DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION

Advisory Committee on 

Immunization Practices (ACIP)

Summary Report

June 20-21, 2018 

Atlanta, Georgia 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

2 

Table of Contents Page

Agenda 4-5

Acronyms 6-10

Wednesday: June 20, 2018

Welcome and Introductions 11-17

Influenza

 Introduction

 VE Update

 2017-2018 Influenza Season Vaccine Safety Update

 Narcolepsy following Adjuvanted Monovalent Pandemic H1N1 Influenza Vaccine: Results of the

SOMNIA Study

 Study Results of an Adjuvanted Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine in Young Children

 2018-2019 Recommendations

 Public Comment

 Vote

18-42

Anthrax Vaccines

 Introduction

 GRADE

 Summary of Work Group Considerations and Proposed Policy Options

 Public Comment

 Vote

42-57

HPV Vaccines

 Introduction

 Current Issues and Background

 HPV Vaccine in Mid-Adults: Results from Clinical Studies

 Considerations and Work Group Plans

57-73

Update on NITAGS

 Introduction

 Global NITAG Activities and the GNN

73-78

Mumps Vaccine

 Introduction

 Current US Mumps Epidemiology and CDC Guidance for Implementation of the ACIP

Recommendation for a 3rd Dose of MMR Vaccine During Outbreaks

78-84

Zoster Vaccine

 Introduction

 Herpes Zoster Vaccination Evaluation Update

84-87

Public Comment 87-91

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

3 

Thursday: June 21, 2018

Agency Updates

 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

 Department of Defense (DoD)

 Department of Veteran’s Affairs (DVA)

 Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

 Heath Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)

 Indian Health Services (I HS)

 National Institutes of Health (NIH)

 National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC)

 National Vaccine Program Office (NVPO) 

91-96

Japanese Encephalitis Vaccine

 Introduction

 JE-VC GRADE

 Comparative Analysis Background

 Comparative Analysis of JE Vaccination Strategies

 Summary and Conclusions

96-112

Pneumococcal Vaccines

 Introduction

 Safety of PCV13 in Adults Ages >65 Years Old

 Pneumonia Incidence in the US

 Pneumococcal Carriage, Invasive Disease, and Hospitalizations Following Community-Acquired 

Pneumonia (CAP) among Native American Populations

 Racial disparities in Invasive Pneumococcal Disease and PCV13 Impact

 Overview of the Evidence to Recommendations Framework (EtR) for the Ongoing Review of the 

PCV13 Recommendation for Adults ≥65 Years Old

112-134

Vaccine Supply 134-135

Public Comment 135-139

Certification 140

Membership Roster 141-149

Attachment A: Public Comment Letters Submitted 150-155 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

4 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

5 

 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

6 

Acronyms

AAFP American Academy of Family Physicians 

AAP American Academy of Pediatrics

ABCs Active Bacterial Core Surveillance 

ACHA American College Health Association 

ACIP Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices

ACOG American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

ACP American College of Physicians 

ADEM Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis 

AE Adverse Events

AESI Adverse Events of Special Interest 

AHIP America’s Health Insurance Plans

AI/AN American Indian/Alaskan Native 

AIM Association of Immunization Managers 

AIP Arctic Investigations Program 

Anti-HBsAg Hepatitis B Surface Antigen

Anti-PA IgG Anti-Protective Antigen Immunoglobulin G 

AOA American Osteopathic Association 

APhA American Pharmacists Association 

aQIV Adjuvanted Quadrivalent Influenza vaccine 

ARI Acute Respiratory Illness

ASTHO Association of State and Territorial Health Officers 

ATS American Thoracic Society

AVA Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed 

B. anthracis Bacillus anthracis

BARDA Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority 

BLA Biologics License Application 

CAIH Center for American Indian Health 

CAP Community-Acquired Pneumonia 

CAPiTA Community-Acquired Pneumonia Immunization Trial in Adults 

CBER Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research 

ccIIV4 Cell-Culture Quadrivalent Vaccine

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CICP Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program 

CIN2+ Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Grade 2 or Worse

CISA Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment 

CLD Chronic Liver Disease 

CME Continuing Medical Education 

CMS Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services

CNS Central Nervous System 

COI Conflict of Interest 

COID Committee on Infectious Diseases (AAP)

COPD Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

CSELS Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Science 

CSF Cerebrospinal Fluid Leak 

CSTE Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists 

CVD Cardiovascular Disease

CWF Common Working File 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

7 

CXR Chest X-Ray 

DICP Division of Injury Compensation Programs 

DMSS Defense Medical Surveillance System 

DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid 

DoD Department of Defense

DPEI Division of Preparedness and Emerging Infections 

D-QIV Fluarix® Quadrivalent 

DSMB Data Safety Monitoring Board 

DTaP Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoid and Pertussis 

DVA Department of Veterans Affairs

ED Emergency Department

EDS Excessive Daytime Sleepiness 

EGL External Genital Lesions 

EHR Electronic Health Record 

EMA European Medicines Agency 

EMR Electronic Medical Record 

EPI Expanded Programme on Immunization 

EPIC Etiology of Pneumonia in the Community 

EtR Evidence to Recommendation 

EUA Emergency Use Authorization 

FDA Food and Drug Administration

FFS Medicare Fee-For-Service 

FQHC Federally Qualified Health Center 

FUTURE Females United to Unilaterally Reduce Endo/Ectocervical Disease Study

GAVI Alliance Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation

GBS Guillain-Barré Syndrome 

GCC (Tom Harkin) Global Communications Center

GID Global Immunization Division 

GMT Geometric Mean Titers 

GNN Global NITAG Network 

GPRA Government Performance Results Act 

GRADE Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation 

GSK GlaxoSmithKline 

GVAP Global Vaccine Action Plan 

HAIVEN Hospitalized Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network 

HCAP Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia 

HCP Healthcare Personnel / Providers

HCW Healthcare Workers 

HEMU Health Economics Modeling Unit 

HELLP Hemolysis, Elevated Liver Enzymes, and Low Platelet Count 

HepA Hepatitis A 

HepB Hepatitis B 

HHS (Department of) Health and Human Services

HI Hemagglutinin Inhibition

HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus 

HPV Human Papillomavirus

HQ Headquarters 

HRSA Health Resources and Services Administration 

HZ Herpes Zoster 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

8 

IAC Immunization Action Coalition 

ICD International Classification of Diseases 

ICAN Informed Consent Action Network

ICER Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio 

IDSA Infectious Disease Society of America 

Ig Immunoglobulin

IHS Indian Health Service 

IIS Immunization Information Systems 

IIV Inactivated Influenza Vaccine 

ILI Influenza-Like Illness 

ILINet Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network 

IM Intramuscular 

IND Investigational New Drug 

IPD Invasive Pneumococcal Disease 

IPTW Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting 

IPV Inactivated Polio Vaccine 

ISD Immunization Services Division 

ISO Immunization Safety Office

IPTW Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting 

JE Japanese Encephalitis

JE-MB Inactivated Mouse Brain-Derived JE Vaccine 

JE-VC Inactivated Vero Cell Culture-Derived JE Vaccine 

JID Journal of Infectious Diseases

LAIV Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine 

LD50 Median Lethal Dose 

LLR Log Likelihood Ratio 

LTFU Long-Term Follow-Up 

MAE Medically Attended Adverse Event

MAM Mid-Adult Men Study

MedDRA Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities 

MMR Measles, Mumps and Rubella 

MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report

NMNH National Museum of National History 

MPA (Swedish) Medical Products Agency 

MSLT Multiple Sleep Latency Test 

MSM Men Who Have Sex With Men 

NACCHO National Association of County and City Health Officials 

NAIIS National Adult and Influenza Immunization Summit 

NAP National Action Plan 

NAPNAP National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners 

NAS National Academy of Sciences 

NCCPE National Certification Committee for Polio Eradication 

NBPP Non-Bacteremic Pneumococcal Pneumonia 

NCEZID National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases 

NCHS National Center of Health Statistics 

NCI National Cancer Institute 

NCIRD National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases 

NDD Neurodevelopmental Disorder

NFID National Foundation for Infectious Diseases 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

9 

NHANES National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 

NHIS National Health Interview Survey 

NHP Non-Human Primate

NIAC National Immunization Advisory Committee (China)

NIAID National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases 

NIC National Immunization Conference 

NIH National Institutes of Health

NIPH National Institute of Public Health (Poland)

NITAGs National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups 

NNDSS National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System 

NNV Number Needed to Vaccinate 

NOCD New Onset Chronic Diseases 

NP Nasopharyngeal 

NRC NITAG Resource Center

NTTO National Travel and Tourism Office 

NVAC National Vaccine Advisory Committee 

NVC National Verification Committee for Measles and Rubella 

NVPO National Vaccine Program Office 

NVT Non-Vaccine Types 

OBE Office of Biostatistics and Epidemiology

OB-GYNs Obstetrician-Gynecologists

OID Office of Infectious Disease 

OM Otitis Media 

OP Oropharyngeal 

PCR Polymerase Chain Reaction 

PCV Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine

PEP Post-Exposure Prophylaxis

PICO Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes 

PIDS Pediatric Infectious Disease Society 

PIVI Partnership for Influenza Vaccine Introduction 

PrEP Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis 

PRNT Plaque Reduction Neutralization Test 

PT Preferred Terms (MedDRA)

QALY Quality-Adjusted Life-Year 

QIV Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine 

Q-QIV FluLaval® Quadrivalent 

RA Rheumatoid Arthritis 

RAVIN Rotavirus Accelerated Vaccine Introduction Network 

RCA Rapid Cycle Analysis

RCT Randomized Controlled Trial

REM Rapid Eye Movement 

RITAG Regional Immunization Technical Advisory Group 

RIV Recombinant Influenza Vaccine 

ROA Route of Administration 

RR Relative Risk

RSV Respiratory Syncytial Virus 

RT-PCR Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction

RZV Recombinant Zoster Vaccine 

RVE Relative Vaccine Effectiveness 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

10

S. pneumoniae Streptococcus pneumoniae 

SAB Spontaneous Abortion

SAE Serious Adverse Event 

SAGE Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (WHO)

SAHM Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine 

sBLA Supplemental Biologics License Application 

SC Subcutaneous

SCRI Self-Controlled Risk Interval 

SEED Study to Explore Early Development 

SES Socioeconomic Status 

SFHR Small Fragment Homologous Replacement 

SLE Systemic Lupus Erythematosus 

SMD Standardized Mean Difference

SME Subject Matter Experts 

SOMNIA Systematic Observational Method for Narcolepsy and Influenza 

Immunization Assessment 

SQ Subcutaneous 

SSD Shared Systems Data 

SSUAD Serotype-Specific Urinary Antigen Detection 

STI Sexually Transmitted Infection 

TA Technical Assistance 

Tdap Tetanus Toxoid, Reduced Diphtheria Toxoid, and Acellular Pertussis

TIV Trivalent Influenza Vaccine

UAD Urinary Antigen Detection 

UAT Urinary Antigen Test 

UK United Kingdom

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund 

US United States

USPHS US Public Health Service 

USPRT Updating Sequential Probability Ratio Test 

US Flu VE US Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network

USUHS Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences 

VA (US Department of) Veteran’s Affairs 

VAERS Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System

VE Vaccine Efficacy

VFC Vaccines For Children

VICP Vaccine Injury Compensation Program 

VLP Virus-Like Particles 

VRBPAC Vaccine and Related Blood Products Advisory Committee 

VSD Vaccine Safety Datalink

VT Vaccine Type 

VT-CAP Vaccine-Type Community-Acquired Pneumonia 

VTEUs Vaccine and Treatment Evaluation Units 

WG Work Group

WHO World Health Organization

VIS Vaccine Information Sheet 

ZVL Zoster Vaccine Live 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

11

Nancy Bennett, MD, MS

ACIP Chair

Amanda Cohn, MD

Executive Secretary, ACIP / CDC

Dr. Bennett called to order the June 2018 Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices 

(ACIP) and welcomed those present, noting that it was her great honor to use the Stanley 

Plotkin gavel to open the meeting.

Dr. Cohn welcomed everyone to the June 2018 ACIP meeting. She indicated that the 

proceedings of this meeting would be accessible to people not in attendance via the World Wide 

Web, and welcomed those who could not attend the meeting in person. She then recognized

others in the room who were to be present throughout the duration of the meeting to assist with 

various meeting functions: Ms. Stephanie Thomas and Ms. Natalie Greene. 

She noted that handouts of the presentations were distributed to the voting ACIP members and 

were made available for others on the tables outside of the auditorium. Slides presented during 

this meeting will be posted on the ACIP website approximately two weeks after the meeting 

concludes after being made visually accessible to all viewers, including the visually disabled. 

The live webcast will be posted within four weeks following the meeting, and the meeting 

minutes will be available on the website within approximately 90 days following the meeting.

The next ACIP meeting will be convened at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC) on Wednesday and Thursday, October 24-25, 2018. Registration for all meeting 

attendees is required and may be completed online at www.cdc.gov/acip. The registration 

deadline for Non-United States (US) citizens is September 26, 2018 and for US citizens 

registration closes October 10, 2018. Registration is not required for webcast viewing. As a 

reminder for non-US citizens attending ACIP meetings, completion of several forms is required 

for each meeting at the time of registration. It is important that these forms are submitted within 

the required time frame. Stephanie Thomas, the ACIP Committee Management Specialist, will 

be able to assist with any questions about the process.

The following guests, members, Liaisons, and Ex-Officio representatives were identified:

Guests

 Dr. Joachim Hombach, Executive Secretariat, World Health Organization (WHO) Strategic 

Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE)

 Iwona Paradowska-Stankiewicz, Deputy Head of Epidemiology Department, Head of the 

Vaccine Preventable Disease Unit, Poland National Institute of Public Health (NIPH)

Call To Order, Welcome, Overview / Announcements, & Introductions 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

12

Liaison Representatives 

 James Campbell, MD, FAAP representing the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 

Committee on Infectious Diseases (COID) 

Ex-Officio Members

 Dr. John Beigel, Associate Director for Clinical Research, Division of Microbiology and 

Infectious Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), is a new 

member representing the National Institutes of Health (NIH) 

 Dr. Mary Rubin, is a substitute member representing the Health Resources and Services 

Administration (HRSA) 

 Dr. Tom Weiser, Medical Epidemiologist, Northwest Tribal Epidemiology Center, is a new 

member representing the Indian Health Service (IHS) 

Regarding public comments, Dr. Cohn indicated that topics presented during ACIP meetings 

include open discussion with time reserved for public comment. She explained that time for 

public comment pertaining to topics on the agenda was scheduled following the end of the day’s 

sessions, and that time for public comments also would be provided prior to each vote by ACIP 

to enable these comments to be considered before a vote. People who planned to make public 

comments were instructed to visit the registration table at the rear of the auditorium where Ms. 

Stephanie Thomas would record their name and provide information on the process. People 

making public comments were instructed to provide three pieces of information: name, 

organization if applicable, and any conflicts of interest (COI). Registration for public comment 

also was solicited in advance of this meeting through the Federal Register. Given time 

constraints, individuals were asked to limit their public comments to 3 minutes total. Participants 

unable to present comments during this meeting were invited to submit their comments in 

writing for inclusion in the meeting minutes.

To summarize COI provisions applicable to the ACIP, as noted in the ACIP Policies and 

Procedures manual, members of the ACIP agree to forgo participation in certain activities 

related to vaccines during their tenure on the committee. For certain other interests that 

potentially enhance a member’s expertise while serving on the committee, CDC has issued 

limited COI waivers. Members who conduct vaccine clinical trials or serve on data safety 

monitoring boards (DSMBs) may present to the committee on matters related to these vaccines,

but are prohibited from participating in committee votes on issues related to those vaccines. 

Regarding other vaccines of the concerned company, a member may participate in discussions, 

with the provision that he/she abstains on all votes related to the vaccines of that company. It is 

important to note that at the beginning of each meeting, ACIP members state any COIs. 

Detailed instructions for submission of names of potential candidates to serve as ACIP 

members may be found on the ACIP website and inquiries may be emailed to acip@cdc.gov

The deadline for consideration of ACIP applications for the Term of July 1, 2019-June 30, 2023 

is August 1, 2018. The membership process begins about a year in advance of each new term.

Dr. Bennett conducted a roll call to determine whether any ACIP members had COIs. The 

following COIs were declared:

 Dr. Belongia declared a conflict with regard to influenza due to research support from 

SeqirusTM.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

13

The Liaison and Ex Officio members introduced themselves. A list of Members, Ex Officio

Members, and Liaisons is included in the appendixes at the end of this document.

Dr. Bennett recognized the following departing ACIP members: 

Dr. Ed Belongia

Dr. Belongia has been a stalwart member of the Influenza Workgroup (WG), Chair of the Zoster 

WG, and an incredible ACIP member. He has been a critical member of the committee, is 

amazingly insightful, and takes very complex problems and breaks them down into relatively 

simple but important and critical questions. He also served as one of the leads on two extremely 

controversial topics in recent meetings. 

Dr. Laura Riley

Dr. Riley has served on the Human Papillomavirus (HPV), Cholera, and Respiratory Syncytial 

Virus (RSV) WGs and as Chair of the Adult Schedule WG. She also has the distinction of being 

the Chair of a WG that was never created, the Maternal WG. She has brought incredible 

expertise to ACIP with respect to maternal vaccination, and has clearly articulated what it is like 

for obstetrician-gynecologists (OB-GYNs) in practice to help ACIP better understand how to 

implement maternal vaccination in the US. Dr. Riley became “Ms. Zika” a few years ago. 

Ms. Cynthia Pellegrini

Ms. Pellegrini has been an incredible consumer representative. She has served on and 

contributed enormously to the Mumps, Flavivirus, Child/Adolescent Schedule, General 

Recommendations, and HPV WGs. Most importantly, what Ms. Pellegrini did that has been so 

critical to ACIP and will stay with them going forward is that she defined this position. There has 

been a lot of uncertainty over the years about how exactly a consumer representative can help 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

14

ACIP, which Ms. Pellegrini made very clear. She was never afraid to ask the hardest questions 

or “swim against the tide” when necessary.

Departing members offered the following responses on the second day of the meeting, which 

were incorporated here for continuity:

Ms. Pellegrini: This is hard, right? This is a hard group to leave, not only because you feel like 

you are doing important and valuable work, but because the people are so amazing. The 

members of this committee are like a family. We all care so much about each other. I think that 

shows in the meetings and it shows in the work as well, because it has been an incredible 

privilege to work with such a group of committed, passionate, brilliant people who care so much 

about this work and who are doing their level best day in and day out to do the right thing, who 

want to prevent suffering, who want to help people of all ages, and keep them healthy, and keep 

them happy, and keep them able to do the things that they want to do in their lives. I think this 

will always end up being one of the great highlights of my career. The CDC staff is, of course, 

without parallel. Again, a group of incredibly brilliant, committed, passionate but also 

compassionate people. It has been an amazing experience. It has been a learning experience. I 

will never be able to go to the General Muir without looking around and going, “Where is 

everybody?” Thank you all for your wisdom, for teaching me, for everything you do every day, 

and for your friendship and your caring.

Dr. Riley: Cindy always has been a very hard act to follow, so I won’t even try. But, I too would 

like to thank everybody on the committee and everybody in this room for the privilege of having 

this job for 4 years. Prior to this, I spent 4 years on the outer circle and I always was dying to get 

into the inner circle. Then it’s one of those things where once you get in, you’re like, “What have 

I been wishing for all along?” One thing that has been really special to me is that I think I have 

been impressed by how much energy and attention has been paid to pregnancy in the last 10 

years, because I think before 2009 I felt like it was a constant fight to bring any pregnancy 

issues to the forefront. Then after 2009, people woke up. Since then, there’s really been a lot of 

attention and interested paid to a very special group that has very different physiology. So, for 

that, I am very, very thankful. It has been a pleasure to be part of that. The other thing that has 

been an eye-opener to me is that I really didn’t understand the power of public health until I was 

on the inner circle. I have so much respect for the people at CDC and what they do. It’s 

incredible that you can manage to make such huge decisions for an entire country, and so that’s 

been another really important thing to me. When I think about evidence-based medicine and 

how to apply it, the funny thing is that at the end of the day, I’m sitting in this chair as a mom 

and as a black woman, and so it has a different picture for me, but it’s incredibly hard to think 

about the entire population. Thank you for that opportunity.

Dr. Belongia: It’s hard to follow two eloquent presentations. I would just say that I echo all of 

those feelings. What I said yesterday with regard to the WG also applies to my experience more 

generally as an ACIP member. It has been a tremendous privilege to be working with friends 

and colleagues, both the members and the CDC staff. I have been incredibly impressed. It’s the 

highlight of my professional career. I leave knowing that vaccine policy decisions are in really 

good hands. This is a highly functional federal advisory committee. I don’t think it gets any better 

than this. Not everybody agrees with the decisions, but I don’t think anybody can make a 

credible claim that it’s not done clearly, transparently, and openly which is how it should, in fact, 

work. I have been humbled by the challenge of turning science into policy and making tough 

decisions with incomplete data. I know that tradition will continue after I leave. I also think we 

need an ACIP Alumni Association. Thank you.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

15

Dr. Bennett: I completely agree and we’re going to make you President. Thank you all so much 

again and thank you for your service.

Dr. Cohn indicated that in addition to losing three ACIP members, they also would be losing Dr. 

Bennett after serving 7 years on ACIP. She called upon Drs. Romero and Messonnier to deliver 

an appreciation presentation for Dr. Bennett. Dr. Romero indicated that Dr. Bennett was an 

ACIP member from July 2011-June 2015 and ACIP Chair from July 2015-June 2018. As with all 

high-pressure, high-intensity positions that have the potential to change the applicant, the 

Chairmanship of ACIP is no exception. However, Dr. Bennett learned the art of leadership and 

herding cats early in her career as Chief Resident in 1984-1985 in the Department of Medicine, 

Bellevue Hospital/New York University Medical Center, New York, New York (NY). The skills 

she developed there contributed to her success as ACIP Chair. In 2006, Dr. Bennett was 

appointed Director of the Center for Rochester's Health and Prevention. Her many 

accomplishments over the last 14 years earned her the respect and admiration of a wide 

audience. Yet, many people cried “foul” when she was asked to grace the cover of 55 Plus 

Magazine many years before she met the minimum age requirement:

Dr. Romero said he would venture a guess that this is a high-impact journal based on the article 

title, “You’ve Made It: Welcome to Age 66! Big question now: Should you apply for full 

retirement with the Social Security or wait? See Financial Health column inside.” He said he was 

certain that Dr. Bennett’s contributions in public health would continue for years after leaving the 

ACIP. They will miss her and those who have come to know her well will not be surprised in the 

very least to see her image on the covers of such notable publications as Time and joining such 

icons as Mick Jagger, Elton John, and Lady Gaga on the cover of the Rolling Stone: 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

16

Dr. Romero expressed gratitude for all that she has done for ACIP and for keeping them in line.

Dr. Messonnier then recalled that Dr. Bennett started her term as Chair during a time of a lot of 

change at CDC. Dr. Larry Pickering, who was the Executive Secretary of ACIP for many years, 

retired. Dr. Anne Schuchat moved into her current role as Principal Deputy Director of the 

agency, which she held for several months during which multiple individuals served in several 

acting roles. Through that time, Dr. Bennett’s steadying leadership of ACIP was incredibly 

important. During Dr. Bennett’s tenure on ACIP, 60 votes were taken, 19 GRADE presentations

were listened to, 44 nights were stayed at the Emory Conference Center, 9 meetings ended on 

time, 1 luggage mishap occurred, and half of a meeting was cancelled for fear of a 

“Snowpocalypse.” 

Throughout this time, ACIP grappled with some incredibly challenging and complex decisions. 

For example, there was the recommendation for a live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) 

preference and then new data that led to an unprecedented change in ACIP recommendations 

over several years. During that time, ACIP also recommended pneumococcal conjugate vaccine 

for older adults with the caveat that this would be reassessed in 2018, and recommended for 

the first time a recombinant zoster vaccine with a preference as the first vote. Through all of 

these decisions, Dr. Bennett pushed ACIP to focus on the data and for ACIP members to listen 

to each other’s perspectives and public comments surrounding these decisions. Dr. Bennett’s 

time at ACIP will be remembered for her intelligence, savvy, and the grace with which she led. 

Dr. Messonnier expressed gratitude to Dr. Bennett and her husband for giving CDC/ACIP her 

time and service:

Dr. Cohn presented Dr. Bennett with a bell that came from China. Dr. Bennett was supposed to 

take a trip there to share her experience as the ACIP Chair with colleagues in China, but was 

unable to travel due to a family illness. Dr. Cohn also presented Dr. Bennett with a traditional gift 

for departing ACIP chairs, a framed poster from the childhood immunization campaign using Dr. 

Seuss, reading, “Healthy birds fly high. Healthy children smile and play. Protect kids from 

disease. Get them baby shots today. Immunization schedules have changed. Have you got a 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

17

clue? Do you know each and every time a baby shot is due? You may have questions. Your doc 

or nurse will explain. Though the names and timing have changed, the importance is still the 

same. For protection against serious disease, it’s wise to immunize. Complete the full schedule 

on time and your kids will lead healthier lives.”

Dr. Bennett thanked everyone and said she could not begin to tell them all how much this meant 

and how sad she was to be finishing her term. However, she noted that it was time for “new 

blood” and that Dr. Romero would do a fantastic job leading them forward. She shared a picture 

of the Temple of Vaccinia in England at the home of Edward Jenner, who gave cowpox vaccine: 

She visited there about six months before she took over as Chair. The people she was visiting 

in Bristol had no idea she served on the ACIP or was becoming Chair. They coincidentally took 

her to Jenner’s house, which was a wonderful event. Dr. Bennett said the reason she was 

showing this photograph was because she wanted to reflect for a moment on the work that 

ACIP does and the fact that it has such a long and amazing history, of which they are all a part. 

One reason this position has meant so much to her is because she felt like she could play a tiny 

role in the progression of vaccine science and immunization in this country. It is an incredible 

history, one that means so much to her, and one in which all members play a critical role.

She emphasized what a huge honor it had been to serve on the ACIP and participate in the 

decision-making they engage in every time they meet. She thanked the members, liaisons, Ex 

Officios, and especially CDC staff for how much she has learned from them. The other part of 

this position that was amazing to her was “standing on the shoulder of giants” like Dr. Carol 

Baker and others before her, from whom she learned every day. She expressed her deep 

gratitude for being given this opportunity.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

18

Introduction

Emmanuel (Chip) Walter, MD, MPH 

Chair, Influenza Work Group

Dr. Walter reminded everyone that during the February 2018 ACIP meeting there was a 

presentation from GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) on the results of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) 

on Fluarix® Quadrivalent for children 6 through 35 months of age, and an update on US 

influenza surveillance and vaccine effectiveness. In addition, LAIV topics included a 

presentation from MedImmune on a study of shedding and immunogenicity of LAIV4 containing 

a new H1N1pdm09-like virus; a presentation of combined US individual-patient level analysis 

and systematic review of LAIV effectiveness; and a vote for recommendation of use of LAIV4 for 

the 2018-2019 influenza season.

Since the February 2018 ACIP meeting, the WG has engaged in calls twice a month during 

which members previewed and discussed the following:

 US vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates from CDC on the US Influenza Vaccine 

Effectiveness (US Flu VE) Network and the US Hospitalized Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness 

Network (HAIVEN)

 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) study of relative effectiveness of cell-culture based 

versus egg-based vaccines

 2017-18 influenza vaccine safety surveillance update

 SeqirusTM study of quadrivalent adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine for young children

 Review and drafting of ACIP recommendations documents for the 2018-19 season 

In addition, a Maternal Influenza Immunization Sub-Working group was formed. The purpose of 

this WG is to provide advice on a study of spontaneous abortion (SAB) following inactivated 

influenza vaccine (IIV). The WG met for the first time in April to review the protocol for the 

Vaccine Safety Database (VSD)-SAB study and provided recommendations for secondary and 

sensitivity analyses. This sub-WG is ongoing.

The agenda for this session included the following topics:

 VE Update: US Flu VE Network and HAIVEN

 Relative Effectiveness of Cull-Cultures versus Egg-Based Influenza Vaccines, 2017-2018

 Influenza End-of-Season Update: 2017-2018 Influenza Vaccine Safety Monitoring

 Narcolepsy Following Adjuvanted Monovalent Pandemic H1N1 Influenza Vaccines: Results 

of the Systematic Observational Method for Narcolepsy and Influenza Immunization 

Assessment (SOMNIA) Study

 Adjuvanted Quadrivalent Influenza vaccine (aQIV) in young children

 WG Considerations; 2018-2019 recommendations

Influenza Vaccines

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

19

Preliminary Estimates of 2017-2018 Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness against 

Laboratory-Confirmed Influenza from the US Flu VE and HAIVEN Networks

Brendan Flannery, PhD 

National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Dr. Flannery pointed out that the work on the US Flu VE data analysis was performed by Ms. 

Jessie Chung, while Jill Ferdinands and Elif Alyanak provided the HAIVEN Network numbers. 

He then reviewed the preliminary estimates for this season, noting that there would not be a 

surveillance presentation as there was in February 2018 but emphasizing that 2017-2018 was a 

high severity season for all age groups based on outpatient visits, hospitalizations, and deaths. 

The 2009-2010 season reached very high severity for the indicator in children, but other than 

that there have been several seasons since the 2009 pandemic that reached high severity for 

the composite indicator. The 2017-2018 season reached high severity for the composite 

indicator for each age group and all age groups together [Biggerstaff, et al Am J Epi 2018].

There are 5 collaborating institutions in the US Flu VE Network: Baylor Scott and White Health, 

Kaiser Permanente Washington, Marshfield Clinic Research Institute, University of Michigan, 

and University of Pittsburgh. In terms of the Flu VE Network methods, enrollees include 

outpatients 6 months of age and older with acute respiratory illness (ARI) defined essentially as 

cough ≤7 days duration. The dates of enrollment for these data are November 2, 2017 through 

February 3, 2018. This analysis uses a test-negative design that compares vaccination odds 

among influenza reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)- positive cases and 

RT-PCR negative controls. Vaccination status for the interim estimate is defined as receipt of at 

least one dose of any 2017-2018 seasonal influenza vaccine according to medical records, 

immunization registries, and/or self-report. VE is calculated as 1 – adjusted odds ratio x 100%. 

Several variables are included in adjusted estimates: study site, age, self-rated general health 

status, race/Hispanic ethnicity, interval from onset to enrollment, and calendar time.

From November 2, 2017 through April 20, 2018 there were 8635 total subjects enrolled from the 

5 sites who are included in this analysis. Of these, 3097 (36%) were influenza RT-PCR positive 

and 5538 (64%) were influenza RT-PCR negative. The following pie chart shows cases enrolled 

by subtype:

A/H3N2

58%

A/H1N1pdm09

10%

A, unsubtyped

1%

B/Yamagata

30%

B/Victoria 0.2%

B, no lineage 0%

Cases enrolled by (sub)type, N=3,097

A/H3N2 (1,790)

A/H1N1pdm09 (326)

A, unsubtyped (36)

B/Yamagata (917)

B/Victoria (39)

B, no lineage (14)

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

20

There was enough A/H1N1pdm09 (N=326) to have estimates for H1N1 VE, which is notable 

because this is the first season with the A/Michigan/45/2015 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus strain. 

Though not as relevant for this presentation, the B/Victoria lineage was the trivalent vaccine 

lineage for this season.

This graphic shows the enrollment by week. During the middle part of the season, essentially 

from Week 1 to Week 9, a large number of influenza positives were enrolled:

In terms of preliminary VE against medically attended influenza, the number vaccinated among 

the influenza positive patients was 42% overall for all ages, while the percent vaccinated among 

the influenza negative patients was about 54%. The unadjusted overall VE was 38% (CI: 32% to 

43%) and the adjusted overall influenza VE was 40% (CI: 34% to 46%). The only age group that 

had a slightly higher VE was 6 months to 8 years of age at 53% (CI: 42% to 62%). All of the 

other age groups were statistically significant, with the exception of 65 and older for which the 

estimate was 20% (CI: -9% to 41%). Regarding the subtype-specific estimates, the adjusted VE 

estimate for A(H3N2) was 24% (CI: 15% to 33%) for any age group. It was higher in the 6 

months to 8 years of age group at 37% (CI: 17% to 52%), and was not statistically significant in 

any of the other age groups from 9 through 17-year olds to 65 years of age and older. For 

A(H1N1)pdm09, the overall VE was 65% (CI: 55% to 73%). The estimates were higher for all 

age groups, with the exception of those 65 years of age and older that had an estimate that was 

not statistically significant. For influenza B/Yamagata, the overall estimate for all ages was 49% 

(CI: 40% to 56%). Again, the VE for those 65 years of age and older was not statistically 

significant. While there is not an adjusted estimated for influenza B/Victoria, the crude estimate 

does not suggest that there is very large difference between B/Yamagata and B/Victoria this 

season.

Turning to the HAIVEN Network, the 4 sites include: Baylor Scott and White Health, University 

of Michigan, University of Pittsburgh, and Vanderbilt University Hospital. Enrollees include 

inpatients 18 years of age and older with ARI with new or worsening cough or sputum 

production ≤10 days duration. The dates of enrollment are from October 6, 2017 through April 

28, 2018, slightly wider than the dates for the Flu VE Network. This analysis uses a testnegative design that compares vaccination odds of influenza among vaccinated and 

unvaccinated enrollees. Vaccination status for the interim estimate is defined as receipt of at 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

21

least one dose of any 2017-2018 seasonal influenza vaccine according to self-report. VE is 

calculated as 1 – adjusted odds ratio x 100%. Several variables are included in adjusted 

estimates: age, site, days from illness onset to specimen collection, timing of illness onset, 

home oxygen use, and number of self-reported hospitalizations in the prior year.

Included in this analysis were 3597 subjects enrolled from October 6, 2017 through April 28, 

2018 at 4 sites (10 hospitals). Of those enrolled, 856 (24%) tested positive for influenza by RTPCR and 2741 (76%) test negative by RT-PCR. This pie graph is similar to what was seen in 

the Flu VE network, with a very similar distribution of the positives by subtype and lineage:

The percentage of all positives for B/Yamagata was slightly lower than for the outpatient setting, 

while A/H1N1 was very similar to the outpatient setting. The distribution of positives and 

negatives enrolled by week also was very similar to the outpatient setting, except that the 

percentage positive reached only 35% at the peak. This is actually very high for inpatients with 

this sensitive definition of ARI. There also was some positivity for influenza B. 

In terms of VE against influenza hospitalization, the overall VE against any influenza in adults 

was 22% (CI: 8% to 35%). This was statistically significant only in those 50 to 64 years of age at 

32% (CI: 9% to 49%), but all of the estimates were quite similar. For influenza A(H3N2), the 

overall VE estimate was not statistically significant at 16% (CI: -5% to 32%). Again, the VE 

estimate was statistically significant only for those 50 to 64 years of age at 33% (CI: 2% to 

54%). All of these estimates are quite low. For influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, the overall VE 

estimate was 58% (CI: 36% to 73%). The overall VE estimate for those 65 years of age and 

older was 69% (CI: 34% to 85%). Recalling the ≥65 age group in the US Flu VE ambulatory 

data, the estimates were disappointing in the outpatient setting. For some reason that is not yet 

understood, this actually looks very good in the ≥65 age group in the in-patient setting. For 

influenza B/Yamagata in the inpatient setting, the overall VE estimate was 35% (CI: 11% to 

52%) with very similar estimates by age group, though none were statistically significant.

By having preliminary end-of-season estimates in June for outpatient and inpatient VE 

networks, it is now possible to compare the results for adults. The VE estimates among 

inpatients and outpatients were very similar. The take-home message is that the vaccine 

provides protection not only against outpatient influenza illness, but also against more severe 

inpatient disease in adults. The estimates for inpatients for those 18 to 49 and ≥65 years of age 

were not significant, but the point estimates and confidence intervals suggest that these 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

22

estimates are very similar for inpatients and outpatients. Vaccine provided very similar 

protection against inpatient and outpatient disease in adults against A(H3N2), although 

disappointing, but was much higher in A(H1N1)pdm09 and B/Yamagata for all adult age groups.

In summary, 2017-2018 was an influenza season with high severity. A(H3N2) viruses were the 

predominant circulating virus. Influenza vaccination reduced outpatient visits for influenzaassociated ARI by 40% (CI: 34% to 46%) among persons aged 6 months and older. Among 

adults, VE estimates were similar for outpatients and inpatients. Vaccination reduced influenzaassociated hospitalization among adults by 22% (CI: 8% to 35%). VE estimates against 

A(H1N1)pdm09 (65%) and B/Yamagata (49%) viruses were higher than VE against A(H3N2) 

viruses (24%), similar to previous seasons. Final VE results will include VE by vaccine type 

(standard dose versus high dose IIVs for patients aged ≥65 years) and effects of prior season 

vaccination. Averted burden estimates will be available in the Fall for the 2017-2018 season and 

are expected to be greater than what was observed in 2016-2017. The comparative estimates 

for vaccine coverage and VE for 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 seasons are shown in the upper 

right of the following graphic. Based on models that CDC has developed, the estimates are very 

similar and it is known that the actual burden of influenza was much higher in the 2017-2018 

season, so higher numbers are expected for averted burden than were observed in the 2016-

2017 season:

CDC continues to try to enhance work towards better vaccines and to expand the evidence 

base, especially for the low VE for the H3N2 virus. Some of the ongoing work includes 

investigation into the immunologic basis of influenza vaccine failures, including the initiation of 

collection of acute and convalescent sera from a subset of influenza cases in US VE Network 

and HAIVEN. One gap in knowledge is the response to natural infections as well as the acute 

phase response in vaccinated people, which will help to understand vaccine failures. The 

second activity is increased funding to expand enrollment for US Flu VE and HAIVEN Networks. 

This will allow for collection of more data, especially by vaccine type, in the 2017-2018 season. 

That is related to the next activity to expand the evidence base for the contribution of antigen 

dose, especially in 65 and older, and adjuvants. CDC also hopes to better understand the 

effects of egg-adaptive changes on VE, which has received a lot of attention from ACIP and the 

media this year, and determining the differences between egg-based and non-egg vaccines. 

There are currently too few non-egg vaccines being used in the Flu VE Networks to be able to 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

23

provide estimates at this time. Finally, a much larger effort at CDC is ongoing to engineer 

optimal vaccine viruses that have fewer disruptive egg-adaptive changes.

Relative Effectiveness of Cell-Cultured versus Egg-Based Influenza Vaccines, 2017-2018

Yun Lu, PhD on behalf of the FDA, CMS, and Acumen Team

Office of Biostatistics and Epidemiology

Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research

Food and Drug Administration

Dr. Lu presented results from a study on the relative effectiveness of cell-cultured versus eggbased influenza vaccines for the 2017-2018 season. This was the joint work of the FDA, Center 

for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS), and Acumen. A CDC-sponsored interim analysis of the 

A(H3N2)-dominated 2017-2018 influenza season showed a low VE of 18% among individuals 

ages ≥65 years in the US. Because most of the influenza vaccines were prepared in chicken 

eggs, one hypothesis is that egg-adaptation led to lower VE during 2017-2018.

Therefore, the FDA/CMS/Acumen study examined the relative effectiveness of inactivated 

influenza vaccines prepared in mammalian cells (cell-cultured) versus embryonated chicken 

eggs (egg-based) among Medicare beneficiaries ages ≥65 years. The observation period was 

from August 6, 2017 to April 20, 2018. The exposures included 5 types of influenza vaccines: 

cell-cultured quadrivalent, egg-based quadrivalent, egg-based high-dose trivalent, egg-based 

adjuvanted, and egg-based standard-dose trivalent. The study population included Medicare 

fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries who received the cell-cultured or any of four egg-based 

influenza vaccinations. The primary outcome was influenza hospital encounters (inpatient + 

emergency department (ED)), while the secondary outcome was influenza-related office visits, 

with related influenza diagnostic testing plus a prescription of antiviral treatment. The post-hoc 

outcome was influenza inpatient hospitalizations only. All outcomes were monitored during high 

influenza circulation periods.

In terms of the selection process for beneficiaries included in the study, inclusion and exclusion 

criteria were applied to a base population of beneficiaries who received any of the five types of 

influenza vaccines within the specified time period for the season from August 6, 2017 to 

January 31, 2018. Beneficiaries had to be at least 65 years of age with continuous Medicare 

Part A/B enrollment for the 6 months prior to their vaccination date, had to have received only 

one influenza vaccine type on the index day, were not in a nursing home facility on vaccination 

day, did not receive any influenza vaccine prior to index date in the season, and had to reside in 

one of the 10 Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regions. This selection process 

resulted in the following final study populations:

 Cell-Cultured Quadrivalent (ccIIV4): N= 653,099

 Egg-Based Quadrivalent (IIV4): N= 1,844,745

 Egg-Based High-Dose Trivalent (IIV3-HD): N= 8,449,508

 Egg-Based Adjuvanted (aIIV3): N= 1,465,747

 Egg-Based Standard-Dose Trivalent (IIV3): N= 1,007,082

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

24

To make sure that the 5 vaccine cohorts were comparable, standardized mean differences 

(SMDs) were used to determine the cohort balance for 62 covariates. Approximately half of the 

62 demographics and health utilization covariates were initially imbalanced. Stabilized inverse 

probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to address imbalance in all measured 

covariates. Following IPTW, cohort balance was achieved with SMDs <0.05 for all covariates. 

This table shows selected covariates that initially were imbalanced before weighting, with those 

having the largest imbalance shown in red:

Covariates ccIIV4 IIV4 IIV3-

HD

aIIV3 IIV3 PreWeight 

Max 

SMD

PostWeight 

Max 

SMD

Vaccinated at 

Pharmacy

19.2% 9.2% 44.4% 67.5% 11.7% 1.39 0.03

Dual Eligible 13.3% 11.3% 6.9% 6.8% 16.3% 0.22 0.05

Month of 

Vaccination: 

August & 

September

27.4% 26.1% 33.6% 30.9% 22.6% 0.25 0.03

No Prior 

Outpatient NonER Visits

43.5% 32.2% 36.9% 40.4% 37.5% 0.14 0.02

To address potential sources of bias, IPTW was used to address imbalance in all measured 

covariates. IPTW did not necessarily address imbalance for unmeasured potential confounders, 

an issue often found when real-world data are used. IPTW adjusted relative vaccine 

effectiveness (RVE) was obtained using univariate Poisson regression.

Regarding the study results, IPTW adjusted Poisson regression RVE was used for both the 2- 

and 5-vaccine comparisons. The egg-based quadrivalent vaccine cohort was used as the 

reference group. Cell-cultured quadrivalent vaccine had about 10% RVE for both primary and 

secondary outcomes. For the 2-vaccine comparison sensitivity analysis, all outcomes had 

similar results. For the 5-vaccine comparison sensitivity analysis, the primary outcome had 

similar results. Both the cell-cultured and egg-based high-dose cohorts had better VE compared 

with the egg-based quadrivalent cohort. The results were not very sensitive to the two sensitivity 

analyses for the hospital encounters. However, the results were inconsistent for the office visit 

outcomes. There are possible differences with regard to different health-seeking behaviors, so 

analyses are currently being performed to investigate the office-based outcome and to compare 

pharmacy with a non-pharmacy cohort.

Regarding the strengths of the analyses, these real-world data include nearly all of the actual 

vaccine recipients ages ≥65 nationally. Data reflect the exposure and outcome experiences 

during routine clinical practice. Unlike clinical trials, Medicare beneficiaries have a wider range 

of health conditions. The large dataset provides power to detect small but clinically relevant 

differences and analyze rare serious outcomes. However, there also are limitations. Real-world 

data are not collected or organized with the goal of supporting research, nor have they typically 

been optimized for such purposes1

. There is a potential for exposure and outcome 

misclassification, as well as unmeasured confounding even after adjusting for measured 

covariates. Influenza-related office visit results were inconsistent. There was no virologic case 

confirmation, and it is not possible to differentiate between A(H3N2), A(H1N1), or B infections. 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

25

There were processing delays for exposure and outcome codes [N Engl J Med 2016; 375:2293-

2297 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsb1609216].

To summarize, in this analysis, the cell-cultured and high-dose vaccines were marginally more 

effective than the egg-based quadrivalent vaccines for hospital outcomes among US people ≥65 

years during the 2017-2018 season. Cell-cultured vaccines were 10.7% (95% CI 7.5, 13.7) 

more effective. High-dose vaccines were 8.4% (95% CI 6.6, 10.1) more effective. These 

findings contribute to a growing evidence base about new and enhanced vaccines compared to 

traditional vaccines. This is the first comparison of several new and enhanced vaccines to both 

egg-based traditional vaccines and to each other. RVE will continue to be monitored for 

additional seasons. Findings from this single observational study should be considered as part 

of the entire body of evidence. While cell-cultured and high-dose influenza vaccines appear to 

offer some additional benefit to older adults, further efforts are needed to improve influenza 

vaccine effectiveness. RVE could vary from season-to-season, so data from more seasons are 

needed. The results from similar studies conducted in different settings or health systems would 

provide important context for these results. Investigators continue to investigate ways to 

minimize and quantify potential sources of bias in real-world evidence studies.

Discussion Points

In response to an inquiry from Dr. Riley regarding whether it was known who in the various 

cohorts was pregnant, Dr. Flannery replied that they do not collect pregnancy status routinely 

from all of the sites.

Dr. Riley requested that they begin collecting pregnancy data. She emphasized that it is very 

difficult to convince patients to receive vaccine when they are never able to say that it is 

beneficial to them in any way. She pointed out that having some sense of the degree of disease 

in children less than 6 months of age also would be a reflection of whether maternal 

immunization is helping.

