Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Recommended Immunization Schedule for Children and Adolescents Aged 18 Years or Younger - United States, 2023.

At its October 2022 meeting, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices* (ACIP) approved the Recommended Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule for Ages 18 Years or Younger, United States, 2023. The 2023 child and adolescent immunization schedule, available on the CDC immunization schedule website (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules), summarizes ACIP recommendations, including several changes from the 2022 immunization schedule† on the cover page, tables, notes, and appendix. Health care providers are advised to use the tables, notes, and appendix together to determine recommended vaccinations for patient populations. This immunization schedule is recommended by ACIP (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip) and approved by CDC (https://www.cdc.gov), the American Academy of Pediatrics (https://www.aap.org), the American Academy of Family Physicians (https://www.aafp.org), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (http://www.acog.org), the American College of Nurse-Midwives (https://www.midwife.org), the American Academy of Physician Associates (https://www.aapa.org), and the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners (https://www.napnap.org).

Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Recommended Immunization Schedule for Adults Aged 19 Years or Older - United States, 2023.

At its October 2022 meeting, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices* (ACIP) approved the Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule for Ages 19 Years or Older, United States, 2023. The 2023 adult immunization schedule summarizes ACIP recommendations, including several changes to the cover page, tables, notes, and appendix from the 2022 immunization schedule.† This schedule can be found on the CDC immunization schedule website (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules). Health care providers are advised to use the cover page, tables, notes, and appendix together to determine recommended vaccinations for patient populations. This adult immunization schedule is recommended by ACIP (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip) and approved by CDC (https://www.cdc.gov), the American College of Physicians (https://www.acponline.org), the American Academy of Family Physicians (https://www.aafp.org), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (https://www.acog.org), the American College of Nurse-Midwives (https://www.midwife.org), the American Academy of Physician Associates (https://www.aapa.org), the American Pharmacists Association (https://www.pharmacist.com), and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (https://shea-online.org).

Resilience: Biological Basis and Clinical Significance - A Perspective Report from the International Conference on Frailty and Sarcopenia Research (ICFSR) Task Force.

The Resilience is a construct receiving growing attention from the scientific community in geriatrics and gerontology. Older adults show extremely heterogeneous (and often unpredictable) responses to stressors. Such heterogeneity can (at least partly) be explained by differences in resilience (i.e., the capacity of the organism to cope with stressors). The International Conference on Frailty and Sarcopenia Research (ICFSR) Task Force met in Boston (MA,USA) on April 20, 2022 to discuss the biological and clinical significance of resilience in older adults. The identification of persons with low resilience and the prompt intervention in this at-risk population may be critical to develop and implement preventive strategies against adverse events. Unfortunately, to date, it is still challenging to capture resilience, especially due to its dynamic nature encompassing biological, clinical, subjective, and socioeconomic factors. Opportunities to dynamically measure resilience were discussed during the ICFSR Task Force meeting, emphasizing potential biomarkers and areas of intervention. This article reports the results of the meeting and may serve to support future actions in the field.

February 2023 Updates of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a group of medical and public health experts who provides expert advice to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, normally meets three times per year to develop U.S. vaccine recommendations. The ACIP met on February 22-24, 2023, to discuss mpox vaccine, influenza vaccines, pneumococcus vaccines, meningococci vaccines, polio vaccines, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine, chikungunya vaccines, dengue vaccines, and COVID-19 vaccines.

The new Italian National Immunization Technical Advisory Group (NITAG) and its commitment to endorse a new efficient National Immunization Plan in COVID-19 times.

Among the objectives of the WHO Global Vaccination Action Plan 2020-2025, there is the establishment, in all countries, of a National Immunization Technical Advisory Group (NITAG), an independent body with the aim of supporting and harmonising vaccination policies. Italy firstly established a NITAG in 2017; it contributed to the nation's immunization policies but fell short of its goal of becoming a true reference group. The newly appointed NITAG, made up of 28 independent experts, has the ambitious goal to promote the new National Immunization Prevention Plan (PNPV), to harmonise the current vaccination schedule with the anti-COVID-19 campaign, and to recover the vaccination coverage decline that occurred during the pandemic. The contact with the ECDC EU/EEA, the WHO Global NITAG networks, and all the national stakeholders needs to be reinforced in order to accomplish these aims. This paper describes the structure, organisation, and strategy of the new Italian NITAG.

