1
|
Rosenblum HG, Gargano JW, Cleveland AA, Dahl RM, Park IU, Whitney E, Castilho JL, Sackey E, Niccolai LM, Brackney M, Debess E, Ehlers S, Bennett NM, Kurtz R, Unger ER, Markowitz LE. U.S. Women with Invasive Cervical Cancer: Characteristics and Potential Barriers to Prevention. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2024. [PMID: 38608239 DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2023.0462] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/14/2024] Open
Abstract
Objectives: Although invasive cervical cancer (ICC) rates have declined since the advent of screening, the annual age-adjusted ICC rate in the United States remains 7.5 per 100,000 women. Failure of recommended screening and management often precedes ICC diagnoses. The study aimed to evaluate characteristics of women with incident ICC, including potential barriers to accessing preventive care. Materials and Methods: We abstracted medical records for patients with ICC identified during 2008-2020 in five U.S. population-based surveillance sites covering 1.5 million women. We identified evidence of adverse social and medical conditions, including uninsured/underinsured, language barrier, substance use disorder, incarceration, serious mental illness, severe obesity, or pregnancy at diagnosis. We calculated descriptive frequencies and compared potential barriers by race/ethnicity, and among women with and without symptoms at diagnosis using chi-square tests. Results: Among 1,606 women with ICC (median age: 49 years; non-White: 47.4%; stage I: 54.7%), the majority (68.8%) presented with symptoms. Forty-six percent of women had at least one identified potential barrier; 15% had multiple barriers. The most common potential barriers among all women were being underinsured/uninsured (17.3%), and language (17.1%). Presence of any potential barrier was more frequent among non-White women and women with than without symptoms (p < 0.05). Conclusions: In this population-based descriptive study of women with ICC, we identified adverse circumstances that might have prevented women from seeking screening and treatment to prevent cancer. Interventions to increase appropriate cervical cancer screening and management are critical for reducing cervical cancer rates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hannah G Rosenblum
- Epidemic Intelligence Service, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, Georgia, USA
- National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Julia W Gargano
- National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Angela A Cleveland
- National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Rebecca M Dahl
- National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Ina U Park
- Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Erin Whitney
- California Emerging Infections Program, Oakland, California, USA
| | - Jessica L Castilho
- Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
- Department of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
| | - Emmanuel Sackey
- Department of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
| | - Linda M Niccolai
- Connecticut Emerging Infections Program, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
| | - Monica Brackney
- Connecticut Emerging Infections Program, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
| | - Emilio Debess
- Oregon Department of Human Services, Portland, Oregon, USA
| | - Sara Ehlers
- Oregon Department of Human Services, Portland, Oregon, USA
| | - Nancy M Bennett
- Center for Community Health and Prevention, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York, USA
| | - RaeAnne Kurtz
- Center for Community Health and Prevention, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York, USA
| | - Elizabeth R Unger
- National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Lauri E Markowitz
- National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Wallace M, Rosenblum HG, Moulia DL, Broder KR, Shimabukuro TT, Taylor CA, Havers FP, Meyer SA, Dooling K, Oliver SE, Hadler SC, Gargano JW. A summary of the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP) use of a benefit-risk assessment framework during the first year of COVID-19 vaccine administration in the United States. Vaccine 2023; 41:6456-6467. [PMID: 37527956 PMCID: PMC11068153 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.07.037] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/31/2023] [Revised: 07/01/2023] [Accepted: 07/18/2023] [Indexed: 08/03/2023]
Abstract
To inform Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP) COVID-19 vaccine policy decisions, we developed a benefit-risk assessment framework that directly compared the estimated benefits of COVID-19 vaccination to individuals (e.g., prevention of COVID-19-associated hospitalization) with risks associated with COVID-19 vaccines. This assessment framework originated following the identification of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) after Janssen COVID-19 vaccination in April 2021. We adapted the benefit-risk assessment framework for use in subsequent policy decisions, including the adverse events of myocarditis and Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) following mRNA and Janssen COVID-19 vaccination respectively, expansion of COVID-19 vaccine approvals or authorizations to new age groups, and use of booster doses. Over the first year of COVID-19 vaccine administration in the United States (December 2020-December 2021), we used the benefit-risk assessment framework to inform seven different ACIP policy decisions. This framework allowed for rapid and direct comparison of the benefits and potential harms of vaccination, which may be helpful in informing other vaccine policy decisions. The assessments were a useful tool for decision-making but required reliable and granular data to stratify analyses and appropriately focus on populations most at risk for a specific adverse event. Additionally, careful decision-making was needed on parameters for data inputs. Sensitivity analyses were used where data were limited or uncertain; adjustments in the methodology were made over time to ensure the assessments remained relevant and applicable to the policy questions under consideration.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Megan Wallace
- National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd NE, Atlanta, GA 30329, United States.