Dr. Flannery indicated that they have considered collecting information on pregnancy in these 

networks, including in a pandemic setting, for children less than 6 months of age to examine the 

effects of maternal vaccination. These may not be the best platforms to be able to do that, 

because there are not many pregnant women enrolled in the Flu VE Network. This may require 

a special approach to enroll women from places they would seek care with ARI during 

pregnancy, and then for special recruitment of young infants.

Fry (SME) agreed that this is difficult in CDC’s routine platforms, but they do have some special 

studies. They have some data with an estimate of VE against hospitalization among pregnant 

women. This will be presented to the WG during the summer.

In terms of HAIVEN vaccination data all being self-report, Dr. Bennett asked whether there were 

any plans to change that to have better data on the types of vaccine people receive.

Dr. Flannery indicated that the only reason they present the self-report data now is because 

self-report is complete for all of the sites. Once they have the final vaccination histories and 

documentation for this season, the HAIVEN Network will present VE data by vaccine type to the 

WG.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

26

Dr. Baker (IDSA) requested clarity regarding analysis of the data by high influenza intervals in 

terms of whether this was all during the dates shown for which influenza was measured. She 

also asked how the diagnosis of influenza is made in inpatients and outpatients.

Dr. Lu responded that all outcomes were from the high circulation period. They used a 15% 

cutoff for the percent of tests positive. If they had higher than 15%, this was considered to be a 

high period and that outcome was recorded. In terms of the diagnosis, international 

classification of diseases (ICD)-10 codes were used for hospitalization. For the office visits, a 

different code was used. One thing they looked for was oseltamivir within two days of the test. 

More inclusion criteria also were applied to the secondary office visit outcomes, because the 

beneficiary had to have Part D benefits as well.

Dr. Hunter wondered how much they wanted to compare VE between different influenza 

vaccines, given that from a practical point of view this would change so much from season-toseason. The relative difference between the cell-culture versus egg-based culture vaccine of 

10% is pretty small, especially in terms of the absolute difference in order to calculate, from a 

clinician’s point of view, what the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) is. For vaccinated versus 

not vaccinated, he calculated the NNV to be about 10 to 20 based on the absolute differences 

that he quickly looked at of 5% to 10% between vaccinated and not vaccinated in the different 

age groups. It is not clear how they could make a decision in advance of a season if they did not 

know what the relative difference would be.

Dr. Messonnier pointed out that CDC values ACIP’s opinion about how to interpret these data 

and would be interested in knowing what relevant questions would drive an ACIP decision. 

Policy-makers throughout this and other countries are interested in knowing what can be done 

to incrementally improve vaccines given the current technology. CDC counts on ACIP to help 

CDC hone its thinking. The question regarding NNV is a great way to consider these data.

Dr. Hunter said that while he really wanted to see these data, he did not know whether it would 

change what he thinks regarding what to do about it.

Regarding the outpatient surveillance definition requiring rapid influenza testing, Dr. Atmar said 

his health system has removed the ability for outpatient physicians to perform influenza testing 

because of the poor sensitivity, particularly among adults. He inquired as to whether there was 

any information about how many individuals had a diagnostic code but did not have a rapid 

influenza test to support it. Many guidelines recommend that the decision to treat or not to treat 

be made based on the clinical presentation, not on the diagnostic test because of poor 

sensitivity.

Dr. Lu responded that they are conducting analyses looking at this, and they have seen some 

differences regarding the percentage of testing across regions. The results are not ready to 

present at this time, but they are looking into this.

Regarding the approximately 60 covariates assessed, Dr. Stephens asked whether medications 

and underlying disease were examined from the perspective of the impact on influenza.

Dr. Lu responded that they did examine underlying health conditions and some medications.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

27

Dr. Lee asked whether the potential impact of the distribution in the vaccines given was being 

examined. She noticed that the distribution looked very different for the dual eligibles when

given in the pharmacy, and wondered whether that led to potential disparities in patient 

outcomes as a consequence.

Dr. Lu replied that they are currently investigating the pharmacy versus non-pharmacy setting to 

determine whether there is potential bias. 

Dr. Belongia pointed out that over the next year or two, there should be a lot more data in terms 

of the relative performance of non-egg-based versus egg-based vaccines using laboratoryconfirmed outcomes.

End-of-Season Update: 2017-2018 Influenza Vaccine Safety Monitoring

Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA

Immunization Safety Office

National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Dr. Shimabukuro presented an end-of-season update on 2017-2018 influenza vaccine safety. 

As a reminder, Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a spontaneous reporting 

system that is co-managed by CDC and FDA. The strengths of this system are that it is 

comprised of national data, accepts reports from anyone, can detect safety signals rapidly, can 

detect rare adverse events (AEs) subject to the limitations of spontaneous reporting, and the 

data are available to the public. The weaknesses of the system include the potential for 

reporting bias, inconsistent data quality and completeness, lack of an unvaccinated comparison 

group, and the inability to assess causality from these data alone. As a hypothesis generating 

system, VAERS identifies potential vaccine safety concerns that can be studied in more robust 

data systems.

US influenza vaccine reports received through May 11, 2018 on those who were vaccinated 

July 1, 2017 through April 30, 2018 were included in this end-of-season analysis. Signs, 

symptoms, and diagnoses were coded using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities 

(MedDRA) terms. A clinical review was performed of reports, which includes medical records 

when available for all serious reports; pregnancy reports for spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, 

congenital anomalies, and pregnancy reports; and anaphylaxis reports in persons with a history 

of egg allergy. FDA colleagues conducted Empirical Bayesian data mining to detect 

disproportional reporting for vaccine-adverse event pairings.

Of the total US reports to VAERS following IIV3, IIV4, and IIV3-HD in the 2017-2018 season, 

94% to 96% were classified as non-serious. That is consistent with what has been observed in 

previous seasons with these products. Serious reports ranged from 4% to 6%. It is important to 

keep in mind that these are spontaneously submitted reports to VAERS that meet the regulatory 

definition of “serious.” This does not mean that 4% to 6% of individuals who receive an influenza 

vaccine experience a serious AE (SAE). There were no data mining signals for Guillain-Barré 

syndrome (GBS) or anaphylaxis in association with IIV3, IIV4, or IIV3-HD. Non-serious reports 

following ccIIV4, aIIV3, RIV3, RIV4, and IIV4-ID ranged from 94% to 98%. This is consistent 

with the other vaccine products and with what has been observed in previous seasons with 

these vaccine products. There were no data mining signals for GBS or anaphylaxis in 

association with ccIIV4, aIIV3, RIV3, RIV4, or IIV4-ID.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

28

There were 59 total reports following vaccination during pregnancy (IIV4=23, ccIIV4=17, IIV3=9, 

RIV4=2, aIIV3=1, unknown brand=7). The median maternal age at vaccination was 31 years, 

while median gestational age was 16 weeks. Of the reports, 43 had the trimester documented: 

20 (44%) in the first trimester, 12 (26%) in the second, and 14 (30%) in the third. Of the 59 

reports, 13 (22%) were pregnancy-specific AE reports: spontaneous abortion (8); morning 

sickness (2); uterine inversion (1); preterm delivery (1); and hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, 

and low platelet count (HELLP) syndrome (1). There were 19 (32%) non-pregnancy specific AE 

reports, and 27 (46%) reports with no AE documented.

In summary, no new safety concerns were detected for trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine 

(IIV3), quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4), high-dose trivalent inactivated influenza 

vaccine (IIV3-HD), cell culture-based trivalent and quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine 

(ccIIV4), adjuvanted trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV3), recombinant trivalent 

influenza vaccine (RIV3), recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine (RIV4), or intradermal 

quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV4-ID) during the 2017-2018 influenza season. 

Surveillance for the 2018-2019 influenza season will include enhanced safety monitoring for 

aIIV3 (FLUAD®), RIV4 (Flublok® Quadrivalent), pregnancy reports, and anaphylaxis reports in 

persons with history of egg allergy.

Turning to the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) Rapid Cycle Analysis (RCA) for the 2017-2018 

influenza season, the VSD was established in 1990 as a collaboration between CDC and 

several integrated healthcare plans. This system is comprised of data on over 10 million 

persons per year, which represents approximately 3% of the US population. The VSD links 

vaccination data to health outcome data (hospital, ED, outpatient) by unique identifiers (IDs). 

The data are linked and kept at each site, not at CDC. RCA in the VSD is weekly near real-time 

sequential monitoring to detect statistical signals for pre-specified outcomes. This includes 

methods to adjust for sequential testing and is focused on standard dose IIV3 and IIV4 and IIV3-

HD. This presentation focused on specific results for standard dose IIV3 and IIV4. Uptake of 

other influenza vaccine products is still relatively low in VSD. Two designs are used for RCA. 

One is self-control in which each patient serves as his/her own control, looking for a clustering 

of events in a biologically plausible risk window compared to a comparison window. The second 

is current versus historical, looking at incidence of events in the current seasons compared to 

incidence in the historical period.

These are the pre-specified outcomes, which have not changed from the previous season:

Pre-specified outcome Age group Risk window

(days)

Control window1

(days)

Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis 

(ADEM) >6 mon 1-21 Historical only

Anaphylaxis >6 mos 0-2 7-9

Bell’s palsy

>6 mos to <18 yrs

18-49 yrs

>50 yrs

1-42 -56 to -15

Encephalitis >6 mos 1-21 -56 to -15

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) >6 mos 1-42 43-84

Seizures 6-23 mos

24-59 mos 0-1 14-20

Transverse myelitis >6 mos 1-21 -56 to -15

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

In terms of dose 1 influenzas vaccine doses administered in the VSD through April 11, 2018, 

standard dose IIV3 and IIV4 comprise about 83% of total doses and there was a substantial 

amount of IIV3-HD as well (8%). The total number of doses was 5.3 million during the analytic 

period for this report.

29

With regard to the RCA results for the IIV3 and IIV4 self-controlled risk interval (SCRI) design, 

the log likelihood ratio (LLR) did not exceed the critical value for any of the pre-specified 

outcomes, so there were no statistical signals. Regarding the results for standard dose IIV3 for 

the current versus historical design, again the LLR did not exceed the critical value for any of 

the pre-specified outcomes. In terms of the results for standard dose IIV4 for the current versus 

historical design, anaphylaxis with a risk interval of 0 to 2 days, there were 11 observed cases, 

4.20 expected cases, and a relative risk (RR) of 2.62. The LLR was 3.8, which exceeds the 

critical value of 3.67 and meets the threshold for a statistical signal that needs to be further 

analyzed.

This statistical signal was detected the week starting October 15, 2017. There were 9 

anaphylaxis cases observed, with 1.13 cases expected for a RR of 8.00. By the week starting 

November 5, 2017, there were 10 cases observed and 2.06 cases expected for a RR of 4.84. 

Upon chart review of these 10 anaphylaxis cases, 9 cases had symptom onset prior to 

vaccination. Of these, 5 had possible or probable environmental triggers and 1 probable case 

with onset at approximately 12 hours had no other suspected triggers. The signal was not 

confirmed after chart review. There was 1 additional anaphylaxis case detected in the week 

starting January 7, 2018. This case was not reviewed, given that it would not have changed the 

final results.

In summary, there were no confirmed RCA signals in either the SCRI or current versus historical 

designs. Data for IIV3-HD, ccIIV3/ccIIV4, aIIV3, RIV3/RIV4, and IIV4-ID are limited due to low 

use, but were generally reassuring. In VSD influenza vaccine safety monitoring and research for 

the 2018-2019 influenza season, SCRI and current versus historical RCA will be conducted 

using the same pre-specified conditions and risk intervals. For next season, standard dose IIV3 

and IIV4 will be combined into a single vaccine category for monitoring, but if statistical signals 

are detected, these vaccine types will be analyzed separately.

Moving to the FDA’s monitoring of GBS following influenza vaccination among Medicare 

beneficiaries, the approach is to conduct near real-time surveillance Updating Sequential 

Probability Ratio Test (USPRT)1 during Weeks 7 through 11 of the influenza vaccination 

season. They also provide descriptive statistics for the entire season, and perform an SCRI endof season analysis. Claims are extracted for the population enrolled in FFS Medicare, wherein 

beneficiaries enrolled in FFS are enrolled in Medicare Parts A and B, and not Part C. They are 

looking for influenza vaccination and GBS diagnosis as the primary discharge diagnosis. This 

information comes from the weekly Common Working File (CWF) and the Shared Systems Data 

(SSD), which both contain information about Medicare patient services and diagnoses.

The FDA uses a 5-year historical cohort as the comparison group. The primary risk window for 

GBS is 8 to 21 days and they also use a secondary risk window of 1 to 42 days postvaccination. The null hypothesis is that the observed rate should not be higher than 2.5 times 

the expected rate based on historical data2

. In addition to the overall analyses for all ages and 

all influenza vaccines, they perform subgroup analyses in those ≥65 years for all vaccines, ≥ 65 

years for IIV3-HD, ≥ 65 years for standard dose IIV3/IIV4 [1 MaCurdy, 2012; Burwen, 2012; 

Franks, 2014; 2 Manuscript under preparation].

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

30

This figure shows cumulative vaccination uptake for 2017-2018 observed at week 11 for

all vaccines and all ages for days 8-21, which is the primary risk window:

These figures show the results from the two different Medicate datasets, neither of which 

showed a signal for a potential 2.5-fold increased risk of GBS compared with the five prior 

historical seasons used as controls:

Perez-Vilar et al., Conference on Vaccinology Research, Bethesda, MD, April 23-25, 2018

In the SCRI approach, the primary risk window is Day 8 to 21 and the secondary risk window is 

1 to 42 days. This is similar to the way CDC conducts self-controlled risk interval as well. This 

analysis used vaccination data up to January 5, 2018 and GBS cases up to May 18, 2018. 

There is substantial use of high-dose in this population as would be expected, with a little over 8 

million doses of high-dose administered during this timeframe. No statistically significant 

increased risks were identified using the SCRI end-of-season analysis.

In conclusion, FDA’s near real-time surveillance did not show a risk of GBS higher than the prespecified testing threshold of a ≥ 2.5-fold increased risk of GBS compared with the five prior 

historical seasons used as controls. The SCRI end-of-season analyses using all seasonal 

influenza vaccines did not show any statistically significant GBS risk in the 8-21 and 1-42 days 

post-vaccination windows, with or without seasonality adjustments.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

31

Dr. Shimabukuro then briefly discussed two Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) 

Project studies. The first is titled Safety and immunogenicity of FLUAD® versus Fluzone® HighDose in Older Adults (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03183908), which is an observer blinded 

randomized clinical trial (RCT) among adults aged ≥65 years randomized 1:1 to receive 

FLUAD® (adjuvanted) or Fluzone® High-Dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine. In this 

study, safety outcomes are collected for 42 days after vaccination and blood is collected at 

baseline and 28 days after vaccination for immunogenicity. Participants will be enrolled from 3 

sites during the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 influenza seasons, with a goal of 880 participants. 

During the first season, 279 participants were enrolled and randomized. A safety panel of three 

vaccine safety experts who are not study investigators reviewed interim safety data on June 6, 

2018. Each panel member concluded that no substantial safety concerns were observed [Duke 

University (Lead), Boston Medical Center, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center (to be 

added via sub-contract with Boston for 2018-19 season)].

The second CISA study is titled Fever after Simultaneous versus Sequential Vaccination in 

Young Children (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03165981), an open label RCT among children 12 

through 16 months of age randomized 1:1 to receive a simultaneous or sequential schedule as 

follows:

Schedule Visit 1 Visit 2 (2 weeks later)

Simultaneous PCV13, DTaP, and IIV4 Health education (dental care) 

Sequential PCV13 and DTaP IIV4 and health education 

 

The primary outcome is any fever on day 1 and/or day 2 following Visit 1 and/or Visit 2. The 

study enrolled and randomized 221 children out of a goal of 280 during the 2017-2018 season. 

Enrollment was paused early due to widespread influenza activity. This analysis is in progress 

[Duke University (Lead), Kaiser Permanente Northern California].

SOMNIA: Study to Assess the Risk of Narcolepsy Following Adjuvanted 2009 H1N1 

Influenza Vaccines

Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA

Immunization Safety Office

National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Dr. Shimabukuro explained that the purpose of the SOMNIA study is to assess the risk of 

narcolepsy following adjuvanted pH1N1 vaccines. This is a large multi-site, multi-country 

international study involving a lot of coordination. It is led by Steve Black, Miriam Sturkenboom, 

and Daniel Weibel. He pointed out that this presentation would be somewhat odd, given that 

most of it would be spent talking about the background and rationale, with only a brief 

discussion of the high-level main findings. A posting from the Swedish Medical Products Agency 

(MPA) dated August 18, 2010 announced that the agency would be investigating reports of 

narcolepsy in patients vaccinated with Pandemrix®. Pandemrix® is a monovalent AS03-

adjuvanted influenza A(H1N1) vaccine manufactured by GSK that was used widely in Europe 

during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. It was widely used in Scandinavian countries.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

32

Narcolepsy is a central nervous system (CNS) disorder characterized by excessive daytime 

sleepiness (EDS) and abnormal manifestations of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. It includes 

sleep attacks, disrupted nocturnal sleep, sleep paralysis, hypnagogic hallucinations, and 

cataplexy. It is a chronic disease that can be treated with medication and behavior modification, 

but there is no cure. There are two diagnostic entities: narcolepsy with cataplexy and narcolepsy 

without cataplexy. The Brighton Collaboration case definition is primarily based on the presence 

of symptoms and an abnormal multiple sleep latency test (MSLT) characteristic of narcolepsy.1

Narcolepsy with cataplexy is thought to be caused by damage to hypocretin secreting neurons 

in the hypothalamus. It is strongly associated with the HLA DQB1*0602 allele and is present in 

5% to 38% of people. It is thought to be an autoimmune and multi-event process. Suspected 

infectious triggers include febrile illness, influenza infections, and β-hemolytic streptococcal 

infections. Narcolepsy onset can occur at any age, but peaks during the teenage years. It is 

very rare in individuals under 5 years of age and over 40 years of age. Prevalence estimates 

vary widely (Israel: 0.23/100,000; US: 30-56/100,000; and Japan: 160/100,000). There is often a 

long delay from symptom onset to diagnosis, which can be many years2

 [1Poli et al. Narcolepsy 

as an adverse event following immunization: case definition and guidelines for data collection, 

analysis and presentation. Vaccine. 2013;31(6):994-1007; 2

Silber et al. The epidemiology of 

narcolepsy in Olmsted County, Minnesota: a population-based study. Sleep 2002;25:197-202; 

Longstreth et al. Prevalence of narcolepsy in King County, Washington, USA. Sleep Med 

2009;10:422-426; Partinen et al. Narcolepsy as an autoimmune disease: the role of H1N1 

infection and vaccination. Lancet neurology 2014;13:600-613].

Regarding the Pandemrix® narcolepsy timeline, largescale vaccination programs were 

implemented in many European countries in October and November 2009. In February 2010, a 

Finnish narcolepsy expert discussed this association of narcolepsy following Pandemrix® with 

some of his colleagues. By August 2010, there was extensive media and regulatory attention 

around an association in children and adolescents. About this time, studies were undertaken in 

Europe to further assess this potential association. The SOMNIA study planning started in 

earnest in 2012. The problem with studying narcolepsy is the potential impact of heightened 

awareness. The initial symptom is onset of EDS and other issues that go along with it such as 

problems concentrating, poor school performance, behavioral problems, employment issues 

such as problems holding a job, et cetera. This can occur for a long time before an individual is 

referred to a specialist for a work-up, a MSLT, and ultimately receives a narcolepsy diagnosis. 

The lag time to diagnosis can be years to decades. In terms of what will happen upon 

awareness (media, public, provider) as occurred in 2010 in Europe, this can be likened to 

shaking an apple tree. The analogy is that the apples would have ripened and fallen during the 

normal course of apples ripening and falling, as would narcolepsy cases being diagnosed during 

the normal course of diagnosing narcolepsy based on epidemiology and how the health system 

functions. However, awareness can cause the apples/cases to fall out. Looking at a short time 

window could give the impression that there is a cluster of narcolepsy and temporal association 

with vaccination. In the case of Pandemrix® and narcolepsy, the impact of the change in the 

lifetime among vaccinated cases appears most prominent early after the signal and may 

subside later [Wijnans et al. The incidence of narcolepsy in Europe: before, during, and after the 

influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 pandemic and vaccination campaigns. Vaccine. 2013 Feb 

6;31(8):1246-54].

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

33

The following two figures summarize data from a paper looking at on Pandemrix® and 

narcolepsy:

The overall trend among children is for an increased risk of narcolepsy associated with 

Pandemrix® vaccination. However, that is not the case in every study. The point estimates vary 

widely and the confidence intervals are quite wide as well. There might be some evidence of an 

increased risk among adults; however, it is not nearly as striking as among children. Many of the 

adult studies did not show an increased risk of narcolepsy following Pandemrix® [Verstraeten T 

et al. PandemrixTM and narcolepsy: A critical appraisal of the observational studies. Hum Vaccin 

Immunother. 2016;12(1):187-93].

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

34

Regarding the understanding of Pandemrix® and narcolepsy prior to the SOMNIA study, many 

studies were conducted in Europe, some with variable results within the study and limited power 

to produce definitive results. Media and regulatory awareness might have impacted diagnosis 

patterns in European countries. This is challenging to control or account for because of the short 

time period between vaccination and awareness. 

There is no clear biologic mechanism to explain the findings. The rationale for the CDCsponsored SOMNIA study was to inform pandemic preparedness for influenza vaccines, further 

evaluate AS03-adjuvanted pH1N1 vaccines, and address the lack of data on MF59®-adjuvanted 

pH1N1 vaccines. The scope of the study was to assess the risk of narcolepsy following both 

AS03- and MF59®-adjuvanted monovalent 2009 pH1N1 vaccines. The study objectives were to 

evaluate any trends in incidence rates over time of narcolepsy diagnoses, and evaluate a 

possible association between vaccination, infections and narcolepsy.

Moving to the incidence rate study, the following table lists the study sites and vaccines used in 

each:

Country/Province Adjuvanted pH1N1 vaccine used

Canada

Manitoba

Alberta

British Columbia

Arepanrix (AS03)*

Arepanrix (AS03)

Arepanrix (AS03)

Denmark Pandemrix (AS03)

The Netherlands Pandemrix (AS03), Focetria (MF59)

Spain

Valencia

Catalonia

Focetria (MF59), Pandemrix (AS03)

Focetria (MF59), Pandemrix (AS03)

Sweden Pandemrix (AS03)

Taiwan Focetria (MF59)

United Kingdom Pandemrix (AS03)

Some of these study sites also used unadjuvanted vaccines as well, though only adjuvanted 

vaccines are listed in the above table. ArepanrixTM is a monovalent AS03-adjuvanted influenza 

A (H1N1) vaccine manufactured by GSK/ID Biomedical Corporation in Canada and was used in 

Canada during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. Focetria® is Novartis’s MF59® adjuvanted 

vaccine that was used worldwide.

This was a dynamic retrospective cohort study. The trends and incidence rate ratios were 

assessed between the periods before the H1N1 pandemic, during the H1N1 pandemic but prevaccination, and during/post-H1N1 pandemic and pH1N1 vaccination. Sweden was an a priori

identified signaling country, which was used as a comparator for the other countries. There was 

a dramatic increase in the incidence rate, particularly in the 5 to 19-year-old age group in 2009 

in Sweden, and maybe less so in the 20 to 59-year-old age group, which began to decrease in 

2011. No change was found in incidence rates over time in any of the countries or age groups 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

35

beyond Sweden post-vaccination and in Taiwan during circulation of wild-type pH1N1 virus. 

Looking more closely at Taiwan, the incidence rate increased during pH1N1 wild-type virus 

circulation before vaccination and decreased after vaccination. Most of the vaccine used in 

Taiwan was non-adjuvanted. Unique to Taiwan is that they had a short diagnosis lag time of 2 

months, compared to other countries, between the onset of EDS and narcolepsy diagnosis. 

There are some data from a study in China, as well, showing evidence of an association with 

wild-type disease and narcolepsy.

Moving to the case-control study, the study sites and adjuvanted vaccines used are shown in 

the following table:

Country/Province Adjuvanted pH1N1 vaccine used

Argentina Focetria (MF59)

Canada

Ontario

Arepanrix (AS03)

The Netherlands* Pandemrix (AS03), Focetria (MF59)

Spain

Valencia

Catalonia

Focetria (MF59), Pandemrix (AS03)

Focetria (MF59), Pandemrix (AS03)

Switzerland Pandemrix (AS03), Focetria (MF59)

Taiwan Focetria (MF59)

 

This was a retrospective case-control study for which the primary index date was MSLT referral 

and the secondary index date was EDS or cataplexy onset. MSLT referral had to be used as the 

index date because it is quite difficult to determine when EDS begins. In some cases, it cannot 

be determined. A sensitivity analysis using EDS or cataplexy onset yielded similar results. The 

two main analyses performed were a restrictive period and a total period. One way to address 

detection bias based on media awareness is to censor the data when it is believed that media 

awareness might be impacting detection of cases. The total period analysis was out to 2015 for 

most countries, excluding those cases that might have been artificially clustering. The restricted 

and total period analyses had similar results. Dr. Shimabukuro pointed out that he was 

presenting the total period analysis because CDC thinks that this is a more robust analysis.

In terms of the case-control total period analysis, the data from Arepanrix-AS03 came from 

Ontario, Canada. Arepanrix-AS03 was used only in Canada and the only study site in the casecontrol study was Ontario, so this is really a non-pooled single-site study. There was no 

increased risk of narcolepsy in either children or adults following receipt of Arepanrix-AS03. 

Focetria- MF59® was a two-stage random effects meta-analysis of data from Taiwan; Argentina; 

the Netherlands; and Valencia and Catalonia, Spain. There was no increased risk of narcolepsy 

following receipt of Focetria- MF59® in children or adults. For Pandemrix-AS03, the case-control 

study data came from Valencia, Spain. There was no increased risk in adults following receipt of 

Pandemrix-AS03. 

In the Netherlands, cases born from 2004 through 2009 were analyzed using a case-coverage 

design. Pandemrix® exposure in cases was obtained through a national database. Exposure 

prevalence was then obtained in the population for children born in the same year by calendar 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

36

week and year of birth. This case-coverage analysis was a post-hoc, off-protocol analysis in 

children in the Netherlands. The design allowed investigators to include information from the 

Netherlands, where individual exposure data were not available. In this analysis, there was no 

increased risk for narcolepsy following receipt of Pandemrix® in children.

In conclusion, the incidence rate study data did not show a rise in the rate of narcolepsy 

following vaccination except in the one signaling country included, Sweden, which used 

Pandemrix®. The case-control analyses for the AS03-adjuvanted pH1N1 vaccines, ArepanrixTM 

and Pandemrix®, did not show evidence of an increased risk of narcolepsy, though data were 

limited for Pandemrix®. The case-coverage analysis for Pandemrix® in children in the 

Netherlands did not show evidence of an increased risk of narcolepsy, but the number of 

exposed cases was small (N=7). The case-control analysis for the MF59®-adjuvanted vaccine 

Focetria® did not show evidence of an increased risk of narcolepsy.

Discussion Points

Regarding the fact that the HLA type associated with narcolepsy varies a lot in populations and 

that it is unusually prevalent in Scandinavia compared to other parts of the world, Dr. Moore

noted that only one Scandinavian country was involved and it did show a signal with

Pandemrix®. She wondered how the SOMNIA study addressed the prevalence of the HLA type 

in question if it varies so much in populations.

Dr. Shimabukuro replied that there were several European studies in the Scandinavian 

countries (Finland, Sweden, Norway), which did show an increased risk. They were not able to 

incorporate the HLA type frequency into the study. The HLA type prevalence ranges from 15% 

to 25% of the population, but appears to be quite low in Taiwan at 3.4%. The HLA type is quite 

common and is probably about 25% or maybe a little higher in the Scandinavian countries. This 

did not really factor into the analysis.

Dr. Atmar noted that if a shortened lag time was a possible explanation for increased public 

awareness, with continued surveillance the rates of diagnosis might be expected to decrease. 

He wondered if something like that had been observed.

Dr. Shimabukuro responded that if the incidence is not changing the longer the observation 

period is extended, a temporary increase in incidence followed by a decrease below baseline 

may be observed. More work needs to be done to further analyze the incidence trends looking 

at more follow-up time.

Adjuvanted Quadrivalent Influenza vaccine (aQIV) in Young Children 

Gregg C. Sylvester, MD, MPH

Head of Medical Affairs

SeqirusTM: A CSL Company

Dr. Sylvester presented the Phase 3 results for Seqirus’sTM (aQIV) in young children ages 6 

months to 72 months, including an immunogenicity analysis of a subset of the entire population 

studied in this Phase 3 trial.

Regarding the burden of disease, influenza and related complications pose a public health 

threat to young children, especially those under 2 years of age. Influenza is an important cause 

of respiratory illness in children. Depending upon the age, more than 20% of those hospitalized 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

37

with ARI is caused by influenza. Based on data for two influenza seasons from 2002–2004, 48% 

of hospitalizations of children under 5 years of age presenting with an ARI or fever were among 

children ≤6 months of age, 30% were among children 6 to 23 months of age, and 22% were 

among children 24 to 59 months of age [Poehling KA, et al. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:31–40].

It is also known that traditional influenza vaccines have been less effective in children; thus, the 

need for more improved vaccines in this age group. Therefore, SeqirusTM added an adjuvant, 

MF59®, to its quadrivalent influenza vaccine to improve the immune response in children. 

MF59® is an oil-in-water emulsion composed of squalene and polysorbate 80. Squalene is a 

biodegradable and biocompatible oil found in plants and animals. It is an intermediate 

metabolite in the synthesis of cholesterol. Humans synthesize it in the liver (>1 g/day)

and it is derived from dietary sources and ingested in various dietary sources1

. Polysorbate 80 

is a non-ionic surfactant and emulsifier forming a homogeneous solution [

1

O’Hagan DT, et al. 

Expert Rev Vaccines. 2013;12:13-30].

SeqirusTM believes that MF59® enhances the immune systems in several important ways as 

depicted in the following illustration:

In the top left-hand side, it recruits macrophages to the injection site. It differentiates and 

recruits monocytes and neutrophils into antigen-presenting cells and increases the migration of 

these cells into lymph nodes where T-cell and B-cell activation expands the B-cell repertoire, 

creating higher antibody levels, broader antibody coverage, and longer antibody responses. 

FluadTM, which is the trade name, is Seqirus’sTM adjuvanted influenza vaccine. It has been 

licensed elsewhere for the last 20 years. It was first licensed in 1997 in Europe for adults ≥ 65 

years of age, focusing on those who have waning immune systems or immunosenescence. It 

has been licensed in Canada for older adults as well as children 6 to 24 years of age, and was 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

38

licensed in 2016 in the US for adults ≥ 65 years of age. The United Kingdom (UK) and Australia 

added FluadTM to this year’s influenza season for enhanced protection.

In children 6 months to 72 months of age, SeqirusTM performed a multi-center RCT doubleblinded Phase 3 trial that evaluated the safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity of pediatric 

FluadTM compared with a US licensed influenza vaccine in the same age group. Safety was 

assessed throughout the entire study. Active surveillance was conducted, which meant that 

parents were called during the 6 months following receipt of the vaccine or until the end of the 

season. If a child met the definition of influenza-like illness (ILI) of a temperature of ≥100°F / 

≥37.8°C along with any of several symptoms (cough, sore throat, nasal congestion, or runny 

nose), they were brought in for a laboratory-confirmed influenza test via PCR assay. The study 

was comprised of 10,644 children, who were split nearly equally between the aQIV arm 

(N=5300) and the trivalent influenza vaccine/quadrivalent influenza vaccine (TIV/QIV) arm 

(N=5193). They began with the trivalent because it was the only licensed product in that age 

group at that time. The following year, QIV was licensed so they moved to that product. About a 

third of the children participated in the immunogenicity study.

In terms of the baseline demographics, the mean age was slightly over 3 years. Children 

enrolled in the study received either 1 or 2 doses, depending upon their previous influenza 

vaccination history reported by a parent and their age. If a parent stated that the child had not 

received a previous influenza vaccine, they were given 0.25 mL on Day 1 and then returned at 

Day 30 for a second dose. If the parent stated that the older child already had received a 

previous vaccine, they were considered no longer naïve and received a 0.5 mL dose. During the 

first of the two study seasons, less than 15% of the total subjects were enrolled. It turns out that 

there were only 10 cases in that season, so 98% or higher occurred in the second season when 

85% and higher were enrolled. Therefore, this really is a one-season study. In the first season, 

the vaccine matched fairly well to the predominant circulating strains. However, in the second 

season (2014-2015) all vaccines had influenza A(H3N2)/Texas, but the predominant circulating 

strain was A(H3N2)/Hong Kong.

Regarding PCR-confirmed influenza among subjects 6 months to 72 months, FluadTM worked 

as well as the US licensed competitor for any strain for the entire age range. The primary 

endpoint success criterion was defined as a lower 95% CI of rVE >0%. However, the rVE was

-0.67 (-19.81, 15.41) which missed that agreed upon criterion for success set by the FDA and 

the company. This was driven predominantly by the A/H3N2 strain with 400 of the 500 cases 

coming from that strain group. In the younger age group of 6 months to 24 months, there was a 

benefit with the adjuvanted product with 55 cases among FluadTM recipients versus 79 cases of 

TIV/QIV for an rVE that was 31.37 (3.14, 51.38) better among the FluadTM recipients than the 

comparator recipients. Once again, this was driven by the A/H3N2 group where there were 44 

cases among FluadTM recipients compared to 66 TIV/QIV recipients.

The immunogenicity study in a subset of the subjects 6 months through 23 months and 2 

through 5 years of age looked at both geometric mean titers (GMTs) and GMT ratios. For the 

entire age range of 6 months through 72 months, as well as 6 months through 23 months and 2 

through 5 years, FluadTM showed superior immunogenicity by GMTs and the GMT ratios and 

also demonstrated superior seroconversion. 

Regarding safety data, local AE reporting was solicited for the first 7 days after any vaccination. 

If a child received two vaccinations, it was checked twice during that time. The aQIV group had 

a slightly higher local AEs compared to the comparator group. However, very few severe local 

AEs were reported. Systemic AEs also were assessed. Of the enrollees receiving aQIV, 20% 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

39

experienced one or more systemic AEs, including irritability, sleeplessness, change in eating 

habits, and diarrhea. Most people have been asking about fever rates. In the younger group, 

20% of the FluadTM recipients had noted fever compared to 14% among the comparator 

recipients. Across the entire age group, it was 19% compared to 9%. Once again, the vast 

majority of the fever rates in both vaccine groups were <39°C. During the treatment period, 

febrile convulsions were observed in 2 aQIV subjects versus 1 subject in the comparator group. 

When Dr. Sylvester presented these data to the ACIP WG and the American Academy of 

Pediatrics (AAP) Committee on Infectious Diseases (COID), they really wanted to know about 

co-administration. Among the more than 10,500 children in the study, only 55 may have 

received an influenza and other pediatric vaccines within a 7-day window. This suggests that 

the numbers are just too small to make any type of meaningful conclusion. This clearly shows 

that there are very few fevers, but it is not necessarily the same day or different arms when they 

were receiving the vaccine. Among the 6 through 24 month and 24 to 72 month age groups, the 

proportion of children with any unsolicited AEs were similar for aQIV and the comparator 

vaccine groups. The same pattern also was observed with serious AEs, new onset chronic 

diseases (NOCD), and AEs of special interest (AESI). Of the new onset chronic disease, no 

clustering has been observed. However, those children have been followed closely.

In conclusion, an increased incidence of local and systemic reactogenicity was seen after 

vaccination with aQIV. This is consistent with past pediatric aTIV trials. The majority of local and 

systemic AEs occurred within the first 3 days after vaccination, were mild to moderate in 

severity, and were observed up to a total of 2 to 3 days. There was an increased incidence of 

fever compared to the comparator vaccine, but there was no increase in febrile convulsions. 

The incidences of unsolicited AEs, AESIs, and NOCDs were comparable. Among subjects 6 

through 72 months of age, aQIV efficacy was comparable to the comparator for PCR-confirmed 

influenza, and aQIV elicited a superior immune response as reflected by GMT ratios relative to 

the comparator vaccine against all 4 strains. Among subjects 6 through 24 months, aQIV 

efficacy was significantly greater for PCR-confirmed influenza and aQIV elicited a superior 

immune response as reflected by GMT ratios relative to the comparator vaccine against all 4 

strains. 

Discussion Points

Dr. Szilagyi inquired as to whether prior seizures or febrile seizures were exclusion criteria for 

the RCT.

Dr. Sylvester indicated that children who had a neurologic seizure or epilepsy were excluded. 

None of them had febrile seizures upon enrollment into the study. It is known that there is an 

increased risk of febrile seizures after the first one.

Dr. Belongia asked whether for the superior immunogenicity against the 4 vaccine strains there 

were titers against egg-adapted vaccine viruses and if so, whether they had assessed titers 

against cell-grown viruses.

Dr. Sylvester responded that the PCR assays used were similar to what was in the vaccine, so 

they have not assessed these compared to cell-based viruses at this point. However, this is 

something that they can and should do.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

40

Based on the analysis of children 6 through 24 months for FluadTM versus TIV/QIV, Dr. Hunter

calculated that the NNV would be 60 in order to prevent, relatively speaking, one case of 

laboratory-detected influenza in that age group. Dr. Sylvester confirmed that this number would 

be accurate.

Dr Walter asked whether there are any plans to conduct studies of co-administration with other 

vaccines, particularly with regard to fever rates.

Dr. Sylvester replied that they have a Phase 4 trial in its third year with Professor Mark Loeb at 

McMaster University in Canada. What is done in this study is that it is typically done on a 

vaccine day in a religious community. This is not a licensed product in this age range, but 

SeqirusTM is in negotiations with the FDA. If the FDA moves toward approval of this age group, 

one of the post-marketing commitments is likely to be examination of that.

Dr. Belongia pointed out that one of the concerns with adjuvanted vaccines, particularly in 

children, is the fact that if this is started at 6 months to 1 year, the child will receive an 

adjuvanted vaccine potentially every year for a long time. He wondered whether there was any 

existing information on, or plans to examine, the effects of being repeatedly vaccinated with an 

adjuvanted vaccine.

Dr. Sylvester indicated that from the first to second year in this study, 600 children received a 

second vaccine. They could have had 2 in the first year and then 1 in the third year, or 1 in the 

first year and 1 in the second. In the second year, they followed an additional 1600 children and 

did a crossover. If they received aQIV, 400 received aQIV for the second or just standard and 

then in the same standard they could have had aQIV or standard. The Canada trial has a data 

monitoring oversight committee that is looking at AEs and whether there is any potentiation with 

the adjuvant. Again, this is only 3 years of study that concludes at the end of 2018. However, 

SeqirusTM has every intention of continuing the study for at least 3 more years in order to have 

multiple years of data for the adjuvanted product.

Dr. Bennett requested that Dr. Sylvester comment on the diversity of the population of children 

in the study.

Dr. Sylvester indicated that the first year that enrolled about 15% was predominantly done in 

Europe and the US. During the second year, they went to the Philippines. About 45% of the 

study population are Asian, about 40% are Caucasian, a little less than 15% are Black, and the 

remainder are other.

WG Considerations: Updates to the 2018-2019 Recommendations

Lisa Grohskopf, MD, MPH

National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Dr. Grohskopf reported on the WG considerations and ongoing discussion, as well as the 2018-

2019 recommendations draft in terms of what is new.

With regard to considerations, the WG heard previews of all of the information presented during 

this session. In general, the thinking is that the 2017-2018 season safety data are reassuring. 

There was discussion regarding the quadrivalent adjuvanted vaccine for young children, which 

centered primarily around reactogenicity and the very limited data on coadministration with other 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

41

vaccines. The WG is engaged in a number of ongoing discussions. Regular vaccine efficacy 

and effectiveness updates are presented to the WG and during ACIP meetings, which continues 

to be a topic of major interest, particularly with regard to trying to make assessments of VE of 

certain types of vaccines versus others. For example, there are ongoing discussions regarding 

the efficacy and effectiveness of LAIV4, which was recommended for use again for 2018-2019 

during the February 2018 ACIP meeting; egg-based versus non-egg-based vaccines; and 

vaccines for persons 65 years of age and older. The WG also continues to hear surveillance, 

safety, and vaccine coverage updates. 

As a reminder, ACIP generally has a vote on the core recommendation language each year in 

either February or June. Given that this was not done in February, it was raised during this 

meeting. The ACIP members were provided with copies of the recommendations documents. 

The recommendations were to be published in the same format as last year, on their own with 

some limited explanatory references. The bulk of the literature review was published in another 

larger document. Because that was well-received last year, the decision was made to do the 

same this year.

First, the document re-iterates the core recommendation that annual influenza vaccination is 

recommended for all persons aged 6 months and older who do not have contraindications. In 

terms of updates, the US influenza vaccine composition for 2018-2019 for trivalent vaccines

includes A/Michigan/45/2015 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus, A/Singapore/INFIMH-16-0019/2016 

(H3N2)-like virus—updated, and B/Colorado/06/2017-like virus (Victoria lineage)—updated. 

Quadrivalent vaccines include the same three strains as the trivalent vaccines, plus 

B/Phuket/3073/2013-like virus (Yamagata lineage). 

New language was approved by ACIP in February 2018 for FluMist® Quadrivalent (LAIV4) and 

is summarized in the new recommendations document. It also was the subject of a recent 

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) Policy Note published on June 8, 2018 that 

summarizes the data and discussion. For the 2018-2019 season, providers may choose to 

administer any licensed, age-appropriate influenza vaccine (IIV, RIV4, or LAIV4). LAIV4 is an 

option for those for whom it is otherwise appropriate. VE updates for LAIV4 will be presented to 

ACIP as they become available. Contraindications and precautions for LAIV4 remain the same 

as previously. LAIV4 is acceptable for persons with a history of egg allergy, which was approved 

by ACIP in February 2016, prior to the decision to not recommend use of LAIV4 for 2016-2017. 

That is incorporated into the document for the 2018-2019 season. Essentially, individuals with a 

history of egg allergy may receive any licensed, recommended, age-appropriate vaccine.

As is typical when the guidance is updated, some new products or licensure changes occur. 

One licensure change is discussed in the guidance for the coming seasons, which is for Fluarix®

Quadrivalent (IIV4, GSK) that was discussed during the last ACIP meeting. A 0.5mL dose was 

licensed for children aged ≥6 months (previously licensed for ≥3 years) in January 2018. These 

data were presented to ACIP in February 2018. This brings IIV licensed for 6- through 35-

month-olds to a total of 3, including: Fluarix® Quadrivalent (IIV4, GSK) at a 0.5mL dose, 

FluLaval® Quadrivalent (IIV4, GSK) at a 0.5mL dose, and Fluzone® Quadrivalent (IIV4, Sanofi 

Pasteur) at a 0.25mL dose. 

With the guidance and updates in mind, the WG proposed to reaffirm the seasonal influenza 

recommendations for the 2018-2019 season. 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

42

Discussion Points

Dr. Grogg (AOA) requested that the AAP representative comment on why they suggested LAIV 

as a last resort. 

Dr. Campbell (AAP) responded that the AAP/COID also reviewed the same data reviewed by 

ACIP. The AAP/COID’s vote was to recommend LAIV, but to recommend it after recommending 

IIV as the first choice.

Dr. Baker (IDSA) requested further clarification from Dr. Campbell, given that it sounded as 

though they were recommending giving IIV and then LAIV.

Dr. Campbell (AAP) clarified that the intent was not to recommend giving both vaccinations, but 

rather to offer IIV as the first choice and to offer LAIV to those who do not want to take IIV who 

would not otherwise be vaccinated if age-appropriate and not contraindicated.

Public Comment

No public comments were provided during this session.

Motion/Vote: 2018-2019 Recommendations

Dr. Romero made a motion to approve and Dr. Moore seconded the proposed recommendation 

language as presented to reaffirm the seasonal influenza recommendations for the 2018-2019 

season. 

The motion carried with 13 affirmative votes, 0 negative votes, and 1 abstention. The 

disposition of the vote was as follows:

13 Favored: Atmar, Bennett, Bernstein, Frey, Hunter, Lee, Moore, Pellegrini, Riley, Romero, 

Stephens, Szilagyi, Walter

 0 Opposed: N/A

 1 Abstained: Belongia

Introduction

David S. Stephens, MD, FIDSA

ACIP Anthrax Vaccine WG

Dr. Stephens reminded everyone that the Anthrax Vaccine WG was reconvened in March 2017 

to discuss new data published since the last review in 2010. Anthrax vaccine is unique 

compared to the vaccines usually reviewed by ACIP. One of the uses of anthrax vaccine is for 

post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) in the event that Bacillus anthracis (B. anthracis) is used as a 

bioweapon. The US government stockpiles anthrax vaccine for use in the event of wide-area 

release of B. anthracis spores over a densely populated area. To provide vaccine effectively in 

Anthrax Vaccine

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

43

this situation, decisions on how to provide the vaccine and to whom would have to be made 

quickly. For this reason, decisions on how best to use the vaccine should be well-vetted prior to 

an event. Therefore, CDC asks ACIP for advice on policies that could be implemented to 

improve the efficiency of a mass vaccination campaign in the event of a wide-area release of B. 

anthracis spores.

The following topics were the focus of this session:

 Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) 

evaluation of the evidence

 Policy questions under consideration: 

 Route of Administration: May the intramuscular (IM) route of administration (ROA) be 

used if the subcutaneous (SC) ROA presents clinical, operational, or logistical 

challenges that may delay or prevent effective vaccination?

 Dose-Sparing Schedules: Should there be an inadequate supply of anthrax vaccine 

available for PEP, may either 2 full doses or 3 half doses of anthrax vaccine adsorbed 

(AVA) be used to expand vaccine coverage?

