Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 41
Filtrar
1.
Vaccine ; 2024 Jan 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38238113

RESUMO

During the COVID-19 vaccination rollout from March 2021- December 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded 110 primary and 1051 subrecipient partners at the national, state, local, and community-based level to improve COVID-19 vaccination access, confidence, demand, delivery, and equity in the United States. The partners implemented evidence-based strategies among racial and ethnic minority populations, rural populations, older adults, people with disabilities, people with chronic illness, people experiencing homelessness, and other groups disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. CDC also expanded existing partnerships with healthcare professional societies and other core public health partners, as well as developed innovative partnerships with organizations new to vaccination, including museums and libraries. Partners brought COVID-19 vaccine education into farm fields, local fairs, churches, community centers, barber and beauty shops, and, when possible, partnered with local healthcare providers to administer COVID-19 vaccines. Inclusive, hyper-localized outreach through partnerships with community-based organizations, faith-based organizations, vaccination providers, and local health departments was critical to increasing COVID-19 vaccine access and building a broad network of trusted messengers that promoted vaccine confidence. Data from monthly and quarterly REDCap reports and monthly partner calls showed that through these partnerships, more than 295,000 community-level spokespersons were trained as trusted messengers and more than 2.1 million COVID-19 vaccinations were administered at new or existing vaccination sites. More than 535,035 healthcare personnel were reached through outreach strategies. Quality improvement interventions were implemented in healthcare systems, long-term care settings, and community health centers resulting in changes to the clinical workflow to incorporate COVID-19 vaccine assessments, recommendations, and administration or referrals into routine office visits. Funded partners' activities improved COVID-19 vaccine access and addressed community concerns among racial and ethnic minority groups, as well as among people with barriers to vaccination due to chronic illness or disability, older age, lower income, or other factors.

2.
J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc ; 11(6): 257-266, 2022 Jun 22.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35333347

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Pediatric international travelers account for nearly half of measles importations in the United States. Over one third of pediatric international travelers depart the United States without the recommended measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccinations: 2 doses for travelers ≥12 months and 1 dose for travelers 6 to <12 months. METHODS: We developed a model to compare 2 strategies among a simulated cohort of international travelers (6 months to <6 years): (1) No pretravel health encounter (PHE): travelers depart with baseline MMR vaccination status; (2) PHE: MMR-eligible travelers are offered vaccination. All pediatric travelers experience a destination-specific risk of measles exposure (mean, 30 exposures/million travelers). If exposed to measles, travelers' age and MMR vaccination status determine the risk of infection (range, 3%-90%). We included costs of medical care, contact tracing, and lost wages from the societal perspective. We varied inputs in sensitivity analyses. Model outcomes included projected measles cases, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ($/quality-adjusted life year [QALY], cost-effectiveness threshold ≤$100 000/QALY). RESULTS: Compared with no PHE, PHE would avert 57 measles cases at $9.2 million/QALY among infant travelers and 7 measles cases at $15.0 million/QALY among preschool-aged travelers. Clinical benefits of PHE would be greatest for infants but cost-effective only for travelers to destinations with higher risk for measles exposure (ie, ≥160 exposures/million travelers) or if more US-acquired cases resulted from an infected traveler, such as in communities with limited MMR coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Pretravel MMR vaccination provides the greatest clinical benefit for infant travelers and can be cost-effective before travel to destinations with high risk for measles exposure or from communities with low MMR vaccination coverage.


Assuntos
Sarampo , Caxumba , Rubéola (Sarampo Alemão) , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Análise Custo-Benefício , Humanos , Lactente , Sarampo/prevenção & controle , Vacina contra Sarampo-Caxumba-Rubéola , Caxumba/prevenção & controle , Rubéola (Sarampo Alemão)/prevenção & controle , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Vacinação
3.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(30): 1036-1039, 2021 Jul 30.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34324478

