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).

COVID-19 vaccine safety inquiries to the centers for disease control and prevention immunization safety office.

BACKGROUND: Following the authorization and recommendations for use of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccines, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s Immunization Safety Office (ISO) responded to inquiries and questions from public health officials, healthcare providers, and the general public on COVID-19 vaccine safety. METHODS: We describe COVID-19 vaccine safety inquiries, by topic, received and addressed by ISO from December 1, 2020-August 31, 2022. RESULTS: Of the 1978 COVID-19 vaccine-related inquiries received, 1655 specifically involved vaccine safety topics. The most frequently asked-about topics included deaths following vaccination, myocarditis, pregnancy, and reproductive health outcomes, understanding or interpreting data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: Inquiries about vaccine safety generally reflect issues that receive media attention. ISO will continue to monitor vaccine safety inquiries and provide accurate and timely information to healthcare providers, public health officials, and the general public.

Surveillance for Violent Deaths - National Violent Death Reporting System, 48 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, 2020.

Problem/Condition: In 2020, approximately 71,000 persons died of violence-related injuries in the United States. This report summarizes data from CDC's National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) on violent deaths that occurred in 48 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico in 2020. Results are reported by sex, age group, race and ethnicity, method of injury, type of location where the injury occurred, circumstances of injury, and other selected characteristics. Period Covered: 2020. Description of System: NVDRS collects data regarding violent deaths obtained from death certificates, coroner and medical examiner records, and law enforcement reports. This report includes data collected for violent deaths that occurred in 2020. Data were collected from 48 states (all states with exception of Florida and Hawaii), the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Forty-six states had statewide data, two additional states had data from counties representing a subset of their population (35 California counties, representing 71% of its population, and four Texas counties, representing 39% of its population), and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico had jurisdiction-wide data. NVDRS collates information for each violent death and links deaths that are related (e.g., multiple homicides, homicide followed by suicide, or multiple suicides) into a single incident. Results: For 2020, NVDRS collected information on 64,388 fatal incidents involving 66,017 deaths that occurred in 48 states (46 states collecting statewide data, 35 California counties, and four Texas counties), and the District of Columbia. In addition, information was collected for 729 fatal incidents involving 790 deaths in Puerto Rico. Data for Puerto Rico were analyzed separately. Of the 66,017 deaths, the majority (58.4%) were suicides, followed by homicides (31.3%), deaths of undetermined intent (8.2%), legal intervention deaths (1.3%) (i.e., deaths caused by law enforcement and other persons with legal authority to use deadly force acting in the line of duty, excluding legal executions), and unintentional firearm deaths (<1.0%). The term "legal intervention" is a classification incorporated into the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, and does not denote the lawfulness or legality of the circumstances surrounding a death caused by law enforcement.Demographic patterns and circumstances varied by manner of death. The suicide rate was higher for males than for females. Across all age groups, the suicide rate was highest among adults aged ≥85 years. In addition, non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN) persons had the highest suicide rates among all racial and ethnic groups. Among both males and females, the most common method of injury for suicide was a firearm. Among all suicide