| | - Hannah G Rosenblum
- National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd NE, Atlanta, GA 30329, United States
| | - Danielle L Moulia
- National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd NE, Atlanta, GA 30329, United States
| | - Karen R Broder
- National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd NE, Atlanta, GA 30329, United States
| | - Tom T Shimabukuro
- National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd NE, Atlanta, GA 30329, United States
| | - Christopher A Taylor
- National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd NE, Atlanta, GA 30329, United States
| | - Fiona P Havers
- National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd NE, Atlanta, GA 30329, United States
| | - Sarah A Meyer
- National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd NE, Atlanta, GA 30329, United States
| | - Kathleen Dooling
- National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd NE, Atlanta, GA 30329, United States
| | - Sara E Oliver
- National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd NE, Atlanta, GA 30329, United States
| | - Stephen C Hadler
- National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd NE, Atlanta, GA 30329, United States
| | - Julia W Gargano
- National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd NE, Atlanta, GA 30329, United States
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Regan JJ, Moulia DL, Link-Gelles R, Godfrey M, Mak J, Najdowski M, Rosenblum HG, Shah MM, Twentyman E, Meyer S, Peacock G, Thornburg N, Havers FP, Saydah S, Brooks O, Talbot HK, Lee GM, Bell BP, Mahon BE, Daley MF, Fleming-Dutra KE, Wallace M. Use of Updated COVID-19 Vaccines 2023-2024 Formula for Persons Aged ≥6 Months: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, September 2023. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2023; 72:1140-1146. [PMID: 37856366 PMCID: PMC10602621 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7242e1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 21.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2023]
Abstract
COVID-19 vaccines protect against severe COVID-19-associated outcomes, including hospitalization and death. As SARS-CoV-2 has evolved, and waning vaccine effectiveness has been noted, vaccine formulations and policies have been updated to provide continued protection against severe illness and death from COVID-19. Since September 2022, bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have been recommended in the United States, but the variants these vaccines protect against are no longer circulating widely. On September 11, 2023, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the updated (2023-2024 Formula) COVID-19 mRNA vaccines by Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech for persons aged ≥12 years and authorized these vaccines for persons aged 6 months-11 years under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). On October 3, 2023, FDA authorized the updated COVID-19 vaccine by Novavax for use in persons aged ≥12 years under EUA. The updated COVID-19 vaccines include a monovalent XBB.1.5 component, which is meant to broaden vaccine-induced immunity and provide protection against currently circulating SARS-CoV-2 XBB-sublineage variants including against severe COVID-19-associated illness and death. On September 12, 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended vaccination with updated COVID-19 vaccines for all persons aged ≥6 months. These recommendations will be reviewed as new evidence becomes available or new vaccines are approved and might be updated.
Collapse
|
4
|
Moulia DL, Wallace M, Roper LE, Godfrey M, Rosenblum HG, Link-Gelles R, Britton A, Daley MF, Meyer S, Fleming-Dutra KE, Oliver SE, Twentyman E. Interim Recommendations for Use of Bivalent mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines for Persons Aged ≥6 Months - United States, April 2023. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2023; 72:657-662. [PMID: 37319020 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7224a3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 19.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/17/2023]
Abstract
Throughout the national public health emergency declared in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, CDC, guided by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), has offered evidence-based recommendations for the use of COVID-19 vaccines in U.S. populations after each regulatory action by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). During August 2022-April 2023, FDA amended its Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) to authorize the use of a single, age-appropriate, bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose (i.e., containing components from the ancestral and Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strains in equal amounts) for all persons aged ≥6 years, use of bivalent COVID-19 vaccine doses for children aged 6 months-5 years, and additional bivalent doses for immunocompromised persons and adults aged ≥65 years (1). ACIP voted in September 2022 on the use of the bivalent vaccine, and CDC made recommendations after the September vote and subsequently, through April 2023, with input from ACIP. This transition to a single bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose for most persons, with additional doses for persons at increased risk for severe disease, facilitates implementation of simpler, more flexible recommendations. Three COVID-19 vaccines are currently available for use in the United States and recommended by ACIP: 1) the bivalent mRNA Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, 2) the bivalent mRNA Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, and 3) the monovalent adjuvanted, protein subunit-based Novavax COVID-19 vaccine.* As of August 31, 2022, monovalent mRNA vaccines based on the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain are no longer authorized for use in the United States (1).
Collapse
|
5
|
Mac VV, Wong JM, Volkman HR, Perez-Padilla J, Wakeman B, Delorey M, Biggerstaff BJ, Fagre A, Gumbs A, Drummond A, Zimmerman B, Lettsome B, Medina FA, Paz-Bailey G, Lawrence M, Ellis B, Rosenblum HG, Carroll J, Roth J, Rossington J, Meeker JR, Joseph J, Janssen J, Ekpo LL, Carrillo M, Hernandez N, Charles P, Tosado R, Soto R, Battle S, Bart SM, Wanga V, Valentin W, Powell W, Battiste Z, Ellis EM, Adams LE. Notes From the Field: Prevalence of Previous Dengue Virus Infection Among Children and Adolescents - U.S. Virgin Islands, 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2023; 72:288-289. [PMID: 36927833 PMCID: PMC10027406 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7211a4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/17/2023]
|
6
|
Rosenblum HG, Wallace M, Godfrey M, Roper LE, Hall E, Fleming-Dutra KE, Link-Gelles R, Pilishvili T, Williams J, Moulia DL, Brooks O, Talbot HK, Lee GM, Bell BP, Daley MF, Meyer S, Oliver SE, Twentyman E. Interim Recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for the Use of Bivalent Booster Doses of COVID-19 Vaccines - United States, October 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022; 71:1436-1441. [PMID: 36355612 PMCID: PMC9707353 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7145a2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 68] [Impact Index Per Article: 34.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/20/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