RESUMO

Residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) and health care personnel (HCP) working in these facilities are at high risk for COVID-19-associated mortality. As of March 2021, deaths among LTCF residents and HCP have accounted for almost one third (approximately 182,000) of COVID-19-associated deaths in the United States (1). Accordingly, LTCF residents and HCP were prioritized for early receipt of COVID-19 vaccination and were targeted for on-site vaccination through the federal Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program (2). In December 2020, CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) launched COVID-19 vaccination modules, which allow U.S. LTCFs to voluntarily submit weekly facility-level COVID-19 vaccination data.* CDC analyzed data submitted during March 1-April 4, 2021, to describe COVID-19 vaccination coverage among a convenience sample of HCP working in LTCFs, by job category, and compare HCP vaccination coverage rates with social vulnerability metrics of the surrounding community using zip code tabulation area (zip code area) estimates. Through April 4, 2021, a total of 300 LTCFs nationwide, representing approximately 1.8% of LTCFs enrolled in NHSN, reported that 22,825 (56.8%) of 40,212 HCP completed COVID-19 vaccination.† Vaccination coverage was highest among physicians and advanced practice providers (75.1%) and lowest among nurses (56.7%) and aides (45.6%). Among aides (including certified nursing assistants, nurse aides, medication aides, and medication assistants), coverage was lower in facilities located in zip code areas with higher social vulnerability (social and structural factors associated with adverse health outcomes), corresponding to vaccination disparities present in the wider community (3). Additional efforts are needed to improve LTCF immunization policies and practices, build confidence in COVID-19 vaccines, and promote COVID-19 vaccination. CDC and partners have prepared education and training resources to help educate HCP and promote COVID-19 vaccination coverage among LTCF staff members.§.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19/administração & dosagem , Pessoal de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Disparidades em Assistência à Saúde , Ocupações/estatística & dados numéricos , Instituições Residenciais , Cobertura Vacinal/estatística & dados numéricos , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Humanos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia
4.
Clin Infect Dis ; 73(Suppl 1): S92-S97, 2021 07 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33977297

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccination is the most effective way to prevent influenza and influenza-associated complications including those leading to hospitalization. Resources otherwise used for influenza could support caring for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Health Center Program serves 30 million people annually by providing comprehensive primary healthcare, including influenza vaccination, to demographically diverse and historically underserved communities. Because racial and ethnic minority groups have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19, the objective of this analysis was to assess disparities in influenza vaccination at HRSA-funded health centers during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and HRSA analyzed cross-sectional data on influenza vaccinations from a weekly, voluntary health center COVID-19 survey after addition of an influenza-related question covering 7-11 November 2020. RESULTS: During the 3-week period, 1126 of 1385 health centers (81%) responded to the survey. Most of the 811 738 influenza vaccinations took place in urban areas and in the Western US region. There were disproportionately more health center influenza vaccinations among racial and ethnic minorities in comparison with county demographics, except among non-Hispanic blacks and American Indian/Alaska Natives. CONCLUSIONS: HRSA-funded health centers were able to quickly vaccinate large numbers of mostly racial or ethnic minority populations, disproportionately more than county demographics. However, additional efforts might be needed to reach specific racial populations and persons in rural areas. Success in influenza vaccination efforts can support success in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination efforts.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Vacinas contra Influenza , Influenza Humana , Estudos Transversais , Etnicidade , Humanos , Influenza Humana/epidemiologia , Influenza Humana/prevenção & controle , Grupos Minoritários , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , SARS-CoV-2 , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Vacinação
5.
Clin Infect Dis ; 73(7): e1546-e1553, 2021 10 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32766827

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: A third measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR) dose (MMR3) is recommended in the United States for persons at increased risk for mumps during outbreaks. MMR3 is also likely given to persons who might have received 2 doses of MMR but lack documentation. Since MMR3 safety data are limited, we describe adverse events in persons receiving MMR3 in a nonoutbreak setting. METHODS: Young adults with 2 documented MMR doses were administered MMR3. From 2 weeks before until 4 weeks after MMR3 receipt, participants reported daily on 11 solicited, common symptoms potentially associated with MMR. Weekly rate differences in post- vs prevaccination (baseline) were evaluated by Poisson regression. Baseline rates were subtracted from postvaccination rates of significantly different symptoms to estimate the number and percentage of participants with excess risk for symptoms post-MMR3. Descriptive analyses were performed for 3 postvaccination injection-site symptoms. RESULTS: The 662 participants were aged 18-28 years (median = 20 years); 56% were women. Headache, joint problems, diarrhea, and lymphadenopathy rates were significantly higher postvaccination vs baseline. We estimate that 119 participants (18%) reported more symptoms after MMR3 than prevaccination. By symptom, 13%, 10%, 8%, and 6% experienced increased symptoms of headache, joint problems, diarrhea, and lymphadenopathy, respectively, after MMR3. The median onset was Days 3-6 postvaccination; the median duration was 1-2 days. One healthcare visit for a potential vaccination-related symptom (urticaria) was reported. Injection-site symptoms were reported by 163 participants (25%); the median duration was 1-2 days. CONCLUSIONS: Reported systemic and local events were mild and transient. MMR3 is safe and tolerable among young adults.