victims, when circumstances were known, suicide was most often preceded by a mental health, intimate partner, or physical health problem or by a recent or impending crisis during the previous or upcoming 2 weeks. The homicide rate was higher for males than for females. Among all homicide victims, the homicide rate was highest among persons aged 20-24 years compared with other age groups. Non-Hispanic Black (Black) males experienced the highest homicide rate of any racial or ethnic group. Among all homicide victims, the most common method of injury was a firearm. When the relationship between a homicide victim and a suspect was known, the suspect was most frequently an acquaintance or friend for male victims and a current or former intimate partner for female victims. Homicide most often was precipitated by an argument or conflict, occurred in conjunction with another crime, or, for female victims, was related to intimate partner violence. Nearly all victims of legal intervention deaths were male, and the legal intervention death rate was highest among men aged 35-44 years. The legal intervention death rate was highest among AI/AN males, followed by Black males. A firearm was used in the majority of legal intervention deaths. When a specific type of crime was known to have precipitated a legal intervention death, the type of crime was most frequently assault or homicide. When circumstances were known, the three most frequent circumstances reported for legal intervention deaths were as follows: the victim's death was precipitated by another crime, the victim used a weapon in the incident, and the victim had a substance use problem (other than alcohol use).Other causes of death included unintentional firearm deaths and deaths of undetermined intent. Unintentional firearm deaths were most frequently experienced by males, non-Hispanic White (White) persons, and persons aged 15-24 years. These deaths most frequently occurred while the shooter was playing with a firearm and were precipitated by a person unintentionally pulling the trigger. The rate of deaths of undetermined intent was highest among males, particularly among AI/AN and Black males, and among adults aged 30-54 years. Poisoning was the most common method of injury in deaths of undetermined intent, and opioids were detected in nearly 80% of decedents tested for those substances. Interpretation: This report provides a detailed summary of data from NVDRS on violent deaths that occurred in 2020. The suicide rate was highest among AI/AN and White males, whereas the homicide rate was highest among Black male victims. Intimate partner violence precipitated a large proportion of homicides for females. Mental health problems, intimate partner problems, interpersonal conflicts, and acute life stressors were primary circumstances for multiple types of violent death. Public Health Action: Violence is preventable, and states and communities can use data to guide public health action. NVDRS data are used to monitor the occurrence of violence-related fatal injuries and assist public health authorities in developing, implementing, and evaluating programs, policies, and practices to reduce and prevent violent deaths. For example, the Colorado Violent Death Reporting System (VDRS), Kentucky VDRS, and Oregon VDRS have used their VDRS data to guide suicide prevention efforts and generate reports highlighting where additional focus is needed. In Colorado, VDRS data were used to examine the increased risk for suicide among first and last responders in the state. Kentucky VDRS used local data to highlight how psychological and social effects of the COVID-19 pandemic might increase risk for suicide, particularly among vulnerable populations. Oregon VDRS used their data to develop a publicly available data dashboard displaying firearm mortality trends and rates in support of the state's firearm safety campaign. Similarly, states participating in NVDRS have used their VDRS data to examine homicide in their state. Illinois VDRS, for example, found that state budget cuts were associated with notable increases in homicides among youths in Chicago. With an increase of participating states and jurisdictions, this report marks progress toward providing nationally representative data.

