34
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Demographic Characteristics of Persons Vaccinated During the First Month of the COVID-19 Vaccination Program — United States, December 14, 2020–January 14, 2021

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In December 2020, two COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) were authorized for emergency use in the United States for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).* Because of limited initial vaccine supply, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) prioritized vaccination of health care personnel † and residents and staff members of long-term care facilities (LTCF) during the first phase of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program ( 1 ). Both vaccines require 2 doses to complete the series. Data on vaccines administered during December 14, 2020–January 14, 2021, and reported to CDC by January 26, 2021, were analyzed to describe demographic characteristics, including sex, age, and race/ethnicity, of persons who received ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine (i.e., initiated vaccination). During this period, 12,928,749 persons in the United States in 64 jurisdictions and five federal entities § initiated COVID-19 vaccination. Data on sex were reported for 97.0%, age for 99.9%, and race/ethnicity for 51.9% of vaccine recipients. Among persons who received the first vaccine dose and had reported demographic data, 63.0% were women, 55.0% were aged ≥50 years, and 60.4% were non-Hispanic White (White). More complete reporting of race and ethnicity data at the provider and jurisdictional levels is critical to ensure rapid detection of and response to potential disparities in COVID-19 vaccination. As the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program expands, public health officials should ensure that vaccine is administered efficiently and equitably within each successive vaccination priority category, especially among those at highest risk for infection and severe adverse health outcomes, many of whom are non-Hispanic Black (Black), non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN), and Hispanic persons ( 2 , 3 ). Data on COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in the United States are collected by vaccination providers and reported to CDC through multiple sources, including jurisdictions, pharmacies, and federal entities, who use various reporting methods including immunization information systems, ¶ Vaccine Administration Management System,** and direct data submission. Data on first vaccine doses administered during December 14, 2020–January 14, 2021, and reported to CDC by January 26, 2021, were analyzed to describe demographic characteristics, including sex, age, and race/ethnicity among persons who received ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Age was calculated based on date or year of birth and date of vaccine administration and was categorized as <18, 18–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–64, 65–74, or ≥75 years. Race and ethnicity were combined and categorized as Hispanic/Latino, White, Black, non-Hispanic Asian (Asian), AI/AN, non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (NH/PI), non-Hispanic multiple/other, †† or unknown (if either race or ethnicity was reported as unknown §§ or not reported because of jurisdictional policy or law). ¶¶ Analyses were conducted using SAS (version 9.4; SAS Institute). During the first month of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program, 12,928,749 persons received at least 1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine (Figure). Vaccination was initiated by persons in all 64 jurisdictions and five federal entities reporting data to CDC. Among 12,537,841 (97.0%) vaccine recipients with reported sex, 63.0% were women and 37.0% were men (Table). Among 12,924,116 (99.9%) persons whose age was known, 55.0% were aged ≥50 years, 16.8% were aged 40–49 years, and 28.2.% were aged 18–39 years. Among 6,706,697 (51.9%) persons whose race/ethnicity was known, 60.4% were White and 39.6% represented racial and ethnic minorities, including 14.4% categorized as multiple or other race/ethnicity, 11.5% Hispanic/Latino, 6.0% Asian, 5.4% Black, 2.0% AI/AN, and 0.3% NH/PI. Race/ethnicity was unknown or not reported for 6,222,052 (48.1%) persons initiating vaccination. Across jurisdictions and federal entities, the percentage of persons initiating vaccination with race/ethnicity that was unknown or not reported ranged from 0.2% to 100% (median = 39.6%; interquartile range = 25.3%–66.1%). FIGURE Number of persons initiating COVID-19 vaccination, by date of vaccine administration (N = 12,928,749) — United States, December 14, 2020–January 14, 2021* Abbreviation: COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019. * Vaccines administered December 14, 2020–January 14, 2021, and reported to CDC by January 26, 2021. The figure is a histogram, an epidemiologic curve showing the number of persons initiating COVID-19 vaccination, by date of vaccine receipt, in the United States, during December 14, 2020–January 14, 2021. TABLE Demographic characteristics of persons initiating COVID-19 vaccination — United States, December 14, 2020–January 14, 2021* Characteristic (no. [%] with available information) No. (%)† Overall 12,928,749 (100.0) Sex (12,537,841 [97.0]) Male 4,639,073 (37.0) Female 7,898,768 (63.0) Age group,§ yrs (12,924,116 [99.9]) <18 4,837 (<0.1) 18–29 1,433,086 (11.1) 30–39 2,207,222 (17.1) 40–49 2,175,305 (16.8) 50–64 3,350,610 (25.9) 65–74 1,732,522 (13.4) ≥75 2,020,534 (15.6) Race/Ethnicity ¶ (6,706,697 [51.9]) White, non-Hispanic 