Assuntos
Sarampo , Caxumba , Rubéola (Sarampo Alemão) , Anticorpos Antivirais , Diarreia , Feminino , Humanos , Lactente , Vacina contra Sarampo-Caxumba-Rubéola/efeitos adversos , Caxumba/prevenção & controle , Vacinação/efeitos adversos , Adulto Jovem
6.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(39): 1391-1397, 2020 Oct 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33001873

RESUMO

Vaccination of pregnant women with influenza vaccine and tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap) can decrease the risk for influenza and pertussis among pregnant women and their infants. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends that all women who are or might be pregnant during the influenza season receive influenza vaccine, which can be administered at any time during pregnancy (1). ACIP also recommends that women receive Tdap during each pregnancy, preferably during the early part of gestational weeks 27-36 (2,3). Despite these recommendations, vaccination coverage among pregnant women has been found to be suboptimal with racial/ethnic disparities persisting (4-6). To assess influenza and Tdap vaccination coverage among women pregnant during the 2019-20 influenza season, CDC analyzed data from an Internet panel survey conducted during April 2020. Among 1,841 survey respondents who were pregnant anytime during October 2019-January 2020, 61.2% reported receiving influenza vaccine before or during their pregnancy, an increase of 7.5 percentage points compared with the rate during the 2018-19 season. Among 463 respondents who had a live birth by their survey date, 56.6% reported receiving Tdap during pregnancy, similar to the 2018-19 season (4). Vaccination coverage was highest among women who reported receiving a provider offer or referral for vaccination (influenza = 75.2%; Tdap = 72.7%). Compared with the 2018-19 season, increases in influenza vaccination coverage were observed during the 2019-20 season for non-Hispanic Black (Black) women (14.7 percentage points, to 52.7%), Hispanic women (9.9 percentage points, to 67.2%), and women of other non-Hispanic (other) races (7.9 percentage points, to 69.6%), and did not change for non-Hispanic White (White) women (60.6%). As in the 2018-19 season, Hispanic and Black women had the lowest Tdap vaccination coverage (35.8% and 38.8%, respectively), compared with White women (65.5%) and women of other races (54.0%); in addition, a decrease in Tdap vaccination coverage was observed among Hispanic women in 2019-20 compared with the previous season. Racial/ethnic disparities in influenza vaccination coverage decreased but persisted, even among women who received a provider offer or referral for vaccination. Consistent provider offers or referrals, in combination with conversations culturally and linguistically tailored for patients of all races/ethnicities, could increase vaccination coverage among pregnant women in all racial/ethnic groups and reduce disparities in coverage.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra Difteria, Tétano e Coqueluche Acelular/administração & dosagem , Disparidades em Assistência à Saúde/etnologia , Vacinas contra Influenza/administração & dosagem , Gestantes/etnologia , Cobertura Vacinal/estatística & dados numéricos , Adolescente , Adulto , Etnicidade/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Gravidez , Grupos Raciais/estatística & dados numéricos , Estados Unidos , Adulto Jovem
7.
Infect Dis (Auckl) ; 13: 1178633720904099, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32095076

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Pregnant women are at increased risk of complications from influenza, and infants are at increased risk of pertussis. Maternal influenza and Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis) vaccination can reduce risk of these infections and related complications. Our objective was to estimate vaccination coverage with influenza and Tdap vaccines during pregnancy among women with a recent live birth. METHODS: An opt-in Internet panel survey was conducted from March 28 to April 10, 2018 among pregnant and recently pregnant women. Respondents with a live birth from August 1, 2017 through the date in which the participant completed the survey were included in the analysis. Receipt of influenza vaccination since July 1, 2017 and Tdap vaccination during pregnancy were assessed by sociodemographic characteristics, receipt of a health care provider (HCP) recommendation and/or offer of vaccination, and vaccination-related knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs. RESULTS: Less than a third (30.3%) of women with a live birth were unvaccinated during their pregnancy with both Tdap and influenza vaccines. Almost a third (32.8%) of the women reported being vaccinated with both vaccines. The majority (73.0%) of women reported receiving an HCP recommendation for both vaccines, and 54.2% of women were offered both vaccines by an HCP. Reasons for nonvaccination included negative attitudes toward influenza vaccine and lack of awareness about Tdap vaccination during pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Maternal Tdap and influenza vaccinations can prevent morbidity and mortality among infants and their mothers, yet many pregnant women are unvaccinated with either Tdap or influenza vaccines. Clinic-based education, along with interventions, such as standing orders and provider reminders, are strategies to increase maternal vaccination.