 Antimicrobial Duration: Can the duration of the antimicrobial component of PEP be 

decreased to less than 60 days when given in conjunction with AVA?

GRADE Evaluation of the Evidence

William Bower, MD, FIDSA

National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Before going into the GRADEing of the evidence reviewed by the Anthrax Vaccine WG, Dr. 

Bower first explained how the data were used to support the policy changes to be presented to 

ACIP during this session. Inhalation anthrax is very rare, so the effectiveness of AVA for PEP in

humans cannot be directly assessed. For this situation, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 

has recommended using the “Animal Rule” where data from animal studies are used to 

generate a correlate of protection model based on immune response measured in animals 

following vaccination. Then the data from human studies on immune response can be used to 

estimate human survival based on antibody concentrations generated by the vaccine in 

humans. The predicted human survival data are all indirect measures since it is derived from a 

comparison of human to animal data. Therefore, the supporting evidence was downgraded in 

the GRADE evaluation.

The animal survival data came from a study in non-human primates (NHP) given serial dilutions 

of AVA to generate a range of anti-protective antigen immunoglobulin G (anti-PA IgG) 

concentrations and then challenged with B. anthracis spores. The antibody concentrations and 

survival data were placed in a model to generate a survival curve. Two other non-human 

primate studies using slightly different vaccine dilutions and dosing schedules supported the 

findings in this model.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

44

The human immunogenicity data came from two main sources. The Wright study directly 

compared the IM to SC route of administration for immunogenicity and AEs when given on a 

pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) dosing schedule. The human immunogenicity data for the 

dose-sparing schedule came from the Bernstein study that directly compared the antibody 

concentrations generated by the dose-sparing schedules under consideration to the antibody 

concentrations generated by the licensed dosing schedule. The data to support a decrease in 

antimicrobial PEP duration came from these studies plus others that looked at immunogenicity 

of AVA when given on the licensed dosing schedule.

The following policy questions were posed to ACIP, all of which related to the use of AVA as 

PEP. The first two questions pertain to optimizing the use of vaccine during a large mass 

vaccination event, while the third question pertains to the use of antimicrobials in conjunction 

with vaccine: 

1) May the IM ROA be used if the SC ROA presents clinical, operational, or logistical 

challenges that may delay or prevent effective vaccination?

2) Should there be an inadequate supply of anthrax vaccine available for PEP, may either 2 full 

doses or 3 half doses of AVA be used to expand vaccine coverage?

3) In immunocompetent individuals who are being vaccinated with anthrax vaccine, do 

antimicrobials provide adequate protection when given for: a) at least 42 days after the first 

vaccine dose, or b) 2 weeks after the last vaccine dose, whichever comes later? 

As noted earlier, it is not possible to directly assess the effectiveness of AVA for PEP in humans

so the correlates of protection model must be used to estimate human survival at the anti-PA 

IgG antibody concentrations generated by the vaccine. The animal antibody concentration and 

survival data came from the Sivko study in which NHP were given three-fold serial dilutions of 

AVA at 0 and 14 days to generate a range of anti-PA IgG concentrations. The animals were 

then challenged with an average of 205 the median lethal dose (LD50) B. anthracis spores on 

day 28. The antibody concentrations and survival data were placed in a logistic regression 

model to generate a survival curve. Two other non-human primate studies which used slightly 

different vaccine dilutions and dosing schedules supported the findings in the Sivko paper.

As stated before, the human data came from two main sources. The Wright paper directly 

compared the IM to SC ROA for immunogenicity and AEs when given on a PrEP dosing 

schedule. From this study, a subset of the data was assessed where vaccine recipients 

received AVA at 0, 14, and 28 days, which is the PEP vaccine schedule. The human 

immunogenicity data for the dose-sparing schedule came from one study, the Bernstein paper, 

that looked at AVA given as 2 full doses at either 0 and 14 days or 0 and 28 days, or 3 half 

doses given at 0, 14 and 28 days. Other studies supported the finding of the Wright study that 

looked at immune response and AEs with vaccine given by either the IM or SC route. Several 

other papers also support the findings in the Bernstein paper (Hopkins, 2014; Rynkiewicz, 2011; 

King, 2015; Zhang, 2008; Ionin, 2013; and Minang, 2014). All of these studies and the Wright 

and Bernstein studies were used to inform the consideration on decreasing the antimicrobial 

duration when given in conjunction with AVA.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

45

Regarding the GRADE evaluation of the evidence on the first policy question, May the IM ROA 

be used if the SC ROA presents clinical, operational, or logistical challenges that may delay or 

prevent effective vaccination?, a systematic review of the literature was conducted with the 

following parameters: Healthy adults 18 to 65 years of age who received 3 doses of AVA 

administered IM at 0, 2, and 4 weeks compared to AVA administered SC at 0, 2, and 4 weeks, 

which is the currently licensed route of administration. The outcomes of interest were 

immunogenicity and AEs. 

The Wright study is the only paper that directly compared IM and SC ROA for immune response 

and AEs and received a GRADE of 1. In addition, there were 3 other RCTs and 3 observational 

studies that looked at IM or SC ROA separately and supported the finding in the Wright study. 

These papers all were downgraded for benefit because they were not a direct comparison 

between the IM and SC ROA and the survival benefit was derived from an indirect comparison 

of human to animal data. The overall evidence GRADE for benefit of immune response for IM 

compared to SC ROA was 2 and for AEs was 1.

In terms of the GRADE evaluation of the evidence for the second policy question, Should there 

be an inadequate supply of anthrax vaccine available for PEP, may either 2 full doses or 3 half 

doses of AVA be used to expand vaccine coverage?, a systematic review of the literature was 

preformed to look for papers where health adults 18 to 65 years of age received dose-sparing 

schedules of AVA and anti-PA IgG concentrations were measured at time points prior to 60 

days after first dose of vaccine. There was one paper that met these criteria. Once the 

immunogenicity data were identified, the correlates of protection model described earlier could 

be used to predict survival for the dose-sparing schedules compared to the current licensed 

schedule.

The data on the different dose-sparing strategies all came from the same sources. The 

Bernstein paper that looked at the dose-sparing schedules in healthy adults was downgraded 

because of indirectness as the data is compared to non-human primate antibody concentration 

and survival data. However, it was upgraded due to strength of association and the dose 

response gradient. The final evidence GRADE for the human immunogenicity data is 1. The 

Sivko paper used to generate the non-human primate antibody concentration and survival 

curves was downgraded by 2 for indirectness because the data were used to estimate human 

response and placed into a model to predict survival. However, the evidence was upgraded due 

to strength of association and dose response gradient. The overall GRADE for the non-human 

primate immune response data is 1. However, given the overall indirectness of comparing 

human and non-human primate data, the overall evidence GRADE is 2 for the benefit of dosesparing strategies. Harm was not a factor for this question.

In regard to the third policy question, “In immunocompetent individuals who are being 

vaccinated with anthrax vaccine, do antimicrobials provide adequate protection when given for

at least 42 days after the first vaccine dose, or 2 weeks after the last vaccine dose, whichever 

comes later?, the systematic review of the literature for this question was similar to the prior 

review. Papers were identified in which humans received AVA on a PEP dose-sparing schedule 

or AVA on the licensed PEP dosing schedule where anti-PA IgG concentrations were measured 

at time points prior to 60 days after the last dose of vaccine.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

46

Since the systematic review of the literature for this question was similar to the prior review, the 

GRADE was also similar. The data for the dose-sparing strategies immune response was 

GRADE 1 and the non-human primate immune response and survival data was GRADE 1. 

However, again given the indirectness of comparing the human and non-human data in the 

correlates of protection model, the overall evidence GRADE is 2 for the benefit of decrease the 

duration of antimicrobials when given in conjunction with dose-sparing schedules. Again, harm 

was not a factor for this question.

There were 6 additional studies, 4 RCT and 2 observational, that supported the data on the 

immune response in humans for the licensed PEP dosing schedule at time points prior to 60 

days, so the WG felt better about the evidence for decreasing the antimicrobial duration when 

using the licensed schedule. However, again given the indirectness of the comparison of the 

human and non-human data, the overall GRADE for the benefit of decreasing the antimicrobial 

duration in conjunction with the licensed PEP schedule is 2.

To recap the GRADE summary, for the question regarding whether the IM ROA can be used as 

an alternative during a mass vaccination campaign, the overall GRADE was a 2 for benefit and 

1 for harm. For the questions on dose-sparing strategies and antimicrobials duration for PEP 

when used in conjunction with vaccine, the overall grade was a 2 for benefit and harm was not 

assessed.

Summary of WG Considerations and Proposed Policy Options

William Bower, MD, FIDSA

National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Dr. Bower presented the Anthrax Vaccine WG’s deliberations on potential policy changes to 

AVA use for PEP, first reviewing the current indications for AVA. The following recommended 

uses of AVA came out of the last ACIP review in 2010. First, AVA was recommended for 

preventing infection in persons before exposure to B. anthracis by giving a 5-dose series 

administered by the IM route at 0, 1, 6, 12, and 18 months, followed by annual boosters. This is 

called PrEP. Second, AVA was recommended to prevent infection after exposure to aerosolized 

B. anthracis spores by administering a 3-dose series by the SC route at 0, 2, and 4 weeks in 

conjunction with a 60-day course of antimicrobials. This use is called PEP. As of 2010, the FDA 

had not approved the PEP indication for AVA, so it was to be used under an Investigational New 

Drug (IND) or possibly an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) provision for this indication.

Since the last ACIP review of AVA, there have been slight modifications to the licensed 

indications. In 2012, FDA approved a change in the PrEP priming series from 5 doses over 18 

months to 3 doses over 6 months followed by boosters at 12 and 18 months and annually 

thereafter. This was based on data that showed protective antibody concentrations were 

obtained by 6 months. This allowed for work in environments with potential exposures to B. 

anthracis to begin sooner. In 2015, AVA was licensed for PEP in person who have been 

potentially exposed to aerosolized B. anthracis spores. For this indication, it is given in a 3-dose 

series administered SC at 0, 2, and 4 weeks. Antimicrobials are to be co-administered for 60 

days. These changes will be added to the updated policy recommendations to align them with 

the licensed indications.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

47

AVA currently is licensed for persons 18 through 65 years of age. There are little to no data on 

the use of AVA in children, pregnant women, or geriatric populations. However, the benefit of 

preventing anthrax in persons potentially exposed to aerosolized B. anthracis spores is believed 

to outweigh the potential unknown AEs from receipt of the vaccine. AAP and American 

Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) both recommend using the vaccine as 

recommended for the general adult population under the appropriate emergency use protocols. 

These policy changes will apply to all populations, except where explicitly stated otherwise.

The WG reviewed new AVA safety data published since the last ACIP review. All but one of the 

studies listed here showed no association between receipt of AVA and the measured adverse 

outcome: 

Study Study Design

(# Participants)

Measure(s) Outcome

Phillips CJ. 

Vaccine. 2009

Cohort study (1497) Develop Squalene Antibodies No association between squalene antibody status 

and chronic multi-symptom illness

Sulsky SI. 

Vaccine. 2011

Cohort study (1,001,546) Disability Risk AVA not associated with differences in risk of 

disability 

Sulsky SI. 

Vaccine. 2011

Case-control study 

(154,780)

Disability No association between receipt of AVA and longterm disability

Stewart B. 

Vaccine. 2012.

Randomized controlled 

trial (1562)

Health-Related Quality of Life No association between receipt of AVA and quality 

of life over a 42-month period

Duderstadt, SK. 

Vaccine. 2012

Retrospective populationbased cohort (2.3 million)Type 1 Diabetes No increased risk for AVA and type 1 diabetes

Conlin AM. 

Vaccine. 2015

Retrospective cohort 

(126,839)

Birth Defects No associations between AVA vaccination during 

pregnancy and birth defect risk 

Bardenheier BH. 

Military Medicine. 

2016

Matched case-control 

(463)

Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) 

Systemic Lupus Erythematosus 

(SLE)

AVA associated with recent onset but not long-term 

RA

No association with SLE

The one study, listed at the bottom, that showed a potential AE suggested an association 

between onset of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and recent receipt of AVA. The authors felt that since 

there was no association with long-term onset of RA, that AVA might have triggered earlier 

onset in persons who would have eventually developed RA. 

The WG felt that were no new safety concerns based on VAERS review or data published since 

AVA was last reviewed. These data continue to support the safety of AVA for use as PrEP and 

PEP given the high mortality associated with anthrax. The WG felt that more data are needed to 

evaluate the safety of AVA in pediatric populations.

As discussed earlier, inhalation anthrax is rare so it is not possible to assess the effectiveness 

of AVA directly for PEP in humans. Because of this, the FDA has recommended using the 

“Animal Rule.” This allows bridging of data from animal and human studies to determine 

correlates of protection and subsequently to estimate human survival based on post-vaccination 

antibody concentrations. The Sivko study was used to generate a range of anti-PA IgG 

concentrations and survival data to produce the survival curve for the correlates of protection 

model. Two other animal studies supported the data derived in the Sivko study. The Wright 

paper provided a direct comparison between the immunologic response and AE for AVA given 

by the IM and SC ROA. These data inform the decision on the alternative route of 

administration. The human immunogenicity data for the dose-sparing schedule came from the 

Bernstein paper that compared the dose-sparing schedules being considered during this 

session. The data to support a decrease in antimicrobial PEP duration came from these studies 

plus others that looked at immunogenicity of AVA when given on the licensed schedule.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

48

For an example of how this works, this is the Kohberger Method for bridging animal and human 

data to determine correlates of protection and the model the FDA recommends for predicting 

human survival based on antibody concentrations generated in animal models: 

The NHP were given AVA at 0 and 14 days. On the above graph, the x-axis shows 

concentration of anti-PA antibodies levels at the time just prior to challenge with around 205 

LD50 B. anthracis spores on day 28. The NHP survivors are represented by the black circles at 

the top of the graph and the non-survivors are represented by the white circles at the bottom. A 

logistic regression curve of estimate survival is then plotted. The probability of survival is on the 

y-axis based on the NHP anti-PA IgG concentrations. The blue triangles are the human anti-PA 

IgG concentrations at 42 days after receiving half-dose AVA at 0, 14, and 28 days. Plotting the 

individual probabilities of survival and taking the average results in the mean survival for the 

population. In this example, the probability of survival at 42 days after receiving half dose AVA 

at 0, 14 , and 28 days is 96.1%. 

As a reminder, the policy questions for ACIP to consider during this session all focused on the

use of AVA as PEP. The first two questions for ACIP to consider pertained to ways to optimize 

vaccination in a mass vaccination event, while the third question related to duration of 

antimicrobial use in conjunction with vaccine. 

Regarding the WG’s deliberations on the first policy question, the antibody concentrations were 

significantly lower at day 28 following receipt of AVA given by the IM route compared to the SC

route. However, using the correlates of protection model discussed earlier, the estimated human 

survival is very high at this time point and only 3.8% points different from the SC route. In 

addition, at this time point, as long as they are adherent with recommendations, vaccine 

recipients should still be protected by the antimicrobials that are given in conjunction with 

vaccine. By day 56, the antibody concentration and predicted survival for AVA given by the IM 

and SC routes are no longer significantly different. The SC ROA produced significantly more 

frequent localized AEs in most of the parameters evaluated. For systemic AEs, the IM ROA had 

a higher occurrence of generalized muscle aches compared to the SC route. Otherwise, there 

were no other statistical differences for systemic AEs. 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

49

There are some operational concerns related to a mass anthrax vaccination campaign. Data 

from an anthrax event in 2001 suggest that adherence to the antimicrobial component of 

anthrax PEP wanes over time and could be as low as 50% by day 30 of the 60-day antimicrobial 

PEP recommendation. Higher antibody concentrations achieved by the SC ROA could protect 

persons who are not adherent to the antimicrobial component of PEP. However, these studies 

on adherence were done in a unique situation and may not be generalizable to a mass 

exposure event if it occurred today. The higher rates of localized AEs for the subcutaneous 

compared to intramuscular route of administration raises concerns that individuals might not 

return for subsequent vaccine doses.

In order to administer vaccine to a large number of people during a mass casualty event, the 

most efficient method available is needed. Most routine vaccines are given by the IM route and 

healthcare personnel/providers (HCP) are more accustomed to giving IM injections. Because 

there is more experience in the healthcare community giving IM injections, this route might be 

more efficient for quickly vaccinating large numbers of individuals. In addition, many state and 

local jurisdictions plan to use just-in-time training for persons to administer AVA during a mass 

vaccination event. When surveyed, they stated that the IM route is easier to teach and thus may 

be more efficient.

The WG preferred the SC route of administration over the IM route due to the higher antibody 

concentrations at 4 weeks that would provide higher levels of protection to individuals who were 

not adherent to the antimicrobial portion of PEP. Thus, this route of administration should be 

used whenever possible. However, when balancing the operational concern of administering 

vaccine to a large number of people over a short period of time, the WG agreed that AVA for 

PEP may be administered using an IM route if the SC ROA poses significant materiel, 

personnel, or clinical challenges that might delay or preclude vaccination. The WG also thought 

it was acceptable for individuals to receive the vaccine by the IM route if they had experienced 

significant AEs from AVA administered by the SC route.

Regarding the WG’s deliberations on the second policy question, this graph shows the human 

anti-PA IgG concentrations over time with the various dose-sparing schedules reviewed by the

WG:

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

50

AVA given as 2 full doses at 0 and 14 days is represented by the blue line; AVA given as 2 full 

doses at 0 and 28 days by the orange line; and AVA given as three half doses at 0, 14, and 28 

days by the yellow line. The licensed schedule, 3 full doses at 0, 14 and 28 days is represented 

by the purple line. The dashed line represents the antibody concentration that provides an 

estimated 80% level of protection as determined from the correlates of protection model. This 

graph shows that the three groups that received a dose at day 14 have higher antibody 

concentrations at day 28 than the one group that did not. The 2 full doses 28 days apart 

produced the highest antibody concentrations from day 42 onward. The 3 full doses produced 

higher antibody concentrations than the 3 half doses. Peak response is 2 weeks after the last 

dose for all the schedules and the peak response is estimated by the correlates of protection 

model to be highly protective. 

The predicted survival at day 28 was high for the groups who received 2 doses, but was lower 

for the 0, 28 full-dose group who had only received 1 dose at that time point. The predicted 

survival was very high at day 42 for all dosing schedules and continued at a high level of 

predicted survival through day 63.

The WG agreed that all dose-sparing schedules provide high levels of estimated protection 2 

weeks after the last dose and that the protection was only slightly less than the estimated 

protection provided by the licensed schedule. Thus, it seems reasonable that in an actual or 

impending vaccine shortage, the benefits of providing protection to a larger number of 

individuals outweigh the risk of slightly lower protective levels. The selection of the dose-sparing 

strategy to implement depends upon the anticipated shortage. The 2 full-dose strategy will 

expand the vaccine supply by 50%, and the 3 half-dose strategy will expand it by 100%.

With regard to the WG’s deliberations on the third policy question, this is the same graph as 

previously shown but with lines at days 28 and 42: 

These are the two time points the WG evaluated when considering shortening the antimicrobial 

duration. Again, this graph shows the human anti-PA IgG concentration over time with the 

various dose-sparing schedules and the currently licensed schedule. The dashed line 

represents the antibody concentration that provides an estimated 80% level of protection 

determined from the correlates of protection model. The vertical line at day 28 is when 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

51

individuals received the last dose if using the licensed schedule or the proposed dose-sparing 

schedules, except for the day 0 and 14 dose-sparing schedule. The line at day 42 is 2 weeks 

after the last dose of all the schedules that end on day 28, and is 4 weeks after the end of the 

day 0 and 14 dose-sparing schedule.

Estimated protection at days 28, 42, and 63 for the dose-sparing schedules was reviewed by 

the WG. The estimated peak protection for all schedules occurred 2 weeks after the last dose, is 

estimated to be highly protective, and is maintained through day 60 when the antimicrobial 

component of PEP is currently recommended to end. It is important to note that the animal 

studies used to develop the estimated levels of protection used a high-dose challenge at day 28 

with no antibiotics; whereas, humans in an exposure scenario would have only residual spores 

4 to 6 weeks after an initial exposure, so this is considered to be an extremely conservative 

worst-case estimate.

For most of the dose-sparing schedules as well as the licensed schedule, day 42 is 2 weeks 

after the last dose. For the 0- and 14-day dose-sparing schedule, day 28 is 2 weeks after the 

last dose. The peak response occurs around 2 weeks after the last dose for the currently 

licensed schedule and for all dose-sparing schedules. The peak response in all the schedules is 

estimated to be highly protective. However, even though the peak response is at day 28 for the 

0- and 14-day dose-sparing schedule, the WG advised continuing antimicrobials for 42 days to 

allow for additional clearance of residual spores from the lungs. Discontinuation of the 

antimicrobial component of PEP once peak immune response is reached would shorten the 

antimicrobial requirement and potentially reduce AEs related to continued antimicrobial use.

Shortening the duration of the antimicrobial component of PEP might improve adherence.

The WG felt that the antimicrobial component of PEP could be discontinued at 42 days after 

initiation of vaccine if given on schedule for both the licensed and dose-sparing schedules. 

However, it is important to note that the second dose of vaccine is critical to producing high 

antibody concentrations, so to take that into consideration that in an emergency situation the 

vaccine may not be given exactly on schedule, the WG advised that in immunocompetent 

individuals, antimicrobials should be continued for at least 42 days after the first dose or 2 

weeks after the last dose of the vaccine series, whichever comes last. Since there is no reason 

to suggest that giving vaccine should lengthen the need for antimicrobial PEP, the WG saw no 

need to continue antimicrobials past 60 days, which is the recommended length for antimicrobial 

PEP when not given in conjunction with vaccine.

The above recommendation is for otherwise healthy individuals 18 through 65 years of age. 

Persons with an immunocompromising condition that might interfere with their ability to develop 

an adequate immune response or populations where there are no data on immune response, 

such as those 65 years of age and older, should continue to receive antimicrobials for 60 days 

concurrently with vaccine. Some of the WG members felt that despite the lack of data, there is 

also no evidence to suggest children would not have a robust immune response to AVA. A 

minority of WG members felt that decreasing the duration of antimicrobials as described above 

could be extended to otherwise healthy children 2 through 17 years of age.

The WG’s deliberations and forthcoming recommendations will be used by CDC to inform state 

and local health departments to better prepare for an emergency response to wide-area release 

of B. anthracis spores. As a reminder, when considering this evidence, the human data were 

derived from studies in healthy adults 18 to 65 years of age. Thus, the evidence is less 

supportive in age groups outside this range or in special populations. 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

52

The WG proposed the following policy language for an ACIP vote:

 The IM ROA may be used if the SC ROA presents clinical, operational, or logistical 

challenges that may delay or prevent effective vaccination

 Should there be an inadequate supply of anthrax vaccine available for PEP, either 2 full 

doses or 3 half doses of AVA may be used to expand vaccine coverage

 In immunocompetent individuals 18-65 years of age, antimicrobials given in conjunction with 

vaccine may be discontinued at 42 days after the first vaccine dose or 2 weeks after the last 

vaccine dose, whichever comes later

Discussion Points

Recognizing that vaccine is licensed only for those 18 years of age and older and that the 

evidence and recommendations align with that, Ms. Pellegrini inquired as to whether the WG 

meant for the first two questions also to apply to children in addition to the question about 

antibiotics. She also wondered whether there was any intent to obtain animal data to address 

that age group.

Dr. Bower responded that the WG believes that in a mass event, vaccinating everybody in the 

same way would be important for operational issues and that the immune response in children 

should be robust. While there are no plans to obtain animal data, if there is an event, data will 

be collected on immunogenicity and side effects in children and older adults.

Dr. Walter asked what defines a large mass vaccination event in which a switch would be made 

to a dose-sparing strategy.

Dr. Bower replied that there is not a specified trigger. This decision would be left up to the 

operational capacity of the jurisdiction in which an event was occurring. This would be an 

exceedingly rare event that hopefully would never occur, but they have to anticipate that such a 

situation could occur. Different jurisdictions will be able to handle such a situation differently, so 

it would have to be decided at the time. That is why it is so important to have these types of 

discussions ahead of time.

Dr. Messonnier added that in the event of a mass event, guidance will be provided by HHS. It 

really will be a question of whether the exposed population exceeds the vaccine supply, so it will 

not be left completely to the jurisdictions to make those decisions. This would be an anxious and 

hectic time and those jurisdictions will be looking to CDC. The idea of this policy is to help CDC 

and HHS assess local capacity if there is an event. The intention is also for pregnant women to 

be vaccinated in the assumption that the exposure risk is there, with the idea that pregnant 

women also would be studied in the event setting.

Dr. Bernstein asked whether there is a lower age with regard to the inclusion of the pediatric 

population.

Dr. Bower relayed that the WG felt that 2 years of age would be the lower end. There are no 

data on anyone less than 18 years of age.

Dr. Cohn clarified that this pertained to antimicrobial administration versus vaccination, so she 

asked where children 0 to 2 years of age would go in terms of antimicrobial duration.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

53

Dr. Bower responded that for children 2 through 17 years of age, the WG was requesting further 

information about whether ACIP was agreeable with decreasing the antimicrobial duration for 

those 18 through 65 years of age and those 2 through 17 years of age.

Henry Walker (SME) clarified that the current plan is to give 60 days of antimicrobials for those 

under 18 years of age. The question for ACIP regards whether this could be reduced to 42 days 

for children 2 through 17 years of age. A minority of WG members felt that decreasing the 

duration of antimicrobials to 42 days could be extended to otherwise healthy children 2 through 

17 years of age. 

Dr. Stephens emphasized that there are no data and only a minority of the WG members 

thought that a reduction to 42 days would be acceptable specifically in children 2 through 17 

years of age.

Dr. Atmar added that the majority of the WG members felt that in the absence of data and 

regardless of the risk group (children, pregnant women, persons over 65 years of age, 

immunocompromised persons), the 60-day duration of PEP should be the default used. The 

majority of WG members felt that where there are data, among otherwise healthy individuals 18 

through 65 years of age, the shorter PEP period of 42 days would be acceptable.

Dr. Bennett asked whether the WG considered what would happen if dose-sparing was used in 

addition to using an IM route and how that would play out in terms of immunogenicity.

Dr. Stephens replied that there was considerable concern and discussion about the IM ROA, 

particularly given the difference at 28 days in particular in terms of the immunogenicity. The WG 

revisited this issue on a number of occasions and there was concern regarding whether a dosesparing regimen in addition to IM ROA would be a consideration. The dose-sparing data do look 

pretty good at least 2 weeks after that dose.

Dr. Atmar thought there were two questions, one of which regarded the antibiotic prophylaxis 

duration. There was a lot of discussion about whether it could be even shorter than 42 days 

depending upon the regimen. Based on the graphs that were shown, 42 days looked to be a 

good point at which everyone who had received at least 2 doses should have high levels of 

antibody. SC versus IM was based on the logistic regression model shown on slide 8 showing 

that only one NHP with a high level of detectable (LOD) antibody died after challenge. All of the 

other ones who died were at or below the LOD threshold. Essentially, with that one exception 

that is not understood, the NHP that had detectable antibody were protected. Most of the WG 

members felt that going by the logistic regression model was appropriate, but some wondered 

whether there should be a threshold of detectable antibody. The consensus was that higher 

antibody levels are better in SC at 28 days versus IM, which was the reason for the preference 

of SC over IM.

Dr. Bower pointed out that the one NHP that died had developed anthrax meningitis, which is 

the presumed reason it had a high antibody titer but still died because the CNS is a privileged 

site and the antibodies were not getting in there. A good point is that if one develops almost any 

detectable level of antibody, there is protection.

Ms. Pellegrini inquired as to whether ACIP would be asked to express a preference on the 

dose-sparing schedule between 2 versus 3 and if 2, which schedule.

Dr. Bower clarified that he thought they were asking for permission to use either one depending 

upon the situation.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

54

Dr. Romero recalled the 4th bullet on Slide 14 showing the WG’s conclusions that states, 

“Individuals that experienced significant adverse events from AVA administered by the SC route 

of administration may elect to receive the subsequent vaccine dose(s) by the IM route in 

consultation with a provider.” He wondered whether there was a plan to define what a 

“significant adverse event” entails.

Dr. Bower replied that while this was not discussed, it could be further clarified, and probably 

would be defined in consultation with the vaccine provider.

Dr. Frey pointed out that they must remember when trying to make up their minds about these 

very complicated questions with intricate data that they were only being asked to use this 

response if there are inadequate supplies in the midst of an event or events and depending 

upon the potential number of people who could be exposed. She asked whether they thought 

there would be a limited supply of ciprofloxacin in this situation, and if there are any data or 

there have been any models looking at the potential number of events that could occur 

simultaneously at any given time.

Dr. Bower replied that there are a lot of antimicrobials stockpiled, so the chances of those being 

a limited resource are very low. One situation would be if the organism used was resistant to 

one of the first line antimicrobials, which might result in an insufficient supply. The reason a 

decrease of antimicrobials was requested is because the data support decreasing it earlier, and 

getting people off of antimicrobials earlier will cut down on related AEs.

Henry Walker (SME) added that there are models from CDC, the Biomedical Advanced 

Research and Development Authority (BARDA), and others as the initial uptick in cases is seen 

to get an idea of how big an event might be. Of course, that is in one city at one point. There 

could be multiple cities.

Dr. Messonnier emphasized that this is contingency planning in case there is insufficient 

vaccine, but there also is a concern about the needles. There is a much larger stock of IM 

needles than SC needles. There is a potential that the right needles would not be available in 

the right settings. In addition, a new adjuvanted anthrax vaccine is expected to be licensed and 

should be in the stockpile soon. It is an IM vaccine given at Day 0 and Day 14. Therefore, 

operational complications are anticipated with both vaccines being in the field at the same time 

and the need to simplify in chaotic times.

Dr. Campbell indicated that AAP/COID recommends 60 days of antimicrobial PEP for children

and does not support shortening this to 42 days. They agreed with the first two bullets in the 

proposed policy language in terms of IM and dose-sparing when necessary for children.

Ms. Pellegrini suggested that they consider expressing a preference for the 0, 14 schedule. 

Based on Slide 16, immunogenicity peaked most quickly with the 0, 14 full schedule. Based on 

human nature, the 0, 14 schedule is more likely to lead to higher levels of compliance. If people 

go a month without getting sick, some of them will not return. However, they might return in 2 

weeks.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

55

Dr. Bower agreed that waiting a month might result in losing some people, but in the type of 

mass event in which this would be implemented, they were not confident that they would be 

able to do it at exactly 0 and 14 days. This is why they suggested at 0 and between 2 to 4 

weeks. However, he thought that if ACIP wanted to put either 2 full doses at 0, 14 or 3 half 

doses at 0, 14, 28 days that would be fine.

Dr. Stephens asked whether that was what Ms. Pellegrini was recommending.

Ms. Pellegrini clarified that she did not think they should rule out 0, 28 if for some reason 

statistically or otherwise that made the most sense. She was expressing a preference for 0, 14 

based on the circumstances.

Dr. Messonnier asked whether this could go in the operational implementation guidance rather 

than the language of the recommendations.

Dr. Atmar emphasized that 0, 28 had the highest antibody levels achieved by Day 42.

Dr. Bennett advocated for not including this in the recommendation itself, but instead including it 

in the guidance. It could be clarified there that 0, 28 achieved higher levels, but that 0, 14 may 

be preferable.

Dr. Bower indicated that the way they were thinking about doing this was to put the data out to 

basically say 0, 14 higher/quicker and 0, 28 slower but longer.

For the second bullet point, Dr. Lee asked whether they were specifying SC or IM or if they were 

allowing flexibility.

Dr. Bower replied that they were not planning to be specific unless that was what ACIP wanted 

to do.

Dr. Bennett noted that it is possible that people would receive IM rather than SC and then also 

receive a dose-sparing dose. It is not known what the result would be. She thought it could be 

made clear in the guidance that if the IM ROA is used, one might consider either not using a 

dose-sparing regimen or continuing antibiotics for the full 60 days if a dose-sparing regimen is 

used. 

Dr. Belongia agreed, given that there are no real data.

Dr. Lee thought the evidence tables were nicely presented to provide evidence for the SC 

approach, and because of the lack of data, for her it was a different question. On the operational 

side, it may be completely appropriate. However, she felt like the evidence had to be reflected in 

terms of the recommendation itself. She favored that the dose-sparing would be appropriate for 

SC ROA and acknowledging that there are no data for IM, but clarified that the recommendation 

had to align with the ETR tables functionally.

Dr. Messonnier thought this would be fine, emphasizing that they would see this again soon. In 

an effort to get consensus, if SC made everyone more comfortable, that would be fine. They will 

ask the WG to look at the data again in the context of the new vaccine and come back to ACIP if 

there is any desire to make a change.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

56

Dr. Bennett expressed concern that they were creating permissive recommendations for an 

emergency in this country. She frankly thought they should give the best guidance they could, 

but make it as unrestrictive as possible because depending upon the scenario, they might have 

to use IM and dose-sparing regimen. This is not something for which they can make perfect 

recommendations.

Dr. Bower stressed that the reason they are doing this is because they know that getting 

vaccine into people’s arms however possible will save lives. Therefore, they do not want to 

restrict getting vaccine into people’s arms.

Regarding Dr. Lee’s question, Dr. Bernstein did not think they needed this in the second bullet if 

they voted for the first. A preference is not needed one way or another because they were 

talking about an inadequate supply, which would then fall under one of the challenges. That is, if 

they voted for the first bullet, a ROA is not needed for the second bullet.

In support of Ms. Pellegrini’s position and looking into the future when considering the new 

vaccine, Dr. Moore said she would love to be able to make a comment on the 0, 14 schedule 

being preferred when at all possible as supplies permit. It sounds like that would be harmonized 

with the new vaccine as well. Operationally, as a person who has been through PEP for anthrax 

in the past, anything that can be done to shorten antimicrobial and vaccine courses and go from 

3 to 2 doses is going to increase the number of people adequately protected dramatically.

Public Comment

Andrea Woodruff

Concerned Parent 

I have been quarantined a couple of times years ago in the Senate when there were some 

anthrax scares, so I’ve had time to think about this a little bit. A common topic that is brought up 

is that troops are vaccinated every single time that they are deployed, and so it would be nice to 

see some discussion instead of just revaccinating if titers can be checked or what can happen 

there. Considering it looks like the peak time for AEs is going to be a little bit later, I didn’t know 

how that was going to be considered when people were reporting those numbers. Also, as a 

parent, with the mandates and everything, I would really like to have the choice of what doses. I 

would like to be in control over making the decisions and see if that vaccine is necessary for my 

child or not. That’s it. Thanks.

Erika Geuser

Georgia Coalition for Vaccine Choice

Concerned Parent

This is my first meeting here, so thank you guys for your time and efforts on all of this. It’s so 

very important what you guys are doing here. Listening to some of what you’re talking about, I’m 

trying to wrap my head around it because I heard the lovely gentleman that presented talk about 

how we don’t really know, you know, what the risks are for children. But, we still say that the 

benefits outweigh those risks. I’m just trying to, you know, understand and get how you guys 

come to that decision. I think it’s an important decision and it must be such a hard job for you 

guys to make these decisions without the proper information that you need to do so. So, maybe 

if somebody could fill me in a little bit on that. I too hope there is choice involved when it comes 

to my child. If there is a mass event and you guys don’t have safety information, I think it would 

hopefully be my choice as a parent to decide if that is going to be put in myself and my family. 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

57

Thank you so much. Dr. Bennett referred Ms. Geuser to some of CDC’s previous publications 

about the risks of anthrax and ways of addressing them.

Motion/Vote: Anthrax Recommendations

Dr. Stephens made a motion to approve and Dr. Hunter seconded the following 

recommendation language: 1) The IM ROA may be used if the SC ROA presents clinical, 

operational, or logistical challenges that may delay or prevent effective vaccination; 2) Should 

there be an inadequate supply of anthrax vaccine available for PEP, either 2 full doses or 3 half

doses of AVA may be used to expand vaccine coverage; and 3) In immunocompetent 

individuals 18-65 years of age, antimicrobials given in conjunction with vaccine may be 

discontinued at 42 days after the first vaccine dose or 2 weeks after the last vaccine dose, 

whichever comes later. 

The motion carried with 14 affirmative votes, 0 negative votes, and 0 abstentions. The 

disposition of the vote was as follows:

14 Favored: Atmar, Belongia, Bennett, Bernstein, Frey, Hunter, Lee, Moore, Pellegrini, 

Riley, Romero, Stephens, Szilagyi, Walter

 0 Opposed: N/A

 0 Abstained: N/A

Introduction

Peter Szilagyi, MD, MPH

Chair, ACIP HPV Vaccines WG

Dr. Szilagyi indicated that the ACIP HPV Vaccines WG is considering a new issue. An 

application to expand the age indication for 9-valent HPV vaccine (9vHPV) through age 45 

years in males and females was submitted to the FDA in April 2018. The current licensure is 

through age 26 years. The FDA accepted the application and will give this a priority review. The 

focus of this HPV session was to begin the evidence review for policy considerations. 

Before reviewing the agenda for this session, Dr. Szilagyi reviewed the past ACIP meeting and 

work of the WG. The HPV vaccine session at the last meeting focused on two issues. First, the 

WG presented an update on post-licensure HPV vaccine safety, specifically for 9vHPV. The WG

and the Immunization Safety Office (ISO) at CDC periodically update ACIP on vaccine safety, 

and this was the first presentation of 9vHPV safety data to ACIP. In the second part of the 

session, there were presentations related to harmonization of the HPV vaccination age 

recommendations for females and males through age 26 years. The WG had been considering 

this issue, preparing to bring this to ACIP for a vote. Presentations included a review of burden 

and trends in HPV-associated cancers in males and females, the epidemiology of HPV infection 

in males, and WG plans.

Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccines

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

58

The ACIP HPV Vaccines WG was informed about the application for the age expansion after 

the February 2018 ACIP meeting. WG calls have focused on background information related to 

the expanded age. There is strong support on the WG for harmonization, which will be part of 

the considerations going forward as the WG considers the evidence for the expanded age 

indication.

This session focused on a review of the background information related to the expanded age, 

HPV vaccine in mid-adults with results from clinical studies, WG considerations, and future WG 

plans. 

Background: Application for Expanded Age Indication for 9-Valent HPV Vaccine

Lauri Markowitz, MD

Division of Viral Diseases

National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

In this presentation, Dr. Markowitz provided background for the application for an expanded age 

indication for 9vHPV. She gave some background information on the US program as well as 

HPV vaccine licensure related to the application for expanded age indication, and provided a 

brief overview of some of the clinical trials in persons over age 26 years. 

In terms of the evolution of the vaccination program in the US, quadrivalent HPV vaccine 

(4vHPV) was licensed and recommended for use in females in 2006. Bivalent HPV vaccine 

(2vHPV) was licensed and recommended for females in 2009. While 4vHPV vaccine was 

licensed in males in 2009, it was not until 2011 when it was included the routine program. In 

2015, 9vHPV was recommended for females and males. At that time, it was recommended that 

any of the three vaccines could be used in females and either 4vHPV or 9vHPV could be used 

in males. At present, three HPV vaccines are licensed for use in the US: 2vHPV produced by 

GSK and licensed for use in females 9 through 25 years of age, and 4vHPV and 9vHPV 

produced by Merck and licensed for use in females and males 9 through 26 years of age. Only

9vHPV has been available in the US since the end of 2016, while 2vHPV and 4vHPV continue 

to be available in other countries. 

The current recommendations for HPV vaccination in the US are as follows:

 Routine HPV vaccination at age 11 or 12 years: 

 The vaccination series can be started beginning at age 9 years 

 HPV vaccination is also recommended for the following persons if not adequately 

vaccinated previously: 

 Females through age 26 years

 Males through age 21 years 

 Men who have sex with men (MSM), transgender persons, or persons with 

certain immunocompromising conditions, through age 26 years

 Males aged 22 through 26 years may be vaccinated

 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

59

The 9vHPV manufacturer filed a Supplemental Biologics License Application (sBLA) in April 

2018 to expand the age indication for 9vHPV through age 45 years for females and males. The 

FDA accepted the application in June and will give it a priority review. The review is expected to 

be complete by early October. Because data from the 4vHPV efficacy trials are going to 

contribute to the 9vHPV application, Dr. Markowitz reviewed a brief history of these trials.

Efficacy trials were conducted in females in two age groups. The first trials were in females 

aged 16 through 26 years. Data from these pivotal trials, along with immunogenicity data in 9

through 15-year-olds, led to licensure in females aged 9 through 26 years in 2006. A trial also 

was conducted in females aged 24 through 45 years.

With these data, Merck submitted an application to FDA in 2008 for an expanded age indication 

for females through age 45 years. The FDA did not approve an expanded age indication at that 

time, but allowed data from the clinical trial to be included in the label. The reasons this was not 

approved included lack of statistically significant efficacy for vaccine-type cervical intraepithelial 

neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+), and more cases in the vaccine group than in the control 

group in an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis regardless of HPV type. On further analysis, this 

was considered to be caused primarily by an imbalance of infection and disease at 

randomization.

In 2009 and 2010, while FDA was reviewing the application for 4vHPV in mid-adult women, the 

ACIP HPV Vaccines WG considered data and options for use. But after the FDA decision in 

2010, the WG did not bring this forward for a vote. A publication by Grant et al in Vaccine in 

2011 reviewed some of the issues considered. As a reminder, at that time, the HPV vaccination 

program in the US was focused only on females, 4vHPV was being used in the US, and the 

vaccination program was less mature. More is known now about HPV vaccines and HPV natural 

history. Some of the same issues reviewed by the WG in 2010 will be reviewed for the current

policy considerations.

While the age indication was not extended, information on 4vHPV in older women is included in 

the 4vHPV label as mentioned earlier. This is found in two places, in the safety section where it 

states that the adverse reaction profile in women 27 through 45 years was comparable to that in 

the younger females, and also in the clinical studies section where the results are summarized. 

The efficacy estimates for some endpoints are listed, which are high and statistically significant, 

such as prevention of vaccine type persistent infection, CIN of any grade, and genital warts. The 

lack of statistically significant efficacy against CIN2/3, AIS, or cervical cancer also is stated. A 

shorter section on 4vHPV trial data, but with basically the same information, is also included in 

the 9vHPV label. 

While 4vHPV was not licensed for use in persons >26 years in the US, it has been by other 

regulatory agencies, as has been 2vHPV. 9vHPV has also been licensed for use over age 26. In 

Canada and Australia, all three vaccines are approved for use in females aged 9 through 45 

years and 4vHPV and 9vHPV are approved for use in males aged 9 through 26 years. The 

European Medicines Agency (EMA) states that all three vaccines are approved for use “from the 

age of 9 years” implying no upper age limit. These are regulatory approvals. In most countries, 

HPV vaccination programs are limited to early adolescents, some countries have limited catchup programs, and many countries do not include vaccination for males in their immunization 

program.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

60

Dr. Markowitz gave a very brief overview of HPV vaccine clinical trials data in mid-adults that 

have led to regulatory approvals. Two efficacy trials have been conducted in mid-adult women, 

one for 4vHPV and one for 2vHPV. These were multi-national studies including women from 7 

and 12 countries, respectively. This session addressed 9vHPV, for which the 4vHPV data are 

most relevant. The 4vHPV trial, also known as Future III, enrolled women aged 24 through 45 

years and included over 3800 women. The 2vHPV trial, also known as Viviane, enrolled women 

older than age 25 and included over 5700 women. While the enrollment criteria varied 

somewhat, there was no exclusion for number of lifetime sex partners. The primary endpoints 

were similar: vaccine type 6-month persistent infection or vaccine-type related CIN1 or worse. 

The 4vHPV trial endpoint also included external genital lesions (EGL). 

This table shows the per protocol efficacy results for the two trials for 16/18 related persistent 

infection, CIN, or EGL and for CIN2+ outcomes: 

4vHPV

Castellsagué et al. Br J Cancer 2011

2vHPV

Wheeler et al. Lancet ID 2016

HPV 16,18-

related 

Cases

 Efficacy (95% CI)

Cases

Vaccine Control Vaccine Control Efficacy (96.2% CI)

Persistent 

infection, CIN, 

EGL*

8 51 84.7% (67.5, 93.7) 7 71 90.5% (78.6, 96.5)

CIN2+ 1 6 83.4% (-36.7, 99.6) 1 6 83.7% (-46.5, 99.7)

Per protocol: PCR negative and seronegative to relevant vaccine type, received 3 doses

CIN, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, EGL, external genital lesions; CIN2+: CIN grade 2 or worse

Mean follow-up time 46 months for 4vHPV, 5.9 years for 2vHPV

*EGL included for 4vHPV endpoint

For the first endpoint, efficacy was statistically significant and similar in both trials at 84.7% and

90.5%. For 16/18 related CIN2+, the point estimates were very high, but were not statistically 

significant. There were very small numbers, with only 1 case in vaccine group and 6 in the 

control group in both trials.

There has been no efficacy trial in mid-adult males. A safety and immunogenicity study was 

conducted in men aged 27 through 45 years of age. This was an open label, single arm trial. 

Men received 3 doses of 4vHPV vaccine. Men were recruited from an ongoing natural history 

cohort study of HPV infection in men from sites in Florida and Mexico. About 150 men were 

enrolled, of whom 100% were seropositive to all 4 vaccine types after dose 3. Antibody titers

were more than 10-fold higher than pre-vaccination titers among those seropositive on day 1, 

representing natural infection [Giuliano et al. Vaccine 2015].

In summary, since the end of 2016, 9vHPV is the only HPV vaccine available in the US. 9vHPV 

is licensed for use in males and females aged 9 through 26 years. A sBLA to expand the age 

indication for 9vHPV in males and females through age 45 years is being reviewed by the FDA. 