4,047,795 (60.4) Hispanic/Latino 773,858 (11.5) Black, non-Hispanic 359,934 (5.4) Asian, non-Hispanic 405,227 (6.0) AI/AN, non-Hispanic 134,127 (2.0) NH/PI, non-Hispanic 20,585 (0.3) Multiple/Other, non-Hispanic** 965,171 (14.4) Abbreviations: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native; COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019; NH/PI = Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. * Vaccines administered December 14, 2020–January 14, 2021, and reported to CDC by January 26, 2021. † Percentages were calculated among persons with available demographic characteristics. § Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is authorized for persons aged ≥16 years, and Moderna COVID-19 vaccine is authorized for persons aged ≥18 years under Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorizations. Ages that were outside of the expected range (<16 years or >120 years) were treated as unknown, which represented <0.1% of persons initiating vaccination. ¶ Race/ethnicity was not reported or was unknown for all persons initiating vaccination in six jurisdictions. The six jurisdictions not reporting race/ethnicity have a total population of approximately 18.9 million, which represents nearly 6% of the overall U.S. population. ** Represents persons identified as being non-Hispanic and having multiple race categories selected or being non-Hispanic and having “other race” selected. Discussion During the first month of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program, 12,928,749 persons received ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine, representing approximately 4% of the total U.S. population and 5% of the U.S. population aged ≥16 years.*** If vaccination was only provided to persons in the Phase 1a priority groups (health care personnel and LTCF residents), coverage among the 24 million persons included in these groups might have been as high as 50% ( 1 ). However, this is likely an overestimate because persons outside of the 1a priority group were vaccinated because of variation in implementation of national guidance at the jurisdictional and local levels (e.g., Florida and Texas expanded vaccination to all persons aged ≥65 years). ††† Among persons who received the first vaccine dose and had available data for the respective demographic characteristic variable, 63.0% were women, 55.0% were aged ≥50 years, and 60.4% were White, which likely reflects the demographic characteristics of the persons (health care personnel and LTCF residents) recommended to be vaccinated in the Phase 1a priority group ( 4 , 5 ). Data from the 2019 American Community Survey show that 60% of health care workers were White, 16% were Black, 13% were Hispanic, and 7% were Asian; however, race and ethnicity varied widely by occupation and setting ( 6 ). Women also account for approximately three fourths of persons employed in the health care industry ( 7 ). In addition, the 2015–2016 National Study of Long-Term Care Providers found that 65% of nursing home residents were women, 75% were White, 14% were Black, and 5% were Hispanic ( 8 ). Interpretation of data from the analysis of COVID-19 vaccination initiation is limited by the high percentage of records with unknown or missing race/ethnicity information and the unknown proportions of priority groups (health care personnel versus LTCF residents) among early vaccine recipients. Differences in how race and ethnicity data are collected and categorized, for example 14.4% of persons initiating vaccination reported as multiple or other race/ethnicity, also make comparisons difficult. The percentage of persons initiating vaccination who were Black appears lower relative to the percentage of persons who are Black among health care personnel and LTCF residents. Overall, 39.6% of persons who were vaccinated represented racial and ethnic minorities. Because persons who are Black, AI/AN, or Hispanic have been found to have more severe outcomes from COVID-19 than persons who are White, careful monitoring of vaccination by race/ethnicity is critical ( 2 , 9 ). The findings in this report are subject to at least three limitations. First, race/ethnicity was unknown for approximately one half of the population who initiated vaccination during the first month of the COVID-19 vaccination program in the United States. In addition, the proportion of persons with unknown race/ethnicity varied across jurisdictions, including six jurisdictions that reported no race/ethnicity data. §§§ In addition, a high proportion of persons receiving vaccination were categorized as non-Hispanic, multiple or other races, whereas the population estimates from the 2019 American Community Survey ¶¶¶ 1-year population were 2.8% non-Hispanic, multiple or other races. Thus, the findings presented in this study might not be generalizable to all persons initiating COVID-19 vaccination in the United States. The large proportion of missing data also might result in biased estimates of race/ethnicity, particularly if some groups are more likely than others to have race/ethnicity reported as unknown. Second, vaccine administration data reported to CDC include limited data elements and did not allow for stratification by the prioritized populations (health care personnel and LTCF residents) in the initial phase of the vaccination campaign. Therefore, it was not possible to directly compare the observed demographic patterns among persons initiating vaccination to demographic characteristics of prioritized populations. Finally, implementation of the ACIP recommendations, including subprioritization, varied by jurisdiction, with some jurisdictions changing and expanding their priority