8.
Vaccine ; 38(6): 1393-1401, 2020 02 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31883808

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Annual vaccination against seasonal influenza is widely recognized as the primary intervention method in preventing morbidity and mortality from influenza, but coverage among adults is suboptimal in the United States. Safety and effectiveness perceptions regarding vaccines are consistently cited as factors that influence adults' decisions to accept or reject vaccination. Therefore, we conducted this analysis in order to understand sociodemographic, attitude, and knowledge factors associated with these perceptions for influenza vaccine among adults in three different age groups. METHODS: Probability-based Internet panel surveys using nationally representative samples of adults aged ≥19 years in the United States were conducted during February-March of 2017 and 2018. We asked respondents if they believed the influenza vaccine was safe and effective. We calculated prevalence ratios using chi-square and pairwise t-tests to determine associations between safety and effectiveness beliefs and sociodemographic variables for adults aged 19-49, 50-64, and ≥65 years. RESULTS: Survey completion rates were 58.2% (2017) and 57.2% (2018); we analyzed 4597 combined responses. Overall, most adults reported the influenza vaccine was safe (86.3%) and effective (73.0%). However, fewer younger adults reported positive perceptions compared with older age groups. Respondents who believed the vaccine was safe also reported it was effective. CONCLUSIONS: Generally, adults perceived the influenza vaccine as safe and effective. Considering this, any improvements to these perceptions would likely be minor and have a limited effect on coverage. Future research to understand why, despite positive perceptions, adults are still choosing to forego the vaccine may be informative.


Assuntos
Conhecimentos, Atitudes e Prática em Saúde , Vacinas contra Influenza , Influenza Humana , Vacinação/psicologia , Adulto , Idoso , Humanos , Vacinas contra Influenza/efeitos adversos , Influenza Humana/prevenção & controle , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Inquéritos e Questionários , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Recusa de Vacinação/psicologia , Adulto Jovem
9.
JAMA Pediatr ; 174(2): e194515, 2020 02 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31816033

RESUMO

Importance: The US population is experiencing a resurgence of measles, with more than 1000 cases during the first 6 months of 2019. Imported measles cases among returning international travelers are the source of most US measles outbreaks, and these importations can be reduced with pretravel measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination of pediatric travelers. Although it is estimated that children account for less than 10% of US international travelers, pediatric travelers account for 47% of all known measles importations. Objective: To examine clinical practice regarding MMR vaccination of pediatric international travelers and to identify reasons for nonvaccination of pediatric travelers identified as MMR eligible. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of pediatric travelers (ages ≥6 months and <18 years) attending pretravel consultation at 29 sites associated with Global TravEpiNet (GTEN), a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-supported consortium of clinical sites that provide pretravel consultations, was performed from January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Measles-mumps-rubella vaccination among MMR vaccination-eligible pediatric travelers. Results: Of 14 602 pretravel consultations for pediatric international travelers, 2864 travelers (19.6%; 1475 [51.5%] males; 1389 [48.5%] females) were eligible to receive pretravel MMR vaccination at the time of the consultation: 365 of 398 infants aged 6 to 12 months (91.7%), 2161 of 3623 preschool-aged travelers aged 1 to 6 years (59.6%), and 338 of 10 581 school-aged travelers aged 6 to 18 years (3.2%). Of 2864 total MMR vaccination-eligible travelers, 1182 (41.3%) received the MMR vaccine and 1682 (58.7%) did not. The MMR vaccination-eligible travelers who did not receive vaccine included 161 of 365 infants (44.1%), 1222 of 2161 preschool-aged travelers (56.5%), and 299 of 338 school-aged travelers (88.5%). We observed a diversity of clinical practice at different GTEN sites. In multivariable analysis, MMR vaccination-eligible pediatric travelers were less likely to be vaccinated at the pretravel consultation if they were school-aged (model 1: odds ratio [OR], 0.32 [95% CI, 0.24-0.42; P < .001]; model 2: OR, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.14-0.47; P < .001]) or evaluated at specific GTEN sites (South: OR, 0.06 [95% CI, 0.01-0.52; P < .001]; West: OR, 0.10 [95% CI, 0.02-0.47; P < .001]). The most common reasons for nonvaccination were clinician decision not to administer MMR vaccine (621 of 1682 travelers [36.9%]) and guardian refusal (612 [36.4%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Although most infant and preschool-aged travelers evaluated at GTEN sites were eligible for pretravel MMR vaccination, only 41.3% were vaccinated during pretravel consultation, mostly because of clinician decision or guardian refusal. Strategies may be needed to improve MMR vaccination among pediatric travelers and to reduce measles importations and outbreaks in the United States.


