2458. Disparities in Healthcare Providers’ Interpretation and Implementation of ACIP’s Meningococcal Vaccine Recommendations
Session: Poster Abstract Session: Adolescent Vaccines
Saturday, October 6, 2018
Room: S Poster Hall
Posters
  • 161102160-3 MenB IDWeek HCP poster 4v0 9-28-18.pdf (493.6 kB)
  • Background: Serogroup B is the leading cause of invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) in US. Among 16-23 year-olds, particularly for college students, serogroup B (MenB) disease is greater than serogroups C, W, and Y combined. ACIP recommends routine immunization with MenACWY vaccine (Category A) but a non-routine recommendation based on individual clinical decision-making for MenB vaccine (Category B). Contrasting ACIP recommendations may affect how health care providers (HCP) prescribe meningococcal vaccines.  We aimed to understand HCPs’ decision process and vaccination practice pattern to prescribe meningococcal vaccines in relation to their experience and interpretations of ACIP recommendations.

    Methods: A web-based survey was conducted during August – October 2017 among a nationally representative HCP sample. Univariate analyses were conducted.

    Results: Of 529 HCP participants, 436 (82.4%) self-identified as prescribers of MenB only or both meningococcal vaccines, and 93 (17.6%) as prescribers of MenACWY vaccine only (Table 1). When HCPs were asked to rank the most impactful factor in their decision process, 45% ranked guideline considerations as the highest in their decisions to prescribe MenACWY to 16 year-olds, followed by disease related factors (36%). For MenB vaccine, 40% ranked disease related factors as the highest, followed by guideline considerations (37%); however, contrasting to MenACWY vaccine (45% vs. 24%), there was no difference (37% vs. 38%) regarding how guideline considerations drove the decision to prescribe or not to prescribe MenB vaccine (Table 2). Overall, HCPs interpreted ACIP’s MenACWY recommendation more uniformly than the MenB recommendation (Figure. 1) with majority interpreting MenACWY vaccine as for everyone, whereas MenB was split into for everyone or for a sub-group based on risk factors; ~1/4th of MenACWY only prescribers didn’t know how to interpret the MenB recommendation.

    Conclusion: The ACIP MenB vaccine recommendation is inconsistently interpreted across HCPs and might affect their decision process and vaccination practice pattern to prescribe meningococcal vaccines resulting in disparities in access to MenB vaccines.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Liping Huang, MD, MPH1, Amir Goren, PhD2, Lulu Lee, PhD2, Amanda Dempsey, MD, PhD, MPH3 and Amit Srivastava, PhD4, (1)Outcomes and Evidence, Pfizer Inc, Collegeville, PA, (2)Kantar Health, New York, NY, (3)University of Colorado School of Medicine, Children's Hospital Colorado and Adult and Child Center for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, Aurora, CO, (4)Pfizer Vaccines, Collegeville, PA

    Disclosures:

    L. Huang, Pfizer: Employee and Shareholder , Salary and Stocks .

    A. Goren, Pfizer: Collaborator , Research support .

    L. Lee, Pfizer: Collaborator , Research support .

    A. Dempsey, Pfizer, Merck: Scientific Advisor , Consulting fee .

    A. Srivastava, Pfizer: Employee and Shareholder , Salary .

    See more of: Adolescent Vaccines
    See more of: Poster Abstract Session

    Findings in the abstracts are embargoed until 12:01 a.m. PDT, Wednesday Oct. 3rd with the exception of research findings presented at the IDWeek press conferences.