7
|
Ritchey MD, Rosenblum HG, Del Guercio K, Humbard M, Santos S, Hall J, Chaitram J, Salerno RM. COVID-19 Self-Test Data: Challenges and Opportunities — United States, October 31, 2021–June 11, 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022; 71:1005-1010. [PMID: 35951486 PMCID: PMC9400539 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7132a1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/03/2022]
|
8
|
Twentyman E, Wallace M, Roper LE, Anderson TC, Rubis AB, Fleming-Dutra KE, Hall E, Hsu J, Rosenblum HG, Godfrey M, Archer WR, Moulia DL, Daniel L, Brooks O, Talbot HK, Lee GM, Bell BP, Daley M, Meyer S, Oliver SE. Interim Recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for Use of the Novavax COVID-19 Vaccine in Persons Aged ≥18 years — United States, July 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022; 71:988-992. [PMID: 35925807 PMCID: PMC9368733 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7131a2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/02/2022]
|
9
|
Rosenblum HG, Lewis RM, Gargano JW, Querec TD, Unger ER, Markowitz LE. Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Impact and Effectiveness Through 12 Years After Vaccine Introduction in the United States, 2003 to 2018. Ann Intern Med 2022; 175:918-926. [PMID: 35576590 DOI: 10.7326/m21-3798] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination was introduced in 2006 for females and in 2011 for males. OBJECTIVE To estimate vaccine impact and effectiveness against quadrivalent HPV vaccine (4vHPV)-type prevalent infection among sexually experienced U.S. females and vaccine effectiveness for sexually experienced U.S. males. DESIGN NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) conducted in 2003 to 2006 (prevaccine era) and in 2007 to 2010, 2011 to 2014, and 2015 to 2018 (vaccine eras). SETTING Nationally representative U.S. surveys. PARTICIPANTS Sexually experienced participants aged 14 to 24 years. INTERVENTION U.S. HPV vaccination program. MEASUREMENTS Participant-collected cervicovaginal and penile specimens were tested for HPV DNA. The prevalences of 4vHPV and non-4vHPV types were estimated in each era for females and in 2013 to 2016 for males. Prevalences among the female population overall, vaccinated females, and unvaccinated females were compared in vaccine eras versus the prevaccine era (vaccine impact). Within each vaccine era, prevalence among vaccinated females was compared with that among unvaccinated females (vaccine effectiveness). Vaccine impact and effectiveness were estimated as (1 - prevalence ratio) · 100. RESULTS Among sexually experienced females aged 14 to 24 years, the impact on 4vHPV-type prevalence in 2015 to 2018 was 85% overall, 90% among vaccinated females, and 74% among unvaccinated females. No significant declines were found in non-4vHPV-type prevalence. Vaccine effectiveness ranged from 60% to 84% during vaccine eras for females and was 51% during 2013 to 2016 for males. LIMITATION Self- or parent-reported vaccination history and small numbers in certain subgroups limited precision. CONCLUSION Nationally representative data show increasing impact of the vaccination program and herd protection. Vaccine effectiveness estimates will be increasingly affected by herd effects. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hannah G Rosenblum
- Epidemic Intelligence Service and Division of Viral Diseases, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia (H.G.R.)
| | - Rayleen M Lewis
- Division of Viral Diseases, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and Synergy America, Duluth, Georgia (R.M.L.)
| | - Julia W Gargano
- Division of Viral Diseases, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia (J.W.G., L.E.M.)
| | - Troy D Querec
- Division of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia (T.D.Q., E.R.U.)
| | - Elizabeth R Unger
- Division of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia (T.D.Q., E.R.U.)
| | - Lauri E Markowitz
- Division of Viral Diseases, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia (J.W.G., L.E.M.)
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Rosenblum HG, Segaloff HE, Cole D, Lee CC, Currie DW, Abedi GR, Remington PL, Kelly GP, Pitts C, Langolf K, Kahrs J, Leibold K, Westergaard RP, Hsu CH, Kirking HL, Tate JE. Behaviors and attitudes of college students during an academic semester at two Wisconsin universities during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Coll Health 2022:1-8. [PMID: 35776927 DOI: 10.1080/07448481.2022.2080504] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/07/2021] [Revised: 05/04/2022] [Accepted: 05/16/2022] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Characterize college student COVID-19 behaviors and attitudes during the early pandemic. Participants: Students on two university campuses in Wisconsin. METHODS Surveys administered in September and November 2020. RESULTS Few students (3-19%) participated in most in-person activities during the semester, with eating at restaurants as the exception (72-80%) and attending work (35%) and parties (33%) also reported more frequently. The majority wore masks in public (94-99%), but comparatively fewer (42%) did so at parties. Mask-wearing at parties decreased from September to November (p < 0.05). Students attending parties, or consuming more alcohol, were less concerned and more likely to take COVID-19-associated risks. CONCLUSIONS Students were motivated to adhere to COVID-19 prevention measures but gathered socially. Though there was frequent public masking, mask-wearing at parties declined in November and may represent pandemic fatigue. High-yield strategies for decreasing viral spread may include changing masking social norms and engaging with students about creative risk-reduction strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hannah G Rosenblum
- COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
- Epidemic Intelligence Service, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Hannah E Segaloff
- COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
- Epidemic Intelligence Service, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
- Wisconsin Department of Health Services, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Devlin Cole
- Wisconsin Department of Health Services, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
- Department of Population Health Sciences, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Christine C Lee
- COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
- Laboratory Leadership Service, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Dustin W Currie
- COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
- Epidemic Intelligence Service, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Glen R Abedi
- COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Patrick L Remington
- Department of Population Health Sciences, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - G Patrick Kelly
- University Health Services, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - Collin Pitts
- Department of Population Health Sciences, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
- University Health Services, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
| | | | - Juliana Kahrs
- University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, Oshkosh, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Kurt Leibold