A 4vHPV efficacy trial was conducted in females aged 24 through 45 years showing high and

statistically significant efficacy against persistent infection, CIN, and EGL due to the vaccine 

types. No 9vHPV efficacy trial has been conducted in males or females among persons >26 

years, and no 4vHPV efficacy trial has been conducted among males in this age group. Bridging 

efficacy and immunogenicity data accepted for other HPV vaccine approvals will inform 

consideration of the expanded age application. The HPV Vaccine WG has just begun to review 

these issues.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

61

. 

9vHPV Vaccine for Mid-Adult Persons 27-45 Years of Age: Results from Clinical Studies

Alain Luxembourg, MD, PhD

Director, Clinical Research

Merck Research Laboratories

Dr. Luxembourg indicated that Merck is seeking an expanded indication for 9-valent HPV 

vaccine (9vHPV) in mid-adult women and men 27 through 45 years of age. They have been 

given priority review by the FDA, which underlines the importance of this extension. As a 

reminder, the upper age for the vaccine in the US is 26 years. In a number of countries outside 

the US (Canada, Australia, Europe), there is a higher adult age limit. There are no clinical trial 

data at this time for the 9vHPV vaccine in 27-45 year olds. However, given the importance of 

public health issues, need, and the fact that 9vHPV and quadrivalent HPV vaccine (4vHPV) are 

very similar in terms of the manufacturing process and their immunogenicity and efficacy, the 

data for 4vHPV are relevant to 9vHPV. Therefore, a number of regulatory agencies have 

concluded that 4vHPV vaccine efficacy and immunogenicity results can be bridged to 9vHPV 

vaccine. Dr. Luxembourg’s presentation contained two parts: 4vHPV mid-adult studies and data 

supporting the similar efficacy and immunogenicity profile of 9vHPV versus 4vHPV.

A study that was begun in 2004 on 4vHPV has been ongoing for 10 years among women 24 

through 45 years of age. There are two parts to this study. The first part, the base study, was 

placebo-controlled. The results of the base study were already published and were reviewed in 

the past by ACIP and the FDA. At the end of the base study, the group who received placebo 

was offered vaccination with 4vHPV. The study was then continued as a long-term follow-up 

(LTFU) extension. The primary analyses were conducted in the group that was vaccinated with 

4vHPV in the base study. The group that received placebo in the base study and 4vHPV after 

the end of the base study was assessed in exploratory analyses. 

The age range of the subjects in the base study was between 24 and 45 years at enrollment. 

The baseline HPV DNA prevalence was not very high, which underlines that these women 

continued to be susceptible to HPV as mid adults. It was possible to measure vaccine efficacy 

(VE) in the base study because there was a placebo control group. The study was mostly 

powered for HPV6/11/16/18-related 6 months persistent infection, and significance for other 

endpoints also was studied (e.g., CIN any grade, ≥ CIN 2, Condyloma related to 

HPV6/11/16/18) as reflected in this table: 

Endpoint qHPV 

Vaccine

(N=1910)

Placebo

(N=1907)

Efficacy (95% CI)

Cases/ n Cases/ n

6-month PI 9 / 1581 85 / 1586 89.6% (79.3, 95.4)

CIN (any 

grade)

1 / 1581 17 / 1584 94.1% (62.5, 99.9)

≥ CIN 2 1 / 1581 6 / 1584 83.3% (-37.6, 99.6)

Condyloma 0 / 1600 7 / 1599 100% (30.8, 100)

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

62

As mentioned earlier, the study was not powered for HPV6/11/16/18-related CIN2/3. Although 

good efficacy was observed (83.3%), the analysis did not demonstrate statistical significance. 

The base study data have been published [Castellsague et al. Br J Cancer. 2011;105:28-37].

The safety profile of 4vHPV in adult women was consistent with the safety profile that was 

observed in clinical studies in younger females.

Regarding the long term follow-up (LTFU) extension, placebo recipients were offered vaccine 

after the end of the base study. The long-term extension was conducted in Colombia as it was 

the largest country in terms of enrollment and the investigators were very motivated to continue 

the study. A cohort of 685 Colombian subjects who received 4vHPV in the base study 

consented to participate in a long-term extension for a total of 10 years of follow-up, and 651 

Colombian subjects who received placebo in the base study and 4vHPV after the base study 

were also followed in the extension for exploratory analyses. VE was evaluated in these 

subjects. The primary effectiveness endpoint for the long-term extension study was 

HPV6/11/16/18-related CIN or condyloma. The primary analysis population was the per-protocol 

population which included susceptible subjects. Subjects were not infected with HPV at baseline 

(i.e., Day 1 of the base study) and received 3 doses of 4vHPV within 1 year in the base study.

The LTFU study was conducted in women 24 through 45 years of age at enrollment in the base 

study. Since 9vHPV is already licensed and recommended in girls and women 9 through 26 

years of age, Merck thought it was of interest to assess effectiveness in a subset of women 27 

through 45 years of age at enrollment. There were 600 subjects 27 through 45 years of age at 

enrollment who received 4vHPV in the base study and continued in the LTFU study. Follow-up 

for effectiveness of these subjects in the base study and LTFU study combined is up to 10 years 

with a median of 9 years post-dose 3. When considering only this subset of women 27 through 

45 years of age, 4vHPV efficacy in the base study was 95% for the composite endpoint of 

HPV6/11/16/18-related CIN and condyloma.

The data for the LTFU study were analyzed at 4-year intervals, to facilitate a comparison 

between the base study that was approximately 4 years and the LTFU study which extended 

over 6 additional years. This allowed Day 1 to Year 4 (base study) to be compared to Year 4 to 

Year 8 and Year 6 to Year 10. At year 4, there was only 1 case HPV6/11/16/18-related CIN and 

condyloma in the base study in the 4vHPV group, as reported previously. Looking at year 4 to 

year 8 and year 6 to year 10, there were zero new cases. Among participants from Colombia, 

there were zero cases in the base study and in the follow-up to 10 years. This speaks to 

sustained efficacy for 10 years. The efficacy analysis was based on HPV6/11/16/18, the four 

types in the vaccine. For the 10 types not in the vaccine (HPV31/33/35/39/45/51/52/56/58/59), 

there were a number of cases related to these types in the base study in both the placebo and 

4vHPV groups, and cases were also observed in the LTFU study, suggesting that exposure to 

HPV was occurring in this population.

During the long-term follow-up, subjects remained exposed to non-vaccine types. Therefore, 

zero cases in the LTFU study for the vaccine types indicates real effectiveness. It is not due to 

lack of sexual activity or exposure to HPV. This LTFU study demonstrated durable effectiveness 

for 10 years among women who received 4vHPV between the ages of 27 and 45 years. Followup was through 10 years with a median of 9 years post-dose 3. No cases of HPV6/11/16/18-

related cervical disease or condyloma occurred during the study extension in the presence of 

continuous exposure to HPV. Sustained immunogenicity also was demonstrated through 10 

years post-vaccination. 4vHPV was generally well-tolerated, with no vaccine-related SAEs 

during the entire study.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

63

Immunogenicity bridging analyses have been used to establish and/or support efficacy 

analyses. Merck reviewed all of the studies that were conducted in young and adult women and 

men to try to gain more insight by comparing immunogenicity. Data from the following studies 

were reviewed: 1) Females United to Unilaterally Reduce Endo/Ectocervical Disease 

(FUTURE) I1 and II2

, which were efficacy studies of GARDASIL® in young women 16 through 26 

years of age; 2) FUTURE III3

, which was an efficacy study in adult women 24 through 45 years 

of age; 3) Protocol V501-020, which was among young men 16 through 26 years of age4

; and 4) 

the Mid-Adult Men (MAM) study, an external study among men 27 through 45 years of age5

[

1

Garland et al. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1928–1943; 2FUTURE II Study Group. N Engl J Med. 

2007;356:1915–1927; 3

Muñoz et al. Lancet. 2009;373:1949–1957; 4Giuliano et al. N Engl J 

Med. 2011;364:401–411; 4

Palefsky et al. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1576–1585; and 5Giuliano et 

al. (2015) Vaccine 33:5640-5646].

Merck conducted two post-hoc immunogenicity bridging analyses (one in women, one in men) 

based on cross-study comparisons of 4vHPV trials. The objective was to compare HPV 6, 11, 

16, and 18 GMTs at 1 month post-dose 3 between 27 through 45 year-olds and 16 through 26 

year-olds. The non-inferiority criterion was the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMT ratio of 

>0.67. The populations analyzed included women 27 through 45 years of age from FUTURE III; 

women 16 through 26 years of age pooled from FUTURE I, FUTURE II, and FUTURE III; men 

27 through 45 years of age from the MAM study; and men 16 through 26 years of age from 

Protocol V501-020. When comparing GMTs at Month 7 in women 27 through 45 years of age in 

the per-protocol immunogenicity population versus women 16 through 26 years in the perprotocol immunogenicity population who received 4vHPV, non-inferiority was demonstrated for 

the 4 HPV types.

Based on these results, efficacy results previously established in women 16 through 26 years of 

age could be extended to women 27 through 45 years of age, including the endpoint of CIN2. 

The same analysis was conducted for men 27 through 45 years of age versus men 16 through 

26 years of age. Non-inferiority was demonstrated for HPV types 6, 11, and 16. It is important to 

note that this is a small number of subjects and the main types causing disease in men are 6 

and 16. Based on these results, efficacy results previously established in men 16 through 26 

years of age could be extended to men 27 through 45 years of age.

As a reminder, other data already have been published and presented to CDC that support the 

similarity of the 9vHPV and 4vHPV. These data showed the efficacy of 4vHPV against 

HPV6/11/16/18-related disease was demonstrated in clinical studies in women16 through 26 

years of age and women 27 through 45 years and men 16 through 26 years of age. Efficacy of 

9vHPV against HPV6/11/16/18-related disease was inferred based on non-inferior 

HPV6/11/16/18 antibody response in the 9vHPV group versus the 4vHPV group regardless of 

age and gender. This was further supported by observation of a similar, low incidence of 

HPV6/11/16/18-related disease in a clinical study in women 16 through 26 years of age. The AE 

profiles of 9vHPV and 4vHPV vaccine are generally comparable. With 9vHPV, there are more 

injection-site AEs of mostly mild or moderate intensity. AEs are less frequent in men than in 

women [Ref: Luxembourg A, Moeller E. Expert Rev Vaccines 2017; 16: 1119–39].

A comparison at month 7 of 3 clinical studies in 3 demographic groups showed non-inferior 

immunogenicity of 9vHPV versus 4vHPV: Young Women 16 through 26 years of age1

, Girls 9 

through 15 years of age2

, and Young Men 16 through 26 years of age3. The two vaccines 

continue to provide similar antibody responses, at least through 3 years post-vaccination (i.e., 

for the entire study period). Cases of cervical, vulvar or vaginal dysplasia or condyloma due to 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

64

the 4 vaccine types are very low in both vaccine groups4

 [1Joura et al. N Engl J Med. 

2015;372:711–723; 2

Vesikari et al. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2015;34:992–998; 3Van Damme et al. 

Vaccine. 2016;34:4205–4212; 4

Huh et al. Lancet 2017; 390:2143-2159].

In conclusion, 4vHPV prevents HPV6/11/16/18-related CIN and condyloma through at least 10 

years post-vaccination in women 27 through 45 years of age. Regarding immunogenicity, 

4vHPV elicits HPV6/11/16/18 antibody responses in women and men 27 through 45 years of 

age that are non-inferior to antibody responses in women and men 16 through 26 years of age. 

These results support efficacy in women and men 27 through 45 years of age. In terms of 

safety, 4vHPV is generally well-tolerated in women/men 27 through 45 years of age. Clinical 

experience with 4vHPV is relevant to 9vHPV. The immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety profiles 

of the 2 vaccines are consistent. Both vaccines contain VLPs for HPV6/11/16/18 and are 

manufactured using similar processes. Therefore, the results obtained with 4vHPV are deemed 

applicable to 9vHPV.

Merck is conducting a 9vHPV study, Protocol V503-004 (CT.gov identifier: NCT03158220) in 

women 27 to 45 years of age. This ongoing study is a post-marketing commitment that was 

requested by the EMA. The primary objective is to demonstrate non-inferior GMTs at Month 7 in 

women 27 through 45 years of age versus women 16 through 26 years of age for the 7 high-risk 

types in the vaccine. The study population includes women 27 through 45 years of age (N=600) 

and a control group of women 16 through 26 years of age (N=600). Vaccine administration 

includes a standard 3-dose regimen (day 1, months 2 and 6) of 9vHPV vaccine. Analyses are 

expected in the second quarter of 2019.

Discussion Points

Dr. Hunter asked whether there are any data to suggest what the biological mechanism of the 

efficacy of HPV vaccine is in decreasing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia rates in women 27 

through 45 years of age, especially whether it is due to preventing infection from HPV strains 

they have not been exposed to already versus preventing progress from an initial infection, to 

chronic infection, and then on to neoplasia.

Dr. Luxembourg replied that there are now new data from long-term clinical studies for 2vHPV 

and 4vHPV. The time of progression from persistent infection to low and high-grade cervical 

dysplasia has been assessed. These data are published. Interestingly, the rate of progression is 

similar in mid-adult women and in young women. These are very useful data because they 

show that during the studies, in a very controlled environment, natural history can be observed 

and it is very similar between young women and mid-adult women. Certainly, there are grounds 

to say that the mechanism of protection elicited by HPV vaccination is the same in both age 

groups. Moreover, mid-adult women continue to be exposed, especially if they have new sexual 

partners. It is difficult to answer the question regarding whether these could be existing 

infections that are reawakened and maybe the vaccine helps, because it is difficult to distinguish 

a latent infection from a re-infection. This is talked about a lot, but there are very few data. 

Merck can say that after 10 years of follow-up, they did not see any evidence of infections 

reemerging in the LTFU study in mid-adult women. It is a possibility, but the likelihood seems 

low. Certainly, there is a lot of benefit for protection against new infections in mid-adult women.

Dr. Bennett asked whether there was significant loss to follow-up in the LTFU studies.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

65

Dr. Luxembourg said he thought they retained most of the Columbian women at about 75% to 

80% of the initial enrollment in the LTFU studies. Attrition was similar to what has been seen in 

other studies at about 4% to 5%.

Dr. Riley inquired as to whether there were any plans for a cost analysis.

Dr. Markowitz indicated that she would go over this in the next presentation.

Dr. Lee asked whether Merck was able to look at the data by type-specific disease to get a 

sense of any difference in efficacy rate, and what proportion of women 25 through 49 years of 

age potentially would benefit.

Dr. Luxembourg replied that there were analyses by type in the base study. In the LTFU study, 

there were zero cases of all types. In terms of the proportion of women who would benefit, there 

was infection at baseline for all four types, but 6 and 16 were higher, which is very usual.

Considerations and ACIP HPV Vaccines WG Plans

Lauri Markowitz, MD

Division of Viral Diseases

National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

In this talk, Dr. Markowitz reviewed some general consideration and the ACIP HPV Vaccine WG 

plans. Again, the WG just started to consider this as they were just recently made aware of the 

request to expand the age indication for 9-valent HPV vaccine (9vHPV) through age 45 years. 

During the October 2018 meeting, they will have more data and specific plans to share with the 

committee. She provided a brief introduction to policy considerations, followed by a high-level 

overview of the evidence that would help assess the burden and benefits in this population and 

age group, including epidemiology and some general concepts that would be important to think 

about. In addition, Dr. Markowitz presented the range of policy options that might be considered 

and plans for the October meeting.

In considering policy related to an extended age indication, it is important to emphasize that the 

available HPV vaccines are prophylactic. These vaccines will prevent new infections, and there 

are plenty of data from the vaccine trials showing that if someone was infected at the time of 

vaccination in the efficacy trials, vaccination did not prevent progression to a pre-cancer lesion 

and did not enhance clearance. Although additional evidence is coming out, this is still the basic 

understanding of these vaccines. Therefore, vaccination will have the greatest impact and is 

most cost-effective when administered before onset of sexual activity and HPV exposure. It is 

known that over 90% of men and women are sexually active before their mid-20s.Many 

modeling studies of HPV vaccination have been done, which show that the cost-effectiveness of 

vaccination becomes less favorable as age at vaccination increases* [*Kim et al. NEJM 2008; 

Kim et al. Ann Intern Med 2009; Canfell et al. Vaccine 2012].

To provide an idea of these data, Dr. Markowitz shared the following figure of some modeling 

done at the very beginning of policy considerations when there was a female-only vaccination 

program: 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

66

Kim et al. NEJM 2008

This figure shows the incremental cost-effectiveness of including older age groups in the 

vaccination program as well as different health outcomes. The main point of sharing this is to 

show that the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) increases quite dramatically with 

inclusion of older age groups, and also shows that vaccination is more favorable when the 

models include more health outcomes. A lot of work has been done on modeling since the 

beginning of HPV vaccination program. CDC will be updating modeling work for the upcoming 

policy considerations.

An expanded age indication would not impact the routine age for vaccination in the US, or the 

focus of the HPV vaccination program in young adolescents. The recommended age for 

vaccination is 11 through 12 years of age. However, an expanded age indication could impact

the recommendations for catch-up and recommendations for people who are older than the 

routine catch-up age determined. ACIP’s basic task is to determine the benefit of vaccination 

beyond the current catch-up age of 26 years.

The WG has started to review evidence of this specific policy issue using the Evidence to 

Recommendation (EtR) framework, which includes the following elements:

 PICO question and background

 Problem

 Benefits and harms

 Values 

 Acceptability

 Resource use

 Feasibility of implementation

 Balance of consequences

 Type of recommendation and recommendation text

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

67

During this talk, Dr. Markowitz gave an overview of some of the data needed to define the 

burden of disease in order to inform the problem and the potential benefit of vaccination in this 

age group. The burden of disease associated with HPV includes outcomes that are associated 

with oncogenic or high-risk types, with 16/18 being the most important. These outcomes include 

a variety of anogenital cancers, oropharynx (OP) cancers, and intraepithelial neoplasias, which 

are detected through cervical cancer screening. The outcomes due to non-oncogenic types, 

primarily 6 and 11, are mainly anogenital warts and recurrent respiratory papillomatosis.

An HPV-attributable cancer is a cancer that is probably caused by HPV. CDC has estimated 

that during 2010 to 2014, HPV caused about 32,500 cancers in the US each year, with 19,700 

cancers in women and 12,800 cancers in men. Most HPV-associated cancers in women were 

cervical cancers while in men, most were oropharynx cancers. During the last ACIP meeting, a 

talk was provided on the trends in HPV-associated cancers. HPV-associated cancers 

attributable to HPV of the oropharynx are increasing in the US, particularly in men. Overall, 

about 92% of these cancers could be prevented by 9vHPV.

The benefit of vaccination at different ages depends on preventing infections that lead to these 

precancers and cancers, which occur years or decades after infection. The benefit and potential 

impact of HPV vaccination is influenced by many things, including the likelihood of already 

having had a vaccine type infection, risk of incident infection, risk of development of disease 

from that incident infection, immunity after natural infection, and vaccine efficacy against 

reinfection.

HPV is a very common sexually transmitted infection (STI) in females and males. While much is 

known about the epidemiology, there are still many unknowns. Recently, there has been 

increased understanding with regard to differences by sex. Prevalence and infection rates may 

differ by sex, and patterns also may differ by anatomic site of infection. For example, prevalence

at the genital site is higher than the oral site. Immune responses differ by anatomic site of 

infection, and response to natural infection is stronger and appears to be more protective 

against re-infection in females than males. Some of these are unknowns and data are 

preliminary on some of these issues [Giuliano et al. Int J Cancer 2015].

To provide an understanding of some epidemiology in the US, Dr. Markowitz showed data from 

a nationally representative survey, NHANES, showing any HPV prevalence in self-collected 

cervical vaginal swabs in females and penile swabs in males. “Any HPV” in these data includes 

any of 37 types that are measured by one of the widely used PCR assays. These data include 

the first national data among males. HPV prevalence is high in males and females, but there are 

some differences by age. As in many other studies in females, these data show that prevalence 

peaks in the early teens and late 20s and then is lower in older age groups. In males, 

prevalence is similar in those 25 through 29 years of age and older. These differences by sex 

may be due to differences in incidence of new infection, differences in clearance of infection, or 

both, or could be due to cohort effects, since this is a cross sectional survey. If due to new 

infections, they could be due to differences in sexual behavior or immunity after infection. It is 

important to note that HPV infection in younger age groups is likely due to new infections, while 

infections in older age groups are more likely to be due to a persistent infection [Lewis et al, JID

2018; Gargano et al, JID 2017; NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey)].

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

68

Many sexual behavior surveys in the US show that the percentage of persons with a new sex 

partner decreases with increasing age after age 20 for men and women. Data from NHANES 

show that the percent with at least one new partner in the past year, while higher for males than 

females, was lower in successively older age groups for both females and males. In spite of 

this, among males, prevalence was similar in successively older age groups.

Consistent with data from prevalence studies, prospective data show that among women, the 

risk of incident infection decreases with increasing age. In a study from Columbia looking at 

incidence among women 15 through 85 years of age, there was a decrease in incidence by age. 

While there were incident infections in all age groups, the highest cumulative risk was observed 

in individuals 15 through 19 years of age (43%). Incidence decreased with age and was lowest 

in women over 45 years of age [Munoz et al. JID 2004].

Much of the data on HPV in men come from one major study, which is a cohort study of HPV 

conducted in the US, Mexico, and Brazil known as the HPV Infection in Men (HIM) study. Based 

on data from this study of HPV incidence among males 18 through 70 years of age who were 

followed for 36 months, the cumulative risk of any HPV infection was similar across age groups, 

although somewhat lower in the oldest age. In this study, the number of new sex partners was 

also similar for the different age groups, and likely contributed to these findings. The Munoz 

findings in women cannot be directly compared with the study in males, but these two studies 

provide insight into the different patterns of HPV infection among females and males [Giuliano 

et al. Lancet 2011, HIM study].

Complicating interpretation of these incidence studies in adults is that incident HPV detection 

may be due to a newly acquired HPV infection or to redetection of a previously acquired 

infection. Redetection could be the result of a persistent infection that is intermittently below the 

level of detection of the PCR assay or it could be due to reactivation of a latent infection. These 

are difficult to distinguish methodologically. The relative proportion due to new infection versus 

redetection could have an impact on the potential benefit of vaccination in older age groups

because vaccination is expected to prevent new infections. Several studies have been 

conducted in females to try to estimate the proportion of new detections due to new infection by 

evaluating risk factors for new HPV detection. Dr. Markowitz reviewed two of these studies, 

which are listed in the following table:

Major U.S. cities

Winer et al. JID 2016

Baltimore, MD

Rositch et al. Cancer Res 2012

Population On-line daters OB/GYN clinic attendees

Age range, years 25–65 35–60

New male partner 50% 10%

Incident HPV 

detection 

High risk HPV 29.5/100 

women-years

Any HPV

14/100 women-years

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

69

The two studies listed above provide information on incidence in mid-adult women in the US, 

and also try to estimate the proportion of new HPV detection due to new infection. These 

studies looked at HPV detection and sexual behavior and used that to determine the attributable 

risk to new and past exposures. The characteristics were quite different in these two studies. 

For the first study listed, women were enrolled from multiple US cities and were on-line daters

25 through 65 years of age. Of these women, 50% had a recent new partner. Incidence of high 

risk HPV in this study was 29.5/100 women-years. The study in Baltimore included lower-risk

women recruited from OB/GYN clinics; only 10% had a recent new sex partner. Incident 

detection was 14/100 women-years. Note that this was any HPV not high-risk HPV; the rate of 

HR-HPV would be even lower. Overall in both studies, most of the detections were attributed to 

past, not new, acquisition. However, based on the association between new detection and 

sexual risk behavior, it was estimated that among women with a new partner, 62% to 80% of 

new detections were attributable to a newly acquired HPV infection.

A study in Seattle included HPV serology at enrollment to characterize persons with potential 

past infection. In this study, incident HPV detection varied by serostatus and was higher in those 

seropositive to that type at baseline. An association between recent sexual behavior and 

incident DNA detection to that same type was found only among seronegative women—those 

without serologic evidence of exposure. This suggests that among seropositive women, redetection of the same type is more likely due to reactivation or intermittent detection of 

persisting infection than a new infection. 

To summarize briefly, the risk of incident infection declines with increasing age in females, likely 

due to more stable partnerships and fewer new sex partners. It also could be due to some 

acquired immunity. Sex with a new partner remains a risk factor for a new infection in older age 

groups. The proportion of new detectable HPV due to prior versus a new infection varies by 

population and depends on both past risk behavior and current risk exposure. Given that it is 

known that new infections do occur in this age group, it is important to determine what the risk is

of these new infections developing into a pre-cancer lesion. As mentioned earlier by Dr. 

Luxembourg, data to address this are available from the control arms of the vaccine trials. There 

are some good data from the bivalent trial showing that over 48 months, about 3.6% of the new 

infections did progress to a CIN2+ lesion. Less is known about males than females. It appears 

that among males, the risk of incident infection is more constant with increasing age. Redetection of the same type is common; it is less clear what proportion is due to a prior versus a 

new infection.

Type specific immunity after natural infection could explain some of the differences observed by 

sex in prevalence and incidence. It is also a very important question for consideration of the 

benefit of vaccination. If there is little immunity after natural infection, benefit of vaccination 

would be greater than if natural immunity provides protection against reinfection. Models have 

shown this to be a very important parameter in the modeling results. A systematic review and 

meta-analysis were conducted to address this question. Over 24,000 individuals were included 

from longitudinal studies evaluating natural immunity by serology and compared for risk of 

genital infection by seropositivity status. A total of 14 studies were included, including 11 in 

females and 3 in males. The conclusion was that HPV antibodies acquired through natural 

infection provide some type-specific protection against subsequent genital infection in females, 

but not in males. Included in this study were data from the control arms of efficacy trials in 

females, which also support the finding that there is modest protection from re-infection from 

natural infection for females [Beachler et al. JID 2016].

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

70

Modeling has provided some very important information for HPV policy, due to the complex 

nature of HPV natural history and the many unknowns and different outcomes of infection. A 

study was published late last year that used a well-documented cervical cancer natural history 

disease simulation model based on US data and tried to address the question: What proportion 

of cervical cancers are caused by infections acquired at different ages. This was under the 

assumption of the absence of screening or vaccination. The model projected that among all 

cervical cancers, 50% of women acquired their causal HPV infection by age 21 and 75% by age 

31. This, of course, strongly supports routine vaccination at a young age to prevent most 

infections that lead to cancer, but also provides information on projected infections acquired at 

older ages that might result in cancers. It is important to note that this model projected cancers 

in the absence of screening and vaccination, and the percentages would appear different in the 

context of the current program [Burger at al. CID 2017]. 

In contrast to cervical cancers, much less is known about the natural history of some other HPVassociated cancers. There was a presentation during the February 2018 ACIP meeting on the 

epidemiology of HPV among males, with particular reference to oropharynx cancer. At that time, 

Dr. Chaturvedi from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) highlighted that there are very few 

natural history studies to look at the steps between oral HPV acquisition and development of 

HPV-positive oropharynx cancer, a cancer that happens to be increasing in the US linked to 

HPV. Among the other unknowns for this are the time from acquisition of infection to 

development of cancer and the disease-relevance of infections acquired at older ages. The lack 

of information about natural history prevents the projection of any estimate as was done for 

cervical cancer [Chaturvedi, Presented at the February 2018 ACIP meeting].

While in this talk Dr. Markowitz mainly presented data on genital infection in males and females, 

she emphasized that it is known that the epidemiology of HPV at other anatomic sites differs.

Also, HPV prevalence, incidence, and HPV-associated disease due to HPV is higher in some 

populations. Anal prevalence is higher in MSM, and anal cancer is particularly high in MSM with 

HIV infection. There is a very large and increasing literature on this topic. Women with HIV/AIDS 

have significantly higher rates of cervical cancer and some other HPV-associated cancers than

the general population of women. The WG will consider special populations, including 

immunocompromised persons and MSM at a later meeting.

In summary, based on the epidemiology of HPV, the population-level benefit of vaccination of 

mid-adults would be low compared to vaccination at younger ages. In general, new sex partners 

decrease with increasing age, but sex with a new partner remains a risk for HPV infection.

There are differences by sex in prevalence, incidence, immunity after infection, and HPVassociated cancers. Immunity after natural infection is an important determinant of potential 

impact of vaccination. This might differ between males and females. Updated modeling and 

cost-effectiveness analyses will be very helpful due to the complex nature of HPV and HPV 

natural history.

The WG is continuing to review data to inform the burden of infection and disease due to 

infection in older age groups. This, of course, will affect policy considerations. There is a range 

of potential policy options that could be considered. For catch-up, the current catch-up age of 26 

could be retained or catch-up could be extended through an older age. For persons older than 

the determined catch-up age decided upon, there could be no recommendation for vaccination 

at older ages, a recommendation for individual decision-making, and/or there also could be 

recommendations for vaccination of special populations.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

71

As mentioned earlier, the WG has been considering harmonization of the upper age 

recommendation for males and females through age 26 years. There is strong support on the 

WG for harmonization. Among other evidence reviewed were surveys of the Association of 

Immunization Managers (AIM) and of primary care physicians. These indicated that over 90% 

support harmonization. Harmonization will be considered as the WG moves forward to review 

data on the possible extended age indication. 

In terms of the WG plans, background, and clinical data submitted in the sBLA for an extended 

age indication, and WG consideration were described briefly. During the October 2018 ACIP 

meeting, the WG plans to further review the epidemiology and burden of disease and hopes to 

have modeling and cost-effectiveness completed. In addition, the WG will review values, 

acceptability, and other elements of the EtR framework and will have more specific policy 

options that the WG is considering.

In closing, Dr. Markowitz posed the following questions for ACIP’s consideration:

 Are there specific data ACIP would like presented?

 Are there specific options or other considerations the Work Group should address?

Discussion Points

Ms. Hayes (ACNM) said she was curious about the insurance payer and rates on high-risk HPV. 

She asked whether the Major US Cities, Baltimore, and Seattle studies looked at what type of 

insurance the participants had. The variation is huge in terms of the risks of new partners, so 

she wondered what socioeconomic groups they fell into.

Dr. Markowitz explained that the Major US Cities study was from multiple studies and 

recruitment was from online dating sites, which is a higher risk population. Baltimore participants 

were comprised of people presenting for routine cervical cancer screening and other healthcare 

at OB/GYN clinics. 

Ms. Hayes (ACNM) asked what the percent of Medicaid was.

Dr. Markowitz replied that she did not know what percent was Medicaid.

Dr. Lee asked whether there would be any information in terms of coverage for a risk-based 

strategy versus more of a global catch-up strategy, and whether it would be possible to further 

examine a risk-based strategy for the subgroup of men who are in that category to give ACIP a 

sense of how much coverage would be attained.

Dr. Markowitz indicated that they do have some information on coverage among MSM and 

would hopefully have more by October. Many MSM have not been vaccinated. As the WG 

delves more into this, they will look at some of those issues specifically about a general catchup extension versus focusing on specific groups.

Dr. Bennett pointed out that it could be beneficial to think about the special risk groups that 

might be vaccinated through risk-based recommendations, and perform an incremental analysis 

comparing that to an age-based strategy. Sometimes they forget that many people in the agebased strategy would be vaccinated anyway because of their other risks.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

72

Dr. Riley said she thought as a practicing obstetrician they should take into consideration other 

practice issues that are changing for which more protection may be important. Obviously, 

behaviors are changing. For example, sometimes online daters are presumed to be from the 

younger group when they are not. It is everyone, so they need to think about the fact that risk 

behaviors may be different from what they were 10 years ago. The reduction in Pap smears to 

every 3 years also is going to create a different level of risk within the same community, which 

also should be considered when thinking about the context in which this might be more useful to 

the population.

Dr. Frey inquired as to whether there are any data on sex workers that could be presented.

Dr. Markowitz replied that while this is an interesting question, they do not have data on sex 

workers in the US. They can try to find data on this question.

Ms. Pellegrini suggested that it would be interesting to track over time what happens in the teen 

population. She was struck by the figure that 50% of the causal infection is occurring by age 21, 

because studies are showing that teenagers are increasingly postponing sexual activity. If they 

continue vaccinating in the teen years, there may be higher effectiveness in the future if that 

trend continues.

Mr. Moore suggested that as the WG considers what to do about mid-aged adults, consideration 

be given to individual clinical decision-making and how difficult it is programmatically to deal 

with any kind of risk-based recommendations. Another way to think about it is to think about a 

lack of risk opt out consideration. In other words, an intermediate step to say under certain 

circumstances, consideration could be given to not administering it as opposed to only 

considering the vaccine if someone has risks. This may make it easier to implement 

programmatically

Dr. Frey said she worried about the risk of opt out for teenagers.

Dr. Moore emphasized that she was talking specifically about mid-aged women.

Recalling the Beachler systematic review and meta-analysis showing that protection from 

natural infection does not appear to be as strong in males as in females, Dr. Sun (FDA) asked 

whether that was a function of the serotype of infection or if it was something about males. It 

seems that this would mean that males would be less likely to benefit from vaccination if they do 

not develop immunity from exposure.

Dr. Markowitz clarified that this was from natural infection. There have been studies showing 

that after natural infection, a much smaller percentage of males will develop antibodies. It is 

known that among females, though it varies by type, that about 60% will develop an antibody 

response after natural infection compared to less than 20% among men. Part of it is due to the 

site of infection at which they are exposed. In general, there has been some work to suggest 

that the antibody developed after natural infection in males is less protective. With vaccination, 

efficacy in males has been very high.

Dr. Middleman (SAHM) indicated that SAHM is encouraging, and hopeful, that there will be 

harmonization soon for males and females. She did not get a sense from the WG meetings or 

presentation that much data would change regarding whether they would specifically want 

males to have the same recommendations as females through age 26 years. They have been 

hoping for a long time to catch up those males with the same fervor they do with females 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

73

through age 26 and protecting as many people as possible. She asked whether there was

anything in the data that was preventing this, or what future data might change the idea of 

harmonization.

Dr. Messonnier replied that CDC appreciates the enthusiasm for harmonization and shares the 

goal of simplifying recommendations. They certainly know the value with HPV and other 

vaccines of not making too many changes at the same time or sequentially over the years, 

because recommendations are not just about what ACIP does during these meetings, but also 

impact the need for CDC to have an education campaign to communicate those changes to 

providers. CDC highly values harmonization and looks forward to having a single discussion 

with a single recommendation that considers harmonization and at what age group that 

harmonization would be for, so that this can be communicated all at once.

Overview

Dr. Abigail Shefer

Immunization Systems Branch

Global Immunization Division

Center for Global Health

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Dr. Shefer provided a brief overview of CDC work on National Immunization Technical Advisory 

Groups (NITAGs). CDC has played a role in NITAGs for over 10 years. The primary group 

involved in the NITAG work at CDC is the Global Immunization Division (GID). GID provides 

technical assistance (TA) in the form of developing training materials, tools, and facilitation of 

trainings. In addition to working with WHO, GID works with specific initiatives such as the 

Partnership for Influenza Vaccine Introduction (PIVI) and the Rotavirus Accelerated Vaccine 

Introduction Network (RAVIN). This work primarily involves working with NITAG WGs that are 

planning and introducing those vaccines. GID also conducts research. There are a couple of 

projects underway that are assessing how NITAGs integrate into the policy process in different 

country contexts, and how NITAGs link with other expert advisory groups in countries such as 

the National Verification Committee (NVC) to collect, verify and submit country documentation 

related to measles and rubella elimination and the National Certification Committee (NCC) to 

collect, verify and submit country documentation related to polio eradication. 

GID also provides funding to WHO Headquarters (HQ) to support NITAGs traveling to SAGE 

meetings, regional TAGs to support regional trainings, and to support the NITAG Resource 

Center (NRC). GID collaborates with the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory 

Diseases (NCIRD) on visits to ACIP and on a number of other activities and trainings. One 

example of recent training in which CDC and WHO were involved was China’s National 

Immunization Advisory Committee (NIAC). Established in October 2017, NIAC has 19 WGs (3 

permanent), 27 voting members, and 160 WG members. Training on evidence-based decisionmaking was held in December 2017, which was more of an experience-sharing opportunity 

rather than didactic. TA and faculty were supported by CDC/WHO, with over 200 participants. 

The first NIAC meeting was convened in April 2018 during which two significant schedule 

Update on NITAGs

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

74

changes were approved, including a second inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) dose and a 2-dose 

mumps schedule. This was a very collaborative and successful training.

CDC and WHO/partners developed a simplified tool for NITAGs to use to assess NITAG

functionality, quality of work processes and outputs, and integration into the policy process. This 

can either be done as a self-assessment by the NITAG or an external assessment. ACIP 

recently underwent a similar evaluation or assessment using a longer tool. The NITAG tool is 

currently being pilot tested. The hope is that it will be a simple enough tool that it can be used as 

part of an Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) review or part of a Global Alliance for 

Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI) Joint Appraisal.

Global NITAG Activities and the Global NITAG Network (GNN)

Dr. Joachim Hombach

Senior Advisor

Immunization, Vaccines, and Biologicals

Secretary, SAGE

World Health Organization

Dr. Hombach explained what WHO is doing with partners such as CDC in order to support

country-level decision-making on vaccines among the NITAGs, and how this connects to the 

work they are doing at the global level, forming the rationale that global-level policy work is only 

as good as it shows impact in countries. At the global level, WHO works along a continuum of 

the vaccine value chain. At the center is SAGE, which is WHO’s top-level advisory group on 

immunization policy and strategy. It connects to work that WHO is doing upstream and 

downstream. What is important in relation to the vaccine recommendations that WHO issues 

through SAGE is to have a lever. Manufacturers may only submit for WHO prequalification once 

WHO has made a recommendation on the use of the vaccine. Only prequalified vaccines can 

be procured through the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and then eventually also can 

benefit from GAVI support. There is a nice situation of coherence of policy, which provides 

further impact to the recommendations that SAGE makes.

SAGE is WHO’s principal advisory group for vaccines and immunization as mentioned earlier, 

which engages in similar activities as ACIP, but there are some substantive differences. SAGE 

reports to the Director-General at WHO and has working procedures and so forth. SAGE has 15 

members, makes public calls for nominations, conducts two plenary sessions annually, and 

makes periodic declarations of interest. As with ACIP, the bulk of SAGE’s work occurs within 

WGs. These are time-limited groups that work on proposing recommendations on very specific 

issues for deliberation at the SAGE plenary meetings. What is important to note is that SAGE’s 

scope is relatively broad, so they are engaged in much more than vaccine-specific 

recommendations. They recently completed their last 8 years’ worth of work; during this time 

only about 40% of the work was vaccine-specific. A lot of reports relate to progress on 

elimination and eradication strategies, adjustment to strategies, and support activities. 

The way in which WHO has set up its immunization policy advisory framework is to try to 

connect to country-level work. Over the last years, Regional Immunization Technical Advisory 

Groups (RITAGs) have been established in all 6 WHO regions. These essentially have the role 

of monitoring and refining strategies in the regions, have much closer contact with the countries, 

and identify and interpret global recommendations for the regional context. The NITAGs are 

independent expert advisory bodies and are mainly tasked with making recommendations to 

Ministries of Health on use of the vaccine in the respective countries. The role of the NITAGs 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

75

was recognized to be of a very high priority and as part of the Global Vaccine Action Plan

(GVAP, 2011-2020), every country should have a NITAG to assist with evidence-based decision 

making. These are process indicators that are monitored globally to assess how NITAGs are 

functioning. A NITAG is considered functional when it meets all six of these process indicators: 

1. Legislative or administrative basis for the advisory group.

2. Formal written terms of reference.

3. At least five different areas of expertise represented among core members.

4. At least one meeting per year.

5. Circulation of the agenda and background documents at least one week prior to meetings.

6. Mandatory disclosure of any conflict of interest.

The importance of these NITAGs is also mirrored by various resolutions and work that is being 

done on GVAP. Here are some quotes recognizing the importance of NITAG support:

GVAP midterm review (2016)

 Good progress but additional efforts are needed to achieve GVAP 2020 target on 

NITAGs

70th World Health Assembly (2017)

 Urges Member States to demonstrate stronger leadership and governance of national 

immunization programmes by strengthening national processes and advisory bodies for 

independent, evidence-based, transparent advice including on vaccine safety and 

effectiveness

 Requests the Director General to support Member States in strengthening NITAG to 

inform national decisions based on national context and evidence to achieve national 

immunization goals

71st World Health Assembly (2018 )

 NITAGs, while supporting decision-making, can contribute significantly to building incountry ownership and credibility for immunization programmes

This map is from the last assessment of reports in 2016, at which time there were 83 countries 

meeting the six NITAG process indicators, which is more than double the baseline in the 

beginning in 2010:

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

76

There has been particularly good progress in the African Region, even though there has been 

some levelling off in the last couple of years. While there is progress, more needs to be done 

since the current measures are only process indicators. To be fully effective the NITAG must 

also produce quality recommendations that are evidence-based and be integrated into a 

country’s policy process, both which indicators which are currently more difficult to measure.

In terms of specific work at the global level, resources include the NRC, guidelines, and training 

materials. Networking and collaboration occur through the Global NITAG Network (GNN), peer 

learning, and exchanges with SAGE. Support to Regional Offices is provided for SAGERegional Immunization Technical Advisory Group (RITAG) interactions and there is support for

regional NITAG networks (there is a network in the Southeast Asian regions and there is 

potential in other regions). NITAGs may also be invited to RITAG meetings. There are subregional trainings for NITAG strengthening, and there is sub-regional collaboration between 

small countries. There also is the idea of having sub-regional collaboration, particular between 

small countries where it is virtually impossible to have functional NITAGs in every small country. 

In the Caribbean such a network was recently established. There are plans in the Pacific Region 

among small islands to have these types of collaboration. At the country level, there is ad hoc 

support for NITAG establishment and strengthening; sharing of work plans, recommendations, 

and best practices; peer-to-peer exchanges to build capacity; and the execution of NITAG 

evaluations.

The idea of the NRC is to have a web-based interface where all of the information for NITAGs 

can be centralized, such as good practices, systematic reviews, scientific publications, technical 

reports, updates from partners, upcoming immunization events, et cetera. Launched in 2015, 

the NRC is currently managed and run by WHO HQ with the support of a network of focal 

points. This has enormous potential for growth. It is not just for low-income countries. Middleand high-income countries have asked for certain pieces of information and support as well. 

While there needs to be country adaptation, there are many valuable materials and analyses 

that can be shared among NITAGs. This is clearly an area that needs more work, but it is 

resource-intense if done right.

There was a plan about two years ago to launch the GNN. It was officially established in Berlin 

last year. This is a voluntary gathering of the NITAGs to share information and conduct 

advocacy in this important area. Regarding the terms of reference, the vision of the GNN is for 

each country, using the best practices and data available, to make sound and evidence-based 

recommendations on immunization that are most appropriate for their context in order to 

facilitate their adoption and implementation. The mission is to enhance the ability of NITAGs to 

efficiently make evidence-informed recommendations on immunization through global 

collaboration and cooperation with input from regional networks. The GNN’s specific objectives 

are to:

 Provide a global platform to enable NITAGs to efficiently share and access knowledge, 

technical reviews, data, lessons learned, trends and innovations

 Liaise with regional NITAG networks to flag needs, develop relevant tools to address needs, 

and identify, evaluate, and document best practice and innovation (GNN does not replace 

regional networks) 

 Help develop standards for processes to ensure evidence-based decision making and 

evaluate NITAGs

 Facilitate evaluations and capacity building of NITAGs

 Advocate for NITAGs

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

77

The next GNN meeting will be convened in Ottawa, Canada on December 6-7, 2018. The 

agenda is based on 2017 survey data in which two technical items were identified: 1) off-label 

recommendations of vaccination, and 2) the legal context for implementation of NITAG 

recommendations. The agenda also will address COIs, NITAG evaluation, NITAG agenda 

setting, and there will be a side session for long-established and recently established NITAGs. 

To summarize key issues, immunization is leading in the field of evidence-based decisionmaking in public health. Global normative guidance is only as good as it shows impact at the 

country level. Global, regional, and country level collaborations are therefore essential for 

vaccine decision-making. NITAGs have been identified as a centerpiece to advance the 

immunization agenda, and there is overall good progress. Country level evidence-based 

decision making is increasingly important as vaccine policy choices increase. Allocation of 

scarce resources will face increased scrutiny in countries graduating from the GAVI subsidies, 

and evidence-based decision-making will increase sustainability and ownership. Countries will 

have to pick up pretty much the totality of the bill for the vaccines recommended, so they need 

to have very good justification, go through a very thorough review, and prioritize in order to 

make recommendations. This requires NITAGs to have a strict evidence base. Otherwise, there 

will be very haphazard recommendations of vaccines dropping off of the schedule, which is the 

worst that could happen. Partner technical support and predictable financial support will be 

essential to successfully drive establishment and fostering of NITAGs.

Discussion Points

Dr. Szilagyi asked whether technical support includes economic and other types of evaluation.

Dr. Hombach replied that in terms of economic evaluation, they are very often in a situation 

where there are mathematical models. Mathematical models need to be populated with data, 

and there needs to be confidence and trust in the models. Some work has been done in this 

area, and it is clearly an area where technical support is helpful.

Ms. Pellegrini asked whether a country can have more than one NITAG. For example, would 

National Vaccine Program Office (NVPO) be a NITAG.

Dr. Wharton (NVPO) responded that NVPO provides guidance about the overall program rather 

than specific vaccine recommendations. The way she envisions NITAGs is that it is exactly the 

kind of work ACIP does in terms of making specific recommendations about the use of specific 

vaccines, such as whether HPV vaccine should be added to a national program.