Combating COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: A Synthetic Public Segmentation Approach for Predicting Vaccine Acceptance.

OBJECTIVE: Vaccine hesitancy impacts the ability to cope with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) effectively in the United States. It is important for health organizations to increase vaccine acceptance. Addressing this issue, this study aimed to predict citizens' acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine through a synthetic approach of public segmentation including cross-situational and situational variables. Controlling for demographics, we examined institutional trust, negative attitudes toward, and low levels of knowledge about vaccines (ie, lacuna public characteristics), and fear of COVID-19 during the pandemic. Our study provides a useful framework for public segmentation and contributes to risk and health campaigns by identifying significant predictors of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. METHOD: We conducted an online survey on October 10, 2020 (N = 499), and performed hierarchical regression analyses to predict citizens' COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. RESULTS: This study demonstrated that trust in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and federal government, vaccine attitude, problem recognition, constraint recognition, involvement recognition, and fear positively predicted COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. CONCLUSIONS: This study outlines a useful synthetic public segmentation framework and extends the concept of lacuna public to the pandemic context, helping to predict vaccine acceptance. Importantly, the findings could be useful in designing health campaign messages.

The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe COVID-19 Pandemic Response: A Case Study.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe of southeastern Massachusetts requested US federal government assistance. The tribe collaborated successfully with many partners in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In this case study, the authors describe the tribe's collaboration with a team from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who assisted with epidemiology, case investigation and contact tracing, infection prevention and control, community prevention measures, and vaccination. Collaborative efforts resulted in over 200 public service announcements and videos produced, 55 tribal staff trained, 222 people followed up for contact tracing, 80% of tribal members vaccinated, and 5 COVID-19 response plans written. Deployment response teams learned elements essential to partnering with a Native American tribe. This successful partnership during a rapidly evolving pandemic suggests the US federal government and tribal nations can work together effectively to build response capacity for future infectious disease threats.

An Analysis of COVID-19 Mortality During the Dominancy of Alpha, Delta, and Omicron in the USA.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the study was to measure the risk of death due to COVID-19 in relation to individuals' characteristics, and severity of their disease during the dominant periods of Alpha, Delta, and Omicron variants have influenced mortality rates. METHODS: This study was conducted using COVID-19 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Case Surveillance Public Data Taskforce for 57 states, and United States territories between January 1, 2020 and March 20, 2022. Multivariable binary Hyperbolastic regression of type I was used to analyzes the data. RESULTS: Seniors and ICU-admitted patients had the highest risk of death. For each additional percent increase in fully vaccinated individuals, the odds of death deceased by 1%. The odds of death prior to vaccine availability, compared to post vaccine availability, was 1.27. When comparing the time periods each variant was dominant, the odds of death was 3.45-fold higher during Delta compared to Alpha. All predictor variables had P-values ≤.001. CONCLUSION: There was a noticeable difference in the odds of death among subcategories of age, race/ethnicity, sex, PMCs, hospitalization, ICU, vaccine availability, variant, and percent of fully vaccinated individuals.

Estimating Older Adult Mortality From COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to employ simulations to model the probability of mortality from COVID-19 (i.e., coronavirus) for older adults in the United States given at best and at worst cases. METHODS: This study first examined current epidemiological reports to better understand the risk of mortality from COVID-19. Past epidemiological studies from severe acute respiratory syndrome were also examined given similar virology. Next, at best and at worst mortality cases were considered with the goal of estimating the probability of mortality. To accomplish this for the general population, microdata from the National Health Interview Survey pooled sample (2016, 2017, and 2018 public-use NHIS with a sample of 34,881 adults at least 60 years of age) were utilized. Primary measures included age and health status (diabetes, body mass index, and hypertension). A logit regression with 100,000 simulations was employed to derive the estimates and probabilities. RESULTS: Age exhibited a positive association for the probability of death with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.22 (p < .05, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.42). A positive association was also found for body mass index (BMI) (OR 1.03, p < .01, 95% CI: 1.02-1.04) and hypertension (OR 1.36, p < .01, 95% CI: 1.09-1.66) for the at best case. Diabetes was significant but only for the at best case. DISCUSSION: This study found mortality increased with age and was notable for the 74-79 age group for the at best case and the 70-79 age group of the at worst case. Obesity was also important and suggested a higher risk for mortality. Hypertension also exhibited greater risk but the increase was minimal. Given the volume of information and misinformation, these findings can be applied by health professionals, gerontologists, social workers, and local policymakers to better inform older adults about mortality risks and, in the process, reestablish public trust.

Tracking COVID-19 in the United States With Surveillance of Aggregate Cases and Deaths.

Early during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) leveraged an existing surveillance system infrastructure to monitor COVID-19 cases and deaths in the United States. Given the time needed to report individual-level (also called line-level) COVID-19 case and death data containing detailed information from individual case reports, CDC designed and implemented a new aggregate case surveillance system to inform emergency response decisions more efficiently, with timelier indicators of emerging areas of concern. We describe the processes implemented by CDC to operationalize this novel, multifaceted aggregate surveillance system for collecting COVID-19 case and death data to track the spread and impact of the SARS-CoV-2 virus at national, state, and county levels. We also review the processes established to acquire, process, and validate the aggregate number of cases and deaths due to COVID-19 in the United States at the county and jurisdiction levels during the pandemic. These processes include time-saving tools and strategies implemented to collect and validate authoritative COVID-19 case and death data from jurisdictions, such as web scraping to automate data collection and algorithms to identify and correct data anomalies. This topical review highlights the need to prepare for future emergencies, such as novel disease outbreaks, by having an event-agnostic aggregate surveillance system infrastructure in place to supplement line-level case reporting for near-real-time situational awareness and timely data.