populations during the first month of the vaccination program. Although these data reflect characteristics of persons initiating vaccination during the initial phase of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program and have several limitations, the findings underscore the need for more complete reporting of race and ethnicity data at the provider and jurisdictional levels to ensure rapid detection of and response to potential disparities in COVID-19 vaccine administration. Jurisdictions should monitor the demographic characteristics of vaccinated persons to identify emerging disparities. In addition, as vaccination expands to include additional groups, monitoring coverage by the Social Vulnerability Index, which uses U.S. Census Bureau variables to identify communities that might need support, will be useful to ensure equity and to identify communities where focused immunization efforts might be required.**** CDC is working with jurisdictions to use these types of analyses to help direct efforts to bring vaccines to their communities and ensure that no persons are left behind. These data from the first month of the COVID-19 vaccination program indicate substantial progress in administration of the COVID-19 vaccine. To increase coverage among persons in Phase 1a, as vaccination expands into additional populations, unvaccinated health care personnel and LTCF residents should continue to be offered COVID-19 vaccine. Equitable and sustainable COVID-19 vaccine administration in all populations requires focus on groups with lower vaccine receipt who might face challenges with access or vaccine hesitancy. Summary What is already known about this topic? In December 2020, two COVID-19 vaccines were authorized for emergency use in the United States. The first groups prioritized for vaccination included health care personnel and long-term care facility residents. What is added by this report? During the first month of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program, approximately 13,000,000 persons received ≥1 dose of vaccine. Among persons with demographic data, 63.0% were women, 55.0% were aged ≥50 years, and 60.4% were non-Hispanic White. What are the implications for public health practice? As the vaccination program expands, it is critical to ensure efficient and equitable administration to persons in each successive vaccine priority category, especially those at highest risk for infection and severe health outcomes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references3

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Disparities In Outcomes Among COVID-19 Patients In A Large Health Care System In California: Study examines disparities in access and outcomes for COVID-19 patients who are members of racial and ethnic minorities and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups.

          As the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic spreads throughout the United States, evidence is mounting that racial and ethnic minorities and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups are bearing a disproportionate burden of illness and death. We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of COVID-19 patients at Sutter Health, a large integrated health system in northern California, to measure potential disparities. We used Sutter's integrated electronic health record to identify adults with suspected and confirmed COVID-19, and we used multivariable logistic regression to assess risk of hospitalization, adjusting for known risk factors, such as race/ethnicity, sex, age, health, and socioeconomic variables. We analyzed 1,052 confirmed cases of COVID-19 from the period January 1-April 8, 2020. Among our findings, we observed that compared with non-Hispanic white patients, non-Hispanic African American patients had 2.7 times the odds of hospitalization, after adjustment for age, sex, comorbidities, and income. We explore possible explanations for this, including societal factors that either result in barriers to timely access to care or create circumstances in which patients view delaying care as the most sensible option. Our study provides real-world evidence of racial and ethnic disparities in the presentation of COVID-19.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ Interim Recommendation for Allocating Initial Supplies of COVID-19 Vaccine — United States, 2020

            The emergence of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has led to a global pandemic that has disrupted all sectors of society. Less than 1 year after the SARS-CoV-2 genome was first sequenced, an application* for Emergency Use Authorization for a candidate vaccine has been filed with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). However, even if one or more vaccine candidates receive authorization for emergency use, demand for COVID-19 vaccine is expected to exceed supply during the first months of the national vaccination program. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) advises CDC on population groups and circumstances for vaccine use. † ACIP convened on December 1, 2020, in advance of the completion of FDA’s review of the Emergency Use Authorization application, to provide interim guidance to federal, state, and local jurisdictions on allocation of initial doses of COVID-19 vaccine. ACIP recommended that, when a COVID-19 vaccine is authorized by FDA and recommended by ACIP, both 1) health care personnel § and 2) residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) ¶ be offered vaccination in the initial phase of the COVID-19 vaccination program (Phase 1a**). †† In its deliberations, ACIP considered scientific evidence of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology, vaccination program implementation, and ethical principles. §§ The interim recommendation might be updated over the coming weeks based on additional safety and efficacy data from phase III clinical trials and conditions of FDA Emergency Use Authorization. Evidence-based information addressing COVID-19 vaccine topics including early allocation has been explicitly and transparently reviewed during seven public ACIP meetings ( 1 ). To inform policy options for ACIP, the COVID-19 Vaccines Work Group, comprising experts in vaccines and ethics, held more than 25 meetings to review data regarding vaccine candidates, COVID-19 surveillance, and modeling, as well as the vaccine allocation literature from published and external expert committee reports. Health care settings in general, and long-term care settings in particular, can be high-risk locations for SARS-CoV-2 exposure and transmission ( 2 – 4 ). Health care personnel are defined as paid and unpaid persons serving in health care settings who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to patients or infectious materials. As of December 1, 2020, approximately 245,000 COVID-19 cases and 858 COVID-19-associated deaths had been reported among U.S. health care personnel ( 5 ). Early protection of health care personnel is critical to preserve capacity to care for patients with COVID-19 or other illnesses. LTCF residents are defined as adults who reside in facilities that provide a range of services, including medical and personal care, to persons who are unable to live independently. LTCF residents, because of their age, high rates of underlying medical conditions, and congregate living situation, are at high risk for infection and severe illness from COVID-19. As of November 15, 2020, approximately 500,000 COVID-19 cases and 70,000 associated deaths had been reported among residents of skilled nursing facilities, a subset of LTCFs serving residents with more complex medical needs ( 6 ). With respect to vaccination program implementation, vaccines that require cold and ultracold storage, specialized handling, and large minimum order requirements are most feasibly maintained in centralized vaccination clinics, such as acute health care settings, or through the federal Pharmacy Partnership for Long-term Care Program. ¶¶ ACIP’s ethical principles for allocating initial supplies of COVID-19 vaccine, namely to maximize benefits and minimize harms, promote justice, and mitigate health inequities ( 7 ), support the early vaccination of health care personnel and LTCF residents. Approximately 21 million U.S. health care personnel work in settings such as hospitals, LTCFs, outpatient clinics, home health care, public health clinical services, emergency medical services, and pharmacies. Health care personnel comprise clinical staff members, including nursing or medical assistants and support staff members (e.g., those who work in food, environmental, and administrative services) ( 8 ). Jurisdictions might consider first offering vaccine to health care personnel whose duties require proximity (within 6 feet) to other persons. If vaccine supply remains constrained, additional factors might be considered for subprioritization.*** Public health authorities and health care systems should work together to ensure COVID-19 vaccine access to health care personnel who are not affiliated with hospitals. Approximately 3 million adults reside in LTCFs, which include skilled nursing facilities, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities. Depending upon the number of initial vaccine doses available, jurisdictions might consider first offering vaccination to residents and health care personnel in skilled nursing facilities because of high medical acuity and COVID-19–associated mortality ( 6 ) among residents in these settings. Monitoring vaccine safety in all populations receiving COVID-19 vaccine is required under an Emergency Use Authorization. Vaccines are being studied in older adults with underlying health conditions; however, LTCF residents have not been specifically studied. ACIP members called for additional active safety monitoring in LTCFs to ensure timely reporting and evaluation of adverse events after immunization. ACIP will consider vaccine-specific recommendations and additional populations for vaccine allocation beyond Phase 1a when an FDA-authorized vaccine is available. Summary What is already known about this topic? Demand is expected to exceed supply during the first months of the national COVID-19 vaccination program. What is added by this report? The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended, as interim guidance, that both 1) health care personnel and 2) residents of long-term care facilities be offered COVID-19 vaccine in the initial phase of the vaccination program. What are the implications for public health practice? Federal, state, and local jurisdictions should use this guidance for COVID-19 vaccination program planning and implementation. ACIP will consider vaccine-specific recommendations and additional populations when a Food and Drug Administration–authorized vaccine is available.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ Ethical Principles for Allocating Initial Supplies of COVID-19 Vaccine — United States, 2020