Assuntos
Vacina contra Sarampo-Caxumba-Rubéola/administração & dosagem , Sarampo/prevenção & controle , Caxumba/prevenção & controle , Rubéola (Sarampo Alemão)/prevenção & controle , Viagem , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos , Adolescente , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Humanos , Lactente , Internacionalidade , Masculino , Estados Unidos
10.
Clin Infect Dis ; 68(10): 1684-1690, 2019 05 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30204850

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Mumps is an acute viral illness that classically presents with parotitis. Although the United States experienced a 99% reduction in mumps cases following implementation of the 2-dose vaccination program in 1989, mumps has resurged in the past 10 years. METHODS: We assessed the epidemiological characteristics of mumps outbreaks with ≥20 cases reported in the United States electronically through the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System and from supplemental outbreak data through direct communications with jurisdictions from July 2010 through December 2015. Mumps cases were defined using the 2012 Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists case definition. RESULTS: Twenty-three outbreaks with 20-485 cases per outbreak were reported in 18 jurisdictions. The duration of outbreaks ranged from 1.5 to 8.5 months (median, 3 months). All outbreaks involved close-contact settings; 18 (78%) involved universities, 16 (70%) occurred primarily among young adults (median age, 18-24 years), and 9 (39%) occurred in highly vaccinated populations (2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccine coverage ≥85%). CONCLUSIONS: During 2010-2015, multiple mumps outbreaks among highly vaccinated populations in close-contact settings occurred. Most cases occurred among vaccinated young adults, suggesting that waning immunity played a role. Further evaluation of risk factors associated with these outbreaks is warranted.


Assuntos
Surtos de Doenças/estatística & dados numéricos , Monitoramento Epidemiológico , Programas de Imunização , Vacina contra Sarampo-Caxumba-Rubéola/administração & dosagem , Caxumba/epidemiologia , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Humanos , Lactente , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Caxumba/transmissão , Pesquisa Qualitativa , Fatores de Risco , Estudantes/estatística & dados numéricos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Universidades , Adulto Jovem
11.
Clin Infect Dis ; 69(2): 306-315, 2019 07 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30312374

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Measles importations and the subsequent spread from US travelers returning from abroad are responsible for most measles cases in the United States. Increasing measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination among departing US travelers could reduce the clinical impact and costs of measles in the United States. METHODS: We designed a decision tree to evaluate MMR vaccination at a pretravel health encounter (PHE), compared with no encounter. We derived input parameters from Global TravEpiNet data and literature. We quantified Riskexposure to measles while traveling and the average number of US-acquired cases and contacts due to a measles importation. In sensitivity analyses, we examined the impact of destination-specific Riskexposure, including hot spots with active measles outbreaks; the percentage of previously-unvaccinated travelers; and the percentage of travelers returning to US communities with heterogeneous MMR coverage. RESULTS: The no-encounter strategy projected 22 imported and 66 US-acquired measles cases, costing $14.8M per 10M travelers. The PHE strategy projected 15 imported and 35 US-acquired cases at $190.3M per 10M travelers. PHE was not cost effective for all international travelers (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] $4.6M/measles case averted), but offered better value (ICER <$100 000/measles case averted) or was even cost saving for travelers to hot spots, especially if travelers were previously unvaccinated or returning to US communities with heterogeneous MMR coverage. CONCLUSIONS: PHEs that improve MMR vaccination among US international travelers could reduce measles cases, but are costly. The best value is for travelers with a high likelihood of measles exposure, especially if the travelers are previously unvaccinated or will return to US communities with heterogeneous MMR coverage.


Assuntos
Doenças Transmissíveis Importadas/economia , Doenças Transmissíveis Importadas/prevenção & controle , Análise Custo-Benefício , Vacina contra Sarampo-Caxumba-Rubéola/economia , Sarampo/economia , Sarampo/prevenção & controle , Doença Relacionada a Viagens , Adulto , Doenças Transmissíveis Importadas/epidemiologia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Sarampo/epidemiologia , Vacina contra Sarampo-Caxumba-Rubéola/administração & dosagem , Resultado do Tratamento , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Adulto Jovem
12.
Vaccine ; 36(45): 6772-6781, 2018 10 29.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30243501