- University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, Oshkosh, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Ryan P Westergaard
- Wisconsin Department of Health Services, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
- Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Christopher H Hsu
- COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Hannah L Kirking
- COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Jacqueline E Tate
- COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Rosenblum HG, Gee J, Liu R, Marquez PL, Zhang B, Strid P, Abara WE, McNeil MM, Myers TR, Hause AM, Su JR, Markowitz LE, Shimabukuro TT, Shay DK. Safety of mRNA vaccines administered during the initial 6 months of the US COVID-19 vaccination programme: an observational study of reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and v-safe. Lancet Infect Dis 2022; 22:802-812. [PMID: 35271805 PMCID: PMC8901181 DOI: 10.1016/s1473-3099(22)00054-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 80] [Impact Index Per Article: 40.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2021] [Revised: 01/18/2022] [Accepted: 01/19/2022] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In December, 2020, two mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines were authorised for use in the USA. We aimed to describe US surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a passive system, and v-safe, a new active system, during the first 6 months of the US COVID-19 vaccination programme. METHODS In this observational study, we analysed data reported to VAERS and v-safe during Dec 14, 2020, to June 14, 2021. VAERS reports were categorised as non-serious, serious, or death. Reporting rates were calculated using numbers of COVID-19 doses administered as the denominator. We analysed v-safe survey reports from days 0-7 after vaccination for reactogenicity, severity (mild, moderate, or severe), and health impacts (ie, unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, or received care from a medical professional). FINDINGS During the study period, 298 792 852 doses of mRNA vaccines were administered in the USA. VAERS processed 340 522 reports: 313 499 (92·1%) were non-serious, 22 527 (6·6%) were serious (non-death), and 4496 (1·3%) were deaths. Over half of 7 914 583 v-safe participants self-reported local and systemic reactogenicity, more frequently after dose two (4 068 447 [71·7%] of 5 674 420 participants for local reactogenicity and 4 018 920 [70·8%] for systemic) than after dose one (4 644 989 [68·6%] of 6 775 515 participants for local reactogenicity and 3 573 429 [52·7%] for systemic). Injection-site pain (4 488 402 [66·2%] of 6 775 515 participants after dose one and 3 890 848 [68·6%] of 5 674 420 participants after dose two), fatigue (2 295 205 [33·9%] participants after dose one and 3 158 299 participants [55·7%] after dose two), and headache (1 831 471 [27·0%] participants after dose one and 2 623 721 [46·2%] participants after dose two) were commonly reported during days 0-7 following vaccination. Reactogenicity was reported most frequently the day after vaccination; most reactions were mild. More reports of being unable to work, do normal activities, or of seeking medical care occurred after dose two (1 821 421 [32·1%]) than after dose one (808 963 [11·9%]); less than 1% of participants reported seeking medical care after vaccination (56 647 [0·8%] after dose one and 53 077 [0·9%] after dose two). INTERPRETATION Safety data from more than 298 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine administered in the first 6 months of the US vaccination programme show that most reported adverse events were mild and short in duration. FUNDING US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hannah G Rosenblum
- CDC COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA; Epidemic Intelligence Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Julianne Gee
- CDC COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
| | - Ruiling Liu
- CDC COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Paige L Marquez
- CDC COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Bicheng Zhang
- CDC COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Penelope Strid
- CDC COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Winston E Abara
- CDC COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Michael M McNeil
- CDC COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Tanya R Myers
- CDC COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Anne M Hause
- CDC COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - John R Su
- CDC COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Lauri E Markowitz
- CDC COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Tom T Shimabukuro
- CDC COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - David K Shay
- CDC COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Masters NB, Mathis AD, Leung J, Raines K, Clemmons NS, Miele K, Balajee SA, Lanzieri TM, Marin M, Christensen DL, Clarke KR, Cruz MA, Gallagher K, Gearhart S, Gertz AM, Grady-Erickson O, Habrun CA, Kim G, Kinzer MH, Miko S, Oberste MS, Petras JK, Pieracci EG, Pray IW, Rosenblum HG, Ross JM, Rothney EE, Segaloff HE, Shepersky LV, Skrobarcek KA, Stadelman AM, Sumner KM, Waltenburg MA, Weinberg M, Worrell MC, Bessette NE, Peake LR, Vogt MP, Robinson M, Westergaard RP, Griesser RH, Icenogle JP, Crooke SN, Bankamp B, Stanley SE, Friedrichs PA, Fletcher LD, Zapata IA, Wolfe HO, Gandhi PH, Charles JY, Brown CM, Cetron MS, Pesik N, Knight NW, Alvarado-Ramy F, Bell M, Talley LE, Rotz LD, Rota PA, Sugerman DE, Gastañaduy PA, Ahluwalia IB, Akinkugbe OA, Aranas A, Arons M, Atherstone C, Bampoe V, Bessler P, Bligh L, Bonner K, Bowen VB, Broadwater K, Brunette GW, Brunkard JM, Burns DA, Cantrell M, Christensen BE, Cope JR, Cory J, Crawford NE, Daigle D, Daly SM, Dejonge P, Dualeh M, Dunn KH, Eidex RB, Elgethun K, Fajardo G, Fonseca-Ford M, Franc K, Gaines J, George N, Goodson J, Green C, Grober AJ, Hailu K, Hammond DR, Harcourt BH, Hess A, Hesse E, Hirst DV, Hornsby-Myers J, Humrighouse B, Ishaq M, Ishii K, James A, Jayapaul-Philip B, Jentes ES, Johnson L, Johnston M, Jolley CD, Kacha-Ochana A, Kaur H, Keaveney M, Kelly HC, Krishnasamy V, Kumar GS, Larkin M, Layde M, LeBouf RF, Lee D, Lira RC, Lopez R, Lozier MJ, Macler A, Mainzer H, Malden D, Malenfant J, Marano N, Marsh Z, Mayer O, McDonald R, Mehta N, Menon AN, Meyer E, Miles ST, Minhaj F, Mirza S, Moller KM, Morris SB, Neu DT, Oakley LP, Ocasio DV, Osborne T, Ou AC, Peck M, Person M, Posey D, Pullia A, Qi C, Raziano AJ, Richmond-Crum M, Roohi S, Saindon JM, Sami S, Sanchez-Gonzalez L, Schweitzer R, Schwitters AM, Shamout M, Shockey CE, Shragai T, Singler KB, Sison EJ, Smith D, Smith M, Sood NJ, Sunshine BJ, Trujillo A, Vallabhaneni S, Wickson A, Yoder JS, Zambuto LR, Cozzarelli T, Rice M, Ricks M, Birchfield JS, Nambiar A, Avrakatos A, Ballard TP, Dennis E, Gambino-Shirley K, Huston AE, Jennings MG, Oldham DM, Rabener MJ, Fandre MN, Jablonka RJ, Love A, Peduzzi OL, Snow K, Greer JA, Hughes CA, Humphreys MA, Korduba AB, Neamand-Cheney KA, Pritchard NL, Smith AM, Whelpley JL, Adekoya S, Alexander V, Davis M, Falk J, Kurkjian K, McCarty E, Moss J, Myrick-West A, Patel C, Pruitt R, Saady D, Sockwell D, Touma A, Wheawill S, Woolard D, Young A, Griffin-Thomas L, Kelly S, McLeod J, Lambert MC, Danz TL, Davis T, Guenther K, Hanson E. Public Health Actions to Control Measles Among Afghan Evacuees During Operation Allies Welcome - United States, September-November 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022; 71:592-596. [PMID: 35482557 PMCID: PMC9098237 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7117a2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/02/2022]