              To reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its associated impacts on health and society, COVID-19 vaccines are essential. The U.S. government is working to produce and deliver safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines for the entire U.S. population. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)* has broadly outlined its approach for developing recommendations for the use of each COVID-19 vaccine authorized or approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization or licensure ( 1 ). ACIP’s recommendation process includes an explicit and transparent evidence-based method for assessing a vaccine’s safety and efficacy as well as consideration of other factors, including implementation ( 2 ). Because the initial supply of vaccine will likely be limited, ACIP will also recommend which groups should receive the earliest allocations of vaccine. The ACIP COVID-19 Vaccines Work Group and consultants with expertise in ethics and health equity considered external expert committee reports and published literature and deliberated the ethical issues associated with COVID-19 vaccine allocation decisions. The purpose of this report is to describe the four ethical principles that will assist ACIP in formulating recommendations for the allocation of COVID-19 vaccine while supply is limited, in addition to scientific data and implementation feasibility: 1) maximize benefits and minimize harms; 2) promote justice; 3) mitigate health inequities; and 4) promote transparency. These principles can also aid state, tribal, local, and territorial public health authorities as they develop vaccine implementation strategies within their own communities based on ACIP recommendations. The ACIP COVID-19 Vaccines Work Group has met several times per month (approximately 25 meetings) since its establishment in April 2020. Work Group discussions included review of the epidemiology of COVID-19 and consultation with experts in ethics and health equity to inform the development of an ethically principled decision-making process. The Work Group reviewed the relevant literature, including frameworks for pandemic influenza planning and COVID-19 vaccine allocation ( 3 – 8 ); summarized this information; and presented it to ACIP. ACIP supported four fundamental ethical principles to guide COVID-19 vaccine allocation decisions in the setting of a constrained supply. Essential questions that derive from these principles can assist in vaccine allocation planning (Table 1). TABLE 1 Essential questions for COVID-19 vaccine allocation planning related to ethical principles — United States, 2020 Ethical principle Essential question Maximize benefits and minimize harms What groups are at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 disease, hospitalization, and death? What groups are essential to the COVID-19 response? What groups are essential to maintaining critical functions of society? What are the important characteristics of these groups (e.g., size or geographic distribution) that might inform the magnitude of benefit based on the amount of vaccine available or its characteristics? Promote justice Does the allocation plan result in fair and equitable access of the vaccine for all groups? How do characteristics of the vaccine and logistical considerations affect fair access for all persons? Does allocation planning include input from groups who are disproportionately affected by COVID-19 or face health inequities resulting from social determinants of health, such as income and health care access? Mitigate health inequities Does the plan identify and address barriers to vaccination among any groups who are disproportionately affected by COVID-19 or who face health inequities resulting from social determinants of health, such as income and health care access? Does the allocation plan contribute to a reduction in health disparities in COVID-19 disease and death? What health inequities might inadvertently result from the allocation plan, and what interventions could remove or reduce them? Is there a mechanism for timely assessment of vaccination coverage among groups experiencing disadvantage and the possibility for course correction if inequities are identified? Promote transparency How does development of the allocation plan include diverse input, and if possible, public engagement? Are the allocation plan and evidence-based methods publicly available? Is the allocation plan clear about what is known and unknown and about the quality of available evidence? What is the process for revision of allocation plans based on new information? Is there a mechanism to report demographic data elements for vaccine recipients (e.g., age, race/ethnicity, and occupation) to support equitable vaccination coverage? Abbreviation: COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019. Maximize benefits and minimize harms. Allocation of COVID-19 vaccine should maximize the benefits of vaccination to both individual recipients and the population overall. These benefits include the reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19–associated morbidity and mortality, which in turn reduces the burden on strained health care capacity and facilities; preservation of services essential to the COVID-19 response; and maintenance of overall societal functioning. Identification of groups whose receipt of the vaccine would lead to the greatest benefit should be based on scientific evidence, accounting for those at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection or severe COVID-19–related disease or death, and the essential role of certain workers. The ability of essential workers, including health care workers and non–health care workers, to remain healthy has a multiplier effect (i.e., their ability to remain healthy helps to protect the health of others or to minimize societal and economic disruption). Some of these workers are at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection because of their limited ability to maintain physical