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The Standards for Adult Immunization Practice (Standards), revised in 2014, emphasize that adult-care providers assess vaccination status of adult patients at every visit, recommend vaccination, administer needed vaccines or refer to a vaccinating provider, and document vaccinations administered in state/local immunization information systems (IIS). Providers report numerous systems- and provider-level barriers to vaccinating adults, such as billing, payment issues, lower prioritization of vaccines due to competing demands, and lack of information about the use and utility of IIS. Barriers to vaccination result in missed opportunities to vaccinate adults and contribute to low vaccination coverage. Clinicians' (physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners) and pharmacists' reported barriers to assessment, recommendation, administration, referral, and documentation, provider vaccination practices, and perceptions regarding their adult patients' attitudes toward vaccines were evaluated. METHODS: Data from non-probability-based Internet panel surveys of U.S. clinicians (n = 1714) and pharmacists (n = 261) conducted in February-March 2017 were analyzed using SUDAAN. Weighted proportion of reported barriers to assessment, recommendation, administration, referral, and documentation in IIS were calculated. RESULTS: High percentages (70.0%-97.4%) of clinicians and pharmacists reported they routinely assessed, recommended, administered, and/or referred adults for vaccination. Among those who administered vaccines, 31.6% clinicians' and 38.4% pharmacists' submitted records to IIS. Reported barriers included: (a) assessment barriers: vaccination of adults is not within their scope of practice, inadequate reimbursement for vaccinations; (b) administration barriers: lack of staff to manage/administer vaccines, absence of necessary vaccine storage and handling equipment and provisions; and (c) documentation barriers: unaware if state/city has IIS that includes adults or not sure how their electronic system would link to IIS. CONCLUSION: Although many clinicians and pharmacists reported implementing most of the individual components of the Standards, with the exception of IIS use, there are discrepancies in providers' reported actual practices and their beliefs/perceptions, and barriers to vaccinating adults remain.


Assuntos
Pessoal de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Farmacêuticos/estatística & dados numéricos , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos , Adulto , Documentação/estatística & dados numéricos , Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Inquéritos e Questionários , Vacinas
13.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 67(38): 1050-1054, 2018 Sep 28.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30260944

RESUMO

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends that all health care personnel receive an annual influenza vaccination to reduce influenza-related morbidity and mortality among health care personnel and their patients and to reduce absenteeism among health care personnel (1-4). CDC conducted an opt-in Internet panel survey of 2,265 U.S. health care personnel to estimate influenza vaccination coverage among these persons during the 2017-18 influenza season. Overall, 78.4% of health care personnel reported receiving influenza vaccination during the 2017-18 season, similar to reported coverage in the previous four influenza seasons (5). As in previous seasons, coverage was highest among personnel who were required by their employer to be vaccinated (94.8%) and lowest among those working in settings where vaccination was not required, promoted, or offered on-site (47.6%). Health care personnel working in long-term care settings, the majority of whom work as assistants or aides, have lower influenza vaccination coverage than do health care personnel working in all other health care settings, which puts the elderly in long-term settings at increased risk for severe complications for influenza. Implementing workplace strategies shown to improve vaccination coverage among health care personnel, including vaccination requirements and active promotion of on-site vaccinations at no cost, can help ensure health care personnel and patients are protected against influenza (6). CDC's long-term care web-based toolkit* provides resources, strategies, and educational materials for increasing influenza vaccination among health care personnel in long-term care settings.


Assuntos
Pessoal de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Vacinas contra Influenza/administração & dosagem , Influenza Humana/prevenção & controle , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Estações do Ano , Estados Unidos
14.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 67(38): 1055-1059, 2018 Sep 28.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30260946

RESUMO

Vaccinating pregnant women with influenza and tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccines can reduce the risk for influenza and pertussis for themselves and their infants. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends that all women who are or might be pregnant during the influenza season receive influenza vaccine, which can be administered any time during pregnancy (1). The ACIP also recommends that women receive Tdap during each pregnancy, preferably from 27 through 36 weeks' gestation (2). To assess influenza and Tdap vaccination coverage among women pregnant during the 2017-18 influenza season, CDC analyzed data from an Internet panel survey conducted during March 28-April 10, 2018. Among 1,771 survey respondents pregnant during the peak influenza vaccination period (October 2017-January 2018), 49.1% reported receiving influenza vaccine before or during their pregnancy. Among 700 respondents who had a live birth, 54.4% reported receiving Tdap during their pregnancy. Women who reported receiving a provider offer of vaccination had higher vaccination coverage than did women who received a recommendation but no offer and women who did not receive a recommendation. Reasons for nonvaccination included concern about effectiveness of the influenza vaccine and lack of knowledge regarding the need for Tdap vaccination during every pregnancy. Provider offers or referrals for vaccination in combination with patient education could reduce missed opportunities for vaccination and increase vaccination coverage among pregnant women.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra Difteria, Tétano e Coqueluche Acelular/administração & dosagem , Vacinas contra Influenza/administração & dosagem , Gestantes , Cobertura Vacinal/estatística & dados numéricos , Adolescente , Adulto , Feminino , Pesquisas sobre Atenção à Saúde , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Gravidez , Estações do Ano , Estados Unidos , Adulto Jovem
16.
Vaccine ; 36(38): 5732-5737, 2018 09 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30107992