5 non-COVID vaccine recommendations from ACIP.

Although COVID-19 vaccination remains at the forefront, ACIP has offered guidance on MMR, pneumococcal, influenza, and travel vaccines. Here's a round-up.

Observational study of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest among the Japanese government advisory board members concerning coronavirus disease 2019.

This cross-sectional analysis aimed to assess the extent of conflicts of interest among the Japanese government coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) advisory board members and elucidate the accuracy of conflicts of interest (COI) disclosure and management strategies. Using the payment data from all 79 pharmaceutical companies in Japan between 2017 and 2019 and direct research grants from the Japanese government between 2019 and 2020, we evaluated the extent of financial and non-financial COI among all 20 Japanese government COVID-19 advisory board members. The Ethic Committee of the Medical Governance Research Institute approved this study. Japanese government COVID-19 advisory board members were predominantly male (75.0%) and physicians (50.0%). Between 2019 and 2020, 2 members (10.0%) received a total of $819,244 in government research funding. Another 5 members (25.0%) received $532,127 in payments, including $276,722 in personal fees, from 31 pharmaceutical companies between 2017 and 2019. The average value of the pharmaceutical payments was $9155 (standard deviation: $12,975). Furthermore, neither the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare nor the Japanese Cabinet Secretariat disclosed financial or non-financial COI with industry. Additionally, the government had no policies for managing COI among advisory board members. This study found that the Japanese government COVID-19 advisory board had financial and non-financial COI with pharmaceutical companies and the government. Furthermore, personal communication received as part of this research indicated that there were no rigorous COI management strategies for the COVID-19 advisory board members. Any government must ensure the independence of scientific advisory boards by implementing more rigorous and transparent management strategies that require the declaration and public disclosure of all COI.

ACIP recommendations for COVID-19 vaccines-and more.

Prioritized immunization is advised with the 2 COVID-19 vaccines. A third meningococcal ACWY vaccine is now the only one approved for those > 55 years.

Transplant of organs from donors with positive SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing: A report from the organ procurement and transplantation network ad hoc disease transmission advisory committee.

BACKGROUND: Decisions to transplant organs from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid test-positive (NAT+) donors must balance risk of donor-derived transmission events (DDTE) with the scarcity of available organs. METHODS: Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) data were used to compare organ utilization and recipient outcomes between SARS-CoV-2 NAT+ and NAT- donors. NAT+ was defined by either a positive upper or lower respiratory tract (LRT) sample within 21 days of procurement. Potential DDTE were adjudicated by OPTN Disease Transmission Advisory Committee. RESULTS: From May 27, 2021 (date of OTPN policy for required LRT testing of lung donors) to January 31, 2022, organs were recovered from 617 NAT+ donors from all OPTN regions and 53 of 57 (93%) organ procurement organizations. NAT+ donors were younger and had higher organ quality scores for kidney and liver. Organ utilization was lower for NAT+ donors compared to NAT- donors. A total of 1241 organs (776 kidneys, 316 livers, 106 hearts, 22 lungs, and 21 other) were transplanted from 514 NAT+ donors compared to 21 946 organs from 8853 NAT- donors. Medical urgency was lower for recipients of NAT+ liver and heart transplants. The median waitlist time was longer for liver recipients of NAT+ donors. The match run sequence number for final acceptor was higher for NAT+ donors for all organ types. Outcomes for hospital length of stay, 30-day mortality, and 30-day graft loss were similar for all organ types. No SARS-CoV-2 DDTE occurred in this interval. CONCLUSIONS: Transplantation of SARS-CoV-2 NAT+ donor organs appears safe for short-term outcomes of death and graft loss and ameliorates the organ shortage. Further study is required to assure comparable longer term outcomes.

Interim Guidance on the Preparticipation Physical Examination for Athletes During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.

The American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) convened a writing group to address the current evidence and knowledge gaps regarding preparticipation evaluation of athletes during the SARS-CoV2 pandemic. The writing group held a series of meetings beginning in April 2020. The task force reviewed the available literature and used an iterative process and expert consensus to finalize this guidance statement that is intended to provide clinicians with a clinical framework to return athletes of all levels to training and competition during the pandemic. The statement is not intended to address treatment, infection control principles, or public health issues related to SARS-CoV2. The AMSSM task force acknowledges the clinical uncertainty, evolving public health objectives, and the limited data currently available to create this guidance statement.