Abstract
On August 29, 2021, the United States government oversaw the emergent establishment of Operation Allies Welcome (OAW), led by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and implemented by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and U.S. Department of State (DoS), to safely resettle U.S. citizens and Afghan nationals from Afghanistan to the United States. Evacuees were temporarily housed at several overseas locations in Europe and Asia* before being transported via military and charter flights through two U.S. international airports, and onward to eight U.S. military bases,† with hotel A used for isolation and quarantine of persons with or exposed to certain infectious diseases.§ On August 30, CDC issued an Epi-X notice encouraging public health officials to maintain vigilance for measles among Afghan evacuees because of an ongoing measles outbreak in Afghanistan (25,988 clinical cases reported nationwide during January-November 2021) (1) and low routine measles vaccination coverage (66% and 43% for the first and second doses, respectively, in 2020) (2).
Collapse
|
13
|
McCormick DW, Richardson LC, Young PR, Viens LJ, Gould CV, Kimball A, Pindyck T, Rosenblum HG, Siegel DA, Vu QM, Komatsu K, Venkat H, Openshaw JJ, Kawasaki B, Siniscalchi AJ, Gumke M, Leapley A, Tobin-D’Angelo M, Kauerauf J, Reid H, White K, Ahmed FS, Richardson G, Hand J, Kirkey K, Larson L, Byers P, Garcia A, Ojo M, Zamcheck A, Lash MK, Lee EH, Reilly KH, Wilson E, de Fijter S, Naqvi OH, Harduar-Morano L, Burch AK, Lewis A, Kolsin J, Pont SJ, Barbeau B, Bixler D, Reagan-Steiner S, Koumans EH. Deaths in Children and Adolescents Associated With COVID-19 and MIS-C in the United States. Pediatrics 2021; 148:peds.2021-052273. [PMID: 34385349 PMCID: PMC9837742 DOI: 10.1542/peds.2021-052273] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/28/2021] [Indexed: 01/17/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To describe the demographics, clinical characteristics, and hospital course among persons <21 years of age with a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-associated death. METHODS We conducted a retrospective case series of suspected SARS-CoV-2-associated deaths in the United States in persons <21 years of age during February 12 to July 31, 2020. All states and territories were invited to participate. We abstracted demographic and clinical data, including laboratory and treatment details, from medical records. RESULTS We included 112 SARS-CoV-2-associated deaths from 25 participating jurisdictions. The median age was 17 years (IQR 8.5-19 years). Most decedents were male (71, 63%), 31 (28%) were Black (non-Hispanic) persons, and 52 (46%) were Hispanic persons. Ninety-six decedents (86%) had at least 1 underlying condition; obesity (42%), asthma (29%), and developmental disorders (22%) were most commonly documented. Among 69 hospitalized decedents, common complications included mechanical ventilation (75%) and acute respiratory failure (82%). The sixteen (14%) decedents who met multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) criteria were similar in age, sex, and race and/or ethnicity to decedents without MIS-C; 11 of 16 (69%) had at least 1 underlying condition. CONCLUSIONS SARS-CoV-2-associated deaths among persons <21 years of age occurred predominantly among Black (non-Hispanic) and Hispanic persons, male patients, and older adolescents. The most commonly reported underlying conditions were obesity, asthma, and developmental disorders. Decedents with coronavirus disease 2019 were more likely than those with MIS-C to have underlying medical conditions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - Anne Kimball
- CDC COVID-19 Response Team,Epidemic Intelligence Service, CDC
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Heather Venkat
- Arizona Department of Health Services,CDC Career Epidemiology Field Officer Program
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Kim Kirkey
- Michigan Department of Health and Human Services
| | | | | | - Ali Garcia
- Nevada Department of Health and Human Services
| | | | | | - Maura K. Lash
- New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
| | - Ellen H. Lee
- New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
| | | | - Erica Wilson
- North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Dooling K, Gargano JW, Moulia D, Wallace M, Rosenblum HG, Blain AE, Hadler SC, Plumb ID, Moline H, Gerstein J, Collins JP, Godfrey M, Campos-Outcalt D, Morgan RL, Brooks O, Talbot HK, Lee GM, Daley MF, Oliver SE. Use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine in Persons Aged ≥16 Years: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, September 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021; 70:1344-1348. [PMID: 34555007 PMCID: PMC8459897 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7038e2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
Abstract
The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2) is a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside mRNA vaccine encoding the prefusion spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine consists of 2 intramuscular doses (30 μg, 0.3 mL each) administered 3 weeks apart. In December 2020, the vaccine was granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as well as an interim recommendation for use among persons aged ≥16 years by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) (1). In May 2021, the EUA and interim ACIP recommendations for Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine were extended to adolescents aged 12-15 years (2). During December 14, 2020-September 1, 2021, approximately 211 million doses of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine were administered in the United States.* On August 23, 2021, FDA approved a Biologics License Application for use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, Comirnaty (Pfizer, Inc.), in persons aged ≥16 years (3). The ACIP COVID-19 Vaccines Work Group's conclusions regarding the evidence for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine were presented to ACIP at a public meeting on August 30, 2021. To guide its deliberations regarding the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, ACIP used the Evidence to Recommendation (EtR) Framework,† and incorporated a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.§ In addition to initial clinical trial data, ACIP considered new information gathered in the 8 months since issuance of the interim recommendation for Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, including additional follow-up time in the clinical trial, real-world vaccine effectiveness studies, and postauthorization vaccine safety monitoring. The additional information increased certainty that benefits from prevention of asymptomatic infection, COVID-19, and associated hospitalization and death outweighs vaccine-associated risks. On August 30, 2021, ACIP issued a recommendation¶ for use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥16 years for the prevention of COVID-19.