Dr. Hombach added that in many other countries, this distinction is probably not really made.

Dr. Hunter said it seemed that, especially in the smaller countries, the NITAGs are a lot more 

closely aligned with the actual implementation and financial decisions and there is much more 

interplay between the resources of the MoH and what the advice will be. ACIP is somewhat 

more separated from that because of the way the financing is done in the US.

Dr. Hombach replied that NITAGs have to be informed by the realities. ACIP did address some 

of this in their HPV discussions, and still has to connect to the realities of what it means in terms 

of financing and support. There also needs to be some type of independence, so that the 

evidence, science, and cost-effectiveness come first. The second step are the issues of 

implementation and affordability.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

78

Dr. Moore said she appreciated the value of NITAGs around the world after serving on ACIP 

and given increasingly complex immunization policy decisions. She asked how the members of 

ACIP could be supportive of the work to expand expert advice around the world.

Dr. Hombach said he thought collectively, their expertise had contributed in one way or another. 

ACIP is a very functional committee from which other advisory groups under development could 

benefit, so there could be a strong element of peer learning.

Dr. Shefer pointed out that this presentation was an introduction of these issues, but that 

opportunities would be found for ACIP to share expertise, potentially engage in peer mentoring, 

twinning, et cetera.

Dr. Bennett said she thought there were a lot of opportunities for ACIP to be of assistance to 

countries that are trying to develop something modeled on what ACIP does.

Dr. Bernstein observed that 83 countries met the 6 criteria to be a NITAG and wondered 

whether the goal was to have every country on the globe that fit those 6 criteria to be a NITAG, 

and who was guiding those groups.

Dr. Hombach replied that the goal is for every country to have this capacity. He does not think it 

is acceptable for countries to make decisions without having gone through this process. In some 

instances, the NITAGs can be done through more of a network approach in which countries 

cooperate and collaborate. For many countries, this is the objective. If it takes more time, then it 

takes more time, but it is an important objective to be achieved. WHO tries to provide global 

support through certain resources and opportunities within the GNN where there are guidelines, 

tools, and self-evaluation resources. Ultimately, these things cannot happen just globally. They 

also must be fed and nourished in regional and sub-regional structures, and it is a long-term 

objective.

Dr. Bennett said that ACIP wishes them great luck in achieving this and stands ready to help in 

any way.

Introduction

Kelly L. Moore MD, MPH 

Director, Tennessee Immunization Program 

Chair, Mumps ACIP Work Group

Dr. Moore reminded everyone that the objective for the Mumps WG is to evaluate and propose 

policy options to prevent or control mumps outbreaks in the US. The activities associated with 

that were to: 1) Review the epidemiology of mumps in the 2-dose vaccine era, including the 

international experience; 2) Review the available evidence on duration of immunity for mumps 

after 2 doses of MMR and other risk factors for vaccine failure; 3) Review the available evidence 

on benefit provided by a third dose of MMR for mumps outbreak control; and 4) Evaluate the

programmatic implications and cost of various policy options for a third dose of MMR to prevent 

or control mumps outbreaks. 

Mumps

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

79

Between March and October 2017, the WG engaged in 13 calls and completed 4 online surveys

to complete the evidence assessment of mumps epidemiology, 2-dose MMR vaccine impact, 

data on and experience with third dose MMR vaccine use, and critical review of published and 

unpublished data regarding mumps outbreaks. The outcome of this work wrapped up in October 

2017 when ACIP recommended use of a third dose of mumps virus-containing vaccine for 

persons in the groups identified at increased risk for mumps during an outbreak. Between 

January and June 2018, the WG has engaged in 4 calls, 1 online survey, and 3 rounds of 

document review focused on providing technical consultation, discussion, and feedback to 

finalize CDC guidance for use of a third dose of MMR vaccine during mumps outbreaks. The 

objective of the session is to present to ACIP this proposed guidance. 

At this point, the Mumps ACIP WG has accomplished its terms of reference with the evidence 

available to them to date. Therefore, they are announcing a temporary hiatus of WG activities. 

However, CDC will continue to monitor mumps epidemiology in the US and new scientific 

evidence that can inform better control of mumps going forward. WG calls will be scheduled as 

needed as new information becomes available. 

Current US Mumps Epidemiology and Proposed CDC Guidance for Implementation of the 

ACIP Recommendations for a Third Dose of MMR Vaccine During Outbreaks

Mariel A. Marlow, PhD, MPH

Division of Viral Diseases

National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

As presented during ACIP meetings last year, a substantial increase in the number of mumps 

cases has occurred in the US since late 2015. This graph shows the number of reported 

mumps cases by month from 2012 to 2017, with incidence per year shown below the graph: 

The number of cases in 2016 and in 2017 were nearly double the total number of cases from 

2012 through 2015. Incidence was 19.8 per million in 2016 and 18.9 per million in 2017, which 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

80

is the first time since the 1980s that the incidence has stayed higher than 10 per million for 2 

consecutive years. Also since 2013, at least 70% of cases with known vaccination status had 

received 2 or more doses of MMR. In addition to the increase in the number of cases reported, 

there also was an increase in the number of outbreaks from 1 in 2012 to 88 in 2017. Beginning 

in 2013, over half of all reported cases were outbreak-associated.

In response to this increased burden, last October, ACIP recommended that persons previously 

vaccinated with two doses of a mumps virus-containing vaccine who are identified by public 

health authorities as being part of a group or population at increased risk for acquiring mumps 

because of an outbreak should receive a third dose of a mumps virus-containing vaccine to 

improve protection against mumps disease and related complications. A key part of this 

recommendation is that public health authorities determine which groups or populations are at 

increased risk. 

To assist public health authorities with implementing the ACIP recommendation, CDC 

developed guidance in collaboration with the Mumps ACIP WG and in consultation with other 

partner organizations, including the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE), the 

National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO), and the American College 

Health Association (ACHA). Additional feedback was received during several partner meetings 

and national conferences and included in the guidance presented during this session. 

The proposed guidance includes three sections: 

 Identifying groups of persons at risk for acquiring mumps during an outbreak (mumps 

outbreak is defined as ≥3 cases linked by time and place) 

 Assessing transmission in the settings to determine if these groups are at increased risk, 

and thus should receive a third dose of MMR vaccine

 Implementing a third dose recommendation 

The first part of the guidance, identifying groups of persons at risk for acquiring mumps, starts 

by defining persons at risk and close contact. Persons at risk for mumps during an outbreak are 

those who may be exposed to mumps virus through close contact with a mumps patient. “Close 

contact” is defined as either direct contact with infectious respiratory secretions or droplets, 

which generally travel 3 feet or less when an infected person talks, coughs or sneezes; or close 

proximity for a prolonged period of time with a mumps patient during their infectious period, 

which is 2 days prior to 5 days after parotitis onset or other salivary gland swelling.

Risk for acquiring mumps depends on the likelihood of close contact exposure, which can be 

classified as: 1) known exposure for a group of persons with reported close contact with a 

mumps patient, such as a roommates or partners; 2) likely exposure for a group of persons with 

either likely close contact with a mumps patient or close contact with persons with known 

exposure (a group that is likely to be exposed to future cases); these are typically persons who 

share a social network with a mumps patient; and 3) potential exposure for a group of persons 

with any contact (other than known or likely) with mumps patients or persons with known 

exposure, such as persons sitting in the same lecture hall or cafeteria.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

81

To maximize the benefit of added protection of a third dose and get ahead of transmission 

during an outbreak, public health authorities should focus their investigation on groups of 

persons with known and likely exposure to determine if they are at increased risk. To determine 

if the known and likely exposure groups are at increased risk during an outbreak, the next step 

is to assess transmission in the setting. Public health authorities can assess transmission in the 

setting (location, activity, or event where known or likely exposures are occurring) based on 

evidence of transmission in the setting (close contact exposures within a setting resulting in 

transmission); and risk for transmission in the setting (likelihood for continued transmission). 

They can then use these two factors in a decision matrix, shown here, to determine if a group is 

at increased risk: 

Evidence of transmission can be stratified into three stages: no evidence of transmission, 

evidence that transmission occurred, and evidence of sustained or extensive transmission.

Public health authorities can determine the stage by either the number of incubation periods 

since parotitis onset in the first case, or by epidemiologic links among cases. In the guidance, 

the criteria are provided to make this assessment. The second factor in the decision matrix is 

risk for transmission in the setting. Risk for transmission in the setting results from close contact 

behaviors and interactions among persons in a group, and increases with the intensity of close 

contact exposures (physical contact, such as dancing or sharing of sports equipment or drinks) 

and the frequency of these exposures (prolonged contact such as sharing living spaces, or 

repeated contact such as meeting regularly or sharing daily habits). 

Given the complexity of mumps outbreaks, risk for transmission can vary widely across settings 

and between outbreaks. Health departments will need to assess behaviors and interactions for 

each setting to determine the level of risk. The written guidance provides examples of low, 

moderate and high risk for transmission from previous community, university, school, and 

workplace outbreaks for health departments to compare against their own outbreak. 

As mentioned in the beginning of this section, once public health authorities have assessed 

evidence of transmission and risk for transmission in the setting, they can then enter them into a 

decision matrix to determine whether a group is at increased risk, may be at increased risk, or is 

not at increased risk.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

82

Groups determined to be at increased risk should be recommended to receive a third dose of 

MMR. However, there may be additional epidemiologic factors to consider when deciding to 

make a third dose recommendation. For example, a third dose may be more likely to be 

indicated for a small, definable versus a large dispersed group or population, or when there is 

an increasing versus decreasing case count or attack rate. Other considerations are if the group 

at increased risk includes persons who may potentially transmit to a susceptible population

(e.g., students who volunteer in child care centers), or if the setting is known to be high risk for 

transmission based on previously reported outbreaks (e.g., fraternities, sports teams, or closeknit communities). 

The third section provides additional guidance for public health authorities when implementing a 

third dose recommendation. First, persons in the groups identified at increased risk should be 

advised to seek vaccine through routine immunization channels. However, public health 

authorities might choose to expand their response to include vaccination campaigns or clinics in 

certain situations, such as when case counts are increasing despite a recommendation already 

having been made, there is poor vaccine access or low vaccine uptake among the group at 

increased risk, or the group at increased risk includes hard-to-reach or vulnerable populations. 

Additional implementation guidance indicates that persons with unknown vaccination history, 

less than 2 doses, or other evidence of presumptive immunity should receive a dose if they are 

part of the group at increased risk. No additional dose should be given to persons who received 

3 or more doses before the outbreak or their second dose during the outbreak. Persons 

vaccinated with 2 MMR doses before the outbreak should receive a third dose regardless of 

time since the second dose. In studies and during recent outbreaks, cases have been reported 

in persons with intervals less than 2 and less than 5 years since receipt of their second dose.

Public health authorities should follow ACIP General Recommendations for the minimum 

interval for administration of live virus vaccines (≥28 days). Particularly during an expanded 

response, public health authorities may recommend a dose for all persons at increased risk 

without verification of vaccination history to avoid delays. Persons who receive a dose can be 

referred to their health care providers to assess the need for additional age-appropriate 

vaccination. This concluded the presentation on the proposed CDC guidance.

Dr. Marlow next provided a brief update on CDC activities and mumps epidemiology in 2018. As 

Dr. Moore mentioned, CDC will continue to monitor mumps epidemiology and new scientific 

evidence. Additionally, CDC has several ongoing or planned priority activities to improve the

understanding of outcomes related to use of third dose, which are to:

 Develop transmission models to examine factors that impact the size and duration of an 

outbreak

 Measure duration of antibody response five years after the third dose

 Evaluate antibody avidity, or the quality of antibodies, after the third dose compared with 

after the second dose of MMR

 Assess differences between antibody responses to vaccine versus circulating wild-type 

mumps strains

 Monitor mumps incidence among populations with third dose vaccine recipients to better 

characterize duration of protection after the third dose

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

83

The following graph shows the number of reported mumps cases by month from January 2012 

through May 2018: 

So far in 2018, 1415 cases and 30 outbreaks have been reported. This is about half as many 

cases and outbreaks than was reported during the same period in 2017. However, it is 

important to note that a large number of cases that occurred in late 2016 and early 2017 were 

linked to one outbreak in the Marshallese community in Arkansas that later seeded outbreaks in 

other states in 2017. Also, the lower number of cases in 2018 may reflect some delay in 

reporting. CDC will continue to monitor mumps epidemiology and provide updates when 

available.

Discussion Points

Dr. Zahn (NACCHO) thought that from a local public health standpoint, these changes made a 

lot of sense. His sense was that the way in which third doses have been used at a national level 

have been in large outbreaks in universities. Less has been reported about 3 cases in one gym 

class or 3 or 4 cases among a football team. It makes sense to consider in such situations, and 

the guidance potentially opens the door to do that. He wondered if this was being done on a 

routine basis, or if it was new and different.

Dr. Moore replied that from personal experience, Tennessee has implemented a third dose in 

smaller outbreaks in a university in Tennessee. Part of the reason it may not have been seen in 

smaller outbreaks until now is because there was not a lot of guidance available on the use of a 

third dose, and people were on their own to try to figure it out. She said she believed that about 

half of the university outbreaks were fewer than 10 cases based on a survey of outbreaks 

around the country. The smaller an outbreak is, the more targeted the third dose 

recommendation can be. This guidance is intended to allow public health to be more focused 

and narrower in the application of a third dose, and potentially in an earlier stage in a high-risk 

transmission setting where the risk and opportunity for it to become larger exist.

Dr. Hunter added that the ability for accommodation of the ACIP recommendation, plus the local 

health department guidance, allows local health departments to quickly refer individuals to their 

local provider rather than having to go out and give the vaccine themselves.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

84

Dr. Moore said that in her experience, they have recommended that people go through routine 

channels. If there is a student health opportunity, the student health center would make it 

available to the students who were directly impacted.

Introduction

Edward Belongia, MD

Chair, Herpes Zoster Work Group

Center for Clinical Epidemiology & Population Health

Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation

Dr. Belongia reminded everyone that following FDA licensure of Shingrix, ACIP made the 

following recommendations in October 2017: 1) Recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV, Shingrix) is 

recommended for the prevention of herpes zoster (HZ) and related complications for 

immunocompetent adults aged ≥50 years 2) RZV is recommended for the prevention of HZ and 

related complications for immunocompetent adults who previously received zoster vaccine live 

(ZVL, Zostavax®); and 3) RZV is preferred over ZVL for the prevention of HZ and related 

complications. These recommendations were published in January 2018. The CDC 2018 

Herpes Zoster Policy Note recommendations serve as a supplement to the existing 

recommendations for the use of ZVL in immunocompetent adults aged ≥60 years [Dooling et al. 

MMWR Jan 25, 2018].

Since October 2017, the WG reviewed and approved the Herpes Zoster MMWR Policy NoteRecommendations of the ACIP for Use of Herpes Zoster Vaccines. In addition, WG meetings 

were convened to address the burden and pathophysiology of HZ in immunocompromised 

persons, HZ vaccine performance in immunocompromised persons, and post-licensure 

monitoring of RZV. This session focused on the enhanced safety, effectiveness, and coverage 

to monitor the impact of the preferential recommendation. 

Dr. Belongia indicated that this would be his last meeting as Chair of this WG. Dr. Moore will be 

stepping in as the Chair going forward. He said it has been a great privilege for him to be part of 

this WG, and that he is proud of the WG’s accomplishments over the past four years as they 

dealt with some complicated issues. He thanked all of the WG members and CDC support staff 

for their commitment, particularly Drs. Dooling and Harpaz.

Herpes Zoster Vaccination Update

Dr. Kathleen Dooling MD MPH

Herpes Zoster Work Group Liaison

National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Dr. Dooling indicated that the presentation she would give during this session reflected the work 

of numerous groups at CDC who are responsible for various aspects of post-licensure 

monitoring of vaccines. She first presented information regarding GSK’s post-marketing 

Zoster Vaccines

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

85

commitments for RZV, followed by CDC post-marketing monitoring of RZV safety and 

effectiveness, zoster vaccine coverage, RZV supply, and clinical guidance.

There are three principle post-marketing commitments of RZV study undertaken by GSK as 

outlined in the October Biologics License Application (BLA) approval letter from FDA. The 

protocol submission and study completion deadlines are subject to change. First, GSK is 

committed to assess the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of RZV in adults ≥50 years 

of age with a prior episode of HZ (Protocol submission: Q2, 2018 | Study complete:Q4, 2020). In 

addition, there will be a targeted safety study to evaluate the safety of RZV in adults ≥50 years 

(Protocol submission: Q4, 2020 | Study complete:Q2, 2024); as well as a study to assess the 

long-term efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of RZV in adults ≥50 years of age (Protocol 

submission: Q4, 2021 | Study complete: Q3, 2023). 

In terms of CDC safety monitoring of RZV, as a reminder, VAERS is the first pillar in safety 

monitoring. VAERS is a national early warning system to detect possible safety problems in US 

licensed vaccines. VAERS is co-managed by the CDC and the FDA. The system relies on 

passive reports of AEs following immunization. The strengths of the system are that the data are 

national in scope, the system accepts reports from anyone, it is possible to detect safety signals 

and rare AEs rapidly, and the data are available to the public. The system has limitations as 

well. There are reporting biases, inconsistent data quality and completeness, lack of an 

unvaccinated comparison group because the system only collects AEs following vaccination, 

and the system cannot assess causality. Keeping that in mind, it is important to highlight that 

VAERS is a hypothesis-generating system. It identifies potential vaccine safety concerns that 

can then be studied in more robust data systems.

From RZV licensure on October 20, 2017 through April 27, 2018 there were 680 reports

submitted to VAERS. No unusual patterns or unexpected AEs were observed. Of these reports, 

48 (7%) involved co-administration with another adult vaccine including pneumococcal 

polysaccharide (14), pneumococcal conjugate (12), quadrivalent inactivated influenza (7), Tdap 

(tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis) (6), or adjuvanted inactivated influenza (1). The majority 

(63%) of the reports were among female vaccinees, 95% were adjudicated as non-serious, and 

5 (1%) reports involved a death. During the same time period in the 5 months following vaccine 

licensure, the most commonly report symptoms among the 680 reports received included: 

injection site pain (25%), pyrexia (22%), injection site erythema (21%), chills (19%), pain (17%), 

headache (16%), pain in extremity (15%), injection site swelling (14%), erythema (10%), 

myalgia (10%), rash (10%), injection site warmth (9%), nausea (8%), herpes zoster (7%), and 

rash/erythematous (6%). Of these top 15 most common symptoms, 14 may represent the 

reactogenicity that has been characterized in clinical trials. HZ itself will be expected in some 

portion of older adults as either a vaccine failure or before the vaccine has had sufficient time to 

have the necessary immunologic effects to be protective.

A second pillar of safety monitoring is the VSD. Established in 1990, the VSD is a collaboration 

between CDC and several integrated healthcare plans. There are data on over 10 million 

persons per year, with links between vaccination records and health outcome data. As of May 

31, 2018 over 37,000 doses of RZV were administered at the 6 VSD sites that are participating 

in safety monitoring. That included 35,431 first doses and 1872 second doses. The VSD RCA is 

under review at VSD sites. The first data extraction is anticipated in early August 2018 with a 3-

month lag for risk windows and thus will include doses administered up to April 2018. VSD 

monitoring for RZV includes high priority short-term RCA outcomes (e.g., GBS, anaphylaxis, 

acute myocardial infarction); lower priority short-term outcomes for descriptive analysis (e.g., 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

86

gout, local and systemic reactions); and longer-term outcomes (e.g., potential immune-mediated 

diseases). 

An MMWR was published in late May 2018 based on early reports to VAERS. It is a descriptive 

paper outlining early administration errors involving RZV. During the first 4 months following 

RZV monitoring, VAERS received 155 reports, 13 of which documented an administration error 

including some reports documenting more than one error. Most errors involved giving RZV by 

the SC route rather than by the IM route. Other reports included administration of RZV instead 

of intended varicella vaccine, administration of RZV after incorrect frozen storage, and errors 

involving reconstitution of the vaccine [1 Shimabukuro TT, Miller ER, Strikas RA, et al. Notes 

from the Field: Vaccine Administration Errors Involving Recombinant Zoster Vaccine—United 

States, 2017–2018. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2018;67:585–586. DOI: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6720a4].

With regard to CDC communication pertaining to administration errors and RZV reactogenicity, 

CDC has engaged providers with the above MMWR, online continuing medical education 

(CME), Medscape expert commentary videos, HCP web pages, multiple webinars and 

conferences, and fact sheets. With regard to public outreach, CDC has created a Vaccine 

Information Sheet (VIS), web pages, and a fact sheet. 

In terms of monitoring for RZV effectiveness, CDC and partners are exploring opportunities to 

study the real-world VE of RZV via large health systems and administrative claims data. The 

objective of observational studies in these settings is to evaluate VE of 1 and 2 doses of RZV 

among adults ≥50 years, prior ZVL recipients, and immunocompromised persons.

Regarding zoster vaccine coverage and 2-dose completion, there are a number of systems in 

which CDC will monitor the zoster vaccine program including: Trends in Immunization Practice 

System (TIPS), which is an immunization information system (IIS); National Health Interview 

Survey (NHIS); Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), which provides estimates 

at the state level; and the VSD, which contains electronic health records (EHRs). All of these 

systems can provide information on HZ vaccine coverage and three (TIPS, NHIS, VSD) can 

provide information on 2-dose completion of RZV.

With respect to vaccine supply, due to high levels of demand for RZV (Shingrix), GSK has 

implemented order limits and providers have experienced shipping delays which will continue 

throughout 2018. GSK indicates that they have increased the number of doses available for the 

US market in 2018. GSK plans to release doses to all customer types on a consistent, 

predictable schedule for the remainder of the year. Supply of RZV is sufficient to support the 

vaccination of more patients in the US than were vaccinated against shingles last year. 

CDC guidance on the use of HZ vaccines is as follows:

 Recombinant Zoster Vaccine (Shingrix, GSK) is the preferred shingles vaccine. Every 

effort should be made to ensure that two doses are administered within the 

recommended interval. If more than 6 months have elapsed since the first dose of RZV, 

administer the second dose when possible. Do not restart the vaccine series and do not 

substitute Zoster Vaccine Live (ZVL) for the second dose of RZV.

 Zoster Vaccine Live (ZostavaxTM, Merck) is a recommended shingles vaccine for 

immunocompetent adults ≥60 years. A decision to vaccinate with ZVL may be made 

after an informed discussion between patient and healthcare provider, considering 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

87

factors such as patient preference for ZVL or a desire for immediate vaccination when 

RZV is unavailable. Persons who have received ZVL are recommended to subsequently 

receive RZV. Age and time since receipt of ZVL may be considered to determine when 

to vaccinate with RZV (minimum interval of 8 weeks).

In summary, CDC safety monitoring will proceed primarily in VAERS and VSD. Assessment of 

effectiveness is being planned in the settings of large health systems and administrative claims

data. Coverage and adherence will be monitored via IISs, surveys, and EHRs. In addition to the 

monitoring plans for the current recommendations, evidence of safety and effectiveness of HZV 

vaccine use in immunocompromised persons is currently being reviewed by the WG.

Discussion Points

Dr. Hunter asked when early results are expected on the 2-dose completion rate, and whether 

there will be any way to know whether the limited supply of vaccine impacted the lack of 

completing the second dose.

Dr. Weinbaum replied that CDC is hoping to use a variety of EHR data sources to assess 2-

dose completion rates. It probably will be a year before good estimates are available on 2-dose 

completion. While they will be able to examine the time between the first and second dose, they 

will not be able attribute that to whether supply impacted second dose uptake.

Dr. Belongia added that it would be difficult in this first time period of 6 to 12 months to parse 

that out because of the limited supply. There probably will not be a good sense of the 2-dose 

completion rate until next year.

Dr. Lett (CSTE) complimented CDC on its provider and public communication efforts, which 

they have utilized a lot and which have been very helpful.

Dr. Paul Offit

Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia

Read on Behalf of Dr. Stanley Plotkin

I was sent an email by Dr. Plotkin. He wanted me to read this on behalf of him. This is Dr. 

Plotkin without the Brooklyn accent: “Of course, a third dose of mumps vaccine should be given 

to stop outbreaks as recommended by the working group. However, that does not go far enough 

as I have argued previously and recommended in an article just published in the Journal of the 

Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society. A new mumps vaccine would be desirable, but what we 

can do now is to give a third dose to those likely to be exposed to mumps in colleges. Recently, 

that recommendation has been echoed in an article from Greg Poland at the Mayo Clinic. 

Recent papers documenting outbreaks in students in Scotland and Canada also concluded that 

the current circulating strain differs from the mumps vaccine strain and that a new vaccine 

should be considered, but also show that these outbreaks will continue unless third doses are 

ROUTINELY recommended in college populations. Complications of mumps are occurring even 

in students who have received two doses of MMR.” Thank you.

Day 1: Public Comment

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

88

Rebecca Hastings

Mom, Grandmother, Breastfeeding Counselor

Hi. My name is Rebecca Hastings and I am a mom, a grandmother, a volunteer breastfeeding 

counselor, and I’m passionate about healthy babies. Thank you for this opportunity. I grew up 

with a lot of respect for the CDC since my dad worked here as a scientist his entire career. So, 

it’s an honor for me to address this committee. In light of this committee’s mandate to reevaluate all recommendations as new scientific data emerges, and with its known ability to 

evaluate complex issues and conflicting opinions, and implement up-to-date decision-making, I 

would like to highlight four recent areas of study which demonstrate complex, non-specific 

effects from the current recommended vaccine schedule.

Firstly, Dr. Yao, who has a PhD from the University of Pittsburg, authored 33 peer-reviewed 

studies. He noted that the HepB vaccine is administered to more than 70% of neonates 

worldwide, yet whether this impacts brain development is unknown. Dr. Yao and his team from 

China studied mice and they published a paper in 2016. They showed how they injected them 

with hepatitis B vaccine and they conclude, “This work reveals for the first time that early HBV 

[Hepatitis B] vaccination induces impairments in behavior and hippocampal neurogenesis. This 

work provides innovative data supporting the long suspected potential association of HBV with 

certain neuropsychiatric disorders such as autism and multiple sclerosis.” So, in light of this 

evidence, it would seem prudent for the committee to consider a delayed hepatitis B vaccine 

rather than recommend it on the first day of life.

Secondly, I want to focus on small fragment homologous replacement (SFHR), a technique 

used in gene therapy studies. This same mechanism is suggested as inadvertently operative in 

vaccines manufactured using human fetal cell lines, which contain fetal and retroviral 

contaminants. In a 2014 study by Dr. Theresa Deisher and her team, she showed that cells take 

up human DNA fragments into their own DNA sequence, causing mutations. There are clear 

and specific changepoints in the autism prevalence curves seen in multiple countries coinciding 

directly with human cell lines used in MMR II, varicella, and hepatitis A instead of the previously 

used animal mediums. Now Pentacel® also has these human cell lines, but they were not able 

to look at that at the time of their study.

Thirdly, there is a growing body of research on aluminum dangers. As the committee should be 

well-aware, the accumulative amount of aluminum in the current vaccine schedule is 4925 

micrograms in the first 18 months of life. That is not counting the preschool boosters or the 

shots they get as adults or teenagers. Aluminum has never been clinically approved or clinically 

demonstrated to be safe. An evidence-based study is urgently needed to look at the impact of 

this aluminum.

Finally, Anthony Mawson from the University of Mississippi in 2017 published a vaccinated 

versus unvaccinated study. His did show that non-vaccinated children had a higher risk of 

chickenpox and whooping cough; however, surprisingly he found that the vaccinated had more 

doctor’s visits, more otitis media (OM), more pneumonia, more allergies, more eczema, and 

more neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs). By far the largest risk group that he found was 

pre-term vaccinated babies had a 6.6-fold increased risk of neurodevelopment disorders than 

pre-terms who did not receive vaccines. At the very least, this committee needs to urgently 

reverse the vaccination recommendation for pre-term babies. So, do you have working groups 

investigating these complex non-specific effects from HepB, human cell lines, aluminum, and 

pre-term babies?

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

89

Tiendra Severino

Concerned Parent

This is my son, Luke. He is 11 years old. He has autism. Based on what I’ve observed today 

and also based on the on-line viewing of previous ACIP meetings that this panel is tasked with 

making very important decisions to affect a lot of people. Perhaps you’re making those 

decisions without fully understanding how these decisions may affect some people, especially 

children. From what I can ascertain, the datasets that you have to go on are epidemiological 

studies that do not look at placebo-based control groups and the passive reporting system 

known as VAERS. My son is vaccine-injured. He has autism. I also have two other members of 

the family who have vaccine injury, myself included. My last Tdap vaccine gave me severe 

nerve damage. Back in 2008, my son was one of the first participants in the Study to Explore 

Early Development (SEED). That is a CDC-sponsored study called the SEED Study. My son 

participated in that. They followed him for about 3 years. They took extensive medical histories, 

evaluations, complete vaccination records, everything. I know how extensive that data was. 

Okay? So, this study was exhaustive. It looked at the vaccination records of both autistic and 

neurotypical children, and I believe there were six locations where they looked at these children. 

The study has been referred to by one of CDC’s top scientists, Dr. William Thompson, as the 

“motherload of data.” A massive amount of data, which to date has not been examined for clues 

to the relationship between autism and vaccines. I would like to encourage this panel to 

examine that data, because the thousands of us mothers who watched our children regress 

after vaccines are simply not satisfied with being told that the science is settled—vaccines don’t 

cause autism. We know what we saw happen to our kids. Thank you.

Del Bigtree

Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN)

I want to thank the members of ACIP for the incredible job you do. For those of you leaving us, I 

want to thank you for your time. Certainly, Dr. Bennett, thank you for making this such an 

enjoyable experience. I just want to address the idea of adding a third MMR vaccine. In this 

case, I partially do agree with Dr. Plotkin that we should be looking at better vaccines and I 

wonder why we don’t hear that discussion here more instead of adding a vaccine that is clearly

failing. Why is it failing? Where is the discussion on why we are seeing a failure of a vaccine? I 

think that it is also important when we think about ACIP, again, how you are recognized by the 

public. We have an ongoing case now where two scientists, Drs. Krahling and Wlochowski, 

have come forward and said they were forced to lie and commit fraud on exactly that, the 

effectives of the mumps strain being used in the MMR vaccine. So that is an ongoing case and 

we have workgroups here working on it. It seems to me that it would be very intelligent to think 

about waiting for that decision to be made. Imagine if ACIP decides to add a third vaccine and 

then suddenly we find out that it is true that fraud was committed. I also think it’s ironic that in 

2010 when these scientists came forward, they predicted we would see exactly the problem we 

are seeing. I don’t think in normal circumstances we would let whistleblowers go without 

attention. Maybe it’s because there is no relevance, but we have real relevance here given the 

case that is being looked at. I would hate to see ACIP have the look and opinion by the public 

be diminished because of a decision and then the case show that maybe perhaps they should 

not have made that decision. Thank you very much for your time.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

90

Patricia Neuenschwander

National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners (NAPNAP)

I have been a nurse for nearly 25 years and I have witnessed an increase in NNDs and chronic 

disease in our children over those 25 years. The literature also reflects that this increase is 

happening. The vaccine schedule has rapidly increased from 12 doses n 1993 to 72 doses in 

2017. We have gone from a 12% rate of chronic disease in our children to a rate of 54% in 

2011. Although it feels really good to protect children by preventing infectious disease, what if it 

is at the cost of chronic disease? There have not been any placebo-controlled studies done, as 

they are considered unethical for vaccines. There are no long-term safety studies that look at 

the schedule or the combination of vaccines that are given to children. There is an urgent need 

for long-term higher quality studies that look at the long-term effects of neurological and immune 

system outcomes in children. Can this committee ask or demand from the CDC that they 

conduct a large study using the VSD to evaluate health outcomes in children fully vaccinated 

compared to children who are completely unvaccinated to try to give us an idea if we may be 

trading infectious disease for chronic disease and is it worth that cost. I care very much about 

the health of children. Thank you.

Catharine Layton

Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN)

Thank you all very much for allowing me to speak. I beg to call to attention a newly published 

study in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health entitled, “A lowered probability of 

pregnancy in females in the USA aged 25–29 who received a human papillomavirus vaccine 

injection.” It looked at data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 

(NHANES). The study looked at 8 million married and unmarried women ages 25-29 between 

2007 and 2014, their history of pregnancy, and HPV vaccination status. It found that within both 

married and unmarried groups, women who were given HPV vaccine were 25% less likely to 

have been pregnant at least once. This is unmarried and married groups. It calls for further 

studies on the influence of HPV vaccine and infertility. It is known that the birth rates in the 

United States for women under age 30 are at record lows according to the most recent NCHS 

Data Brief. Therefore, I urge this work group and ACIP to take these findings into consideration 

in their discussions when considering a recommendation for this vaccine in older age groups. 

Thank you.

Jeffrey Jackson

Independent

I have a couple of points regarding the HPV vaccine as well, particularly the 9-valent. This is in 

regard to ACIP’s WG on that vaccination, as well the FDA’s priority review on the vaccination. A 

couple of data points that I saw from slides in today’s presentation: HPV vaccination will have its 

greatest impact when administered before onset of sexual activity; over 90% of males and 

females are sexually active by their mid-20s; and based on epidemiology of the population 

benefit of the adults would be low in comparison to younger adults. Given those data points, I 

would urge both the WG and FDA priority review to consider looking at all of the data and taking 

that into account while expanding that into the greater population. Regarding HPV vaccination, 

particularly the 9-valent, there is a whole decade of a global consensus, or I shouldn’t say 

consensus, but a global body that has been growing on the effects of injected aluminum. I would 

wish for the ACIP WG and the FDA to both consider the global scientific body which is relevant 

for this vaccine and not to overly rely on the science that is done by the manufacturer of that 

vaccine. Thank you for your attention.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

91

Andrea Woodruff

Woodruff Family

I’ll be honest, there are a lot of policies that this committee has made that I am not very happy 

about. However, one thing I am very impressed about is your transparency. You have allowed 

everyone to come here and give their opinion. I have been looking around the world, including 

watching the World Health Organization, and it is not as transparent as you are. As you 

continue to work with the World Health Organization, I ask that you bring this value to them and 

open up their decision-making processes so we can see how things go. Thank you.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

Dr. Messonnier reported that CDC has been investigating an outbreak of Group A 

Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae ) in Colorado. These are cases associated with 

injection drug use among homeless people. Infectious diseases associated with injection drug 

use is a new phenomenon for CDC. Questions that have been raised regard whether there is 

any association with the opioid epidemic, and the utility of vaccines to prevent these cases. The 

National Immunization Conference (NIC) was held May 15-18, 2018. More than 1500 local, 

state, federal, and private sector immunization stakeholders and partners gathered to explore 

science, policy, education, and planning issues. This year’s conference was held in conjunction 

with the National Adult and Influenza Immunization Summit (NAIIS). The presentations for the 

NIC are available online. CDC is working to improve immunization rates among Medicaidcovered children and pregnant women. CDC’s Immunization Services Division (ISD) hosted a 

special meeting on May 31, 2018 entitled “Opportunities and Barriers to Improve Immunization 

Rates among Medicaid-Covered Children and Pregnant Women: A Federal-State Partnership.”

This is part of a CDC-funded cooperative agreement focused on immunization barriers. The 

meeting brought together members of the community of practice states (Colorado, Indiana, 

Kentucky, Montana, and New Mexico), project partner CMS, and leaders in Medicaid and public 

health immunization from around the country.

This is the 100-year commemoration of the 1918 pandemic. A variety of related CDCsponsored, state and local health department, and partner organization events are anticipated 

throughout the year. On May 7, 2018, CDC and Emory University convened a panel of experts 

from academia and government to mark the 100-year commemoration of the 1918 influenza 

pandemic and to discuss and debate current pandemic influenza threats and the future of 

pandemic preparedness. Sessions included historic overviews of the 1918 pandemic, current 

threats and challenges, and a panel of former CDC Directors who reflected on meeting a variety 

of high profile outbreaks. There is a great exhibit at the Smithsonian National Museum of 

National History (NMNH) called “OUTBREAK: Epidemics in a Connected World.” The exhibit 

uses case studies of HIV/AIDS, Ebola, and influenza to highlight the social, emotional, and 

cultural impacts of epidemics. A variety of special events are being planned in conjunction with 

the exhibit, and they also are working on a traveling exhibit. This exhibit will be open to the 

public for the next three years.

Agency Updates

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

92

In terms of staff updates, Dr. Sonja Rasmussen, who is currently Director of the Office of 

Infectious Disease (OID), is retiring from CDC after 20 years of federal service. After leaving 

CDC, Dr. Rasmussen will be joining the University of Florida as a Professor in Pediatrics where 

she will be providing clinical care to patients with genetic conditions, teaching, and continuing 

her research in public health. One of her passions is diseases and vaccination in pregnant 

women. Beginning July 2, 2018, Dr. Michael Iademarco, who is currently the Director of the 

Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Science (CSELS), will be serving as 

Acting Director of OID. A search is planned for a new Director. Dr. Messonnier encouraged 

everyone to send candidates to CDC. Ms. Brooke Barry has accepted a position as Associate 

Director of Policy for NCIRD. She will be overseeing the policy office and providing strategic 

advice, guidance, and direction to programs. Her most recent role has been as the Associate 

Director for Policy with NCIRD’s ISO since 2012.

Department of Defense (DoD)

The Centers for Disease Control Epidemic Intelligence Service Team contributed to the Army 

EPICON team investigation pertaining to a cluster of 4 myo/pericarditis cases located at one site 

within DoD. Collectively, there were no deficiencies identified with regard to handling, 

management and administration of the smallpox vaccines and a number of best practices were 

noted. Final report and recommendations are pending as of 4 June 2018.

The Immunization Healthcare Branch continues to follow the mumps and measles outbreaks in 

HI, AK, and Japan. To date, no Service Members have developed disease. There is question of 

a beneficiary with measles in Japan, but this has not yet been confirmed.

 

DoD continues due diligence in managing Yellow-Fever vaccine requests during manufacturer 

shortage. No changes from June 2017 report.

DoD has completed all of Japanese Encephalitis vaccine FDA-required post-licensure studies 

and is awaiting FDA comment.

 

Vaccine redistribution continues to be a widely successful program. Individual DoD 

immunization sites have the capability to communicate near-expiring vaccine surplus or a 

vaccine deficit through personnel at the Immunization Healthcare Branch (IHB) at the Defense 

Health Agency. IHB staff then can reach out to other immunization site to redistribute vaccine as 

needed. In Fiscal Year 2017, $771,000 worth of vaccine was successfully redistributed. 

Tracking of vaccine loss due to temperature compromise has continued to evolve. Potential 

vaccine loss, which vaccines were ultimately cleared vs discarded, etiology for potential vaccine 

loss (ex power failure, human error, etc.) and trends are identified. These metrics not only 

provide valuable information to the services with regard to lessons learned, but present an 

opportunity to standardize best practices across the DoD.

Publications:

 Authored by IHB Staff: 

 McClenathan BM, Stewart DA, Spooner CE, et al. Metabolites as biomarkers of 

adverse reactions following vaccination: A pilot study using nuclear magnetic resonance 

metabolomics. Vaccine. 2017 Mar 1:35(9):1238-1245.

 Dumas EK, Gross T, Larabee J, Pate L, Cuthbertson H, Charlton S, Hallis B, Engler 

RJM, Collins LC Jr, Spooner CE, Chen H, Ballard J, James JA, Farris AD.. Anthrax 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

93

Vaccine Precipitated induces Edema Toxin-neutralizing, Edema Factor-specific 

antibodies in human recipients. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2017 Sep 6. 

Funded by IHB Intramural Studies Program:

• Lee RU, Won SH, Hansen C, Crum-cianflone NF. 25-hydroxyvitamin D, influenza 

vaccine response and healthcare encounters among a young adult population. PLoS 

ONE. 2018;13(2):e0192479.

 Khodr ZG, Bukowinski AT, Gumbs GR, Conlin AMS. Tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular 

pertussis vaccination during pregnancy and reduced risk of infant acute respiratory 

infections. Vaccine. 2017;35(42):5603-5610. Intramural Studies Program funded.

 Hang J, Zavaljevski N, Yang Y, et al. Composition and variation of respiratory microbiota 

in healthy military personnel. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(12):e0188461. Intramural Studies 

Program funded.

 Conlin AMS, Sevick CJ, Gumbs GR, Khodr ZG, Bukowinski AT. Safety of inadvertent 

anthrax vaccination during pregnancy: An analysis of birth defects in the U.S. military 

population, 2003-2010. Vaccine. 2017;35(34):4414-4420. Intramural Studies Program 

funded.

 Khodr ZG, Bukowinski AT, Gumbs GR, Conlin AMS. Tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular 

pertussis vaccination during pregnancy and reduced risk of infant acute respiratory 

infections. Vaccine. 2017;35(42):5603-5610. Intramural Studies Program funded.

 Pittman PR, Barrera-Oro JG, Xiaofei, et al. Time course of the early antibody response 

to the priming doses of anthrax vaccine adsorbed. Under review at Military Medicine. 

Intramural Studies Program funded.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Dr. Sun reported that the FDA convened a Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory 

Committee (VRBPAC) meeting in May 2018 in which Dr. Carol Baker was a very important 

participant. This meeting focused on the development of Group B Streptococcus vaccines to 

prevent neonatal sepsis invasive disease. A couple of topics were discussed during that 

particular meeting, one of which was the use of various clinical endpoints for the pivotal trials 

such as early onset disease, late onset disease, or a combination of other clinical entities. There 

also was discussion regarding the use of immunologic endpoints to demonstrate VE as a 

potential approach, the need to develop standardized assays and serologic correlates of 

projects from animal studies as well as epidemiologic studies. They also discussed a potential 

role for colonization as a way to evaluate effectiveness. In terms of other activities, the FDA is 

working closely with the CDC on the topic of the use of anthrax vaccine in mass vaccination 

event scenarios and working through the regulatory mechanisms to make the vaccine available 

to all age groups. That work is ongoing and ACIP’s vote the previous day will be a very 

important part of those considerations. Because of the increasing importance of the role of the 

use of real-world evidence in informing VE post-marketing, there are numerous ongoing 

activities related to vaccines and real-world evidence and what could be used to inform VE 

through these types of data other than RCTs.

Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)

Dr. Rubin reported that NVPO has continued to process an increased number of claims. In 

FY17, there were 1243 claims filed with the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). In 

that same fiscal year, $2.52 million was awarded to petitioners and $29.8 million was awarded 

in attorney fees and costs. These fees include compensated, dismissed, and interim attorney 

cases. Thus far in FY18, as of April 30th, $115.4 million has been awarded to petitioners and 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

94

$16.6 million has been paid in attorney fees and costs. More data can be obtained on the HRSA 

website. As of April 30, 2018, the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) has 

compensated 39 claims totaling $5.5 million. VICP outreach efforts continue to focus on making 

providers and the public aware of this safety net program.

Indian Health Service (IHS)

Dr. Weiser reported that IHS administered 352,866 doses of influenza vaccine during the 2017-

2018 influenza seasons to patients seen in IHS Tribal and Urban Health facilities. Influenza 

vaccine coverage among children 6 months through 17 years was 39.1% and coverage among 

adults 18 years of age and older was 35.5%. These numbers have not changed too much in 

recent years. IHS facilities now have a mandatory HCP influenza policy. Influenza vaccine 

coverage among federal IHS HCP was 95.8% for the 2017-2018 influenza season. IHS is very 

pleased about that change. IHS participated in the Region 5 and Region 9 NVPO meetings in 

Chicago and San Francisco, where they presented information on IHS efforts to implement 

NVAC and CDC Standards for Adult Immunization Practice in its facilities and to improve 

access to adult immunization in American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN) communities. IHS is 

very proud of the development and implementation of its adult immunization composite 

measure, which is consistent with age-based ACIP recommended immunizations for all adults 

19 years of age and older across all of IHS. The measure includes Td/Tdap, zoster, and 

pneumococcal vaccines and has been developed as a Government Performance Results Act 

(GPRA) measure, as well as being included in the IHS IIS for this year. IHS will report on 

coverage with this measure during the next ACIP meeting. 

National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Given the focus on influenza vaccines during this meeting, Dr. Beigel thought it would be 

appropriate to give a few updates on NIH influenza studies. A strategic plan was released in 

February 2018, A Universal Influenza Vaccine: The Strategic Plan for the National Institute of 

Allergy and Infectious Diseases, that was published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases (JID) 

that maps NIAID’s vision about how to get from current vaccines to a point at which there would 

be universal influenza vaccines. To develop a universal influenza vaccine, NIAID will focus on 

three key research areas: 

 Improving the understanding of the transmission, natural history and pathogenesis of 

influenza infection

 Precisely characterizing how protective influenza immunity occurs and how to tailor 

vaccination responses to achieve it

 Supporting the rational design of universal influenza vaccines, including designing new 

immunogens and adjuvants to boost immunity and extend the duration of protection. 

In March, NIAID launched two new clinical trials testing inactivated 2017 H7N9 influenza 

vaccines in the NIAID-funded network of Vaccine and Treatment Evaluation Units (VTEUs). 

NIAID funded previous research on an earlier version of the H7N9 vaccine. The new vaccine 

candidate uses an inactivated form of H7N9 influenza virus collected in 2017, to increase the 

likelihood that the vaccine will provide immunity against a newly-evolved strain of H7N9.

Combined, these trials are expected to enroll up to 570 volunteers ages 19-64, and up to 300 

volunteers > 65 years of age. One of the trials is testing different dosages of the inactivated 

influenza vaccine candidate, with or without AS03 adjuvant manufactured by GSK Biologicals. 

