessing health utilities. Consideration of both community and patient perspectives is crucial to help decision makers fully determine the implications of their policies now that a vaccine against herpes zoster is available.

Preventing tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis among adults: use of tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid and acellular pertussis vaccine recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and recommendation of ACIP, supported by the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC), for use of Tdap among health-care personnel

On June 10, 2005, a tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid and acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap) formulated for use in adults and adolescents was licensed in the United States for persons aged 11-64 years (ADACEL, manufactured by sanofi pasteur, Toronto, Ontario, Canada). Prelicensure studies demonstrated safety and efficacy, inferred through immunogenicity, against tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis when Tdap was administered as a single booster dose to adults. To reduce pertussis morbidity among adults and maintain the standard of care for tetanus and diphtheria prevention and to reduce the transmission of pertussis to infants and in health-care settings, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends that: 1) adults aged 19-64 years should receive a single dose of Tdap to replace tetanus and diphtheria toxoids vaccine (Td) for booster immunization against tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis if they received their last dose of Td >or=10 years earlier and they have not previously received Tdap; 2) intervals shorter than 10 years since the last Td may be used for booster protection against pertussis; 3) adults who have or who anticipate having close contact with an infant aged <12 months (e.g., parents, grandparents aged <65 years, child-care providers, and health-care personnel) should receive a single dose of Tdap to reduce the risk for transmitting pertussis. An interval as short as 2 years from the last Td is suggested; shorter intervals can be used. When possible, women should receive Tdap before becoming pregnant. Women who have not previously received Tdap should receive a dose of Tdap in the immediate postpartum period; 4) health-care personnel who work in hospitals or ambulatory care settings and have direct patient contact should receive a single dose of Tdap as soon as feasible if they have not previously received Tdap. An interval as short as 2 years from the last dose of Td is recommended; shorter intervals may be used. These recommendations for use of Tdap in health-care personnel are supported by the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). This statement 1) reviews pertussis, tetanus and diphtheria vaccination policy in the United States; 2) describes the clinical features and epidemiology of pertussis among adults; 3) summarizes the immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety data of Tdap; and 4) presents recommendations for the use of Tdap among adults aged 19-64 years.