Interim Recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for the Use of Bivalent Booster Doses of COVID-19 Vaccines - United States, October 2022.

Four COVID-19 vaccines are currently approved for primary series vaccination in the United States under a Biologics License Application or authorized under an emergency use authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and recommended for primary series vaccination by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP): 1) the 2- or 3-dose monovalent mRNA BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech, Comirnaty) COVID-19 vaccine; 2) the 2- or 3-dose monovalent mRNA mRNA-1273 (Moderna, Spikevax) COVID-19 vaccine; 3) the single-dose adenovirus vector-based Ad26.COV.S (Janssen [Johnson & Johnson]) COVID-19 vaccine; and 4) the 2-dose adjuvanted, protein subunit-based NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) COVID-19 vaccine. The number of doses recommended is based on recipient age and immunocompromise status (1). For additional protection, FDA has amended EUAs to allow for COVID-19 booster doses in eligible persons (1). Because COVID-19 vaccines have demonstrated decreased effectiveness during the period when the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) of SARS-CoV-2 predominated, bivalent booster doses (i.e., vaccine with equal components from the ancestral and Omicron strains) were considered for the express purpose of improving protection conferred by COVID-19 vaccine booster doses (2). During September-October 2022, FDA authorized bivalent mRNA vaccines for use as a booster dose in persons aged ≥5 years who completed any FDA-approved or FDA-authorized primary series and removed EUAs for monovalent COVID-19 booster doses (1). Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna bivalent booster vaccines each contain equal amounts of spike mRNA from the ancestral and Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strains. After the EUA amendments, ACIP and CDC recommended that all persons aged ≥5 years receive 1 bivalent mRNA booster dose ≥2 months after completion of any FDA-approved or FDA-authorized monovalent primary series or monovalent booster doses.

COVID-19 vaccine policy development in a sample of 44 countries - Key findings from a December 2021 survey of National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs).

National Immunization Technical Advisory Committees (NITAGs) are tasked with the responsibility of guiding ministries of health and national immunization programmes in their policy development processes. Many NITAGs rely on evidence reviewed by the World Health Organization's (WHO) Strategic Group of Experts(SAGE) on immunization and aim to adapt WHO's recommendations to their respective contexts. This relationship took on exceptional importance since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, during which NITAGs have expressed a notable struggle to craft appropriate policies on population prioritization and vaccine utilization in the face of supply constraints and complex programmatic and delivery logistics. This online survey was conducted to assess the usefulness of the SAGE guidance documents for COVID-19 vaccine policies and to examine the persisting needs and challenges facing NITAGs. Results confirmed that SAGE recommendations concerning COVID-19 vaccines are easy to access, understand, and adapt. They have been found to be comprehensive and timely under the data and time constrained circumstances confronting SAGE. The Global NITAG Network (GNN) appears to be the most popular vehicle for addressing questions among high income countries, in contrast to lower income countries who favour WHO Country or Regional Offices. NITAGs place much value on interaction with other NITAGs, which requires facilitation and could benefit from increased opportunities, especially within regions. It is further noted that some NITAGs have had to tackle issues during the pandemic not typically considered by SAGE, such as supply chain logistics and vaccine demand. Learning from the COVID-19 experience offers opportunities to strengthen NITAGs and the pandemic recovery effort through the development of more concrete procedures and consideration of more varied types of data, including implementation effectiveness and uptake data. There is also an opportunity for an increasing involvement of Country Office WHO personnel to support NITAGs, while ensuring information and evidence needs of countries are adequately reflected in SAGE deliberations.

Errors in Converting Principles to Protocols: Where the Bioethics of U.S. Covid-19 Vaccine Allocation Went Wrong.

For much of 2021, allocating the scarce supply of Covid-19 vaccines was the world's most pressing bioethical challenge, and similar challenges may recur for novel therapies and future vaccines. In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) identified three fundamental ethical principles to guide the process: maximize benefits, promote justice, and mitigate health inequities. We argue that critical components of the recommended protocol were internally inconsistent with these principles. Specifically, the ACIP violated its principles by recommending overly broad health care worker priority in phase 1a, using being at least seventy-five years of age as the only criterion to identify individuals at high risk of death from Covid-19 during phase 1b, failing to recommend place-based vaccine distribution, and implicitly endorsing first-come, first-served allocation. More rigorous empirical work and the development of a complete ethical framework that recognizes trade-offs between principles may have prevented these mistakes and saved lives.