The second trial is testing the H7N9 vaccine candidate with the AS03 adjuvant when coadministered with seasonal influenza vaccine.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

95

In May, NIAID began a clinical trial testing a universal influenza vaccine, called M-001, for safety 

and its ability to produce potentially broad protective immune responses, both on its own and 

when followed by a licensed seasonal influenza vaccine. Theoretically, it could protect against 

many current and emerging strains of influenza. The study will enroll up to 120 healthy 

volunteers between the ages of 18 and 49 years and is being conducted at four VTEUs.

In June 2018, NIAID’s Advisory Council approved several FY19 concepts that may be of interest 

to ACIP. The first is entitled “Collaborative Influenza Vaccine Innovation Centers (CIVICs).” The 

program’s objective is to support a new consortium focused on developing innovative influenza 

vaccines that provide robust, durable, broadly protective immunity (universal influenza vaccines) 

and improve the immunogenicity and durability of licensed seasonal influenza vaccines.

The second is for a new funding mechanism to support clinical trials evaluating vaccines. This 

would entail the establishment of a Leadership Group for an Infectious Diseases Clinical 

Research Consortium that will support planning and implementing clinical trials and studies, and 

a new funding mechanism for the VTEUs that will be part of the Leadership Group. This 

infrastructure should foster collaborative approaches to addressing NIAID priorities and provide 

a more streamlined mechanism for NIAID to evaluate and advance the development of 

vaccines, therapeutics, biologics, diagnostics, and other products. A webinar and FAQ page can 

be found at https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/future-infectious-disease-research. 

National Vaccine Program Office (NVPO) / National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC)

Dr. Wharton reported that NVPO collaborated with a number of partners (CDC, NIH, FDA, and

other agencies) in responding to a request written into the 21st Century Cures legislation for a 

report on vaccine innovation barriers and how to address them. Since the February ACIP 

meeting, that report was posted online on the NVPO website. NVPO recently wrapped up a 

series of stakeholder meetings organized in collaboration with regional health administrators in 

Dallas, Omaha, Denver, Philadelphia, Chicago, and San Francisco. These meetings convened 

stakeholders around adult immunization. These were generally well-received and some 

planning came out of those. NVPO hopes to be able to support some similar meetings in the 

future. The next NVAC meeting will be on June 25, 2018 from 2:00 PM to 5:00 PM via webcast. 

This meeting will include a presentation from the HPV Implementation WG on a draft report that 

is expected to be discussed and voted on by the committee. In terms of personnel, CAPT 

Angela Shen who has been with NVPO for a number of years will be retiring from the US Public 

Health Service (USPHS) this summer. Her last day on the job will be later in June.

Discussion Points

Dr. Bennett expressed sadness that ACIP would be losing another extremely valuable member 

after this meeting with the departure of Dr. Sun, who has served as the FDA liaison for many 

years. She wished him the best and thanked him for all of his contributions. She thought it was 

fair to say that over the course of Dr. Sun’s tenure, ACIP had come to better understand and 

has had a much stronger sense of continuity with the FDA.

Dr. Sun indicated that in August 2018, he would be departing the FDA. He thanked all of the 

ACIP Executive Secretaries: Dr. Larry Pickering and Dr. Amanda Cohn; Chairs: Dr. Carole 

Baker, Dr. Jon Temte, and Dr. Nancy Bennett; Directors: Dr. Anne Schuchat and Dr. Nancy 

Messonnier; Staff who have made all of these meetings so smooth: Dr. Jean Smith, Jessica 

McNeal, Stephanie Thomas, Natalie Greene, and others; and the WG leaders with whom he 

has worked closely: Dr. Marc Fisher, Dr. Lisa Groskopf, Dr. Lauri Markowitz, and Dr. Erin 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

96

Staples. Dr. Sun said he always looked forward to attending ACIP meetings because he knew 

that he would learn so much, but he also had some trepidation in that he might have to explain 

some FDA decision or was uncertain about whether he would be able to answer the questions 

asked of him. However, he stressed that this is a necessary and good thing, because ACIP is a 

forum for making evidence-based vaccine recommendations and policy. As someone pointed 

out the previous day, there is accountability and transparency. He has come to appreciate the 

importance of the close collaboration and partnership between the FDA, ACIP, and CDC in 

promoting public health through vaccines. He emphasized that it has been a real pleasure and 

privilege for him to have served with ACIP for the last 8 years.

Introduction

Chip Walter, MD

Chair, ACIP Flavivirus Vaccines WG 

Dr. Walter reminded everyone that Flavivirus Vaccines WG’s objectives with respect to 

Japanese encephalitis (JE) are to: 1) review the newly available safety and immunogenicity 

data for JE vaccine; 2) review the epidemiology and risk of JE in travelers; 3) review ACIP 

recommendations for use of JE vaccine in consideration of updated data; and 4) update the

MMWR Recommendations and Reports. He indicated that the presentations during this session 

would include the following:

 GRADE for inactivated Vero cell culture-derived JE vaccine (JE-VC)

 Background to comparative analysis of JE vaccination strategies 

 Comparative analysis of JE vaccination strategies 

 Summary and conclusions 

GRADE for Inactivated Vero Cell Culture-Derived JE Vaccine (JE-VC)

Dr. Susan Hills, MBBS, MTH

Arboviral Diseases Branch

Division of Vector-Borne Diseases

National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Fort Collins, Colorado

Before commencing on the GRADE for JE-VC, Dr. Hills began with a reminder of some key 

issues related to JE and JE vaccine. JE is caused by a mosquito-borne flavivirus. It occurs in 

most of Asia and the Western Pacific and is the leading vaccine-preventable cause of 

encephalitis in Asia. 1

Most JE virus infections in humans are asymptomatic, with <1% of 

infected people developing neurologic disease. However, when disease does occur, it is often 

severe. Overall, about 20% to 30% of patients die, and 30% to 50% of survivors have significant 

neurologic, cognitive, or behavioral sequelae. There is no specific antiviral therapy, and 

treatment consists of supportive care. 2

There are about 68,000 JE cases annually in Asia, with 

an overall incidence for all age groups of approximately 1.8 cases per 100,000 population. The 

highest risk for infection is in rural, agricultural areas. Because of the ongoing risk for the local 

Japanese Encephalitis Vaccine

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

97

population, national vaccination programs have been implemented in some endemic countries.

3 

For most travelers to Asia, the risk for JE is very low but varies on the basis of travel destination, 

duration, season, and activities. The overall incidence is estimated to be less than 1 case per 

million travelers. A JE vaccine for travelers was first licensed in the US in 1992. In the 25-year 

period following licensure, 12 travel-associated JE cases were reported among travelers or 

expatriates, or less than 1 case reported per year [1

Vaughn DW. Epidemiol Rev 1992; 

2

Campbell GL. Bull World Health Organ 2011; 3Hills SL. CDC Yellow Book 2018].

The inactivated JE-VC manufactured by Valneva, Ixiaro®, is the only JE vaccine currently

licensed and available in the US. The vaccine was licensed for adults 17 years of age and older

in 2009. The licensure was subsequently extended in 2013 to children ages 2 months through 

16 years. The primary series is 2 doses administered 28 days apart. The vaccine costs 

approximately $600 for the 2-dose primary series. 

There are no efficacy data for Ixiaro®. Because several effective JE vaccines were available in 

Asia, RCTs to evaluate new JE vaccines for efficacy would have been logistically difficult and 

potentially unethical. However, there is an established immunologic correlate of protection which 

is a JE virus with 50% plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT50) titer of ≥10 [Hombach J. 

Vaccine 2005; Markoff L. Vaccine 2000]. 

The vaccine was licensed based on its ability to induce neutralizing antibodies and comparison 

with a licensed inactivated mouse brain-derived JE vaccine (JE-MB). JE-MB had 91% efficacy 

in an RCT in more than 65,000 children in Thailand in 1984-1986. In the pivotal non-inferiority 

study for JE-VC, the neutralizing antibody response to JE-VC was non-inferior to the response 

to JE-MB. In addition, seroprotection rates of at least 95% for JE-VC recipients were achieved in 

all clinical trials that were submitted for licensure. The vaccine had a good safety profile in prelicensure studies among about 5,000 recipients and no safety concerns have been identified 

since licensure in 2009, when more than 1 million doses have been distributed in the US [Hoke 

CH. N Engl J Med 1988; Tauber E. Lancet 2007; Tauber E. J Infect Dis 2008].

In terms of the timeline for ACIP recommendations for use of JE-VC, in 2009, recommendations 

for use in adults were approved. In 2011, adult booster dose recommendations were approved.

In 2013, a GRADE was presented to ACIP for use of JE-VC in children, and recommendations 

for pediatric use of JE-VC were subsequently approved.

Moving on to the GRADE for JE-VC, the WG is conducting a routine review of JE vaccine 

recommendations in light of newly available safety and immunogenicity data that have become 

available since the previous recommendations for JE-VC were approved and published. The 

overarching policy question for the GRADE review was, “Should JE-VC be recommended for 

use in persons aged ≥2 months at risk of travel-related exposure to JE virus?” The components 

of the policy question are: 1) the population, which is persons aged 2 months and older traveling 

to JE risk areas; 2) the intervention, which is JE-VC administered as a 2-dose primary series; 

and 3) the comparison, which is no JE vaccine recommended. 

In terms of the WG’s ranking and inclusion of outcome measures, the benefits that were 

considered critical were VE to prevent JE and seroprotection at 1 and 6 months after 

vaccination. There are no efficacy data available for JE-VC preventing inclusion of these data, 

but the vaccine was licensed based on an established immunologic correlate of protection, so 

data considered critical on seroprotection at 1 and 6 months after vaccination were included.

The harms that were considered critical were SAEs and AEs of special interest, and these data 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

98

were included. Injection site reactions and interference with other vaccines were considered 

important but not critical outcomes, so these were not included in the evidence profile. 

To collect the evidence for the GRADE evaluation, a systematic search and review was 

performed of the published literature. The WG searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and 

Cochrane Library databases for papers in any language using the keywords Japanese 

encephalitis AND Vaccine AND IXIARO or JESPECT or IC51 or JEEV or Vero or Purified 

inactivated. These latter terms are trade names in different countries, or terms used in clinical 

trials at different points of development of JE-VC. After papers were identified, the title and 

abstract were reviewed to identify relevant articles. If no abstract was available, the full paper 

was reviewed. In total, there were 21 studies that reported primary data relevant to the critical 

outcome measures. The following unpublished data also were included:

 VAERS data for JE-VC administered from May 2012 through April 2016 to adults and 

children in the US or to US military personnel

 Post-marketing AE surveillance data from US military personnel from the Defense Medical 

Surveillance System (DMSS) database 

 Two clinical trials of a similar JE-VC which is manufactured and licensed in India under the 

trade name JEEVTM 

For the first critical outcome, 12 studies provided seroprotection data at 1 month after the 2 

dose primary series, including four RCTs with comparative immunogenicity data for another JE 

vaccine. The comparator JE vaccines used in the controlled trials included JE-MB from Korea 

and Japan and JEEVTM from India. In all four studies, seroprotection rates were greater than or 

equal to 95%. Overall, of the 460 JE-VC recipients in the combined RCTs, 97% were 

seroprotected at 1 month after the 2-dose primary series. In all of these studies, seroprotection 

rates were similar to or higher than seroprotection rates for recipients of the comparator 

vaccines.

There were 8 additional observational studies with data on seroprotection at 1 month after the 

primary series. Of these studies, 4 were actually randomized trials but had no comparative 

immunogenicity data, so these were considered observational studies for this analysis. In these 

8 observational studies involving over 1200 subjects who received JE-VC, seroprotection rates 

were similar to those in the controlled trials and rates in all but one study were higher than 95%. 

The one study with a lower seroprotection rate of 65% was conducted among older subjects 

aged 64 to 83 years. These data on immunogenicity in older adults were considered by the WG 

and presented to ACIP in October 2015 and were submitted to the FDA. While there are lower 

seroprotection rates in older adults compared to younger adults, there are no data on safety, 

immunogenicity, or optimal timing of a possible third primary series dose or early booster dose

for older adults. 

In terms of the results of a weighted random effects model to provide a pooled risk ratio by 

combining data from the 4 RCTs, the risk ratio was calculated by dividing the proportion 

seroprotected in the JE-VC group by the proportion seroprotected in the other JE vaccine group. 

The risk ratios from the individual clinical trials were weighted and combined to provide an 

overall comparison across the studies. A risk ratio of >1.0 favors JE-VC over the other JE 

vaccine. Overall, the combined risk ratio was 1 so there was no significant difference in 

seroprotection rates at 1 month between JE-VC recipients and the other JE vaccine recipients.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

99

The second critical outcome was seroprotection at 5 to 6 months after a primary series of JEVC. For the adult studies, follow-up was at 5 months after completing the 2-dose primary series, 

and for the pediatric studies it was at 6 months. Evidence for this outcome was from 6 studies, 

including 2 RCTs and 4 observational studies. Again, 2 studies were actually randomized trials 

without comparative immunogenicity data and were considered observational studies for this 

analysis. Of the 941 JE-VC recipients in the 6 studies combined, 92% had a PRNT titer of 10 or 

greater at 5 to 6 months after the 2-dose primary series. The results of the weighted random 

effects model of the 2 RCTs showed that a significantly higher proportion of JE-VC recipients 

were seroprotected at 5 to 6 months following vaccination compared to subjects who received 

JE-MB.

Regarding the outcomes related to potential harms of JE-VC, the control vaccines used in the 

various studies included JE-MB vaccines from Japan or Korea, JE-VC from India, hepatitis A 

vaccine, 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, purified chick embryo cell culture rabies 

vaccine, or a placebo of phosphate buffered saline with aluminum hydroxide adjuvant. The AEs

were reported if they occurred within the relevant timeframe, but were not necessarily causally 

related. Within 1 month of either dose of JE-VC, SAEs were reported in 1% or fewer of JE-VC 

recipients in each of the 8 studies with comparative safety data for a control vaccine or placebo, 

other than in one study where the rate was 9%. Unfortunately, the study authors did not 

describe the SAEs that were reported in that study, but only described one event that was 

considered related to vaccination. Overall in the 8 RCTs combined, 0.6% of the 4141 JE-VC 

recipients in the RCTs had an SAE reported. There were additionally 4 observational studies 

with data on SAEs reported within 1 month of either dose of JE-VC, and serious events were 

reported overall in 0.9 % of the 548 JE-VC recipients in these studies. Four studies provided 

data for SAEs reported within 6 to 7 months after the first does of JE-VC or control vaccine, 

including 2 RCTs and 2 observational studies. One study pooled data from several clinical trials 

in adults. Among a total of 5269 subjects, 1.4% had SAEs reported.

Regarding data from evaluations of AEs reported through post-marketing surveillance, the 

importance of post-marketing surveillance is that the larger numbers of subjects involved 

increases the likelihood of detection of rare SAEs that might not be detected with the relatively 

small numbers of subjects in the clinical trials. Three evaluations were reviews of passive 

surveillance systems, and one was a retrospective chart review for medical visits following 

administration of JE-VC to children in a travel clinic. One study included reports from the US, 

Europe, and Australia for April 2009 through March 2010 during which time almost 250,000 

doses of JE-VC were distributed in those countries. Two studies were reports from VAERS 

analyses covering the periods May 2009 through April 2016, when more than 1 million doses of 

JE-VC in total were distributed in the US. Approximately 85,000 doses distributed in the US 

from May 2009 through March 2010 are included in 2 of the 3 evaluations of passive 

surveillance systems. There was no overlap in the 9 SAEs identified in these 2 evaluations.

The 3 large post-marketing surveillance evaluations provided indirect but reassuring data with 

1.1 to 1.8 SAEs reported per 100,000 doses distributed, and the final study from November 

2011 through August 2014 supports this although the numbers are much smaller. These rates 

are similar to or lower than rates of SAEs from post-marketing surveillance for other vaccines 

including quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine, 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide 

vaccine, yellow fever vaccine, and live attenuated herpes zoster vaccine, where rates in similar 

VAERS analyses were 1.9 to 4.4 SAEs per 100,000 doses distributed. It is important to 

remember that unlike in the clinical trials where JE vaccine was administered alone, the 

assessments of surveillance systems often include AE reports where one of more vaccines 

were co-administered with JE vaccine. In addition, causality often cannot be assessed from 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

100

information submitted and available in passive surveillance systems and the events might not 

be causally related. With the SAEs reported in the clinical trials and surveillance data overall, no 

patterns in the timing or types of SAEs were identified.

Regarding the results for pooled risk ratio after combining data from the 8 RCTs with data on 

SAEs within 1 month after either dose of JE-VC, the AE risk ratios were calculated by dividing 

the proportion with the AEs in the JE-VC group by the proportion with the AE event in the 

control group. A risk ratio <1.0 favors JE-VC over the control vaccine or placebo. Overall, the 

combined risk ratio was 1.2 and the confidence interval crossed 1, indicating there was no 

significant difference in the proportion of subjects who reported SAEs within 1 month after doses 

of JE-VC or comparison vaccines. In the 2 randomized controlled trials with data on SAEs at 6 

to 7 months, the pooled risk ratio was 0.7 and the confidence limits indicate there was also no 

significant difference in the proportion of subjects who reported events following JE-VC or 

comparator vaccines.

For the other outcome considered critical by the WG, AEs of special interest, the events 

included were fever, rash, hypersensitivity or urticaria, neurologic events, and medically 

attended events. Data used to evaluate fever as a solicited AE reported within 7 days of JE-VC 

or control vaccine came from 7 studies, including 4 RCTs and 3 observational studies. Fever 

within 7 days was reported overall in 8% of the 3892 subjects in the 7 clinical trials, with 

proportions ranging from 0% to 21%. The substantial differences in proportions were likely 

related to several factors including the different age groups studied; variable locations of study 

sites from Europe, the US, Australia, India, and the Philippines; differences in study 

methodology; and the different sizes of study populations with potentially less precision in some 

smaller studies. The 2 studies showing higher rates of fever were the study that showed fever 

among 15% of children in the Philippines and a similar rate of fever among recipients of the 

control vaccines, and a Phase ll study in the US with only 24 recipients of JE-VC and a nonsignificant difference in rate of fever compared with the control group. In the 4 RCTs with data 

on fever within 7 days, there was no significant difference in the proportion of subjects who 

reported events following JE-VC or comparator vaccines. 

Rash as a solicited AE within 7 days after either JE-VC dose was reported in 2% of the 3892 

subjects who received JE-VC in the 4 RCTs and 3 observational studies, with proportions in 

individual studies all less than or equal to 4%. In the 4 RCTs, there was no difference in the 

incidence of rash between subjects who received JE-VC and comparison vaccines. 

Hypersensitivity or urticaria within 1 month of either dose was reported in less than 1% of the 

3868 JE-VC recipients in the 3 controlled trials and 3 observational studies. Proportions were 

less than or equal to 5% in all studies. The highest rate of 5% was in the observational study

among US children travelers. The events reported included asthma in 2 subjects with a history 

of asthma; 1 subject with episodes of pruritis or rash 1 day, 5 weeks, and 3 months after 

vaccination; contact dermatitis in 1 subject, and pruritus and erythematous rash in 1 subject. In 

the 3 RCTs that included data on hypersensitivity or urticaria, there was no significant difference 

in the incidence of these reactions between recipients of JE-VC and control vaccines. 

Neurologic AEs, excluding headache, within 1 month of either dose of JE-VC were reported in

only 1 of the 5 clinical trials, or overall 1% of the 3668 JE-VC recipients. No cases of meningitis, 

encephalitis, or GBS were reported. In the 3 RCTs, there was no difference in the incidence of 

neurologic AEs between recipients of JE-VC and control vaccines. 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

101

Medically attended AEs within 1 month after either dose of JE-VC were reported in 14% of 

almost 4000 subjects overall in the 3 controlled trials and 3 observational studies. The 

proportion of subjects with medically attended AEs in individual studies ranged from 0% to 19%. 

The 2 studies with the highest percentage of subjects with medically attended AEs were 

conducted among children in the Philippines where the same rates of events occurred among 

the JE-VC and control vaccine recipients and among elderly adults in Europe. When data from 

the 3 RCTs were combined and weighted, there was no difference in the incidence of medically 

attended AEs between JE-VC and comparison vaccines recipients.

Additional data on some of the AEs of special interest were available through post-marketing 

surveillance reports from the 3 passive surveillance systems, and the post-marketing 

surveillance study that utilized the DMSS to actively and retrospectively identify pre-defined, 

potential SAEs in the 42 days following administration of JE-VC, based on ICD-9 codes. For the 

3 reviews of passive surveillance systems, rates of hypersensitivity reactions were from 3.0 to 

4.4 events per 100,000 doses distributed. In the active surveillance study, the rate was 24.8 per 

100,000 doses administered. This much higher rate reflected the different methodology of this 

study with active and retrospective identification of events based on ICD-9 codes. Unfortunately, 

there was typically insufficient information available to assess the complete clinical presentation 

or why a certain ICD-9 code had been applied. However, information indicated that some events 

were likely unrelated, including for 1 case the report indicating a large area of erythema after a 

bee sting or bug bite, and for 3 cases, occurrence of the event at least 3 weeks after 

vaccination. In addition, 3 events occurred after co-administration with other vaccines including 

anthrax and rabies vaccine, precluding attribution to a particular vaccine.

Based on data on neurologic AEs reported through the same post-marketing surveillance 

systems, the incidence rates from the passive surveillance systems ranged from 0.2 to 1.1 

neurologic events reported per 100,000 doses distributed. Again, in the active surveillance 

study, the rate was substantially higher at 22 events per 100,000 doses administered, reflecting 

the different methodology of this study. Clinical information was not available to adequately 

assess the events, although 1 event followed surgery and was unrelated. The timing of 3 events 

reported as convulsions and 1 event reported as meningitis at 3 weeks or later after vaccination 

suggested they were also likely unrelated. One other event occurred in a JE-VC recipient who 

had also received several reactogenic vaccines including smallpox and anthrax vaccines.

In addition to the studies of JE-VC, the WG also reviewed evidence for seroprotection, SAEs, 

and events of special interest from an RCT of a similar JE vaccine which is manufactured and 

licensed in India under the trade name JEEVTM. JEEVTM is manufactured by Biological E using 

technology transferred from Valneva and is licensed for use in India. The vaccine used as a 

control was JenceVac, the inactivated mouse brain-derived JE vaccine from Korea. In an RCT

comparing JEEVTM and JenceVac in children aged 1 through 2 years, 92% of the 280 children 

who received JEEVTM had protective neutralizing antibodies at 1 month after the second dose.

SAEs were reported in less than 1%t of recipients. Fever within 7 days after either dose was 

reported in 11% of children and rash in 1%. Although JEEVTM and JE-VC are not identical 

vaccines, these data provide some additional evidence of immunogenicity and safety of JE-VC. 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

102

The final step in the GRADE analysis was assessing the quality of the evidence for each of the 

four critical outcomes. The initial evidence type is classified based on the study design and can 

be downgraded based on limitations including risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, and 

imprecision. As a reminder, these are the standard GRADE classifications: 

 Evidence Type 1: RCTs or overwhelming evidence from observational studies 

 Evidence Type 2: RCTs with important limitations or exceptionally strong evidence from 

observational studies

 Evidence Type 3: Observational studies or RCTs with notable limitations 

 Evidence Type 4: Clinical experience, observational studies with important limitations, or 

RCTs with several major limitations

In terms of the evidence type for studies that support the critical outcomes related to the 

benefits of vaccination, for seroprotection at 1 month post-vaccination, for the 4 RCTs the initial 

evidence type was 1 and for the 8 observational studies the initial evidence type was 3. No 

downgrading was needed as no serious limitations were identified. For seroprotection at 6 

months, there were 2 RCTs and 4 observational studies. The initial evidence types were again 1 

for the RCTs and 3 for the observational studies, and no downgrading was needed for any 

serious limitations. For both outcomes, imprecision was a factor in some individual studies. But 

when combined data from the RCTs were reviewed, this was not a serious limitation overall. 

Other factors that could have an effect on evidence type (publication bias, strength of 

association, dose response, and residual confounding) were not considered to be factors that 

would alter the evidence type.

With regard to the evidence type for studies that support the critical outcomes related to harms 

of vaccination, including SAEs and events of special interest, for SAEs 8 RCTs started at 

evidence type 1 but were downgraded to evidence type 2 because of risk of bias due to 

inadequate blinding. Eight observational studies started at evidence type 3 and no serious 

limitations were identified. For events of special interest, the evidence provided by 5 RCTs was 

again downgraded to type 2 because of risk of bias due to inadequate blinding. Seven 

observational studies started at evidence type 3 and no serious limitations were identified. For 

both outcomes, there was some concern about imprecision in the RCTs. However, 

complementary information from surveillance assessments and observational studies supported 

the results of the RCTS and therefore imprecision was not considered a concern overall.

In terms of the overall quality of evidence for JE-VC, while RCTs and observational studies are 

considered in the body of evidence, the final evidence type is based on the RCTs because they 

provide the higher quality of evidence. The available data suggest the overall evidence type for 

benefits or seroprotection is 1 and for harms or adverse events is 2.

The next step in regard to this GRADE analysis is to incorporate the information into the EtR

framework. The WG anticipates presenting the framework and proposed recommendations

during the next ACIP meeting.

Discussion Points

Dr. Belongia requested further information about the history of this vaccine prior to licensure in 

the US in terms of whether it was licensed in other countries. It sounded like the manufacturer 

transferred the technology to India, and he wondered how long it had been used there.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

103

Dr. Hills replied that it was licensed in the US and subsequently was licensed in Australia, 

Thailand, and Europe. The first licensure was in 2009. JEEVTM has been licensed in India but 

not really used beyond the private market in India. It has not been used extensively in national 

vaccination programs where other types of JE vaccines have been used.

 

Dr. Belongia pointed out that in terms of reporting the pooled effectiveness for the variety of 

measures the WG was considering, it would be helpful also to show a measure of heterogeneity 

across those, especially given the use of inconsistency as an outcome in the GRADE analysis.

Background for a Comparative Analysis of JE 

Vaccination Strategies for US Travelers to Asia

Marc Fischer, MD, MPH

Arboviral Diseases Branch

Division of Vector-Borne Diseases

Fort Collins, Colorado

Dr. Fischer provided background for a comparative analysis of JE vaccination strategies for US 

travelers to Asia. For most travelers to Asia, the risk for JE is very low but varies based on travel 

destination, duration, season, and activities. Travelers with longer trips or increased rural and 

outdoor exposures are at higher risk of acquiring JE virus infection. JE vaccine was first 

licensed in the US in 1992. In the 25 years from 1992 through 2017, 12 JE cases were identified 

among US travelers or expatriates. Among the 12 cases, 8 had traveled for a month or longer.

Three cases traveled for less than a month but spent at least one night in a rural area. One case 

traveled for less than one month, but there is no information on their itinerary or activities. These 

low numbers of JE cases are not likely related to JE vaccination. In two studies performed in 

2007 and 2009 through 2012, 11% and 28% respectively of adult higher risk, longer-term US 

travelers to Asia had received JE vaccine for their current or previous trips. Only 2% to 4% of 

lower risk travelers had received JE vaccine.

In terms of the current ACIP recommendations for prevention of JE among travelers, all 

travelers to Asia should be advised of the risk of JE and the importance of avoiding mosquito 

bites to reduce the risk for JE and other vector-borne diseases. For some travelers who will be 

in a higher-risk setting, JE vaccine can further reduce the risk for infection. Providers should 

assess a traveler’s risk based on their planned itinerary, including location, duration, season, 

and activities. The decision whether to vaccinate should weigh the risk of travel-associated JE, 

the high morbidity and mortality when JE does occur, the low probability of serious AEs

following vaccination, and the cost of the vaccine. JE vaccine is recommended for longer-term 

travelers who will live in or visit endemic areas for a month or longer during the JE virus 

transmission season, including expatriates and recurrent travelers who will be based in an 

urban area but are likely to visit rural areas. JE vaccine also should be considered for short-term 

travelers to endemic areas if they plan to travel outside an urban area and have an itinerary or 

activities that will increase the risk of JE virus exposure. JE vaccine is not recommended for 

short-term travelers whose visit will be restricted to urban areas or times outside of a welldefined JE virus transmission season.

The analysis to be presented after this talk compares JE vaccination in three groups of US 

travelers. Risk Group I includes travelers who plan to spend a month or longer in JE endemic 

areas and approximates the group for whom JE vaccine is currently recommended. Risk Group 

II includes travelers who will spend less than a month in JE endemic areas with at least 20% of 

their time doing outdoor activities in rural areas. This group approximates travelers for whom JE 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

104

vaccination should be considered after evaluating their itinerary and weighing the benefits, risks, 

and costs. Risk Group III includes the remainder of shorter-term and lower-risk US travelers to 

Asia for whom JE vaccination is not recommended.

In terms of how the estimated incidence of JE for each risk group was calculated, the number of 

JE cases by risk group comes from US surveillance data for the 10 years from 2007 through 

2016. This time period was used because it most closely approximates the JE risk for current 

travelers and includes the best data for total travelers to Asia and the proportion of travelers in 

each risk group. From 2007 through 2016, 9 JE cases were identified among US travelers or 

expatriates. Of those, 5 spent a month or more in JE endemic areas and fit Risk Group I, 3 were 

shorter-term travelers with rural exposures who fit Risk Group II, and 1 case had no information 

on their itinerary and was conservatively assigned to Risk Group III. The proportion of all US 

travelers by risk group was estimated from a survey of US travelers to Asia performed at three

US airports in 2007. Using data from that study, approximately 20% of US travelers to Asia are 

in Risk Group I, 25% are in Risk Group II, and the remaining 55% are in Risk Group III. The 

number of US travelers to Asia was approximated from US National Travel and Tourism Office

(NTTO) data for the number of the total number of trips to Asia by US citizens from 2007 

through 2016. During this 10-year period, US citizens made 48 million trips to JE endemic 

countries in Asia. By applying the proportions derived from the airport study, it was estimated 

there were 9.4 million trips among travelers in Risk Group I, 12.2 million trips among travelers in 

Risk Group II, and 26.5 million trips among travelers in Risk Group III. From the number of 

reported cases and total travelers to Asia, the incidence of JE among Risk Group I is 0.53 cases 

per million travelers, the incidence of JE for Risk Group II is 0.25 cases per million travelers, and 

the JE incidence for Risk Group III is an estimated 0.04 cases per million travelers.

There have been no previous cost-effectiveness studies of JE vaccine among travelers. In 

addition, ACIP has not considered cost-effectiveness analyses for other rare travel-associated 

vaccine-preventable diseases, such as rabies or meningococcal disease. JE vaccination is costeffective or cost-saving for local populations in JE endemic countries. Two factors account for 

expected differences in the cost-effectiveness of JE vaccine between local populations and 

travelers. First, there is a substantially higher incidence of disease in endemic areas. There are 

1 to 10 cases of JE per 100,000 people per year in endemic areas without vaccination 

compared to less than 1 case per million US travelers. In addition, substantially lower cost 

vaccines are used for most routine or mass vaccination programs in Asia. A live-attenuated JE 

vaccine manufactured in China and used widely throughout Asia costs less than $1.00 per 

dose. By comparison, a 2-dose primary series of JE-VC for US travelers costs approximately 

$600 dollars.

In 2010, the ACIP WG decided not to evaluate cost-effectiveness when it considered the current 

recommendations for JE vaccine in US travelers. This was because it was clear that vaccination 

of travelers would not be cost-effective due to low disease incidence and high vaccine cost. In 

addition, travel vaccines are usually paid for by the travelers themselves. They are not covered 

under the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program or by most private insurance plans. For this 

routine review of the current recommendations, the WG decided to perform a comparative 

analysis of different vaccination strategies. The rationale for the analysis was to: 1) provide 

perspective on the numbers of travelers needed to be vaccinated and associated costs to avert 

a case; 2) compare the relative costs of vaccination for travelers with different itineraries and 

disease risk; and 3) better understand the cost implications of possibly expanding the current JE 

vaccine recommendations to a broader group of travelers.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

105

Comparative Analysis of Strategies for JE Vaccination for US Travelers to Asia

Martin Meltzer, PhD, MSc

Senior Economist

Lead, Health Economics Modeling Unit

Distinguished Consultant, Division of Preparedness and Emerging Infections

National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Dr. Meltzer indicated that, in order to conduct a comparative analysis of vaccinating different 

groups of US travelers against JE, a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. The design 

was a Decision Tree and a hypothetical population was used in which a comparison was made 

of cases in vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts of 1 million individuals in each of the 3 risk 

groups that Dr. Fischer outlined. It was assumed that each traveler would receive 2 doses of 

primary vaccination as per the recommended schedule, all individuals would travel in year 1. 

Further, some individuals would travel again after year 1, and some of those repeat travelers 

may receive a booster dose. The analytic horizon was 6 years with one exception. For those 

people who obtained clinical illness, the productivity losses associated with severe illness and/or 

death were extended out over average life-expectancy of those patients. Two analytic 

perspectives were examined. One was societal, which is an umbrella perspective including all 

benefits and all costs regardless of who pays. The other was that of the travelers. Of particular 

note, it was assumed that most travelers would have some form of healthcare insurance so that 

should they become clinically ill with JE, the short-term and long-term medical costs would be 

paid by the existing healthcare insurance and would not come out of the traveler’s pocket.

This is a schematic of the Decision Tree Model used to compare, adjudicate, and estimate all of 

the inputs into the model:

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

106

Reading from left to right, there is first a given traveler risk category, which is one of the 3 

traveler risk categories described by Dr. Fischer. The first split in the Decision Tree pertains to 

whether someone chooses to get vaccinated or not. Having made that decision, the next split in 

the Decision Tree described the risk of getting JE, Yes/No. Even if one is vaccinated, the 

vaccine is not 100% effective and there is some risk of getting JE, albeit greatly reduced 

because of the vaccination. The green boxes are the outcomes. The point here is that, in a 

model that is considered to be simple, those green boxes represent a lot of different outcomes 

and the probabilities associated with them.

There are different risks of obtaining a clinical case of JE by risk group, as follows: A risk of 

0.53 clinical cases of JE per million travelers in Risk Group I, 0.25/million travelers in Risk 

Group II, and 0.04/million travelers in Risk Group III. If a traveler does contract a clinical case of 

JE, it is assumed that there is a 32% chance of having a fatal outcome. Even if a clinically ill 

traveler experiences a non-fatal outcome, there is a large percentage probability of obtaining a 

lifelong, or at least severe, sequalae. Overall, there is a greater than 50% chance, among those 

travelers that have a clinical case of JE, of experiencing either a fatal outcome or severe 

sequalae.

Keeping in mind that protective neutralizing antibodies are a proxy for effectiveness, vaccine 

effectiveness (VE) in Year 1 is approximately 91%. Without a booster dose, by Year 6 VE 

decreases to 64%. With a booster dose in Year 2, VE for the remaining 6 years will be 

approximately 96%. It is assumed that in Year 1, all travelers receive the 2 doses as per 

recommendations. It also was assumed, initially, that about 40% of travelers would return 

annually to areas where JE is endemic and that those travelers would receive a booster dose. 

Later in the analysis the impact of changing these assumptions are extensively examined.

In terms of the economic data, the following medical costs were used:

Estimated Costs 

(US 2016 Dollars)

Vaccine cost per dose $ 292

Vaccine administration fee per dose $ 46

Vaccine adverse effects per vaccinee $ 0.01†

Short-term medical costs of JE treatment* $29,992 

Long-term medical costs of mild sequelae* $ 1,687 

Long-term medical costs of severe sequelae* $ 8,437

†

See appendix for details

*Assumes clinical syndrome of encephalitis

Sources: Drug Topics Red Book. Medical Economics Co, 1995, online; Coleman MS. Vaccine 2005; Staples JE. 

Am J Trop Med Hyg 2014. 

Most people are surprised in that these numbers can seem to be “pretty low”. But, in fact, most 

of the long-term costs associate with treating clinical cases of JE occur within 5 years. For most 

people with medical costs associated with JE-related treatments, those medical costs are over 

within 5 years. That is not the same as productivity costs.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

107

The following productivity costs were used:

Estimated Costs

(US 2016 $)

Short-term productivity costs†:

Complete recovery $ 59,090

Mild sequelae $ 59,090

Lifetime productivity costs:

Severe sequelae† $1,183,294

Death‡ $1,688,566

*Assumes median age of JE case is 33 years

†

Based on market productivity

‡

Based on total productivity (household + market)

Sources: Grosse SD. Med Care 2009; Staples JE. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2014 (Table 5). 

Dr. Meltzer emphasized that these are productivity costs, not an absolute value of life. This is 

the economic value of lost productivity due to lost work and household functions.

Regarding the results in terms of the Numbers Needed To Treat (NNT) to prevent one case, 

735,994 Risk Group I travelers would have to be vaccinated to prevent one case of JE. To 

prevent one death in that risk group, which has an incidence or risk of 0.53 cases per million 

travelers, 2.2 million travelers would have to be vaccinated. Just under 30 million travelers 

would have to be vaccinated to prevent one death in Risk Group III. When the costs of 

vaccination and healthcare treatments prevented due to vaccination are considered, from a 

societal perspective there are more costs than benefits regardless of who pays and who 

benefits. To prevent one case of JE in Risk Group I, it would cost $596 million per case averted, 

increasing to just over $1.8 billion dollars per death averted in Risk Group I. It would cost $7.9 

billion per case averted to prevent one case of JE amongst Risk Group III travelers and 

increases to $23.9 billion per death averted in that risk group. The numbers are very similar 

from the traveler’s perspective.

Obviously, there is a great deal of uncertainty in some of the input values. A lot of time was 

spent on sensitivity analyses varying the values of inputs. For example, in the base case for the 

Risk Group I (societal perspective), it would cost $596 million to prevent one case of JE. If JE 

incidence was increased by 100-fold from 0.53/million to 53/million, the cost for a case averted 

in that risk group would decrease to $5 million per case averted. If the medical costs are 

increased by 100-fold, the cost per case averted would decrease from $596 million to $592 

million. If the probability of death is increased from 33% to 60%, approximately doubling the risk 

of death, the cost per case averted decreases by approximately $1 million per case averted.

The risk of disease is a very important input. Detailed consideration was given to the impact of 

increasing or altering the risk of disease by risk group on the cost per clinical case averted by 

risk group, allowing for differences in disease incidence. In Risk Group I. who experience a 

base incidence of 0.53 cases/million travelers, the cost would be $596 per case averted. If a 

base incidence of 100 times higher, this decreases to $5 million per case averted. Similarly, the 

$7.9 billion per case averted for Risk Group III decreases to $78 million per case averted if 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

108

incidence or risk is increased by 100 times. Increasing medical costs by factors of 10 and 100, 

the changes in the costs per case averted are far less. For example, in Risk Group III base case 

medical costs are $7.905 billion per case averted. Increasing medical costs for the treatment of 

people in that risk group with JE by a factor of 100 decreases the cost per case averted to a 

factor of $7.902 billion per case averted, which is not a very large change in the cost per case 

averted. In a sensitivity analysis that changed incidence and medical costs simultaneously, 

incidence was found to be a far more important input variable than medical costs, relatively 

speaking.

With regard to what would happen if vaccine costs were reduced, an analysis was performed 

that kept vaccine administration at $45 and treatment of vaccine-related Adverse Events (AEs) 

at an average of $0.01 per dose administered. When the base case of $292 per dose was 

reduced by 50% (to $146/dose) and 90% (to $29/dose), the impact on the cost per case averted 

from the societal perspective in Risk Group I went from $596 million per case averted to $338 

million per case averted when cost per dose was reduced by 50%, and to $131 million dollars 

per case averted when the cost per dose was reduced by 90%. For a given, fixed probability of 

repeat travel past Year 1, increasing the probability of getting a booster dose increases the cost 

per case averted. The greatest change is seen when the probability of repeat travel in Years 2 

through 6 is increased, with greater increases in repeat travel being associated with greater 

reductions in the cost per case averted. In other words, of those two variables, the probability of 

repeat travel beyond Year 1 is the greater impact in the cost per case averted.

A sensitivity analysis also was done with a mixed cohort, taking 1 million travelers comprised of 

a mix of all three risk groups according to the number of travelers: 19% in Risk Group I, 25% in 

Risk Group 2, and 55% in Risk Group III. Consideration was given to what would happen if only 

those in Risk Group I were vaccinated, those in Risk Groups II and II were vaccinated, and all of 

those in the cohort were vaccinated. As the number of people vaccinated is increased, the 

number of cases averted per million travelers in this mixed cohort increases from 0.26 to 0.43 if 

Risk Groups I and II are vaccinated, and to 0.48 cases averted per million travelers if all three 

risk groups are vaccinated. As the number of people vaccinated in that cohort is increased, the 

cost for vaccination increases from $185 million for vaccinating just Risk Group I to $949 million 

if all three risk groups in the cohort are vaccinated. The average cost per case averted 

increases from $596 million per case averted if just Risk Group I is vaccinated to approximately 

$1.7 billion per case averted if all three groups are vaccinated. The incremental cost, or the 

additional cost for additional cases averted because additional people have been vaccinated in 

the mixed cohort is as follows: If Risk Group I is vaccinated and then Risk Group I and II are 

vaccinated, it would cost approximately an additional $1.6 billion to prevent one additional case 

of JE amongst the mixed cohort. Similarly, if Risk Group III was added to Risk Groups I and II, it 

would cost an additional $14.6 billion to prevent one additional case due to that additional 

increase in travelers vaccinated.

In terms of limitations, the results are affected by uncertainty regarding JE incidence. This has 

been addressed with extensive sensitivity analyses, altering the assumed level of incidence and 

risk amongst travelers. The proportion of travelers who get JE vaccine is also unknown. In this 

analysis, it was assumed that all of the travelers were vaccinated at least in the first year. The 

study includes only the possibility of a vaccine booster dose in Year 2. Long-term medicals 

costs include only costs for the first 5 years for those people who have long-term sequelae 

treatment. That was based on the limited data available that most medical treatment is 

completed within the first 5 years.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

109

The study was performed according to ACIP guidelines and underwent peer-review inside CDC. 

The main comments from the peer-review were to: 1) clarify assumptions regarding number of 

doses administered to vaccinees; 2) increase the breadth of the sensitivity analyses regarding 

vaccine administration costs and medical costs; and 3) explain why medical costs were not 

discounted. These issues were addressed.

In conclusion, the cost per JE case averted ranged from $596 million for Risk Group I per case 

averted to approximately $7.9 billion for Risk Group III from the societal perspective. The NNV 

ranged from approximately 736,000 to prevent one case of JE in for Risk Group 1 to just under 

10 million for Risk Group III. The single most important variable is the incidence or risk of getting 

JE while traveling. There is smaller impact of other variables including increased likelihood of 

returning travel, increased medical costs, and decreased likelihood of getting a booster dose of 

vaccine.

 

Summary and Conclusions

Dr. Susan Hills, MBBS, MTH

Arboviral Diseases Branch

Division of Vector-Borne Diseases

National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Fort Collins, Colorado

Dr. Hills summarized the WG’s conclusions from the comparative analysis of JE vaccination 

strategies for US travelers to Asia. As a reminder, the objectives for the comparative analysis 

were to: 1) provide perspective on numbers of travelers needed to be vaccinated and cost per 

case averted; 2) compare the relative costs of vaccination for travelers with different itineraries 

and disease risk; and 3) understand the cost implications of expanding the current JE 

vaccination recommendations to a broader group of travelers. 

To prevent one case of JE among US travelers in the highest risk group for JE, which 

approximates those for whom JE is currently recommended, about 0.7 million travelers need to 

be vaccinated. For travelers in Risk Group II, or those in the category for whom vaccination 

should be considered, about 1.6 million travelers need to be vaccinated. For remaining travelers 

in the lowest risk group, almost 10 million travelers will need to be vaccinated to prevent one 

case of JE. 

With the baseline assumptions used in the cost-effectiveness analysis, the cost to prevent one 

case of JE in travelers in the highest risk category is about $0.6 billion. Comparatively, for those 

in Risk Group II the cost per case averted is $1.3 billion and for those in Risk Group III, it is $7.9 

billion. Because there is some uncertainty about the sensitivity of surveillance for JE and 

therefore true incidence among travelers, a sensitivity analysis was conducted increasing 

incidence 100 times. Although it is very unlikely 100 cases of JE are occurring among US 

travelers each year when fewer than 1 case is reported, this figure was used as a very high 

estimate. With incidence 100 times higher, the cost per case averted in each of the three risk 

groups was $5 million, $12 million, and $78 million respectively. When expanding recommended 

JE vaccination from Risk Group I to Risk Group I + II, it will cost society an additional $1.6 billion 

to prevent 1 additional case of JE. Similarly, expanding JE vaccination recommendations from 

Risk Groups I + II to all (Risk Groups I + II + III), it would cost society an additional $14.6 billion 

to prevent an additional JE case. 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

110

In conclusion, the comparative analysis provided information that indicated that the number of 

travelers needed to vaccinate and cost per case averted varied greatly related to disease risk 

group. It also showed the cost per case averted was at least $2 million even when extensive 

sensitivity analyses were conducted including increasing incidence and medical costs and 

decreasing vaccine cost, and these costs were substantially higher when travelers in the lower 

incidence groups were considered. The WG plans to use the results of the comparative analysis 

of vaccination strategies to assist with considerations as part of the EtR assessment.

Importantly, the findings are only one piece of data that will be considered comprehensively with 

the other important disease and vaccine data, including considerations about the high morbidity 

and mortality when JE occurs, and the availability of a safe and effective vaccine which is 

typically paid for by individual travelers.

To complete the remaining Workgroup objectives, the following items will be addressed at one 

or more upcoming ACIP meetings:

 Presentation of the EtR framework

 Presentation of proposed ACIP recommendations for use of JE vaccine in consideration of 

the updated safety, immunogenicity, and traveler risk data 

 Presentation of a draft of an updated MMWR Recommendations & Reports

 

Discussion Points

Dr. Riley asked whether there are any patient-specific risk factors for either being more likely to 

get the disease or more likely to do poorly from the disease.