Engagement With the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Coronavirus Self-Checker and Guidance Provided to Users in the United States From March 23, 2020, to April 19, 2021: Thematic and Trend Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States experienced surges in healthcare needs, which challenged capacity throughout the healthcare system. Stay-at-home orders in many jurisdictions, cancellation of elective procedures, and closures of outpatient medical offices disrupted patient access to care. To inform symptomatic persons about when to seek care and potentially help alleviate the burden on the healthcare system, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and partners developed the CDC Coronavirus Self-Checker ("Self-Checker"). This interactive tool assists individuals seeking information about COVID-19 to determine the appropriate level of care by asking demographic, clinical, and nonclinical questions during an online "conversation." OBJECTIVE: This paper describes user characteristics, trends in use, and recommendations delivered by the Self-Checker between March 23, 2020, and April 19, 2021, for pursuing appropriate levels of medical care depending on the severity of user symptoms. METHODS: User characteristics and trends in completed conversations that resulted in a care message were analyzed. Care messages delivered by the Self-Checker were manually classified into three overarching conversation themes: (1) seek care immediately; (2) take no action, or stay home and self-monitor; and (3) conversation redirected. Trends in 7-day averages of conversations and COVID-19 cases were examined with development and marketing milestones that potentially impacted Self-Checker user engagement. RESULTS: Among 16,718,667 completed conversations, the Self-Checker delivered recommendations for 69.27% (n=11,580,738) of all conversations to "take no action, or stay home and self-monitor"; 28.8% (n=4,822,138) of conversations to "seek care immediately"; and 1.89% (n=315,791) of conversations were redirected to other resources without providing any care advice. Among 6.8 million conversations initiated for self-reported sick individuals without life-threatening symptoms, 59.21% resulted in a recommendation to "take no action, or stay home and self-monitor." Nearly all individuals (99.8%) who were not sick were also advised to "take no action, or stay home and self-monitor." CONCLUSIONS: The majority of Self-Checker conversations resulted in advice to take no action, or stay home and self-monitor. This guidance may have reduced patient volume on the medical system; however, future studies evaluating patients' satisfaction, intention to follow the care advice received, course of action, and care modality pursued could clarify the impact of the Self-Checker and similar tools during future public health emergencies.

Utilizing Community Based Participatory Research Methods in Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx Communities in the US: The CDC Minority HIV Research Initiative (MARI-Round 4).

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Minority HIV Research Initiative (MARI) funded 8 investigators in 2016 to develop HIV prevention and treatment interventions in highly affected communities. We describe MARI studies who used community-based participatory research methods to inform the development of interventions in Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx communities focused on sexual minority men (SMM) or heterosexual populations. Each study implemented best practice strategies for engaging with communities, informing recruitment strategies, navigating through the impacts of COVID-19, and disseminating findings. Best practice strategies common to all MARI studies included establishing community advisory boards, engaging community members in all stages of HIV research, and integrating technology to sustain interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Implementing community-informed approaches is crucial to intervention uptake and long-term sustainability in communities of color. MARI investigators' research studies provide a framework for developing effective programs tailored to reducing HIV-related racial/ethnic disparities.

International Travel Vaccine Recommendations for Children.

