“Recommended Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule” for the US for 2003

doi:10.1007/bf03275861

Adult immunization recommendations in the US—New changes and a plea for a global adult immunization schedule

Vaccine ◽

10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.04.065 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 30 (24) ◽

pp. 3489-3491 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Gregory A. Poland ◽

Diane Peterson ◽

Pierce Gardner

Keyword(s):

Immunization Schedule ◽

The Us ◽

Adult Immunization

Download Full-text

PIN21 COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ACIP RECOMMENDED ADULT IMMUNIZATION SCHEDULE IN THE US

Value in Health ◽

10.1016/s1098-3015(10)72928-4 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 13 (3) ◽

pp. A190

Author(s):

J Campbell ◽

DC Taylor ◽

ME Skornicki ◽

VC Sood ◽

B Arondekar ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Immunization Schedule ◽

The Us ◽

Adult Immunization

Download Full-text

Workshop on Conflicting Guidelines for the Use of Vaccines

PEDIATRICS ◽

10.1542/peds.95.6.938 ◽

1995 ◽

Vol 95 (6) ◽

pp. 938-941

Author(s):

Neal A. Halsey ◽

Caroline B. Hall

Keyword(s):

Public Health ◽

Health Service ◽

American Academy ◽

Preventive Care ◽

Information Sources ◽

Public Health Service ◽

Immunization Schedule ◽

Package Inserts ◽

American Academy Of Pediatrics ◽

The Us

Pediatricians and other professionals providing care for children and adolescents refer to a variety of information sources for guidelines regarding optimal therapy on preventive care. In some instances, the guidelines from expert groups (including American Academy of Pediatrics [AAP] recommendations) may differ from material included in the manufacturer's package inserts, and the guidelines from different expert committees may be inconsistent on even conflicting. During recent months, the Committee on Infectious Diseases (COID) of the AAP has worked closely with the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the US Public Health Service and the American Academy of Family Practice to unify the recommendations on the immunization schedule for infants and children.

Download Full-text

The "Recommended Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule" for the US for 2003 has been released

Inpharma Weekly ◽

10.2165/00128413-200313730-00005 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol &NA; (1373) ◽

pp. 4

Author(s):

&NA;

Keyword(s):

Immunization Schedule ◽

The Us

Download Full-text

2698. Timing of Standalone Vaccine Administration in Infants Receiving DTaP-Based Combination Vaccines

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofz360.2375 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽

pp. S948-S949

Author(s):

Berhanu Alemayehu ◽

Lara J Wolfson ◽

Ya-Ting Chen ◽

Zhiwen Liu ◽

Michelle Goveia ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Observational Cohort Study ◽

Immunization Schedule ◽

Insurance Plan ◽

Vaccine Administration ◽

The Third ◽

Pentavalent Vaccine ◽

The Us ◽

Combination Vaccines ◽

Observational Cohort ◽

Retrospective Observational Cohort Study

Abstract Background The recommended US infant immunization schedule includes doses of DTaP, IPV, Hib and HepB during the first 6 months of life. The majority of infants receive DTaP as one of the two pentavalent combination vaccines (DTaP-IPV/Hib or DTaP-HepB-IPV); standalone HepB or Hib are used to complement these combinations in compliance with the recommendations. Little is known about the timing of standalone vaccine administration in relation to DTaP-based combination vaccines. Methods This was a retrospective observational cohort study using the US MarketScan commercial claims and encounters database. Infants included in the study were continuously enrolled in the same insurance plan for ≥13 months after birth, born from 1 July 2010 through 30 June 2016, and had received ≥3 doses of a pentavalent vaccine. Outcomes included the proportion of infants receiving concomitant pentavalent and standalone vaccines, and the deviation in days when these vaccines were not administered on the same date. Birth doses of HepB were not registered in the database but were presumed to have been received; therefore, the first registered HepB claim was considered to be HepB Dose-2, and the second claim was presumed to be HepB Dose-3. Results Among infants who received DTaP-IPV/Hib (n = 175,574), 94.8% had claims for ≥3 doses of HepB. Although coverage was high, only 60.7% received HepB Dose-2 on the same day as DTaP-IPV/Hib Dose-1 (around 2 months of age), and only 45.1% received HepB Dose-3 on the same day as DTaP-IPV/Hib Dose-3 (around 6 months of age) (Figure 1). Many infants (46.2%) received HepB Dose-3 after the third dose of DTaP-IPV/Hib. Among infants who received DTaP-HepB-IPV (n = 97,206), 89.9% had claims for the recommended number of Hib doses; most (91% to 98%) of these doses were administered on the same day as doses of DTaP-HepB-IPV (Figure 2). Conclusion There was variability in the timing of HepB doses in infants receiving DTaP-IPV/Hib. A newly licensed hexavalent vaccine, DTaP-IPV-Hib-HepB, could synchronize and simplify the HepB administration schedule ensuring that more infants have completed the series by 6 months of age. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Download Full-text

Changing the US Polio Immunization Schedule Would Be Bad Public Health Policy

PEDIATRICS ◽

10.1542/peds.98.1.115 ◽

1996 ◽

Vol 98 (1) ◽

pp. 115-116

Author(s):

Richard Judelsohn

Keyword(s):

Advisory Committee ◽

The United States ◽

Western Hemisphere ◽

Paralytic Poliomyelitis ◽

Immunization Schedule ◽

Polio Virus ◽

Immunization Policy ◽

The Us ◽

Control And Prevention ◽

Polio Immunization

Last October, a 10-member advisory committee to the United States (US) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) voted to change the US government's well-established polio immunization policy. The current polio immunization schedule, consisting of a regimen of four doses of oral poliovaccine (OPV), is widely credited with effectively eradicating polio in the US and the western hemisphere. In fact, the last naturally occurring case of polio occurred in the US in 1979 and in the western hemisphere in 1991. Because OPV contains a live but weakened virus, it has, on very rare occasions, been associated with paralytic polio. In the hope of preventing some of the 8 to 10 cases of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) diagnosed each year, the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has recommended a combined immunization schedule of two doses of inactivated polio virus (IPV), which is delivered by injection, followed by two doses of OPV.

Download Full-text

The Eleventh Circuit Holds that Agreements in which Pharmaceutical Companies Pay Generic Companies Not to Compete May be Valid

The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics ◽

10.1017/s107311050000749x ◽

2004 ◽

Vol 32 (1) ◽

pp. 181-184

Author(s):

Amy Garrigues

Keyword(s):

Pharmaceutical Companies ◽

Court Decisions ◽

Patent Holder ◽

Trial Court ◽

Court Of Appeals ◽

The Us ◽

Antitrust Laws ◽

Per Se ◽

Appeals Court ◽

Two Sides

On September 15, 2003, the US. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that agreements between pharmaceutical and generic companies not to compete are not per se unlawful if these agreements do not expand the existing exclusionary right of a patent. The Valley DrugCo.v.Geneva Pharmaceuticals decision emphasizes that the nature of a patent gives the patent holder exclusive rights, and if an agreement merely confirms that exclusivity, then it is not per se unlawful. With this holding, the appeals court reversed the decision of the trial court, which held that agreements under which competitors are paid to stay out of the market are per se violations of the antitrust laws. An examination of the Valley Drugtrial and appeals court decisions sheds light on the two sides of an emerging legal debate concerning the validity of pay-not-to-compete agreements, and more broadly, on the appropriate balance between the seemingly competing interests of patent and antitrust laws.

Download Full-text