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Third doses of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine have been administered during mumps outbreaks and in various non-outbreak settings. The immunogenicity of the rubella component has not been evaluated following receipt of a third dose of MMR vaccine. METHODS: Young adults aged 18-31 years with documented two doses of MMR vaccine received a third dose of MMR vaccine between July 2009 and October 2010. Rubella neutralizing antibody titers were assessed before, 1 month, and 1 year after receipt of a third dose of MMR vaccine. RESULTS: Among 679 participants, 1.8% had rubella antibody titers less than 10 U/ml, immediately before vaccination, approximately 15 years after receipt of a second dose of MMR vaccine. One month after receipt of a third dose of MMR vaccine, average titers were 4.5 times higher and >50% of participants had a 4-fold boost. Response was highest among those with titers less than 10 U/ml prior to vaccination (geometric mean titer ratio = 18.8; 92% seroconversion) and decreased with increasing pre-vaccination titers. Average titers declined 1 year postvaccination but remained significantly higher than pre-vaccination levels. The proportion classified as low-positive antibody levels increased from 3% 1 month postvaccination to 24% 1 year postvaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination with a third dose of MMR vaccine resulted in a robust boosting of rubella neutralizing antibody response that remained elevated 1 year later. Young adults with low rubella titers are more likely to benefit from a third dose of MMR vaccine.


Assuntos
Anticorpos Neutralizantes/sangue , Anticorpos Antivirais/sangue , Esquemas de Imunização , Imunização Secundária/métodos , Vacina contra Sarampo-Caxumba-Rubéola/administração & dosagem , Vírus da Rubéola/imunologia , Adolescente , Adulto , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Rubéola (Sarampo Alemão)/imunologia , Rubéola (Sarampo Alemão)/prevenção & controle , Vacinação , Adulto Jovem
17.
Am J Prev Med ; 55(3): 308-318, 2018 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30054198

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Despite the proven effectiveness of immunization in preventing morbidity and mortality, adult vaccines remain underutilized. The objective of this study was to describe clinicians' and pharmacists' self-reported implementation of the Standards for Adult Immunization Practice ("the Standards"; i.e., routine assessment, recommendation, and administration/referral for needed vaccines, and documentation of administered vaccines, including in immunization information systems). METHODS: Two Internet panel surveys (one among clinicians and one among pharmacists) were conducted during February-March 2017 and asked respondents about their practice's implementation of the Standards. T-tests assessed associations between clinician medical specialty, vaccine type, and each component of the Standards (March-August 2017). RESULTS: Implementation of the Standards varied substantially by vaccine and provider type. For example, >80.0% of providers, including obstetrician/gynecologists and subspecialists, assessed for and recommended influenza vaccine. However, 24.3% of obstetrician/gynecologists and 48.9% of subspecialists did not stock influenza vaccine for administration. Although zoster vaccine was recommended by >89.0% of primary care providers, <58.0% stocked the vaccine; by contrast, 91.6% of pharmacists stocked zoster vaccine. Vaccine needs assessments, recommendations, and stocking/referrals also varied by provider type for pneumococcal; tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis; tetanus diphtheria; human papillomavirus; and hepatitis B vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: This report highlights gaps in access to vaccines recommended for adults across the spectrum of provider specialties. Greater implementation of the Standards by all providers could improve adult vaccination rates in the U.S. by reducing missed opportunities to recommend vaccinations and either vaccinate or refer patients to vaccine providers.


Assuntos
Farmacêuticos/estatística & dados numéricos , Médicos/normas , Vacinação/normas , Adulto , Feminino , Humanos , Vacinas contra Influenza/administração & dosagem , Masculino , Médicos/estatística & dados numéricos , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos
18.
Vaccine ; 36(6): 818-826, 2018 02 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29317117

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Antibodies to measles, mumps, and rubella decline 3% per year on average, and have a high degree of individual variation. Yet, individual variations and differences across antigens are not well understood. To better understand potential implications on individual and population susceptibility, we reanalyzed longitudinal data to identify patterns of seropositivity and persistence. METHODS: Children vaccinated with the second dose of measles, mumps, rubella vaccine (MMR2) at 4-6 years of age were followed up to 12 years post-vaccination. The rates of antibody decline were assessed using regression models, accounting for differences between and within subjects. RESULTS: Most of the 302 participants were seropositive throughout follow-up (96% measles, 88% mumps, 79% rubella). The rate of antibody decline was associated with MMR2 response and baseline titer for measles and age at first dose of MMR (MMR1) for rubella. No demographic or clinical factors were associated with mumps rate of decline. One month post-MMR2, geometric mean titer (GMT) to measles was high (3892 mIU/mL), but declined on average 9.7% per year among those with the same baseline titer and <2-fold increase post-MMR2. Subjects with ≥2-fold experienced a slower decline (≤7.4%). GMT to rubella was 149 one month post-MMR2, declining 2.6% and 5.9% per year among those who received MMR1 at 12-15 months and >15 months, respectively. GMT to mumps one month post-MMR2 was 151, declining 9.2% per year. Only 14% of subjects had the same persistence trends for all antigens. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of antibody decay varied substantially among individuals and the 3 antigen groups. A fast rate of decline coupled with high variation was observed for mumps, yet no predictors were identified. Future research should focus on better understanding waning titers to mumps and its impacts on community protection and individual susceptibility, in light of recent outbreaks in vaccinated populations.