Children are at risk of contracting diseases while traveling internationally. Beyond the importance of receiving routine vaccinations, physicians should also discuss with parents the effectiveness of vaccination as a strategy to protect their child against disease before travel. This article (1) explores the universally recommended routine vaccines that are particularly important for children to be up to date before travel (ie, measles, mumps, rubella; hepatitis A and B; polio; meningococcal; coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]; and influenza) and (2) explains the travel-specific vaccination recommendations (ie, dengue, cholera, typhoid, tick-borne encephalitis, yellow fever, Japanese encephalitis, and rabies). Physicians can encourage parents to consult the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website for travel vaccine recommendations (https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel). Children must remain up to date on universally recommended vaccines and receive the appropriate vaccines before international travel to prevent serious illness and limit the spread of diseases in the United States. [Pediatr Ann. 2023;52(3):e106-e113.].

Effect of Predeparture Testing on Postarrival SARS-CoV-2-Positive Test Results Among International Travelers - CDC Traveler-Based Genomic Surveillance Program, Four U.S. Airports, March-September 2022.

Beginning December 6, 2021, all international air passengers boarding flights to the United States were required to show either a negative result from a SARS-CoV-2 viral test taken ≤1 day before departure or proof of recovery from COVID-19 within the preceding 90 days (1). As of June 12, 2022, predeparture testing was no longer mandatory but remained recommended by CDC (2,3). Various modeling studies have estimated that predeparture testing the day before or the day of air travel reduces transmission or importation of SARS-CoV-2 by 31%-76% (4-7). Postarrival SARS-CoV-2 pooled testing data from CDC's Traveler-based Genomic Surveillance program were used to compare SARS-CoV-2 test results among volunteer travelers arriving at four U.S. airports during two 12-week periods: March 20-June 11, 2022, when predeparture testing was required, and June 12-September 3, 2022, when predeparture testing was not required. In a multivariable logistic regression model, pooled nasal swab specimens collected during March 20-June 11 were 52% less likely to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 than were those collected during June 12-September 3, after adjusting for COVID-19 incidence in the flight's country of origin, sample pool size, and collection airport (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.39-0.58) (p<0.001). These findings support predeparture testing as a tool for reducing travel-associated SARS-CoV-2 transmission and provide important real-world evidence that can guide decisions for future outbreaks and pandemics.

Views on increased federal access to state and local National Syndromic Surveillance Program data: a nominal group technique study with state and local epidemiologists.

BACKGROUND: US public health authorities use syndromic surveillance to monitor and detect public health threats, conditions, and trends in near real-time. Nearly all US jurisdictions that conduct syndromic surveillance send their data to the National Syndromic Surveillance Program (NSSP), operated by the US. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, current data sharing agreements limit federal access to state and local NSSP data to only multi-state regional aggregations. This limitation was a significant challenge for the national response to COVID-19. This study seeks to understand state and local epidemiologists' views on increased federal access to state NSSP data and identify policy opportunities for public health data modernization. METHODS: In September 2021, we used a virtual, modified nominal group technique with twenty regionally diverse epidemiologists in leadership positions and three individuals representing national public health organizations. Participants individually generated ideas on benefits, concerns, and policy opportunities relating to increased federal access to state and local NSSP data. In small groups, participants clarified and grouped the ideas into broader themes with the assistance of the research team. An web-based survey was used to evaluate and rank the themes using five-point Likert importance questions, top-3 ranking questions, and open-ended response questions. RESULTS: Participants identified five benefit themes for increased federal access to jurisdictional NSSP data, with the most important being improved cross-jurisdiction collaboration (mean Likert = 4.53) and surveillance practice (4.07). Participants identified nine concern themes, with the most important concerns being federal actors using jurisdictional data without notice (4.60) and misinterpretation of data (4.53). Participants identified eleven policy opportunities, with the most important being involving state and local partners in analysis (4.93) and developing communication protocols (4.53). CONCLUSION: These findings identify barriers and opportunities to federal-state-local collaboration critical to current data modernization efforts. Syndromic surveillance considerations warrant data-sharing caution. However, identified policy opportunities share congruence with existing legal agreements, suggesting that syndromic partners are closer to agreement than they might realize. Moreover, several policy opportunities (i.e., including state and local partners in data analysis and developing communication protocols) received consensus support and provide a promising path forward.