Collapse
|
15
|
Segaloff HE, Cole D, Rosenblum HG, Lee CC, Morgan CN, Remington P, Pitts C, Kelly P, Baggott J, Bateman A, Somers T, Ruff J, Payne D, Desamu-Thorpe R, Foster MA, Currie DW, Abedi GR, Westergaard R, Hsu CH, Tate JE, Kirking HL. Risk Factors for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection and Presence of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies Among University Student Dormitory Residents, September-November 2020. Open Forum Infect Dis 2021; 8:ofab405. [PMID: 34552995 PMCID: PMC8436379 DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofab405] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2021] [Accepted: 07/29/2021] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Multiple severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreaks occurred at universities during Fall 2020, but little is known about risk factors for campus-associated infections or immunity provided by anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in young adults. METHODS We conducted surveys and serology tests among students living in dormitories in September and November to examine infection risk factors and antibody presence. Using campus weekly reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test results, the relationship between survey responses, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, and infections was assessed. RESULTS Of 6136 students, 1197 completed the survey and 572 also completed serologic testing in September compared with 517 and 414 in November, respectively. Participation in fraternity or sorority events (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.9 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.4-2.5]) and frequent alcohol consumption (aRR, 1.6 [95% CI, 1.2-2.2]) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Mask wearing during social events (aRR, 0.6 [95% CI, .6-1.0]) was associated with decreased risk. None of the 20 students with antibodies in September tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the semester, while 27.8% of students who tested RT-PCR positive tested negative for antibodies in November. CONCLUSIONS Frequent drinking and attending social events were associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Antibody presence in September appeared to be protective from reinfection, but this finding was not statistically significant.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hannah E Segaloff
- COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
- Epidemic Intelligence Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta Georgia, USA
- Wisconsin Department of Health Services, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Devlin Cole
- Wisconsin Department of Health Services, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Hannah G Rosenblum
- COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
- Epidemic Intelligence Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta Georgia, USA
| | - Christine C Lee
- COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
- Laboratory Leadership Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Clint N Morgan
- COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Patrick Remington
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Collin Pitts
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
- University Health Services, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Patrick Kelly
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
- University Health Services, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Jake Baggott
- University Health Services, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Allen Bateman
- Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Tarah Somers
- COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Jeanne Ruff
- COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
- Epidemic Intelligence Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta Georgia, USA
| | - David Payne
- COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
- Laboratory Leadership Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Rodel Desamu-Thorpe
- COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Monique A Foster
- COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Dustin W Currie
- COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
- Epidemic Intelligence Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta Georgia, USA
| | - Glen R Abedi
- COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Ryan Westergaard
- Wisconsin Department of Health Services, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Christopher H Hsu
- COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Jaqueline E Tate
- COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Hannah L Kirking
- COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Rosenblum HG, Hadler SC, Moulia D, Shimabukuro TT, Su JR, Tepper NK, Ess KC, Woo EJ, Mba-Jonas A, Alimchandani M, Nair N, Klein NP, Hanson KE, Markowitz LE, Wharton M, McNally VV, Romero JR, Talbot HK, Lee GM, Daley MF, Mbaeyi SA, Oliver SE. Use of COVID-19 Vaccines After Reports of Adverse Events Among Adult Recipients of Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) and mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna): Update from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, July 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021; 70:1094-1099. [PMID: 34383735 PMCID: PMC8360272 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7032e4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 133] [Impact Index Per Article: 44.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
In December 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, and in February 2021, FDA issued an EUA for the Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccine. After each EUA, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued interim recommendations for vaccine use; currently Pfizer-BioNTech is authorized and recommended for persons aged ≥12 years and Moderna and Janssen for persons aged ≥18 years (1-3). Both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, administered as 2-dose series, are mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, whereas the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, administered as a single dose, is a recombinant replication-incompetent adenovirus-vector vaccine. As of July 22, 2021, 187 million persons in the United States had received at least 1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine (4); close monitoring of safety surveillance has demonstrated that serious adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination are rare (5,6). Three medical conditions have been reported in temporal association with receipt of COVID-19 vaccines. Two of these (thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome [TTS], a rare syndrome characterized by venous or arterial thrombosis and thrombocytopenia, and Guillain-Barré syndrome [GBS], a rare autoimmune neurologic disorder characterized by ascending weakness and paralysis) have been reported after Janssen COVID-19 vaccination. One (myocarditis, cardiac inflammation) has been reported after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination or Moderna COVID-19 vaccination, particularly after the second dose; these were reviewed together and will hereafter be referred to as mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. ACIP has met three times to review the data associated with these reports of serious adverse events and has comprehensively assessed the benefits and risks associated with receipt of these vaccines. During the most recent meeting in July 2021, ACIP determined that, overall, the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination in preventing COVID-19 morbidity and mortality outweigh the risks for these rare serious adverse events in adults aged ≥18 years; this balance of benefits and risks varied by age and sex. ACIP continues to recommend COVID-19 vaccination in all persons aged ≥12 years. CDC and FDA continue to closely monitor reports of serious adverse events and will present any additional data to ACIP for consideration. Information regarding risks and how they vary by age and sex and type of vaccine should be disseminated to providers, vaccine recipients, and the public.