Assuntos
Anticorpos Antivirais/imunologia , Imunização Secundária , Vacina contra Sarampo-Caxumba-Rubéola/administração & dosagem , Vacina contra Sarampo-Caxumba-Rubéola/imunologia , Sarampo/prevenção & controle , Caxumba/prevenção & controle , Rubéola (Sarampo Alemão)/prevenção & controle , Antígenos Virais/imunologia , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Feminino , Humanos , Lactente , Masculino , Vírus do Sarampo/imunologia , Vírus da Caxumba/imunologia , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Vigilância da População , Vírus da Rubéola/imunologia , Fatores de Tempo , Vacinação
19.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 66(43): 1178-1181, 2017 Nov 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29095809

RESUMO

In 2016, 55 jurisdictions in 49 states and six cities in the United States* used immunization information systems (IISs) to collect and manage immunization data and support vaccination providers and immunization programs. To monitor progress toward achieving IIS program goals, CDC surveys jurisdictions through an annual self-administered IIS Annual Report (IISAR). Data from the 2013-2016 IISARs were analyzed to assess progress made in four priority areas: 1) data completeness, 2) bidirectional exchange of data with electronic health record systems, 3) clinical decision support for immunizations, and 4) ability to generate childhood vaccination coverage estimates. IIS participation among children aged 4 months through 5 years increased from 90% in 2013 to 94% in 2016, and 33 jurisdictions reported ≥95% of children aged 4 months through 5 years participating in their IIS in 2016. Bidirectional messaging capacity in IISs increased from 25 jurisdictions in 2013 to 37 in 2016. In 2016, nearly all jurisdictions (52 of 55) could provide automated provider-level coverage reports, and 32 jurisdictions reported that their IISs could send vaccine forecasts to providers via Health Level 7 (HL7) messaging, up from 17 in 2013. Incremental progress was made in each area since 2013, but continued effort is needed to implement these critical functionalities among all IISs. Success in these priority areas, as defined by the IIS Functional Standards (1), bolsters clinicians' and public health practitioners' ability to attain high vaccination coverage in pediatric populations, and prepares IISs to develop more advanced functionalities to support state/local immunization services. Success in these priority areas also supports the achievement of federal immunization objectives, including the use of IISs as supplemental sampling frames for vaccination coverage surveys like the National Immunization Survey (NIS)-Child, reducing data collection costs, and supporting increased precision of state-level estimates.


Assuntos
Programas de Imunização , Imunização/estatística & dados numéricos , Sistemas de Informação/tendências , Pré-Escolar , Pesquisas sobre Atenção à Saúde , Humanos , Lactente , Avaliação de Programas e Projetos de Saúde , Estados Unidos
20.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 66(38): 1016-1022, 2017 Sep 29.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28957044

RESUMO

Pregnant women and their infants are at increased risk for severe influenza-associated illness (1), and since 2004, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has recommended influenza vaccination for all women who are or might be pregnant during the influenza season, regardless of the trimester of the pregnancy (2). To assess influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant women during the 2016-17 influenza season, CDC analyzed data from an Internet panel survey conducted during March 28-April 7, 2017. Among 1,893 survey respondents pregnant at any time during October 2016-January 2017, 53.6% reported having received influenza vaccination before (16.2%) or during (37.4%) pregnancy, similar to coverage during the preceding four influenza seasons. Also similar to the preceding influenza season, 67.3% of women reported receiving a provider offer for influenza vaccination, 11.9% reported receiving a recommendation but no offer, and 20.7% reported receiving no recommendation; among these women, reported influenza vaccination coverage was 70.5%, 43.7%, and 14.8%, respectively. Among women who received a provider offer for vaccination, vaccination coverage differed by race/ethnicity, education, insurance type, and other sociodemographic factors. Use of evidence-based practices such as provider reminders and standing orders could reduce missed opportunities for vaccination and increase vaccination coverage among pregnant women.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra Influenza/administração & dosagem , Influenza Humana/prevenção & controle , Complicações Infecciosas na Gravidez/prevenção & controle , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricos , Adolescente , Adulto , Feminino , Pesquisas sobre Atenção à Saúde , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Gravidez , Estações do Ano , Estados Unidos , Adulto Jovem
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...