distance in the workplace or because they do not have consistent access to recommended personal protective equipment. Promote justice. Inherent in the principle of justice is an obligation to protect and advance equal opportunity for all persons to enjoy the maximal health and well-being possible. Justice rests on the belief in the fundamental value and dignity of all persons. Allocation of COVID-19 vaccine should promote justice by intentionally ensuring that all persons have equal opportunity to be vaccinated, both within the groups recommended for initial vaccination, and as vaccine becomes more widely available. This includes a commitment to removing unfair, unjust, and avoidable barriers to vaccination that disproportionately affect groups that have been economically or socially marginalized, as well as a fair and consistent implementation process. Input from a range of external entities, partners, and community representatives is particularly important in developing and assessing allocation plans. Mitigate health inequities. Health equity is achieved when every person has the opportunity to attain his or her full health potential and no one is disadvantaged from achieving this potential because of social position or other socially determined circumstances. † Disparities in the severity of COVID-19 and COVID-19–related death, as well as inequities in social determinants of health that are linked to COVID-19 risk, such as income or health care access and utilization, are well documented among certain racial and ethnic minority groups ( 9 ). Vaccine allocation strategies should aim to both reduce existing disparities and to not create new disparities. Efforts should be made to identify and remove obstacles and barriers to receiving COVID-19 vaccine, including limited access to health care or residence in rural, hard-to-reach areas. Promote transparency. Transparency relates to the decision-making process and is essential to building and maintaining public trust during vaccine program planning and implementation. The underlying principles, decision-making processes, and plans for COVID-19 vaccine allocation must be evidence-based, clear, understandable, and publicly available. To the extent possible, considering the urgency of the COVID-19 response, public participation in the creation and review of the decision-making process should be facilitated. In addition, when feasible, tracking administration of vaccine to the groups recommended for initial vaccine allocation can contribute to transparency and trust in the process. In an ongoing public health response, the situation continually evolves as new information becomes available. Transparency includes being clear about the level of certainty in the available evidence and communicating new information that might change recommendations in a timely fashion. For the period when the supply of COVID-19 vaccine will be limited, ACIP has considered four groups for initial vaccine allocation. These include health care personnel, other essential workers, adults with high-risk medical conditions, and adults aged ≥65 years (including residents of long-term care facilities) (Table 2). These groups were selected based on available scientific data, vaccine implementation considerations, and ethical principles. The principle of transparency is applied across the entirety of the vaccine allocation decision-making process. ACIP’s meetings are open to the public, meeting minutes and archived webcasts are available online, and data (including data from vaccine clinical trials) and analytic methods used in developing ACIP recommendations are publicly available. § Members of the public are invited to submit written comments to the Federal Register or provide oral comment during ACIP meetings. ACIP’s 30 nonvoting representatives from liaison organizations facilitate engagement with professional medical and public health organizations and other stakeholders and partners. TABLE 2 Application of ethical principles to four candidate groups for initial COVID-19 vaccine allocation — United States, 2020 Principles (with transparency across the decision-making process) Candidate groups* (approximate no.) Health care personnel† (21 million) Other essential workers† (87 million) Adults with high-risk medical conditions§ (>100 million) Adults aged ≥65 years (53 million) Maximize benefits and minimize harms Preserves health care services essential to the COVID-19 response and the overall health care system Preserves services essential to the COVID-19 response and overall functioning of society Reduces morbidity and mortality in persons with high incidence of COVID-19 disease and death** Reduces morbidity and mortality in persons with high incidence of COVID-19 disease and death†† Multiplier effect¶ Multiplier effect¶ Promote justice Addresses elevated occupational risk for SARS-CoV-2 exposure for those unable to work from home Addresses elevated occupational risk for SARS-CoV-2 exposure for those unable to work from home Will require focused outreach to vaccinate persons in this group who have no or limited access to health care or experience inequities in social determinants of health Will require focused outreach to vaccinate persons in this group who have no or limited access to health care or experience inequities in social determinants of health Promotes access to vaccine across a spectrum of HCP job types and settings Promotes access to vaccine and reduces barriers to vaccination in occupations with low vaccine uptake§§ Mitigate health inequities Racial and ethnic minority groups are disproportionately represented in low-wage HCP¶¶ Racial and ethnic minority groups are disproportionately