Collapse
|
17
|
Hause AM, Gee J, Baggs J, Abara WE, Marquez P, Thompson D, Su JR, Licata C, Rosenblum HG, Myers TR, Shimabukuro TT, Shay DK. COVID-19 Vaccine Safety in Adolescents Aged 12-17 Years - United States, December 14, 2020-July 16, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021; 70:1053-1058. [PMID: 34351881 PMCID: PMC8367318 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7031e1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 102] [Impact Index Per Article: 34.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
As of July 30, 2021, among the three COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the United States, only the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine is authorized for adolescents aged 12-17 years. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for use in persons aged ≥16 years on December 11, 2020 (1); the EUA was expanded to include adolescents aged 12-15 years on May 10, 2021 (2), based on results from a Phase 3 clinical trial (3). Beginning in June 2021, cases of myocarditis and myopericarditis (hereafter, myocarditis) after receipt of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine began to be reported, primarily among young males after receipt of the second dose (4,5). On June 23, 2021, CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) reviewed available data and concluded that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination to individual persons and the population outweigh the risks for myocarditis and recommended continued use of the vaccine in persons aged ≥12 years (6). To further characterize safety of the vaccine, adverse events after receipt of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and adverse events and health impact assessments reported in v-safe (a smartphone-based safety surveillance system) were reviewed for U.S. adolescents aged 12-17 years during December 14, 2020-July 16, 2021. As of July 16, 2021, approximately 8.9 million U.S. adolescents aged 12-17 years had received Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.* VAERS received 9,246 reports after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination in this age group; 90.7% of these were for nonserious adverse events and 9.3% were for serious adverse events, including myocarditis (4.3%). Approximately 129,000 U.S. adolescents aged 12-17 years enrolled in v-safe after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination; they reported local (63.4%) and systemic (48.9%) reactions with a frequency similar to that reported in preauthorization clinical trials. Systemic reactions were more common after dose 2. CDC and FDA continue to monitor vaccine safety and provide data to ACIP to guide COVID-19 vaccine recommendations.
Collapse
|
18
|
Kompaniyets L, Pennington AF, Goodman AB, Rosenblum HG, Belay B, Ko JY, Chevinsky JR, Schieber LZ, Summers AD, Lavery AM, Preston LE, Danielson ML, Cui Z, Namulanda G, Yusuf H, Mac Kenzie WR, Wong KK, Baggs J, Boehmer TK, Gundlapalli AV. Underlying Medical Conditions and Severe Illness Among 540,667 Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19, March 2020-March 2021. Prev Chronic Dis 2021; 18:E66. [PMID: 34197283 PMCID: PMC8269743 DOI: 10.5888/pcd18.210123] [Citation(s) in RCA: 153] [Impact Index Per Article: 51.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Severe COVID-19 illness in adults has been linked to underlying medical conditions. This study identified frequent underlying conditions and their attributable risk of severe COVID-19 illness. METHODS We used data from more than 800 US hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database Special COVID-19 Release (PHD-SR) to describe hospitalized patients aged 18 years or older with COVID-19 from March 2020 through March 2021. We used multivariable generalized linear models to estimate adjusted risk of intensive care unit admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, and death associated with frequent conditions and total number of conditions. RESULTS Among 4,899,447 hospitalized adults in PHD-SR, 540,667 (11.0%) were patients with COVID-19, of whom 94.9% had at least 1 underlying medical condition. Essential hypertension (50.4%), disorders of lipid metabolism (49.4%), and obesity (33.0%) were the most common. The strongest risk factors for death were obesity (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] = 1.30; 95% CI, 1.27-1.33), anxiety and fear-related disorders (aRR = 1.28; 95% CI, 1.25-1.31), and diabetes with complication (aRR = 1.26; 95% CI, 1.24-1.28), as well as the total number of conditions, with aRRs of death ranging from 1.53 (95% CI, 1.41-1.67) for patients with 1 condition to 3.82 (95% CI, 3.45-4.23) for patients with more than 10 conditions (compared with patients with no conditions). CONCLUSION Certain underlying conditions and the number of conditions were associated with severe COVID-19 illness. Hypertension and disorders of lipid metabolism were the most frequent, whereas obesity, diabetes with complication, and anxiety disorders were the strongest risk factors for severe COVID-19 illness. Careful evaluation and management of underlying conditions among patients with COVID-19 can help stratify risk for severe illness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lyudmyla Kompaniyets
- COVID-19 Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy, MS S107-5, Atlanta GA 30341.