Dr. Hills replied that there are no particular patient-specific risk factors other than being 

immunocompromised, for example, for which the risk would be expected to be increased. 

Because US travelers are typically not immune, cases are seen among all age groups unlike in 

developing countries where immunity through asymptomatic infection develops fairly early such

that most cases are seen among younger age groups. The risk really is exposure to mosquito 

bites in rural areas, such as camping, hiking, et cetera. These are by far and away the critical 

factors that are important in the cases that occur among US travelers. 

Dr. Lee said that when this session started, she wondered whether it was worth it to perform the 

economic analysis. However, at the end she thought it was really helpful as it provides support 

for the common-sense approach for why ACIP made the recommendation they did already. The 

other reason she thought it was important is because the NNV is incredibly useful at the 

clinician and individual patient level. Often people are told they are at higher or lower risk, but 

there are no numbers to give them to show what the risk really is. Having that number to share 

is important for that conversation a doctor might have with a patient. In terms of the risk-benefit 

balance for the individual patient, she wondered whether it would be possible to assess how 

many AEs might be occurring in that same population of 700,000 patients to prevent one case 

of JE. From a population-level, the answer is clear.

Dr. Meltzer replied that vaccine-related AEs is included in the calculation, though they had not 

produced a table. It would not be particularly difficult to do so.

Dr. Stephens asked of the 12 cases that have been identified in the last 25 years, how many 

were vaccinated, the age distribution, and whether they thought that there was a larger pool of 

individuals who have not been identified who have had disease.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

111

Dr. Hills replied that among the 12 JE cases that have occurred over that 25-year period, they 

are not aware of any of them who have been vaccinated. The age range is from a very a young 

infant who was an expatriate living overseas at the time through cases at least in their 60s. 

Regarding whether they are missing cases, there are two separate issues which are reporting 

and diagnosis. There are very few places in the US that can actually perform JE testing. The 

majority of cases are actually tested at CDC, so they are confident that they are aware of those 

who have a confirmed diagnosis. They do not know how much detection there might be in terms 

of clinicians actually thinking about the diagnosis in somebody returning from overseas and 

ordering the test to diagnose a condition. As Dr. Meltzer mentioned, to address that in the costeffectiveness analysis, incidence was increased 100-fold though it is unlikely that many cases 

are occurring.

Dr. Bernstein asked whether most of the 68,000 cases annually in Asia are in individuals who 

have been vaccinated or not.

Dr. Hills indicated that the 68,000 cases are primarily among those who have not been 

vaccinated. For decades in Asia, there was not much access to immunization because the 

vaccine that was available required 3 doses and it was relatively expensive for many countries 

in Asia, so they did not introduce vaccination programs. Countries such as Japan, Korea, and 

Thailand did begin to introduce vaccine. The real progress with JE control in Asia has been the 

availability of an affordable vaccine that is produced in China. Over the last 10 years, there has 

been an enormous expansion of vaccination programs and reduced numbers of JE cases. 

However, countries like Myanmar, Cambodia, and Laos have introduced vaccines in recent 

years. Other countries like the Philippines, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and others have not yet 

introduced a national vaccination program. They are seeing a lot of cases in those countries that 

have not yet been able to introduce vaccination programs.

Dr. Scott Halstead of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS) said 

he admired the effort that Drs. Meltzer and Hills went through to go through the costeffectiveness analysis and congratulated them. The problem is that it is not clear what to make 

of it. This is certainly the most important human viral zoonosis. Roughly 40% of the people who 

live in South Asia are at risk. Many people like to visit Asia. This a very complex zoonosis. He 

spent many years in Japan trying find out where JE went in the winter time, so he studied many 

different species. Finally, they thought they had to start tapping trees but it could be found 

anywhere—bats, snakes, frogs. This is a very complex zoonosis that is largely fueled by rice 

paddy breeding mosquitoes, of which there are many different species. There is going to be risk 

and there has to be a way to mitigate that risk. The vaccine used in the US is antibody-based 

and probably is okay. While they have gotten a long way, they do not really understand 

vaccines very well. They are made and administered and empirically they work or do not work. 

JE vaccine is one that works and is known to work because the vaccine he was talking about 

(mouse brain-derived vaccine) has been given for 40 or 50 years to countries that are highly 

vaccinated (Japan, Korea, Taiwan) and the disease has virtually disappeared. Nothing is 

understood about booster doses. It is known that this vaccine works because it produces 

antibody. It does not produce T-cell immunity, which is largely derived from non-structural 

proteins. Given the protective efficacy of antibody, the question regards whether a detectable 

titer is needed. The 6 months of effectiveness is based on whether the titer is above or below 

10, but it probably does not work that way. Having spent many years in Asia, JE vaccine is 

largely given to children on a very expected schedule. However, they no longer receive it at 20 

years or older. There are 50 years of data on JE vaccine in Japan where most of the protection 

in people over the age of 20 is in people whose titers are probably less than 10, because the 

vaccine produces an antibody response that disappears. The issue of how this vaccine works 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

112

needs to be seriously revisited. It is not even clear that a 2-dose schedule is needed. This really 

is in scientific limbo. A vaccine is needed. Americans and others who visit Asia are always going 

to be at risk, and younger people are likely to go back. Increasingly more people are becoming 

very adventurous and are not just staying in air-conditioned hotels. A vaccine is needed that is 

comprehensively understood and that it is available. There is still a philosophical strategic 

question regarding how much this vaccine will be given and how much it will be pushed.

Introduction

Grace Lee, MD, MPH

Pneumococcal Vaccines WG Chair

Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices

Dr. Lee reminded everyone that the Pneumococcal Vaccines WG’s terms of reference are to:

 Review current data on efficacy, effectiveness, immunogenicity, and cost-effectiveness of 

pneumococcal vaccines

 Review current recommendations considering up-to-date (UTD) evidence, including 

epidemiological studies conducted post-licensure, and assess strength of the evidence

 Revise or update recommendations for pneumococcal vaccine use, as needed. 

As a reminder, ACIP recommended pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV)7 for children in 

2000. That was replaced by PCV13 in 2010. In 2012, ACIP recommended PCV13 for 

individuals with immunocompromising conditions. In 2014, there was a recommendation for 

PCV13 in series with PPSV23 for adults ≥65 years of age. Currently, the WG is evaluating the 

use of PCV13 in adults ≥65 years of age. The rationale for that was in 2014 when ACIP 

recommended PCV13 in series with PPSV23 for adults ≥65 years old the thinking was that 

short-term, the recommendation was needed because while indirect effects had decreased 

vaccine-type IPD, there was still a significant burden of pneumonia, especially among older 

adults. 

However, there was a recognition that the long-term public health benefits were expected to be 

limited because of anticipated continued indirect effects from pediatric PCV13. Therefore, the 

recommendation was made in 2014 with a commitment to re-evaluate this policy 4 years later 

and revise as needed, which is where they are in 2018. The re-evaluation of PCV13 for adults 

≥65 years has included the following tasks: 1) monitor pneumococcal disease, including both 

invasive disease and non-invasive pneumonia among adults ≥65 years; 2) evaluate the impact 

of direct and indirect effects on pneumococcal disease among adults ≥65 years; and 3) continue 

to monitor vaccine safety. 

This table illustrates the complexity of the recommendations:

Pneumococcal Vaccines

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

113

In 2012, there was a recommendation to continue PCV13 use in adults ≥19 years of age for 

patients considered immunocompromised, with functional or anatomic asplenia, with Cochlear 

implants, or with cerebrospinal fluid leak (CSF) leaks. In addition, in 2014 the recommendation 

for PCV13 at ≥65 was recommended for those with no medical conditions and those who are 

immunocompetent.

In the past, the WG has presented on nasopharyngeal carriage before and after PCV13 

introduction in adults ≥ 65 years of age to identify serotypes circulating in the community. Of 

note, for children < 5 years PCV13-serotype carriage had declined from 8% in 2011 to <1% in 

2017, while the overall total carriage remained about the same at about 30%. For adults ≥ 65 

years of age, it is somewhat different. Declines have been seen in PCV13-serotype carriage. It 

was estimated to be about 0.2% in 2015-2016, but overall the total S. pneumoniae carriage rate 

is also quite low at 1.8% [Thomas, ACIP meeting Oct 2017; Lessa, ACIP meeting Oct 2017].

Evidence has been presented to ACIP since 2014 on PCV13 coverage in adults. For adults ≥65 

years of age and older, coverage increased to about 40% through 2017 where the most recent 

estimates are represented. For the population 19 through 64 years of age with other PCV13 

indications, coverage is lower and varies by indication. This is important to consider, given the 

complexity of the recommendation already [Pilishvili, ACIP meeting Oct 2017; Black, MMWR 

2017].

PCV13-type invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) declined in all age groups from 2007-2016. 

Overall and PCV13-type IPD incidence in adults ≥65 years old declined by 40% and 68%,

respectively, but then plateaued from 2014 to 2016. During the February ACIP meeting, a 

mathematical model was presented to estimate the contribution of direct versus indirect PCV13 

effects on observed trends in IPD among adults ≥65 years old. The model estimated that 

approximately 580 IPD cases were prevented since 2014 among adults ≥65 years old in the US, 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

114

with benefits decreasing over time due to herd immunity [Matanock, ACIP meeting Oct 2017; 

Pilishvili, ACIP meeting Feb 2018].

PCV13 effectiveness against PCV13-type IPD ranges from 47% to 65%. These studies were 

presented during the February meeting. These confidence intervals overlapped with the pre2014 Community-Acquired Pneumonia Immunization Trial in Adults (CAPiTA) PCV13 efficacy 

estimates of 75% (95%CI 41–91%) against PCV13-type IPD. PCV13 effectiveness against 

PCV13-type pneumonia was approximately 73% (95% CI 13–92) in a test negative case-control 

study design. Those confidence intervals overlapped with the pre-2014 CAPiTA PCV13 efficacy 

estimates of 45% (95%CI 14–65%) against PCV13-type pneumonia [Pilishvili, ACIP meeting 

Feb 2018; McLaughlin, ACIP Feb 2018].

Dr. Lee indicated that during the June 2018 pneumococcal session, presentations would focus 

on the following topics:

 Safety of PCV13 in adults aged ≥65 years old

 Pneumococcal pneumonia burden and PCV13 impact among adults aged ≥65 years old in 

Louisville, Kentucky 

 Pneumococcal carriage, invasive disease, and hospitalizations following community 

acquired pneumonia (CAP) among Native American populations 

 Racial disparities in invasive pneumococcal disease and PCV13 impact and Overview of the 

Evidence to Recommendations Framework for the ongoing review of the PCV13 

recommendation for adults ≥65 years old 

In conclusion, Dr. Lee posed the following question for ACIP’s consideration:

 What additional information will the committee need to help determine whether continued 

PCV13 use in adults ≥65 years is warranted?

Safety of PCV13 in Adults Aged ≥65 Years Old

Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA

Immunization Safety Office

National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Dr. Shimabukuro presented information on the background of PCV13 recommendations in 

adults; AEs following PCV13 reported to VAERS in adults aged ≥65 years old; and PCV13 

safety in adults aged ≥65 years old in the VSD. 

In August 2014, ACIP recommended both PCV13 and PPSV23 should be administered 

routinely in series to all adults aged ≥65 years

[https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6337a4.htm]:

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

115

 Pneumococcal vaccine-naïve persons. Adults aged ≥65 years who have not previously 

received pneumococcal vaccine or whose previous vaccination history is unknown 

should receive a dose of PCV13 first, followed by a dose of PPSV23. The dose of 

PPSV23 should be given 6–12 months after a dose of PCV13. If PPSV23 cannot be 

given during this time window, the dose of PPSV23 should be given during the next visit. 

The two vaccines should not be co-administered, and the minimum acceptable interval 

between PCV13 and PPSV23 is 8 weeks.

 Previous vaccination with PPSV23. Adults aged ≥65 years who have previously received 

≥1 dose of PPSV23 also should receive a dose of PCV13 if they have not yet received it. 

A dose of PCV13 should be given ≥1 year after receipt of the most recent PPSV23 dose. 

For those for whom an additional dose of PPSV23 is indicated, this subsequent PPSV23 

dose should be given 6–12 months after PCV13 and ≥5 years after the most recent dose 

of PPSV23.

The safety of PCV13 was evaluated in pre-licensure randomized controlled trials in PPSV23-

naïve and PPSV23-experienced adults aged ≥50 years1,2. The most common AEs did not differ 

between PCV13 and PPSV23 [1

Jackson LA, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of a 13-valent 

pneumococcal conjugate vaccine compared to a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide 

vaccine in pneumococcal vaccine-naive adults. Vaccine. 2013; 31:3577–8; 2

Jackson LA, et al. 

Immunogenicity and safety of a 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in adults 70 years of 

age and older previously vaccinated with 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine. 

Vaccine. 2013;31:3585–93].

There have been two post-licensure studies of adults aged >50 years. The findings from those 

observational studies are reassuring. Injection site pain and mild systemic reactions were most 

common, and there were lower rates of the most common systemic reactions compared to prelicensure clinical trials1

. There was a VAERS review of reports in adults aged >19 years from 

2012-2015. Injection site reactions and fever were most commonly reported, and the safety 

profile was consistent with safety data from pre-licensure clinical trials2 [

1 Durando P, et al. 

Immunization campaign with 13-valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine in adults in Liguria 

Region, Italy: one year post-introduction preliminary results. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 

2015;11:172-7; 2 Haber et al. Post-licensure surveillance of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate 

vaccine (PCV13) in adults aged ⩾19years old in the United States, Vaccine Adverse Event 

Reporting System (VAERS), June 1, 2012-December 31, 2015. Vaccine. 2016;34:6330-6334].

The objective of the VAERS review was to describe the safety profile of reports submitted to 

VAERS following PCV13 in adults aged ≥65 years. As a reminder, VAERS is a national 

spontaneous reporting system that is co-managed by CDC and FDA. It strengths are that it can 

rapidly detect safety signals and rare AEs. It is subject to the limitations of spontaneous 

reporting or passive surveillance, which means generally causality cannot be assessed from 

VAERS data alone.

Regarding the methods for the review, the VAERS database was searched for PCV13 reports 

from August 2014 through December 2017. The search was restricted to US reports in adults 

aged ≥65 years. Serious reports were defined as those documenting death, life-threatening 

illness, hospitalization, prolongation of hospitalization, or permanent disability1

. Signs and 

symptoms of AEs were coded using MedDRA2 Preferred Terms (PTs). PTs are not mutually 

exclusive, which means that a single report may be assigned more than one PT. A descriptive 

analysis was conducted that included a clinical review of reports for select pre-specified 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

116

conditions of interest (GBS, anaphylaxis, and death). FDA colleagues conducted empirical 

Bayesian data mining to detect disproportional reporting [1 Based on the Code of Federal 

Regulations 21 CFR 600.80; 2 https://www.meddra.org/].

The review identified 5822 VAERS reports in adults ≥65 years of age following PCV13. Of 

these, 75% were in females, 6% met the regulatory definition for an SAE, the median age was 

72 (lowest age was 65), the median onset interval was the day after vaccination, and PCV13 

was administered alone in 72% of the reports. In reports documenting co-administration of

vaccines, the most common were high-dose inactivated influenza (n=884), zoster vaccine live 

(n=204), and Tdap (n=87). The most common signs and symptoms are shown in the following 

two tables, which were very similar in those receiving PCV13 alone and those receiving PCV13 

with other vaccines:

 

Regarding the clinical review of reports for select pre-specified conditions of interest, 39 GBS 

reports were identified. The median age was 73 and the median onset interval in days was 11. 

As a reminder, the biological risk window used for GBS is 0 to 42 days. In 23% of reports, there 

was documentation of a viral respiratory illness 2 to 4 weeks prior to the onset of GBS 

symptoms. Viral upper respiratory illnesses (URIs) are a known risk factor for GBS. Of these 

reports, 67% met the Brighton Collaboration criteria1 for GBS2

. In 64% of the reports, PCV13 

was administered alone [1

Sejvar et al. Guillain-Barré syndrome and Fisher syndrome: case 

definitions and guidelines for collection, analysis, and presentation of immunization safety data. 

Vaccine. 2011;29(3):599-612; 2 Remaining reports (13) had insufficient information to confirm 

diagnosis and apply Brighton Collaboration criteria for GBS].

Four reports of anaphylaxis were identified. Of these, 1 anaphylaxis case report met the 

Brighton Collaboration2 Level 1 criteria, which is the highest level of diagnostic certainty. This 

was in a 94-year-old female who received PCV13 only and within a few hours began to 

experience symptoms of angioedema, upper airway swelling, and respiratory distress. The 

remaining 3 case reports had insufficient information to confirm diagnosis and apply Brighton 

Collaboration criteria for anaphylaxis [2 Ruggeberg et al. Anaphylaxis: Case definition and 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

117

guidelines for data collection, analysis, and presentation of immunization safety data Vaccine.

2007 Aug 1;25(31):5675-84].

There were 26 reports of deaths identified. In 25 of these, it was possible to confirm that a death 

occurred through an autopsy report or death certificate. The median age was 80 years and the 

median time from vaccination to death was 13 days. In 81% of these death reports, PCV13 was 

administered alone. The following were the causes of death among the verified deaths after 

PCV13 in adults ≥65 years reported to VAERS between August 2014 and December 2017 

(n=25): 

 Cerebrovascular accident (6)

 Septic shock (5)

 Coronary artery disease (3)

 Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (3)

 Myocardial infarction (1)

 Congestive heart failure (1)

 Colon infarction (1)

 Pulmonary embolism (1)

 Influenza (1)

 Medullary paralysis (1)

 Parkinson's disease (1)

 Cryptococcal meningitis (1)

In the review, no unusual or concerning patterns or any unusual or concerning clustering were 

identified in the post-vaccination period.

Empirical Bayesian data mining did not show any unexpected disproportional reporting for 

PCV13-MedDRA PT pairings for adults aged ≥65 years old compared to other vaccines in that 

age group [Data provided by FDA/CBER Division of Epidemiology].

In summary, VAERS received 5822 reports following PCV13 vaccination in adults aged ≥65 

years during August 1, 2014 through December 31, 2017. Most (94%) of the reports were nonserious, which is similar to other vaccines given in this age group. The most frequently reported 

AEs were injection site reactions (i.e., swelling, erythema, and pain) and fever. There were no

unexpected data mining findings, and no new safety signals or unexpected patterns were 

observed. During the analytic period, approximately 29 million PCV13 doses were distributed for 

the ≥65-year-old US population1

 [1 Pfizer, personal communication].

Moving on to the VSD study, VSD is CDC’s large linked database system that has data on over 

10 million persons per year. Active surveillance and epidemiologic studies are conducted using 

VSD data. The VSD links vaccination data to health outcome data. Vaccination records, health 

outcomes, and patient characteristics are all linked using a unique identifier.

The objective of the VSD study was to examine a large cohort of adults aged ≥65 years old for 

evidence of an increased risk of AEs requiring medical attention following vaccination with 

PCV13 compared to PPSV23. This was a cohort study that involved 6 VSD sites. The study 

period was from January 1, 2011 through September 30, 2015. “Exposed” doses were the first 

dose of PCV13 received by active members aged ≥65 years old during January 1, 2015 through

August 15, 2015. “Unexposed” doses, which can be considered control doses for the purpose of 

this study, were the first dose of PSV23 received by active members of the same age group 

during January 1 through August 15 of each year between 2011 and 2015. 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

118

Outcomes included cardiovascular events, Bell’s palsy, GBS, syncope, erythema multiforme, 

thrombocytopenia, cellulitis and infection, allergic reaction, and anaphylaxis. Risk windows 

varied by events, and were censored at membership disenrollment or receipt of another 

vaccine. Possible confounders included age at vaccination, sex, VSD site, healthcare utilization, 

Charlson comorbidity score1 (predicts one-year mortality), concomitant vaccination, and 

calendar month. The analysis included the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) 

approach to adjust for the differences between the exposed (PCV13) and the unexposed 

(PPSV23) that may be associated with the risk of AEs [1

Charlson ME et al. A new method of 

classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic 

Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83]. 

These are the VSD study sites and doses:

This is the results table: 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

119

Focusing on the red highlighted area, none of the relative risks for all of the pre-specified AEs 

reached 1 except for anaphylaxis. For anaphylaxis, 1 is in the 95% confidence interval so there 

is no increased risk for medically attended AEs following PCV13 compared to PPSV23. In fact 

statistically, there appears to be a protective effect for some of these outcomes.

A sensitivity analysis was conducted that included alternative comparison groups of those who 

received PPSV23 during 2015 (N = 25,536) and those who received PPSV23 from 2014 to 

2015 (N=77,597). This analysis did not affect the overall results. 

In conclusion, the results of this VSD study of PCV13 safety in adults aged ≥65 years old do not 

support an increased rate of AEs for the AEs studied following PCV13 compared to PPSV23. 

These findings should provide reassurance regarding continued use of PCV13 in this age 

group. 

Pneumococcal Incidence in the US

David L. Swerdlow MD (CAPT. USPHS, retired) 

Senior Director, Clinical Epidemiology & Early Candidate Vaccines Medical Lead,

Vaccines Medical Development & Scientific/Clinical Affairs 

Pfizer

In terms of background, Dr. Swerdlow first reviewed the 2014 ACIP age-based PCV13 

recommendation for adults ≥65 years of age. Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) incidence

is critical for understanding the burden of disease and the cost-effectiveness of the 

pneumococcal vaccination program. Cost-effectiveness calculations in 2014 were based on an 

assumed hospitalized CAP incidence rate of 1375/100,000 based on administrative claims 

data1

. Two previous population-based surveillance studies, the Etiology of Pneumonia in the

Community (EPIC) study from CDC and the Ohio Project, estimated the incidence of 

hospitalized CAP to be 900-1000/100,000 for adults ≥65 years of age2,3. Pfizer conducted active 

population-based surveillance for hospitalized CAP and determined the proportion of CAP due 

to PCV13 serotypes. They determined that the incidence of CAP is higher than previously 

recognized, PCV13 serotypes persist, there is evidence for direct impact of PCV13 in adults ≥65

years of age, and disparities in vaccine uptake are evident [1

Tomczyk S, et al. MMWR Morb 

Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014;63:822-825; 2

Jain S, et al. N Engl J Med 2015;372:835-45; and 3Marston 

BJ, et al., Arch Intern Med. 1997;157 (15):1709-18]. 

During this presentation, Dr. Swerdlow discussed the incidence of hospitalized CAP based on 

the Louisville Pneumonia Study, PCV13 serotypes in CAP patients and PCV13 impact based on 

the US Multisite Serotype-Specific Urinary Antigen Detection (SSUAD) Study and Louisville 

Pneumonia Study, and disparities in PCV13 uptake based on merged IQVIATM claims data with 

Experian data. 

The Louisville Pneumonia Study1,2 prospectively enrolled all adults 18 years of age and older 

living in Louisville, Kentucky who were hospitalized with CAP based on clinical and radiographic 

criteria. All 9 adult acute-care hospitals were enrolled, which was the full catchment in that area. 

Incidence was estimated during the 2-year period from June 1, 2014 through May 31, 2016. For 

all patients with CAP, the PCV13 SSUAD assay was performed to determine if they had PCV13 

serotypes as a cause of their pneumonia. Overall, incidence of hospitalized CAP by age group 

was about 700/100,000 for all persons 18 years of age and older. However, the incidence was 

2300/100,000 for adults 65 years of age and older.1 That is higher than was previously seen in 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

120

the claims-based surveillance, EPIC, or Ohio studies [1

Ramirez et al. Clin Infect Dis, 

2017;65(11):1806–1812; 2

Alexander R, et al. Univ Louisville J Respir Infect. 2017;1(4):35-39].

Pfizer has thought a lot about why the incidence rates seen in Louisville were higher than the 

incidence rates in the EPIC and Ohio studies. This table shows the selection criteria as well as 

the three studies:

The first three criteria were not substantially different in terms of incidence rates between the 

Louisville, EPIC, and Ohio studies. However, there were differences in healthcare-associated 

pneumonia (HCAP) and for immunocompromised patients. HCAP was included in the Louisville 

study, but those were excluded in the EPIC and Ohio studies. Immunocompromised patients 

were included in the Louisville and Ohio studies, but were excluded in the EPIC study. This 

raises the question regarding whether that is enough to explain the differences in the incidences 

seen.

The incidence rate of HCAP in the Louisville study was 2327/100,000. If the selection criteria 

used in the Ohio study were applied and HCAP was excluded, the incidence rate in Louisville 

would have been 1291/100,000. This is pretty close to what the Ohio study found with 

1000/100,000. In the same manner, if the selection criteria used in the EPIC study were applied 

and HCAP and immunocompromised patients were excluded, the incidence rate would have 

been 798/100,000. This is again very similar to the rates seen in the EPIC study. Therefore, 

Pfizer feels that the differences in incidence rates can be explained by the inclusion of HCAP 

and immunocompromised patients in its study.

In terms of why it is important to include HCAP and immunocompromised patients in estimates 

of vaccine-preventable CAP incidence, both HCAP and immunocompromised patients make up 

a substantial portion of CAP hospitalizations. The updated 2016 American Thoracic 

Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America (ATS/IDSA) guidelines no longer recognize 

HCAP as a relevant clinical entity separate from CAP1

. Immunocompromised patients have 

always been at the highest risk of pneumococcal disease. A similar proportion of PCV13 

serotypes were identified in adult HCAP patients and in immunocompromised patients as 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

121

compared to patients without HCAP or immunocompromising conditions in a US multisite 

SSUAD study [1

Kalil AC, Metersky ML, Klompas M et al. CID, 63(5), e61-e111 (2016)]. 

Dr. Swerdlow pointed out that while he talked about the Louisville and SSUAD studies as being 

separate, the SSUAD study is an expansion of the Louisville project. The SSUAD expansion 

was a prospective, multicenter, surveillance study conducted at 21 hospitals in 10 

geographically dispersed US cities from October 2013 through September 2016. The objective 

of the study was to assess the proportion of HCAP in US adults caused by S. pneumoniae and 

specifically by PCV13 serotypes over time. The time period is slightly different because they 

were able to include surveillance for a 3-year period.

This table shows the percentage of CAP caused by PCV13 serotypes from the entire 21-

hospital surveillance system:

Patient Group ≥65y 18–64y

All 4.2 5.1

HCAP 4.8 4.8

No HCAP 3.8 5.2

Immunocompromised 3.7 5.1

Immunocompetent 4.5 5.0

PCV13 serotypes are similarly present in HCAP and immunocompromised patients and there 

are not any great differences between the percentage positive for HCAP and No HCAP or 

immunocompromised and not immunocompromised. Therefore, excluding HCAP or 

immunocompromised patients excludes potentially PCV13-preventable adult CAP disease 

burden. 

In terms of measuring the impact of PCV13, the proportion of CAP caused by PCV13 serotypes

was used from both the US Multisite SSUAD Study and the Louisville Pneumonia Study. For 

PCV13 coverage, the numerator is comprised of monthly administrative claims data projected to 

national estimates (IQVIA, formerly IMSHealth) and the denominator is comprised of US 

Census population size estimates (monthly interpolation). Any impact against PCV13-type CAP 

seen among adults ≥65 years of age who had direct vaccination and also indirect impact from 

the pediatric program but not in adults 18 through 64 years of age “at-risk” group who had only 

indirect impact (control group) was assumed to be direct impact above and beyond pediatric 

indirect effects. 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

122

This graphic shows the percentage of adult CAP caused by PCV13 serotypes over time:

There are a couple of things to see in this table. One is that for adults 18 through 64 years of 

age who do not get vaccinated, the percentage of CAP that is due to PCV13 serotypes has not 

changed. The time period of October 2013 to September 2014 is when the ACIP 

recommendation came out, so the first point is pre-recommendation. Among adults 65 years of 

age and older, there was a substantial difference and decrease in the percentage of CAP 

caused by PCV13 serotypes over time. Pfizer thinks that the difference seen is equal to the 

direct impact of vaccination. Another thing to observe with regard to the above table is that there 

is a plateau of about 5% for adults 18 through 64 years of age for PCV13 serotypes. There was 

not very much uptake among adults 18 through 64 years of age because it is not recommended 

for that age group. However, uptake increased for adults ≥65 years of age during this time 

period.

The WG asked Pfizer if they could present this same data, but in terms of incidence rather than 

percentage. For this study, only the Louisville data were used. It was not possible to use the

entire 21-hospital data, because they had incidence data only from Louisville. Year 1 is 2014 to 

2015 and includes the time period of the ACIP recommendation. Year 2 is after the ACIP 

recommendation. From Year 1 to Year 2, for PCV13-type CAP there was a 31% reduction that 

was statistically significant in the incidence of PCV13-type CAP for adults over 65 years of age. 

For all adults 18 through 65 years old and at-risk adults 18 through 65 years of age, there was 

no significant difference. To Pfizer, this is more evidence that there was a direct impact of 

vaccination. The other thing interesting about this analysis is the incidence rate of 76/100,000 

for Year 2 of PCV13-type CAP. This is in the range of influenza hospitalizations per year and 

they think it is still significant.

In terms of disparities in PCV13 uptake, Pfizer examined disparities in PCV13 uptake among 

adults ≥65 years of age by merging IQVIATM claims data with Experian ConsumerViewTM 

sociodemographic data1

. They were able to match 60% of the claims data information from 

IQVIATM. They looked at income level decile, race/ethnicity, urban and rural versus suburban,

and education level. Overall PCV13 uptake was 43% by the end of November 2017. PCV13 

uptake is considerably lower among older adults who are in poverty or are African American. 

From the lowest income decile, uptake of PCV13 was 31% and for the highest decile was 54%. 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

123

That is a pretty substantial difference. The same is true for uptake by race/ethnicity. Uptake was 

30% for Hispanics, 36% for black non-Hispanics and Asian and other Hispanics, and 46% in 

white non-Hispanics. The results were very similar for education level, high school or not, and 

for being in a rural or inner-city area versus a suburban locale [1

Manuscript submitted April 2018 

(currently under review)]. There clearly are very large disparities in terms of uptake of PCV13 as 

reflected in the following heat maps:

In terms of why this matters, Pfizer was able to show in the far left heat map of Jefferson County 

where the most cases of CAP are reflected in red. In the next two heat maps, red is equal to 

higher poverty or to a higher proportion of African Americans. In the areas where there are 

cases are the same areas where there is higher poverty, a higher proportion of African 

Americans, and disparities.

In summary, the Louisville study showed high incidence or burden of 2300/100,000 in 

hospitalized CAP1 in those ≥65 years of age. A significant reduction in vaccine-type (VT-CAP) 

has been observed in those ≥65 years of age following PCV13 introduction in adults, but VT 

disease persists. In contrast, during the same period, among those 18 through 64 years of age

where PCV13 was not recommended, VT-CAP remained stable and in fact has plateaued. 

These findings suggest a direct impact of PCV13 on VT-CAP beyond pediatric indirect effects. 

PCV13 uptake in those ≥65 years of age has increased steadily since the 2014 age-based 

recommendation to 43% by November 2017. Continuing PCV13 vaccination in adults ≥65 years 

of age will allow more time to increase uptake in the general population and address the existing 

disparities in PCV13 uptake in the very communities at increased risk for pneumococcal disease

[

1

Ramirez J et al. Clin Infect Dis, 2017;65(11):1806–1812]. 

Discussion Points

Dr. Romero asked whether the heat maps were run using Latinos and Hispanics as was done 

for the African American population.

Dr. Swerdlow indicated that a paper will be published that looks at even more details in this 

area, and the Census tracts were divided into Census groups and performed a lot more review 

of this. They looked at several different groups and severity. Those areas were likely to have 

more severe disease and higher mortality as well.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

124

Dr. Szilagyi asked whether they have CAP hospitalization rates by race and ethnicity comparing 

adults over and under 65 years of age. In terms of the heat maps, he wondered if it would look 

the same if they plotted just the population density.

Dr. Swerdlow replied that he could forward the CAP hospitalization rates by race and ethnicity to 

Dr. Szilagyi. Regarding the heat maps, the Census tracts were all about the same population, 

so they did not do it per population. He thought it was a good question and that it would be 

interesting to do it per population.

Dr. Messonnier asked whether Pfizer has additional studies planned that will be available within 

the timeframe for which ACIP is going to make a decision.

Dr. Swerdlow responded that they are still collecting data and performing analyses. They are 

performing a meta-analysis of serotype 3 effectiveness, and there are other studies they would 

be happy to present and discuss in October.

Dr. Whitley-Williams (NMA) asked whether they have any data regarding whether persons in the 

Louisville area actually get their vaccinations, and if they had looked at influenza and 

pneumococcal vaccination histories prior to discharge for individuals who were hospitalized. 

She noted that she was trying to get at where intervention efforts possibly could be applied.

Dr. Swerdlow indicated that they do have these data. They went back to every patient during a 

certain time period to find out their exact vaccination history. Because of that, they know exactly. 

This turned out to be a lot more complex than they thought. They had to call insurance 

companies and primary care physicians. The results of that analysis were presented during the 

last ACIP meeting. In terms of hospital discharge pneumococcal vaccination histories, they 

could ask what happens in each of the 9 hospitals. He said he thought that was critical in terms 

of trying to decrease disparities to think about how to reach certain populations.

Dr. Hunter noted that some hospital systems have decided to stop doing routine discharge 

pneumococcal vaccination with the introduction of the conjugate vaccine, because it was 

complicated and because Medicare stopped including pneumococcal rates in hospitals as a 

variable they were measuring.

Dr. Paradiso (Paradiso Biologics Consulting) said he was interested in Dr. Swerdlow’s comment 

about the rate of PCV13 disease and the comparative cases per 100,000. He asked whether 

that could be translated into numbers of cases for pneumonia for adults over 65 years of age or 

even a group of at-risk individuals, and how big the burden would be if they were to reduce the 

5% to 3% or follow the same pattern.

Dr. Swerdlow replied that while 4.2% or 3.8% sounded like a very small number, Pfizer thinks 

this is a tremendous burden. There are approximately 49 million US adults ≥65 years of age 

according to the US Census. Using the current hospitalization rate of 2300/100,000; the inhospital 30-day mortality from Louisville of 6.5% to 12.7%; a PCV13-type of 3.7% in 

unvaccinated people; and the results from the analysis presented during the last ACIP meeting 

with a VE of 72.8% translates to a tremendous burden in the entire US population of adults ≥65 

years of age. Translated, that is an absolute rate reduction of 62/200,000. The number of 

hospitalizations averted over 5 years is 137,000. To him, that is equivalent to the averted 

hospitalizations in the influenza vaccine program. Papers from CDC that have talked about 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

125

averted cases and averted hospitalizations are approximately 20,000 to 40,000 hospitalizations 

per year averted. Deaths of 17,500 over 5 years is a lot.

Pneumococcal Carriage and Disease in Native 

Americans in the Era of Routine Use of PCV13

Laura Hammitt, MD

Director, Infectious Disease Prevention Program

Center for American Indian Health

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

Dr. Hammitt shared data on pneumococcal carriage and IPD from the Center for American 

Indian Health (CAIH) site among Native Americans in the Southwest US, data from Alaska 

Native populations shared by the CDC’s Arctic Investigations Program (AIP), and data on 

community-acquired pneumonia from the Southwest US.

To understand and interpret vaccine impact, it is important to know something about PCV13 

coverage. Among children, the IHS immunization registry reports show coverage at 80% to 85% 

for children aged 3 through 4 months (1 dose ~85%), 7 through 15 months (3 doses ~80%), and 

24 through 27 months (4 doses ~85%). Coverage among Alaska Native children is slightly 

higher. For adults, the IHS reports do not currently differentiate between polysaccharide and 

conjugate vaccine, but other data sources provide an estimate of coverage. From 2015 to 2017, 

PCV13 was 60% to 80% among Native Americans ≥65 years who participated in various CAIH 

studies. PCV13 coverage Among Alaska Natives was somewhat lower at ~24% in 2016

[https://www.ihs.gov/NonMedicalPrograms/ihpes/Immunizations/index.cfm?module=immunizatio

ns&option=reports; Alaska data courtesy of Mike Bruce CDC/AIP].

A carriage study funded by Pfizer conducted early in the infant PCV13 era showed that PCV13-

type carriage among children <5 years of age carriage declined from 12% when PCV13 was 

first rolled out in early 2010 down to 4% two years later. Among adults, PCV13 type carriage 

prevalence decreased from about 2% at the start of the study down to about 1% after one year 

of infant PVC13 use and staying at about 1% through early 2012 [Grant et al, Pediatr Infect Dis 

J 2016;35:907–914].

A follow-up carriage study was conducted in 2015-2017. Overall carriage prevalence was about

50% during each period and PCV13-type carriage prevalence remained stable at about 4% to 

5% between the two time periods. The main PCV13-serotypes in circulation now are 19F and 3. 

Before moving on to the adult data, it is worth noting key similarities and differences between 

the two studies. A concerted effort was made to enroll adults in the second study, with 300 

participants enrolled into each of 3 adult age categories. This is reflected in a higher median age 

of adult participants in that second study. This was done to get a more robust understanding of 

what carriage looked like in adults in the era of adult and infant PCV13. The second study also 

collected OP swabs in adults and used Sequetyping for serotyping. Overall adult pneumococcal 

carriage prevalence ranged from about 6% in those 65 years of age and older to about 11% in 

younger adults. That was similar across the two time periods. PCV13-type carriage was about 

1% and was similar between the two groups. Looking at OP swabs and use of PCR on OP 

swabs, which is thought to be a more sensitive technique, the estimates of PCV13-type carriage

increased to about 3%.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

126

Dr. Hammitt noted that Mike Bruce from the CDC’s AIP in Anchorage shared data from annual 

surveys of nasopharyngeal carriage that have been conducted in rural Alaska villages. In terms 

of PCV13-type carriage prevalence among Alaska Natives from 2008-2015, carriage in children 

declined nicely after PCV13 introduction in infants. Data from adults also declined and was ~1% 

in 2015. These data from 2015 are prior to widespread use of PCV13 in adults, so there is only

1 adult in this study who received a PCV13 vaccine.

The conclusion from the carriage data is that PCV13-type pneumococcal carriage in adults was 

very low following infant PCV13 introduction and remains low. 

Turning to IPD, the CAIH collaborates with tribes in the Southwest and IHS facilities serving 

those tribes to conduct active, laboratory-based, population-based surveillance for invasive 

bacterial disease, including IPD. For reference, the Navajo Nation is about the size of the State 

of West Virginia and the population is about 250,000. Identified pneumococcal isolates are 

serotyped at the CDC’s field station in Anchorage and chart reviews are conducted to review

underlying medical conditions and vaccination history. 

This surveillance system and another system in Alaska are comparable to CDC’s Active 

Bacterial Core Surveillance (ABCs) system, which allowed the investigators to make 

comparisons on rates of disease between these populations. Across the age groups. Native 

Americans and Alaska Natives continue to experience disease at rates 3 to 5 times higher than 

the general US population. The majority of this is attributable to non-PCV13 serotypes.

1 Despite 

this persistent disparity in disease, it is important to note the tremendous impact that conjugate 

vaccines have had, especially in high-risk populations. PCV use in children has virtually 

eliminated PCV-type disease in children [1

Navajo/White Mountain Apache data from CAIH ABS; 

Alaska Native data courtesy of CDC/AIP; CDC data from ABCs surveillance reports].

As has been seen in other populations, there have been indirect benefits as well in nonvaccinated age groups. Comparing the pre-PCV era to the infant + adult PCV13 era, there have 

been substantial reductions in PCV13 IPD incidence. Looking at the impact of the 

recommendations for vaccines in adults compared to the infant PCV13 era, there was not 

substantial change over that period. Rates of disease in adults 50 through 64 years of age is 

similar to that in adults ≥65 years of age and older. 

Looking at specific serotypes causing disease among adults ≥65 years of age, there was a nice 

decline in the case count in the years immediately following infant PCV13 introduction for infants 

in 2010. By the time PCV13 was introduced for adults ≥65 years of age, most of the serotypes 

had disappeared with the exception of serotype 3. This has been observed in other populations 

as well. In the setting of this study, serotype 3 disease is increasing. This is leading the plateau 

of rates.

Looking again at data from Alaska, courtesy of the AIP, a nice decline in observed in the rates 

of disease among adults 50 through 64 years and ≥65 years following infant PCV13 introduction 

in 2010, with rates plateauing after that point. Looking at the serotype distribution in Alaskans 

≥65 years of age, there was a decline in the case count following infant PCV13 introduction in 

2010 and following PCV13 in adults ≥65 years of age. As discussed earlier, this has not 

penetrated in that population as well as it has in the Southwest Native American populations, 

where there is still circulation of serotype 3 and 19A.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

127

The conclusion regarding the IPD data is that substantial indirect effects had been achieved by 

2014-2015, which left little opportunity to assess impact of PCV13 in adults ≥65 years of age on 

carriage or IPD. 

Regarding the Native American Adult Pneumonia Etiology Study funded by Pfizer and 

conducted between March 2016 and March 2018, the era of PCV13 use in adults, cases were

identified through surveillance at 5 IHS hospitals. Cases were required to have a provider 

diagnosis of pneumonia and two or more clinical signs and symptoms. Controls were agedmatched individuals who had no suspicion of CAP. A variety of specimens were collected. For 

this discussion, Dr. Hammitt focused on the blood cultures obtained per the clinical team and 

tested in the IHS laboratories at the study facilities and the urine specimens tested by Pfizer 

using two assays, the SSUAD for 24 serotypes and the BinaxNOW® assay. 

The SSUAD is a clinically validated and FDA approved assay for research studies that can 

detect PCV13 serotypes. Pfizer’s SSUAD 2 assay adds an additional 11 serotypes. This assay 

was well-characterized but not yet clinically validated at the start of the study. The UAD is a limit 

assay. For most populations, the published thresholds are appropriate. However, there are 

certain population for which the values in controls are shifted toward the values for CAP cases, 

as has been seen in children and in HIV-infected individuals.

3 This study provided an 

opportunity to collect urine from 400 Native America adults in the study community and to use 

the SSUAD results to establish the thresholds for this specific population. This exercise resulted 

in the need to reset the positivity cut-off for serotype 14 for this population [Pride et al, Clin 

Vaccine Immunol 2012; 19:1131–1141].

Over 800 cases have been enrolled in this study, but laboratory testing is still ongoing for the 

second year of enrolment, so Dr. Hammitt shared results for the first 355 chest x-ray (CXR)-

confirmed cases. Demographics were similar between cases and controls, with two exceptions. 

Cases were split pretty evenly between males and females, but there were about 74% females 

among the controls. Cases also were more likely to have a smoker residing in the household

compared to controls. In terms of clinical characteristics, underlying conditions were very 

common, more so among cases compared to the controls. Among adults less than 65 years of 

age, 66% of cases and 48% of controls had received polysaccharide vaccine. Among adults 

≥65 years of age, over 90% had polysaccharide vaccine and over 80% had PCV13 vaccine.

Turning to the results for CXR-positive cases with any pneumococcal test performed, overall 

pneumococcus was detected in 26% of CAP cases. The SSUAD increased the detection of 

pneumococcal cases by 57%. There was 100% concordance between the SSUAD and blood 

culture serotype. Because of concerns in the past regarding specificity of urine assays, the urine 

test results were compared among the CXR-positive cases in the community controls. The 

SSUAD was positive in 19.5% of cases compared to 2.8% of controls. BinaxNOW® was positive 

in 15.5% of cases compared to 3.2% of controls. While specificity is not perfect, it is excellent 

for these assays.

The serotype data were available for 72 of the 91 pneumococcal cases that were detected. A 

third of them were PCV13-type. The vast majority of the PCV13-type cases were serotype 3. 

When serotype 3 is excluded, this leaves just over 6% being PCV13-type among those 

pneumococcal cases.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

128

To compare the data presented by Dr. Swerdlow and this study, PCV13 types were responsible 

for approximately 6% of overall CAP admissions. Among the PCV13-type cases that had 

vaccination status available, 62% had received PCV13 in the past and all of those had received 

PPSV23 first and then PCV13. Nobody received the recommended sequence of PCV13 before 

PPSV23. This is not a matter of IHS providers not following recommendations. This is a matter 

of providers having done an excellent job vaccinating people with risk conditions with PPSV23

prior to the advent of the ACIP recommendations for PCV13 in adults. The vast majority of the 

cases had received PPSV23 before PCV13, many of whom had received more than one dose. 

Better understanding is needed regarding the implications of the order of vaccination on the 

immune response. More work also is needed to understand the impact of serotype 3 disease at 

an individual and population level.

In conclusion, pneumococcus remains an important cause of CXR-positive CAP among Native 

American adults. Non-PCV13 serotypes and serotype 3 predominated. The SSUAD assay was 

useful in increasing the detection of pneumococcal pneumonia over conventional methods. It 

did not reveal a substantial burden of PCV13-type disease, with the exception of serotype 3. 

However, this is in the context of high PCV13 use in infants and adults ≥65 years of age.

Discussion Points

Dr. Bernstein asked whether they are doing molecular typing on the isolates, given the 

replacement issues that have been seen previously. Serotype can be helpful, but molecular 

typing can be more informative, particularly with regard to serotype 3. He wondered if Dr. 

Hammitt could say more about that.

Dr. Hammitt responded that they are particularly interested in that as well. One of her 

colleagues at the CAIH just received a research grant to perform some molecular 

characterization of serotype 3 isolates. They have done this previously in collaboration with 

colleagues and have seen some of the same patterns there that they have seen in other places 

with the change between Clade 1 and Clade 2. That was from several years ago and they are 

now going to look at those isolates again to see what is circulating and perhaps causing what 

appears to be an increase in serotype 3 disease.