represented in many essential industries*** Increased prevalence of obesity and diabetes (most prevalent conditions in this group) among some racial and ethnic minority groups; increased prevalence of some medical conditions for persons in rural areas§§§ Although racial and ethnic minority groups are underrepresented among adults aged ≥65 years, certain groups have disproportionate COVID-19–related hospitalization and death rates¶¶¶ Approximately one quarter of essential workers live in low-income families††† Could increase health inequities because diagnosis of high-risk medical conditions requires access to health care Strict age-based criterion could increase disparities due to racial and social inequities, such as occupation, income, access to health care Abbreviations: COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019; HCP = health care personnel. * Health care personnel: paid and unpaid persons serving in health care settings who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to patients or infectious materials; other essential workers: person who conduct operations vital for continuing critical infrastructure, such as food, agriculture, transportation, education, and law enforcement; adults with high risk medical conditions: adults who have one or more high-risk medical conditions, such as obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease; adults aged ≥65 years: includes adults living at home and approximately 3 million living in long-term care facilities. There is considerable overlap between groups, for example, many adults aged ≥65 years also have high-risk medical conditions. † Essential workers during the COVID-19 response have been defined by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Version_4.0_CISA_Guidance_on_Essential_Critical_Infrastructure_Workers_FINAL%20AUG%2018v2_0.pdf . § Medical conditions considered high-risk are updated routinely based on the best available scientific data: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html. ¶ The ability of one or more groups to remain healthy helps protect the health of others and/or minimize disruption to society and the economy. ** As of October 31, 2020, nearly 90% of persons with COVID-19–associated hospitalizations have at least one high-risk condition. Data are routinely updated through COVID-19–Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET) (https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_5.html); in-hospital deaths reported to COVID-NET during March–May, 2020 were associated with certain underlying medical conditions (https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1012/5872581 ). †† As of November 12, 2020, 80% of COVID-19 deaths were among adults aged ≥65 years. Data are routinely updated through CDC case-based surveillance (https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#demographics ); long-term care residents account for a large proportion of deaths among adults aged ≥65 years (https://data.cms.gov/stories/s/COVID-19-Nursing-Home-Data/bkwz-xpvg/ ). §§ Influenza vaccination coverage is low among many non–health care essential workers; such coverage is lowest among construction workers (10.7%) (https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2012-161/pdfs/2012-161.pdf?id = 10.26616/NIOSHPUB2012161 ). ¶¶ Health Resources and Services Administration estimates from American Community Survey 2011–2015 (https://bhw.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/bhw/nchwa/diversityushealthoccupationstechnical.pdf ). *** Among 742 food and agriculture workplaces in 30 states, 73% of workers were Hispanic or Latino and 83% of COVID-19 cases occurred in racial or ethnic minority workers (https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/1/20-3821_article ). ††† Center for Economic and Policy Research estimates from American Community Survey, 2014–2018 (https://cepr.net/a-basic-demographic-profile-of-workers-in-frontline-industries ). §§§ National Center for Health Statistics. National Health Interview Survey, 2018. Estimates not available for Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander persons or for chronic kidney disease among American Indian/Alaska Native persons (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/ADULTS/www/index.htm; https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6929a1.htm ). ¶¶¶ As of October 31, 2020, compared with COVID-19 hospitalization rates for adults aged ≥65 years who are non-Hispanic White, such rates were higher among adults aged ≥65 years who were non-Hispanic Black (rate ratio [RR] = 3.3), Hispanic or Latino (RR = 2.6), and non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (RR = 2.4). Data are routinely updated through COVID-NET (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html ); adults aged ≥65 years who are Hispanic or non-Hispanic Black experience disproportionate COVID-19–associated death rates (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/health_disparities.htm ). All four groups proposed for initial allocation of COVID-19 vaccine merit strong consideration from an ethical perspective. Current planning scenarios estimate, however, that the expected number of doses during the first weeks of vaccine distribution might only be sufficient to vaccinate approximately 20 million persons. ¶ Although there is considerable overlap between groups** ( 10 ), the initial supply will not be adequate to vaccinate the entirety of all four groups; for example, there are approximately 100 million health care personnel and essential workers (Table 2). Published frameworks for COVID-19 allocation and ACIP discussions indicate a clear consensus that the first allocation of