| | - Audrey F Pennington
- COVID-19 Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Alyson B Goodman
- COVID-19 Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.,US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, Rockville, Maryland
| | - Hannah G Rosenblum
- COVID-19 Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.,Epidemic Intelligence Service, Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Brook Belay
- COVID-19 Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Jean Y Ko
- COVID-19 Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.,US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, Rockville, Maryland
| | - Jennifer R Chevinsky
- COVID-19 Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.,Epidemic Intelligence Service, Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Lyna Z Schieber
- COVID-19 Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - April D Summers
- COVID-19 Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Amy M Lavery
- COVID-19 Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Leigh Ellyn Preston
- COVID-19 Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Melissa L Danielson
- COVID-19 Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Zhaohui Cui
- COVID-19 Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Gonza Namulanda
- COVID-19 Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Hussain Yusuf
- COVID-19 Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - William R Mac Kenzie
- COVID-19 Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.,US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, Rockville, Maryland
| | - Karen K Wong
- COVID-19 Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.,US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, Rockville, Maryland
| | - James Baggs
- COVID-19 Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Tegan K Boehmer
- COVID-19 Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.,US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, Rockville, Maryland
| | - Adi V Gundlapalli
- COVID-19 Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Rosenblum HG, Lewis RM, Gargano JW, Querec TD, Unger ER, Markowitz LE. Declines in Prevalence of Human Papillomavirus Vaccine-Type Infection Among Females after Introduction of Vaccine - United States, 2003-2018. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021; 70:415-420. [PMID: 33764964 PMCID: PMC7993559 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7012a2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/02/2022]
Abstract
Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the United States (1). Although most infections resolve without clinical sequalae, persistent HPV infection can cause cervical, other anogenital, and oropharyngeal cancers and anogenital warts. HPV vaccination has been recommended in the United States at age 11-12 years since 2006 for females and since 2011 for males. Catch-up vaccination is recommended through age 26 years.* A quadrivalent vaccine (4vHPV) targeting types 6, 11, 16, and 18 was mainly used until 2015, when a 9-valent vaccine (9vHPV), targeting the same four types as 4vHPV and five additional types (31, 33, 45, 52, and 58), was introduced; 9vHPV has been the only vaccine available in the United States since the end of 2016 (2). HPV vaccination coverage has increased but remains lower than that of other vaccinations recommended for adolescents (3). A decrease in prevalence of 4vHPV types detected in cervicovaginal swabs among young females from the prevaccine era (2003-2006) to 2007-2010 in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) was an early indicator of vaccine impact (2) and was also observed in later periods (4,5). NHANES data from 2017-2018 were included in this analysis to update HPV prevalence estimates among females aged 14-34 years. From the prevaccine era to 2015-2018, significant decreases in 4vHPV-type prevalence occurred among females aged 14-19 years (88%) and 20-24 years (81%). In sexually experienced females, 4vHPV-type prevalence decreased in those who reported receiving ≥1 HPV vaccine dose (97% among those aged 14-19 years, 86% among those aged 20-24 years) and in those who reported no vaccination (87% among those aged 14-19 years, 65% among those aged 20-24 years). Significant declines among unvaccinated females suggest herd effects. These data show increasing impact of HPV vaccination in the United States. HPV vaccination is a critical prevention tool against HPV infection, anogenital warts, and HPV-attributable precancers and cancers. HPV vaccination is highly effective and is recommended routinely at age 11-12 years and through 26 years for persons not already vaccinated.
Collapse
|
20
|
Roberts SF, Hirokawa J, Rosenblum HG, Sakhtah H, Gutierrez AA, Porter ME, Long JH. Testing Biological Hypotheses with Embodied Robots: Adaptations, Accidents, and By-Products in the Evolution of Vertebrates. Front Robot AI 2014. [DOI: 10.3389/frobt.2014.00012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
|
21
|
Rosenblum HG, Long JH, Porter ME. Sink and swim: kinematic evidence for lifting-body mechanisms in negatively buoyant electric rays Narcine brasiliensis. J Exp Biol 2011; 214:2935-48. [DOI: 10.1242/jeb.053108] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
SUMMARY
Unlike most batoid fishes, electric rays neither oscillate nor undulate their body disc to generate thrust. Instead they use body–caudal–fin (BCF) locomotion. In addition, these negatively buoyant rays perform unpowered glides as they sink in the water column. In combination, BCF swimming and unpowered gliding are opposite ends on a spectrum of swimming, and electric rays provide an appropriate study system for understanding how the performance of each mode is controlled hydrodynamically. We predicted that the dorso-ventrally flattened body disc generates lift during both BCF swimming and gliding. To test this prediction, we examined 10 neonate lesser electric rays, Narcine brasiliensis, as they swam and glided. From video, we tracked the motion of the body, disc, pelvic fins and tail. By correlating changes in the motions of those structures with swimming performance, we have kinematic evidence that supports the hypothesis that the body disc is generating lift. Most importantly, both the pitch of the body disc and the tail, along with undulatory frequency, interact to control horizontal swimming speed and Strouhal number during BCF swimming. During gliding, the pitch of the body disc and the tail also interact to control the speed on the glide path and the glide angle.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hannah G. Rosenblum
- Vassar College, Department of Biology, 124 Raymond Ave, Box 731, Poughkeepsie, NY 12604, USA
| | - John H. Long
- Vassar College, Department of Biology, 124 Raymond Ave, Box 731, Poughkeepsie, NY 12604, USA
| | - Marianne E. Porter
- Vassar College, Department of Biology, 124 Raymond Ave, Box 731, Poughkeepsie, NY 12604, USA
| |
Collapse
|