Dr, Grabenstein (Merck) noted that IHS had a great PPSV23 program for many years. 

Regarding people receiving PPSV23 first and PCV13 second, he wondered whether they were 

able to assess the interval in time between the two vaccinations.

Dr. Hammitt indicated that they do have those data and she looked at each case. Of those who 

had their polysaccharide vaccine prior to PCV13, 70% had multiple doses of polysaccharide 

vaccine ahead of time. Some people had their first polysaccharide vaccine in the 1990s and 

would have had three vaccines prior to getting PCV12, so they do want to take a more careful 

look at the intervals to see if that could help inform what is occurring.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

129

Incidence of Invasive Pneumococcal Disease by Race, United States, 2008–2016

Almea Matanock, MD, MS

Respiratory Diseases Branch

National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Dr. Matanock pointed out that IPD rates historically have been higher in some racial minorities. 

Race is sometimes used as a proxy for socioeconomic status (SES), but in terms of risk for 

disease, SES might not account for all of the differences in IPD incidence between races. An 

alternative theory is that some of the increased risk among people of the black race is driven by 

higher prevalence of certain chronic medical conditions, such as sickle cell disease and HIV.

Based on the most recently published analysis using ABCs data for children <5 years of age, 

overall at pre-PCV7 introduction there were approximately 100 cases/100,000 population

absolute difference in IPD incidence among children of black race as compared to white race. 

This corresponds to a rate ratio of 2.5. Just before PCV13 introduction, the absolute difference 

had been reduced to approximately 20 cases/100,000 with a rate ratio of 2.2.

The overall objective in this analysis was to evaluate racial disparities in IPD incidence since 

PCV13 introduction. ABCs data were used from the 10 active laboratory and population-based 

surveillance sites. Pneumococcus was isolated from sterile sites. Race was defined as a single 

race reported in the medical chart. Race was imputed, for the 13% of IPD cases where it was 

not reported, from other patient characteristics such as age, location, syndrome, and underlying 

medical conditions. US Census population estimates were used as denominators. 

Isolates were serotyped by Quellung or PCR at reference laboratories and grouped for analysis. 

For children <5 years of age, there are PCV13 serotypes1 that include 6C due to crossprotection2 and non-PCV13 types. For adults, there is an additional category of PPV11 

serotypes3

, which includes the 11 serotypes unique to PPSV23, and all other non-vaccine 

types. Overall and serotype-specific IPD incidence before and after PCV13 introduction 

[

1

Serotypes 1, 3, 4, 5, 6A, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19A, 19F, 23F; 2Cooper et al. 2011; and 

3

Serotypes 2, 8, 9N, 10A, 11A, 12F, 15B, 17F, 20, 22F, 33F].

This table shows the distribution of race and the major invasive syndromes caused by 

pneumococcus, and reflects differences between the age groups:

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

130

In terms of trends in IPD incidence by serotype group among children <5 years of age from 

2008–2016, the incidence reduced for all children after PCV13 introduction. The absolute 

incident rate difference between children of black and white races went from 8.5 in 2008-2009 to 

less than 1 case/100,000 in 2015-2016 with an unchanged incidence ratio of 1.8 to 1.7. Looking 

at the non-PCV13 serotypes, the incidence over time has remained stable with similar 

disparities between groups. When including a relatively higher incidence year of 2008 and a 

relatively lower incidence of 2016, there appear to be some reductions in the absolute rate 

difference in the incidence rate ratio. But overall, there does not appear to be any increase or 

decrease in the trend.

Regarding the trends in IPD incidence by serotype group among adults ≥65 years of age from 

2010 to 2014, the majority of adults were only experiencing indirect or herd effects from 

pediatric vaccination. After the PCV13 recommendation in 2014, there were combined direct 

and indirect effects for adults ≥65 years of age. Looking only at the PCV13-type IPD, incidence 

was reduced for all adults after pediatric PCV13 introduction. The absolute rate difference 

between older adults of black and white race went from 2.1 in 2008-2009 to equal in 2015-2016, 

with an unchanged incidence rate ratio of 1.1 to 1.

The unique PPSV serotypes over time are different from the PCV serotype disease in older 

adults in that there has not been a dramatic decrease in incidence. The incidence by race is 

similar and is relatively unchanged from 2008-2016. For non-vaccine type in older adults, the 

incidence has been stable over time, but there remains a persistent gap between older adults of 

white and black race with those of black race consistently experiencing at least 5 cases/100,000 

more than whites with an incidence rate ratio of approximately 1.5.

This table summarizes the absolute rate difference and incidence rate ratios. Persons of white 

race are not shown because they are used as the reference group:

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

131

Again, the PCV13 type absolute rate difference between children of white and black races went 

from 8.5 in 2008-2009 to 0.8 in 2015-2016. The decline of PCV13-type IPD drove a reduction in 

the absolute difference between whites and blacks from 17.8 to 5.5 in all IPD. Looking at adults 

≥65 years of age, the PCV13-type absolute rate difference went from 2.1 to equivalent between 

blacks and whites. However, with a significant proportion of the remaining non-PCV13-type 

disease, the overall IPD incidence was similar in 2008-2009 to 2015-2016.

Preliminary conclusions are that as with other analyses, IPD incidence has dramatically 

declined after PCV introduction for all racial groups. This is driven by reductions in PCV13-type 

IPD. PCVs have nearly eliminated the absolute difference in PCV13-type IPD incidence 

between people of black and white races. The disparities in IPD that remain are due to nonvaccine type IPD, which is seen especially in older adults. Further analysis is planned to look at 

the contribution of SES and underlying medical conditions by race. 

Discussion Points

Dr. Bernstein observed that it was interesting that race was imputed and that it was only 13% of 

the IPD. He asked whether that was a multiple imputation, if there was a reason to do that, and 

if they looked at it without the imputation.

Dr. Matanock replied that they did look at this both ways, with and without the imputation. They 

imputed to make it more complete for the entire set, and there were multiple imputations. In the 

future, they can present it both ways.

Dr. Paradiso (Paradiso Biologics Consulting) pointed out that it is a really interesting result in the 

US that there has been a dramatic reduction in the vaccine serotypes without a significant 

increase in replacement of other serotypes in children or adults; whereas, many other countries 

are fighting replacement disease significantly. This is interesting scientifically in that the US 

recommended 3 doses in the first year and 1 dose in the second year, while many other 

countries used a 2 + 1 schedule. This has been a very successful program in the US, in part 

because replacement has not occurred. Though the US is benefitting from that success, many 

people are trying to figure out why that disparity is occurring.

Dr. Bresnitz (Merck) asked whether Dr. Hammitt could provide some context by giving an 

estimate of the percentage of individuals who had been vaccinated with PCV13 between 2014-

2016 and then received PPSV23 per the recommendation.

Dr. Hammitt indicated that an MMWR was published in 2017 by lead author Carla Black. Among 

older adults, there was a difference in vaccination rates. It is difficult to assess adult vaccination 

because there are not standardized registries. The way that information is obtained through 

multiple channels has limitations. This MMWR looked at Medicare beneficiaries ≥65 years of 

age with claims submitted for pneumococcal vaccination. Between those of black and white 

race, there was a 10% difference. At that time point, 33% of blacks and 44% of whites had been 

vaccinated with 1 dose of PPSV23. About 33% of whites and 19% of blacks had received 1 

dose of PCV. Receiving both PPSV23 and PCV was about 19% amongst whites and about 10% 

amongst adults of black race. However, the order and timing of the vaccines is not known from 

this source.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

132

Dr. Atmar recalled that at the beginning of the presentation, Dr. Hammitt set up the possibility 

that the racial disparities in incidence might be related either to SES or due to actual racial 

differences. His interpretation of the data presented was that as the incidence of PCV13 disease 

has declined, the racial differences have disappeared. He could not tell if this actually answered 

the question regarding whether this was due to SES or race.

Dr. Hammitt replied that SES and race was somewhat linked and that she had brought it up 

because they are still planning to look at this by SES, and they know that different results have 

been observed depending upon whether it is examined by race or SES. She clarified that she 

made that point because she did not want it to get lost that one could be a complete proxy for 

the other. The overall message is that through vaccination, whichever one of those things is 

causing the difference for PCV13-type IPD with the vaccination program in place, the disparity 

and absolute difference of cases by race has pretty much been eliminated.

Overview of the Evidence to Recommendations (EtR) Framework for the 

Ongoing Review of the PCV13 Recommendation for Adults ≥65 Years

Almea Matanock, MD, MS

Respiratory Diseases Branch

National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Dr. Matanock reminded everyone of the elements for the EtR framework:

 Statement of problem

 Public health priority

 Burden of disease

 Benefits and harms

 Balance of desirable and undesirable effects

 Certainty in evidence 

 Values and preferences of the target population

 Acceptability to stakeholders

 Resource use

 Health economic analyses

 Feasibility

 Implementation considerations

As a reminder, in 2012 ACIP recommended PCV13 in series with PPSV23 for adults ≥19 years 

old with immunocompromising conditions, asplenia, cochlear implants, or cerebrospinal fluid 

leaks. In 2014, ACIP added an age-based recommendation for PCV13 to be given in series with 

the previously recommended PPSV23 for all PCV13-naïve adults ≥65 years old. In 2014, there 

was a commitment to re-evaluate this recommendation given the ongoing indirect or herd 

effects, which brought them to this session and the EtR question:

Should PCV13 be administered routinely to all immunocompetent adults aged ≥65 years

given sustained indirect effects? The supporting PICO elements are:

 Population: Immunocompetent adults 65 years and older

 Intervention: PCV13 at ≥65 years old in series with PPSV23 in the context of indirect 

effects

 Comparison(s): PPSV23 alone at ≥65 years old

 Outcomes: pneumococcal disease, mortality, and vaccine safety

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

133

As part of the EtR, the WG is considering the following outcomes as part of the GRADE 

process: 

 PCV13-type IPD

 Non-bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia (NBPP) as measured by all-cause 

pneumonia, NBPP, and PCV13-type pneumonia 

 Mortality due to IPD and NBPP

 Serious or systemic events associated with PCV13

Within this framework, the information that has been added at this time includes safety data for 

PCV13 among adults. No new safety signals or unexpected patterns have been observed in 

VAERS surveillance. No increase in AEs were observed in the VSD cohort. The WG will 

continue to monitor and provide updates as needed. 

Pneumococcal pneumonia still causes a relatively high burden of disease, especially relative to 

IPD. As presented earlier in the session, from June 2014 to May 2016, PCV13-type pneumonia 

in adults ≥65 years of age decreased. However, this observation is limited to only 2 years. 

Additionally, the time period after 2014 is difficult to disentangle in terms of direct and indirect 

effects. The proportion of pneumonia caused by PCV13 serotypes was 4% among adults ≥65 

years of age in Louisville and 6% among American Indian adults in the Southwest. In Louisville, 

66% of pneumonia incidence in adults ≥65 years of age was in patients with

immunocompromising conditions or HCAP. Population characteristics and case definitions 

contribute to variations in pneumonia incidence. Studies estimating all-cause and pneumococcal 

pneumonia incidence and vaccine impact are anticipated in October 2018.

Pediatric PCV introduction has reduced racial disparities in IPD. IPD incidence has dramatically 

decreased for all racial groups driven by reduction in PCV13-type IPD, nearly eliminating the 

absolute difference in PCV13-type IPD incidence between people of different races. Carriage of 

PCV13 serotypes in American Indian children and adults are similar overall to carriage in the US

presented to ACIP in October 2017. Among American Indians in the Southwestern US, 26% of 

chest x-ray confirmed pneumonia was caused by pneumococcus, but PCV13-types did not 

predominate. 

In terms of the tentative timeline, outstanding data will be shared with ACIP during the upcoming 

meeting in October 2018. These include PCV13 impact on all-cause pneumonia and NBPP from 

studies examining administrative and clinical surveillance data, as well as the potential public 

health impact and cost-effectiveness of changing the PCV13 policy for adults ≥65 years old. The 

WG hopes to have the EtR with GRADE finalized by the following meeting in February 2019 and 

anticipates a potential vote in February, or if additional time needed, in June 2019. 

In conclusion, the WG is in the process of re-evaluating the 2014 PCV recommendation for 

adults aged ≥65 years in terms of whether PCV13 should be administered routinely to all 

immunocompetent adults ≥65 years of age in a setting of sustained PCV13 indirect effects. Dr. 

Matanock asked ACIP what additional evidence should be included in future presentations in 

terms of the GRADE review to help the committee with decision-making. 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

134

Discussion Points

Dr. Moore said that Dr. Hammitt’s presentation brought to mind the fact that the vaccine 

includes serotype 3 but does not work very well against it. It would be incredibly helpful 

whenever possible to examine the burden of preventable disease in terms of what is remaining 

with regard to serotype 3 that actually could be impacted. That is, if they are trying to decide 

whether to retain a recommendation for immunocompetent older adults, what amount of disease 

remaining, other than serotype 3, do they think they actually could prevent with that policy?

Dr. Stephens said he would like to hear more about the next generation of pneumococcal 

vaccines and the potential for expanded PCVs, as well as when to give conjugate vaccine or 

boost with a polysaccharide at a younger age.

Dr. Lee noted that even though she had heard the presentations previously, it was helpful to 

hear them side-by-side during this session because it illustrated the challenge in disentangling 

the direct from indirect effects. Based on Dr. Swerdlow’s presentation, it seemed like there were 

some potential direct effects just by there being an overall less than 50% vaccination rate in that 

population. In contrast, Dr. Hammitt’s presentation illustrated that despite very high vaccination 

rates, there was really no gain after 2014 in terms of IPD presumably because of serotype 3. It 

was helpful to have all of this information in one place.

Dr. Bennett indicated that this would be Dr. Cindy Whitney’s last meeting. She said that for her 

personally, this was particularly painful because she felt like all of her work with the CDC started 

with Dr. Whitney. More than that, Dr. Whitney has been an incredible leader of the 

Pneumococcal WG and the work that the Pneumococcal WG has done over the last 10 years 

has been extraordinary. She thanked Dr. Whitney for her tremendous leadership and stressed 

that she would be sorely missed. This was followed by applause and a standing ovation.

Dr. Jeanne M. Santoli

Immunization Services Division

National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Dr. Santoli presented an update on Hepatitis A (HepA) and Hepatitis B (HepB) vaccine supplies 

and provided a reminder about CDC’s supply web page during this session.

During 2017, large outbreaks of HepA among adults in several US cities resulted in increased 

demand for vaccine and resulted in constrained supplies of vaccine. Actions taken included 

collaboration between CDC and public health officials in affected jurisdictions to target vaccine 

based on local epidemiology; implementation of ordering controls to maintain an equitable 

distribution of vaccine in unaffected jurisdictions; and modification of CDC’s vaccine contracts to 

support additional vaccine purchase. In addition, both GSK and Merck have increased the 

amount of vaccine available in the US market for outbreaks and routine use. Vaccine continues 

to be directed toward jurisdictions with outbreaks. In addition, as vaccine supplies have 

improved, the vaccine supply strategy has evolved, making more vaccine available for routine 

use and/or prevention activities in jurisdictions without large, ongoing outbreaks. CDC and 

Vaccine Supply

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

135

vaccine manufacturers are continuing to monitor ongoing demand for and usage of adult HepA 

vaccine closely.

Merck is not currently distributing its adult HepB vaccine or the dialysis formulation and will not 

be distributing vaccine through the end of 2018. GSK has a sufficient supply of adult HepB 

vaccine to address the anticipated gap in Merck’s adult HepB vaccine supply during this period;

however, preferences for a specific presentation (i.e., vial versus syringe) may not be met 

uniformly during this period. Merck has not been distributing its pediatric HepB vaccines since 

mid-2017 and will continue to have a limited supply of pediatric HepB vaccine during 2018.

Together, Merck and GSK are able to supply the US market with approximately 10% less of the 

monovalent pediatric HepB vaccine compared to normal during 2018. This expected 

monovalent supply is fortunately sufficient to cover the birth dose for all children as well as 

additional vaccine for some second and third doses. There also are combination vaccines that 

are meeting the rest of the need for HepB vaccine in children. CDC has implemented controlled 

vaccine ordering in the public sector using both Merck’s and GSK’s monovalent vaccines. In 

addition, GSK is providing monovalent vaccine to the private sector aligned with CDC’s clinical 

guidance for emphasizing and continuing with the birth dose. GSK’s DTaP-HepB-IPV 

combination vaccine, PEDIARIXTM, continues to be available in the public and private sectors.

CDC has a vaccine supply page that is kept updated to make sure that it is in sync with all of the 

updates made during ACIP meetings. The Vaccine Supply/Shortage Webpage can be found at:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/shortages/default.htm

Discussion Points

Dr. Schaffner (NFID) noted that another recently approved HepB vaccine, HEPLISAV-B®, is now 

available.

Dr. Santoli responded that in terms of the website, that was not an option at the point where 

these updates came up. However, when updating it this time they certainly will make note of 

that. 

Lynette Barron

Concerned Parent

Hello. I’m Lynette Barron and I am here representing my children. I have two vaccine-injured 

children. I had no idea vaccine injury was even a possibility. I have 5 kids. I always followed the 

schedule with my 3 oldest ones and never even imagined it could happen. When my 4-year old 

was 15 months took to the doctor for thrush. I did not take her in for vaccinations that day. I took 

her in because she was sick. The doctors told me that my child had to get vaccinations that day. 

I told them I did not think this was a great because she was in there for thrush. I’m not a doctor. 

I’m not a scientist. But, I have Google. I can read that that means your immune system is down. 

But, they kept telling me that if my child would get something that she could have had that would 

have prevented by those vaccines, that I would be in trouble so I needed to go ahead and do 

this that day. So, my daughter got 6 vaccines that day—2 were triples. From that day for we 

went through 26 days straight of fever. We spent 7 weeks in Children’s in Birmingham. We had 

Day 2: Public Comment

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

136

bone marrow aspiration and biopsies. We went through all kinds of—sorry. Anyway, it’s just 

really hard when you’re a parent and have to go through this. I give my daughter NEUPOGEN®

injections now every three days of her life, and I have ever since this happened. Two weeks 

prior to her injury, I cut my finger. Two tiny little stiches is what I needed. I was 26 weeks 

pregnant and I was told that I had to have Tdap vaccine. I received that Tdap vaccine. Her 2-

year old sister has severe autism, development delay, epilepsy, and the list goes on and on. I 

can’t even tell you how many diagnoses this child has received and she is not even 3 years old 

yet.

I have 5 kids. My older kids didn’t get a schedule like this and we didn’t see problems like this. 

The schedule keeps growing, and keeps growing, and keeps growing and we’re creating people 

like me. I don’t want to have to know all of this vaccine science. I don’t want to have to read 

every book about this stuff. Every medical journal. I’m a mother. I mean, seriously. I turned my 

life around in order to try to help other people avoid the same thing my family has to go through. 

If you had all of the proper science, like this sweet woman just said, find actual scientists other 

than just the people who are being paid to do these things. Pharmaceutical companies aren’t 

thinking about people like me. They are not thinking about those children who don’t need to be 

vaccinated again. I’m sitting here listening to Paul Offit earlier, the same man who says if you’re 

not going to vaccinate children, they should be taken by the state. I will never vaccinate my 

children again, and the state will not come take my children because I will fight tooth and nail for 

my kids. This is not the way this should be. You shouldn’t feel pressured to do something like 

this. You should have all of the proper information. If you don’t have all of the science, then how 

will we have all of the science? It just doesn’t make any sense. I will be at every meeting that 

comes. I will be right here. I really hope that things start getting better and the science starts 

improving, because the saddest part is I hear more data that makes more sense about what’s 

going on everywhere else than I do in this room. So, I just really hope that improves for people 

like us who don’t want to have to do this. We don’t want to be in your space in your face. I want 

to be at home with my children. I had to pay over $500 to make this trip today to come here from 

out of state just to talk to you guys to let you know we don’t want to be forced. We don’t want to 

be told it’s okay when they’re sick, “It’s okay. We do this all the time. It’s not going to do 

anything. If you don’t want to do it and something happens to them, you’re responsible.” Who is 

responsible when something happens to my children? Nobody, because they deny it in the 

VICP. Nobody cares. They don’t want to hear your story. They don’t want to hear it. They tell me 

to find my own experts and find my own lawyers. How do I find my own experts? Somebody 

please tell me that. I mean, it’s just insane. The system is not set up to help people. It’s 

damaging and it needs to stop. 

Rebecca Hastings

Mom, Grandmother, Breastfeeding Counselor

Hi. I’m Rebecca Hastings and I am in here on my own in my private capacity, paying my own 

expenses. I really appreciate the opportunity to have this public comment. At the risk of beating 

a drum and making music that no one wants to listen to, I hope to narrow my comment a little bit 

today. My guess is that probably everyone in this room understands the priority and significance 

of breastfeeding. Some of you theoretically and some of you have had personal experience, 

either yourself or someone close to you, with a breastfeeding mom and baby, health diet, just 

getting it right. Well, as a breastfeeding counselor trying to help thousands of moms over 25 

years, I often see moms really struggle. Some of the main struggles have to do early on with 

latching, and that often prevents them from developing a good milk supply. So, over the years 

I’ve looked at this and I’ve noticed and have read some studies that point out a correlation 

between HepB vaccine and difficulty with breastfeeding. Non-vaccinated babies often do better 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

137

with breastfeeding, so could only HepB, that birth dose, be playing a role in sabotaging the 

breastfeeding of newborns. Further, Dr. Yao’s study using animal models notes a long-term 

impact on the brains of mice that received early vaccination with HepB. That caused 

neurobehavioral impairments, not right away, but in early adulthood. So, the original HepB 

studies prior to the inclusion on the schedule tracked infants for less than two weeks amongst a 

growing incidence of anxiety, violence, and social disorders amongst the youth in our country 

today.

It is no small thing to review the long-term impact that this routine shot may be having on our 

children. I understand there are many branches in the CDC that are all looking at various 

aspects of health. I’m sure you have specialists who are working to improve breastfeeding rates 

and trying to understand the anxiety, depression, violence, and suicide rates amongst youth. 

Increased communication amongst these various branches of the CDC may increase our 

understanding of the complex, non-specific effects that could be associated with vaccines. For 

the layperson, that’s unintended consequences. So, the vaccine schedule currently has 3 

categories to which physicians refer regarding administration of HepB: Positive Mothers, 

Negative Mothers, and Mothers of Unknown Status. I would suggest that to delay the HepB 

vaccine for negative mothers, at least until breastfeeding is well-established, would be a great 

idea. I would also like to have more representation in your working groups from people who are 

studying non-specific effects, experts such as Dr. Christopher Exley, Dr. Theresa Deisher, Dr. 

Mawson. These people can inform your working groups just as you currently have the 

pharmaceutical industries representing their work and their studies in your working groups. I 

think that will give you the evidence base. Many have said here today you don’t have enough 

evidence. You’re making decisions without evidence. Well, there is evidence available. I think if 

you access it, it will be better for everyone. Thank you.

Tiendra Severino

Concerned Parent

Hello again. Tia Severino. I just want to say the hepatitis B vaccine is one of the vaccines that 

injured my son. When he was brought to me after a 5-hour delay after an emergency C-section, 

he could not latch. He could not nurse. I ended up having to supplement even though it was my 

desire to exclusively breastfeed him. I thought I was going to take the cautionary approach to 

vaccinations. He only received 4 vaccines—4 individual separate vaccines separated by 3 to 4 

weeks and he still ended up injured. Okay? I’m sitting here listening to you guys talk about a 

shortage in the hepatitis B vaccine for newborns, and I for the life of me cannot understand why 

you are recommending this vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease for day 1 old infants. I 

would like to point out for this panel that the United States has the highest day 1 infant mortality 

rate in the world. Why? We are supposed to have the best medical system in the world. Why 

are babies dying the first day right here in this country? Why do we have the highest rates of 

infant mortality? We have the highest vaccination rates. We should not have children dying. 

Babies go in at 2, 4, and 6 months and are routinely injected with up to 23 antigens. I’m 

standing right here representing a friend of mine name Pricilla and her husband Will whose 

daughter died after receiving her 4-month vaccines. This was determined to be caused by 

vaccines. Now, with the hepatitis B vaccine, by the time my son is sexually active, guess what? 

That vaccine is not going to be protecting him. It lasts maybe 8 to 10 years. So, you’re telling me 

that I needed inject my newborn child with a sexually transmitted disease vaccine that is going 

to wear off before he is ever even sexually active? It makes no sense to me. If you guys are 

worried about a shortage in hepatitis B vaccines, why don’t you just stop giving them to babies? 

Then you’ll have more to go around. Thank you. 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

138

Britney Valos

Concerned Parent

Hello. Thank you so much for everything everybody is doing, and for the wonderful 

presentations, and for explaining to everybody what you guys have been working on for such a 

long time. I do have a couple of questions about the JE vaccine and the presentation with that 

earlier. You guys were able to answer the questions, but I just wanted to give a comment and

maybe a line of thought to see what your thoughts would be on that. My understanding is that 

there were 12 cases of JE in about a 19-year span. In those 12 cases, that boils down to less 

than one case per year. So, if I’m looking at that, you also mentioned that the death rate in JE is

33% in one case. So, in less than one case per year, the possibility of dying is about 33% of 

that. The purpose and idea behind vaccines is to save lives, so I’m going to focus on the highrisk group, which is the Risk Group I, which is recommended for all travelers staying over a 

month and also focusing on the deaths on that as well. So, 12 cases over the course of 19 

years and a 33% chance of dying in that less than 1 case. In that situation, it would take 

2,230,284 people to be vaccinated to save that potential 1 life. If we’re looking at that and then 

we also look at the cost standpoint at that higher rate of $292 per vaccine, you’re looking at 

$651,242,928 to potentially save less than one third of one life, less than 1 life of actually 

contracting JE in that possible year. Even with the reduced cost of vaccine of $131 per vaccine, 

then we’re looking at $292,167,204 of vaccinating that number of people to potentially save that 

one life in one year. So, I’m looking at that as far as cost goes. Then one other thing I wanted to 

point out is that you mentioned that there are 64,000 cases of JE in Asia that have not been

vaccinated. Two things. Number one, we’re looking at a population of I think 4 or 5 billion

people, so the chances of them even getting not being vaccinated we figured up is .00000-it’s 

like 5 zeros, so the chance of them getting it is extremely rare even without the vaccination. 

Then as you mentioned, the people that are in that area, they receive natural immunity from the 

symptoms of getting it. So, I wanted to mention those two things. 

The next aspect of it, you mentioned the boosters and you’re not really sure how efficacious that 

is. I noticed that the efficacy really went down as far as the number of boosters. It definitely 

wears off. It doesn’t last. So, when we’re looking at people to return to this country and possibly 

getting disease, then my question becomes: What would be better for them if they get it? To 

achieve natural immunity from getting those basic symptoms and then they have the immunity 

for a lifetime, versus maybe getting a booster shot or not getting a booster shot. So, I wanted to 

present that as one idea. Then the second idea is in looking at the study, you’re comparing 

vaccine-to-vaccine as far as the safety profile and the adverse events, so if you’re comparing 

two vaccines, I would want to know from the second vaccine what the safety profile on that 

vaccine compares to a saline placebo. We don’t really know. What if this vaccine has a ton of 

adverse events. You know, we’re not really looking at how safe this vaccine is if we’re 

comparing it to another vaccine that could potentially cause a lot of adverse events. So 

basically, at the end of the day I understand that this might be an inconvenient illness for that 

less than 1 person maybe a year who may get it but is probably not going to die from it. But, is 

this vaccine even needed? I mean, is it even necessary? To go through the cost of having to 

produce this and then to require or recommend, strongly recommend, for that Class I in people 

that stay over there a month to get this vaccine when we don’t even really know the safety 

profile of it, because you’re just comparing it to another vaccine, that’s a lot of unanswered 

questions. When you’re looking at the general public, when they’re going to this other country 

and they’re being told, “You might get this. You might get this. You might get this,” they’re going 

to just follow suit and we really don’t know the safety profile and the disease is really not a big 

deal. So, I just wanted to see if not vaccinating would be an option.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

139

Andrea Woodruff

Woodruff Family

Hi and thank you. For the Center for Disease Control organization, I’ve always been pretty 

impressed with, but I’m starting to really doubt how much we can control disease. I think at best 

we can manage it. I’ve been watching data issues and have been asking for models. I haven’t 

gotten them. I’ve been reading that strain replacement for a combination of viruses or 

combination of bacteria and contamination issues and manufacturing issues. These things 

seem to be out of our control. I think we can try to manage and we can report what is being 

found, but it ultimately comes down to my choice as a person and as a parent what my data 

points are and what I’m seeing. I love to hear your information and I am grateful that you provide 

it, but I don’t think we can control it. I think that we need to look at these things a little differently. 

Thank you so much. Take care.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

140

 

Upon reviewing the foregoing version of the June 20-21, 2018 ACIP meeting minutes, Dr. 

Nancy Bennett, ACIP Chair, certified that to the best of her knowledge, they are accurate and 

complete. Her original, signed certification is on file with the Management Analysis and 

Services Office (MASO) of CDC.

Certification

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

141

Department of Health and Human Services 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices 

November 27, 2017 – June 30, 2018

 

CHAIR 

BENNETT, Nancy, MD, MS 

Professor of Medicine and Public Health Sciences Director, 

Center for Community Health 

Co-director, Clinical and Translational Science Institute 

University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry 

Rochester, NY 

Term: 07/01/2015-06/30/2018 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 

COHN, Amanda, MD 

Senior Advisor for Vaccines 

National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Atlanta, GA 

MEMBERS 

ATMAR, Robert L, MD 

John S. Dunn Clinical Research Professor in Infectious Diseases Interim Chief, 

Section of Infectious Diseases 

Departments of Medicine and Molecular Virology & Microbiology 

Baylor College of Medicine 

Chief, Infectious Diseases Service 

Ben Taub General Hospital, Harris Health System Houston, TX 

Term: 7/1/2016 – 6/30/2020

BELONGIA, Edward, MD 

Director 

Center for Clinical Epidemiology & Population Health 

Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation Marshfield, WI 

Term: 07/01/2014-06/30/2018

 

BERNSTEIN, Henry, DO, MHCM, FAAP 

Professor of Pediatrics 

Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell 

Cohen Children’s Medical Center 

New Hyde Park, NY 

Term: 11/27/2017-06/30/2021 

ACIP Membership Roster

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

142

EZEANOLUE, Echezona, MD, MPH 

Professor of Pediatrics and Public Health 

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics 

Director, Global Health and Implementation Research Initiatives

University of Nevada Las 

Vegas, NV 

Term: 07/01/2015-06/30/2019

FREY, Sharon E, MD 

Professor and Associate Director of Clinical Research Clinical 

Director, Center for Vaccine Development 

Division of Infectious Diseases, Allergy and Immunology Saint Louis 

University Medical School 

Saint Louis, MO 

Term: 11/27/2017-06/30/2021

 

HUNTER, Paul, MD 

Associate Professor of Family Medicine and Community Health 

University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health 

Associate Medical Director 

City of Milwaukee Health Department 

Milwaukee, WI 

Term: 7/1/2016 – 6/30/2020

 

LEE, Grace M, MD, MPH 

Associate Chief Medical Officer for Practice Innovation 

Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital 

Professor of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine 

Stanford, CA 

Term: 7/1/2016 – 6/30/2020

 

MOORE, Kelly, MD, MPH

Director, Tennessee Immunization Program 

Tennessee Department of Health 

Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Health Policy 

Vanderbilt University School of Medicine 

Nashville, TN 

Term: 07/01/2015-06/30/2019

 

PELLEGRINI, Cynthia 

Senior Vice President 

Public Policy and Government Affairs 

March of Dimes 

Washington, DC 

Term: 07/01/2013-06/30/2018 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

143

RILEY, Laura E, MD 

Associate Professor, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine 

Harvard Medical School 

Maternal Fetal Medicine 

Massachusetts General Hospital 

Boston, MA 

Term: 07/01/2014-06/30/2018

 

ROMERO, José R, MD, FAAP 

Professor of Pediatrics 

Horace C. Cabe Endowed Chair in Infectious Diseases 

Director, Pediatric Infectious Diseases Section 

University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and Arkansas Children's Hospital 

Director, Clinical Trials Research 

Arkansas Children's Hospital Research Institute 

Little Rock, AR 

Term: 07/01/2014-06/30/2018

 

STEPHENS, David, MD 

Professor of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases 

Chair, Department of Medicine 

Emory University School of Medicine 

Emory University 

Atlanta, GA 

Term: 07/01/2015-06/30/2019

 

SZILAGYI, Peter MD, MPH 

Professor of Pediatrics 

Executive Vice-Chair and Vice-Chair for Research 

Department of Pediatrics 

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) 

Los Angeles, California 

Term: 7/1/2016 – 6/30-2020

WALTER, Emmanuel (Chip), Jr, MD, MPH 

Professor of Pediatrics 

Duke University School of Medicine Durham, NC 

Term: 07/01/2015-06/30/2019 

EX OFFICIO MEMBERS

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 

HANCE, Mary Beth 

Senior Policy Advisor 

Division of Quality, Evaluations and Health Outcomes 

Children and Adults Health Programs Group 

Center for Medicaid, CHIP and Survey & Certification 

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

Baltimore, MD

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

144

Department of Defense (DoD) 

DEUSSING, ERIC, MD, MPH 

Commander, Medical Corps, United States Navy 

Department of Defense Liaison 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Atlanta, GA

Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) 

KIM, Jane A., MD, MPH 

Deputy Chief Consultant for Preventive Medicine 

Office of Patient Care Services 

National Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention 

Durham, North Carolina

 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 

SUN, Wellington, MD 

Director, Division of Vaccines and Related Product Applications 

Office of Vaccines Research and Review 

Food and Drug Administration 

Rockville, MD

 

Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) 

NAIR, Narayan, MD 

CAPT, USPHS 

Division Director/Chief Medical Officer 

Division of Injury Compensation Programs 

Healthcare Systems Bureau Rockville, MD

 

Indian Health Service (IHS)

GROOM, Amy, MPH 

Immunization Program Manager 

Indian Health Service Albuquerque, NM

 

National Vaccine Program Office (NVPO) 

SHEN, Angela K., ScD, MPH CAPT, 

U.S. Public Health Service 

Senior Science Policy Advisor 

Co-Chair National Adult and Influenza Immunization Summit 

National Vaccine Program Office, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health 

Washington, DC

 

National Institutes of Health (NIH) 

LAMBERT, Linda C., Ph.D. 

Chief, Respiratory Diseases Branch 

Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 

NIAID/National Institutes of Health 

Bethesda, MD 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

145

LIAISON REPRESENTATIVES 

American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) 

ROCKWELL, Pamela G, DO 

Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine, 

University of Michigan Medical School 

Medical Director, Dominos Farms Family Medicine 

Ann Arbor, MI

 

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 

BYINGTON, Carrie L, MD 

Chair, AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases 

The Jean and Thomas McMullin Professor and Dean of Medicine 

Senior Vice President Health Science Center 

Vice Chancellor for Health Services 

Texas A&M University 

Bryan, TX

 

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 

Red Book Editor 

KIMBERLIN, David, MD 

Professor of Pediatrics 

Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases 

The University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine 

Birmingham, AL 

American Academy of Physician Assistants (AAPA) 

LÉGER, Marie-Michèle, MPH, PA-C Senior 

Director, Clinical and Health Affairs 

American Academy of Physician Assistants 

Alexandria, VA

 

American College Health Association (ACHA) 

EVEN, Susan, MD 

Executive Director 

Student Health Center 

University of Missouri 

Columbia, MO 

American College of Nurse Midwives (ACNM) 

HAYES, Carol E., CNM, MN, MPH Lead 

Clinician 

Clinical Quality Compliance and Management 

Planned Parenthood Southeast Atlanta, GA 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

146

American College of Nurse Midwives (ACNM) (alternate) 

MEHARRY, Pamela M, PHD, CNM 

Midwifery Educator, Human Resources for Health 

In partnership with University of Rwanda and University of Illinois, Chicago

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 

AULT, Kevin A, MD, FACOG 

Professor and Division Director 

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology 

University of Kansas Medical Center Kansas City, 

KS

 

American College of Physicians (ACP) 

FRYHOFER, Sandra Adamson, MD, MACP 

Adjunct Associate Professor of Medicine 

Emory University School of Medicine 

Atlanta, GA

American College of Physicians (ACP) (alternate) 

POLAND, Gregory A., MD 

Mary Lowell Professor of Medicine and Infectious Diseases Mayo Clinic 

Rochester, MN

American Geriatrics Society (AGS)

SCHMADER, Kenneth, MD 

Professor of Medicine-Geriatrics 

Geriatrics Division Chief 

Duke University and Durham VA Medical Centers 

Durham, NC

 

America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) 

NETOSKIE, Mark J, MD, MBA 

Market Medical Executive, CIGNA 

Houston, TX

 

American Immunization Registry Association (AIRA) 

COYLE, Rebecca, MSEd 

Executive Director, AIRA 

Washington, DC

 

American Medical Association (AMA) FRYHOFER, 

Sandra Adamson, MD 

Adjunct Associate Professor of Medicine 

Emory University School of Medicine Atlanta, GA

 

American Nurses Association (ANA)

RITTLE, Charles (Chad), DNP, MPH, RN 

Assistant Professor, Nursing Faculty 

Chatham University, School of Health Sciences 

Pittsburgh, PA

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

147

American Osteopathic Association (AOA) 

GROGG, Stanley E., DO 

Associate Dean/Professor of Pediatrics 

Oklahoma State University-Center for Health Sciences 

Tulsa, OK

American Pharmacists Association (APhA) 

FOSTER, Stephan L, PharmD CAPT (Ret) 

U.S.P.H.S. 

Professor, College of Pharmacy 

University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center 

Memphis, TN

Association of Immunization Managers (AIM) 

FINLEY, Christine, RN, MPH 

Immunization Program Manager 

Vermont Department of Health 

Burlington, VT

 

Association for Prevention Teaching and Research (APTR) 

McKINNEY, W. Paul, MD 

Professor and Associate Dean 

University of Louisville School of Public Health and Information Sciences Louisville, KY

Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO) 

SMITH, Nathaniel, MD, MPH 

Director and State Health Officer 

Arkansas Department of Health 

Little Rock, AR

 

Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) 

ARTHUR, Phyllis A., MBA 

Senior Director, Vaccines, Immunotherapeutics and Diagnostics Policy Washington, DC

 

Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) (Alternate Susan Lett) 

HAHN, Christine, MD State 

Epidemiologist 

Office of Epidemiology, Food Protection and Immunization Idaho 

Department of Health and Welfare 

Boise, ID

 

Canadian National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) 

QUACH, Caroline, MD, MSc 

Pediatric Infectious Disease Specialist and Medical Microbiologist 

Medical Lead, Infection Prevention and Control Unit 

Medical Co-director – Laboratory Medicine, Optilab 

Montreal-CHUM 

Montreal, Québec, Canada

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

148

Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) 

NEUZIL, Kathleen M, MD, MPH 

Professor of Medicine 

Director, Center for Vaccine Development 

University of Maryland School of Medicine 

Baltimore, MD

Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) (alternate) 

BAKER, Carol J., MD 

Professor of Pediatrics 

Molecular Virology and Microbiology 

Baylor College of Medicine 

Houston, TX

 

National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) 

ZAHN, Matthew, MD 

Medical Director, Epidemiology 

Orange County Health Care Agency Santa 

Ana, CA

 

National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) (alternate)

DUCHIN, Jeffrey, MD 

Health Officer and Chief, Communicable Disease Epidemiology and Immunization 

Section 

Public Health - Seattle and King County 

Professor in Medicine 

Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases 

University of Washington School of Medicine and School of Public Health Seattle, WA

 

National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners (NAPNAP) 

STINCHFIELD, Patricia A, RN, MS, CPNP 

Director 

Infectious Disease/Immunology/Infection Control 

Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota 

St. Paul, MN 

National Foundation for Infectious Diseases (NFID) 

SCHAFFNER, William, MD 

Chairman, Department of Preventive Medicine 

Vanderbilt University School of Medicine 

Nashville, TN

 

National Immunization Council and Child Health Program, Mexico 

DURAN, Luis, MD 

Director, Center for Children and Adolescent Health (CeNSIA) 

Ministry of Health / Secretaría de Salud 

Mexico 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

149

National Medical Association (NMA) 

WHITLEY-WILLIAMS, Patricia, MD 

Professor and Chair 

University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey 

Robert Wood Johnson Medical School 

New Brunswick, NJ

 

National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) 

THOMPSON, Kimberly, ScD Chair, 

NVAC 

Professor of Preventive Medicine and Global Health University of 

Central Florida, College of Medicine 

Orlando, FL

 

Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (PIDS) 

O’LEARY, Sean, MD, MPH 

Associate Professor of Pediatrics 

Pediatric Infectious Diseases 

General Academic Pediatrics 

Children’s Hospital Colorado 

University of Colorado School of Medicine

 

Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (PIDS) (alternate)

SAWYER, Mark H, MD 

Professor of Clinical Pediatrics 

University of California, San Diego School of Medicine 

San Diego, CA

 

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) 

JOHNSON, David R, MD, MPH 

Associate Vice President, Global Medical Affairs, Sanofi Pasteur 

Swiftwater, PA

 

Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine (SAHM) 

MIDDLEMAN, Amy B., MD, MSEd, MPH 

Professor of Pediatrics 

Chief, Section of Adolescent Medicine 

University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center 

Oklahoma City, OK

Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) 

WEBER, David, MD, MPH 

Professor of Medicine, Pediatrics, and Epidemiology 

University of North Carolina Schools of Medicine and Public Health 

Medical Director, Hospital Epidemiology and Occupational Health, UNC Health Care 

University of North Carolina 

Chapel Hill, NC 

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

150

Department of Defense (DoD) Updates for 20-21 June 2018 

Advisory Council for Immunization Practices Meeting in Atlanta, GA

The Centers for Disease Control Epidemic Intelligence Service Team contributed to the Army 

EPICON team investigation pertaining to a cluster of 4 myo/pericarditis cases located at one site 

within DoD. Collectively, there were no deficiencies identified with regard to handling, 

management and administration of the smallpox vaccines and a number of best practices were 

noted. Final report and recommendations are pending as of 4 June 2018.

The Immunization Healthcare Branch continues to follow the mumps and measles outbreaks in 

HI, AK, and Japan. To date, no Service Members have developed disease. There is question 

of a beneficiary with measles in Japan, but this has not yet been confirmed.

 

DoD continues due diligence in managing Yellow-Fever vaccine requests during manufacturer 

shortage. No changes from June 2017 report.

DoD has completed all of Japanese Encephalitis vaccine FDA-required post-licensure studies 

and is awaiting FDA comment.

 

Vaccine redistribution continues to be a widely successful program. Individual DoD 

immunization sites have the capability to communicate near-expiring vaccine surplus or a 

vaccine deficit through personnel at the Immunization Healthcare Branch (IHB) at the Defense 

Health Agency. IHB staff then can reach out to other immunization site to redistribute vaccine 

as needed. In Fiscal Year 2017, $771,000 worth of vaccine was successfully redistributed. 

Tracking of vaccine loss due to temperature compromise has continued to evolve. Potential 

vaccine loss, which vaccines were ultimately cleared vs discarded, etiology for potential vaccine 

loss (ex power failure, human error, etc.) and trends are identified. These metrics not only 

provide valuable information to the services with regard to lessons learned, but present an 

opportunity to standardize best practices across the DoD.

Publications:

 Authored by IHB Staff: 

 McClenathan BM, Stewart DA, Spooner CE, et al. Metabolites as biomarkers of 

adverse reactions following vaccination: A pilot study using nuclear magnetic resonance 

metabolomics. Vaccine. 2017 Mar 1:35(9):1238-1245.

 Dumas EK, Gross T, Larabee J, Pate L, Cuthbertson H, Charlton S, Hallis B, Engler 

RJM, Collins LC Jr, Spooner CE, Chen H, Ballard J, James JA, Farris AD.. Anthrax 

Vaccine Precipitated induces Edema Toxin-neutralizing, Edema Factor-specific 

antibodies in human recipients. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2017 Sep 6. 

Funded by IHB Intramural Studies Program:

• Lee RU, Won SH, Hansen C, Crum-cianflone NF. 25-hydroxyvitamin D, influenza vaccine response and 

healthcare encounters among a young adult population. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(2):e0192479.

 Khodr ZG, Bukowinski AT, Gumbs GR, Conlin AMS. Tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular 

pertussis vaccination during pregnancy and reduced risk of infant acute respiratory 

infections. Vaccine. 2017;35(42):5603-5610. Intramural Studies Program funded.

Attachment A: Liaison & Public Comment Letters Submitted

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

151

 Hang J, Zavaljevski N, Yang Y, et al. Composition and variation of respiratory microbiota 

in healthy military personnel. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(12):e0188461. Intramural Studies 

Program funded.

 Conlin AMS, Sevick CJ, Gumbs GR, Khodr ZG, Bukowinski AT. Safety of inadvertent 

anthrax vaccination during pregnancy: An analysis of birth defects in the U.S. military 

population, 2003-2010. Vaccine. 2017;35(34):4414-4420. Intramural Studies Program 

funded.

 Khodr ZG, Bukowinski AT, Gumbs GR, Conlin AMS. Tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular 

pertussis vaccination during pregnancy and reduced risk of infant acute respiratory 

infections. Vaccine. 2017;35(42):5603-5610. Intramural Studies Program funded.

 Pittman PR, Barrera-Oro JG, Xiaofei, et al. Time course of the early antibody response 

to the priming doses of anthrax vaccine adsorbed. Under review at Military Medicine. 

Intramural Studies Program funded.

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

152

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

153

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

154

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report June 20-21, 2018

155

This document has been archived for historical purposes. (7/1/2018) 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2018-06-508.pdf