COVID-19 vaccine supplies should be directed to health care personnel ( 1 , 5 – 8 ); discussion of allocation to the other three groups is ongoing. As additional vaccine supplies become available, other groups may be vaccinated concurrent with health care personnel. Discussion During a pandemic, ethical guidelines can help steer and support decisions around prioritization of limited resources ( 3 , 4 ). Consideration of ethical values and principles has featured prominently in discussions about allocation of COVID-19 vaccines. This consideration is particularly relevant because the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted long-standing, systemic health and social inequities. Although various frameworks for COVID-19 vaccine allocation demonstrate differences in their structure (e.g., based on varying combinations of different goals, objectives, criteria, and other structural elements) and emphasis (e.g., inclusion of global and national considerations), nearly all reference values and principles similar to those which ACIP considers fundamental ( 5 – 8 ). ACIP viewed the following characteristics as critical for its ethical approach to COVID-19 vaccine allocation when supply is limited: simplicity in structure and definitions; acceptability to stakeholders; and ease of application, both at the national and state, tribal, local, and territorial levels. Allocation of limited vaccine supplies is complicated by efforts to address the multiple goals of a vaccine program, most notably those related to the reduction of morbidity and mortality and the minimization of disruption to society and the economy. If the goals of a pandemic vaccination program are not clearly articulated and prioritized, drawing distinctions between groups that merit consideration for allocation of vaccine when supply is constrained can become difficult. The unanimity in opinion for early vaccination of health care personnel indicates that maintenance of health care capacity has emerged as a high priority in the context of a severe pandemic. This perspective aligns with ethical considerations for pandemic influenza planning ( 3 , 4 ). If vaccine supply remains constrained, it might be necessary to identify subsets of other groups for subsequent early allocation of COVID-19 vaccine. At the national, state, tribal, local, and territorial levels, such decisions should be guided, in part, by ethical principles and consideration of essential questions, with particular consideration of mitigation of health inequities in persons experiencing disproportionate COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. In the setting of a constrained supply, the benefits of vaccination will be delayed for some persons; however, as supply increases, there will eventually be enough vaccine for everyone. In addition to ethical considerations, ACIP’s recommendations regarding receipt of the initial allocations of COVID-19 vaccine during the period of constrained supply will be based on science (e.g., available information about the vaccine’s characteristics such as safety and efficacy in older adults and epidemiologic risk) and feasibility of implementation (e.g., storage and handling requirements). Thus, ACIP’s allocation recommendations will be made in conjunction with specific recommendations for the use of each FDA-authorized or licensed COVID-19 vaccine. Although the ethical principles in this report are fundamental for stewardship of limited vaccine supply, they can also be applied when COVID-19 vaccines are widely available, to ensure equitable and just access for all persons. Summary What is already known about this topic? During the period when the U.S. supply of COVID-19 vaccines is limited, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) will make vaccine allocation recommendations. What is added by this report? In addition to scientific data and implementation feasibility, four ethical principles will assist ACIP in formulating recommendations for the initial allocation of COVID-19 vaccine: 1) maximizing benefits and minimizing harms; 2) promoting justice; 3) mitigating health inequities; and 4) promoting transparency. What are the implications for public health practice? Ethical principles will aid ACIP in making vaccine allocation recommendations and state, tribal, local, and territorial public health authorities in developing vaccine implementation strategies based on ACIP’s recommendations.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
                MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
                WR
                Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
                Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
                0149-2195
                1545-861X
                05 February 2021
                05 February 2021
                : 70
                : 5
                : 174-177
                Affiliations
                CDC COVID-19 Response Team; Stat-Epi Associates, Inc., West Palm Beach, Florida; General Dynamics Information Technology, Falls Church, Virginia.
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Elizabeth Painter, ocv3@ 123456cdc.gov .
                Article
                mm7005e1
                10.15585/mmwr.mm7005e1
                7861480
                33539333
                9d6179f7-527a-4b48-86c4-25e0fc050d48

                All material in the MMWR Series is in the public domain and may be used and reprinted without permission; citation as to source, however, is appreciated.

                History
                Categories
                Full Report

                Comments

                Comment on this article