04 Britton Adult RSV 508

CDC ACIP — Vaccine Advisory Committee

Acip

Slides

26

Document text

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Di seases 
Photographs and images included in this presentation a re licensed solely for CDC/NCIRD online and present ation 
use. No rights are implied or extended for use in pr inting or any use by other CDC CIOs or any external audiences. 
ACIP Adult RSV Work Group Considerations 
Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) in Adults Use of RSV vaccines in adults aged 50–59 years 
Amadea Britton, MD, MS Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices October 25, 2023 
Review current recommendation for use of RSV vaccin es in adults aged 60 years and 
older 
Summarize available safety and immunogenicity data on the use of RSVPreF3 vaccine 
in adults aged 50–59 years 
Share preliminary Adult RSV Work Group interpretati ons on the use of RSV vaccines in 
adults aged 50–59 years and upcoming policy decisio ns Overview 
2
Review of current ACIP recommendation for use of RSV vaccines in adults aged 60 years and older
RSVPreF3 ( Arexvy, GSK ) is a 1-dose adjuvanted (AS01 E) recombinant 
prefusion F protein (preF) vaccine. 
RSVpreF ( Abrysvo, Pfizer ) is a 1-dose recombinant preF vaccine.* In June 2023, ACIP and CDC recommended the first two  RSV 
vaccines for older adults. 
*The same vaccine formulation is FDA-approved and C DC-recommended for vaccination of pregnant persons for RSV prevention in infants. 
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7229a4.htm4
GSK’s adjuvanted RSVPreF3 and Pfizer’s RSVpreF vaccin es both 
demonstrated significant efficacy against lower respiratory tract disease 
caused by RSV among older adults over at least two seas ons. 
–Trials were underpowered to show efficacy in the olde st adults and in frail adults 
–Trials were underpowered to show efficacy against RSV  hospitalization, although efficacy 
against symptomatic illness may indicate efficacy aga inst more severe disease 
Acknowledging these limitations, the Work Group and ACI P felt that RSV 
vaccination had the potential to prevent considerable mor bidity from RSV 
disease among older adults. Vaccine Efficacy 
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/download s/slides-2023-06-21-23/06-RSV-Adults-Melgar-508.pdf5
Six cases of inflammatory neurologic events (includin g Guillain-Barré 
syndrome) were reported across trials in older adults within 6 weeks after 
RSV vaccination, compared with no cases within 6 weeks  after placebo. 
–3 cases after vaccination with GSK’s RSVPreF3* 
–3 cases after vaccination with Pfizer’s RSVpreF 
Imbalance in the small number of atrial fibrillation e vents; more cases 
among vaccine recipients, compared with placebo recip ients. 
It is unknown at this time whether these events occurred b y chance, or 
whether RSV vaccination increases the risk of these eve nts. Vaccine Safety 
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7229a4.htm
* Two of the 3 reported inflammatory neurologic eve nts after vaccination with GSK’s RSVPreF3 were repo rted as acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM)  in 
participants that simultaneously received RSVPreF3 vaccine and standard dose seasonal influenza vaccin e. The site investigator that initially reported th e cases has 
since revised the diagnosis in both cases (from ADE M to hypoglycemia and dementia, and from ADEM to st roke). FDA’s package insert for RSVPreF3 vaccine continues 
to list these as Serious Adverse Events. 6
In June, the Adult RSV Work Group proposed: 
–A universal recommendation for RSV vaccination in ad ults 65 and older 
–RSV vaccination in adults aged 60–64 years, using s hared clinical decision-making 
During ACIP deliberations an amendment was proposed a nd accepted for 
the following recommendation: 
–Adults ages 60 years and older (both those 60–64 and 65  and older) may receive a single 
dose of RSV vaccine using shared clinical-decision maki ng. 
The shared clinical decision-making recommendation w as intended to 
allow flexibility for providers and patients to conside r individual risk for 
RSV disease and target RSV vaccination to those most like ly to benefit. ACIP deliberations leading to a recommendation on t he use 
of RSV vaccine in adults 60 and older 
ACIP Adult RSV Session. June 21, 2023. Webcast: htt ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DunxtgBmRxI&list=PLvrp 9iOIL TQb6D9e1YZWpbUvzfptNMKx2&index=20 7
Chronic underlying medical conditions associated with increased risk of severe RSV disease 
Lung disease 
Cardiovascular disease 
Moderate or severe immune compromise 
Diabetes Mellitus 
Other conditions that might increase the risk for severe disease Neurologic or neuromuscular conditions 
Kidney disorders 
Hematologic disorders 
Liver disorders 
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7229a4.htm
8
Other factors associated with increased risk of severe RSV disease 
Residence in a nursing home or other long-term care facility (L TCF) 
Frailty 
Advanced age 
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7229a4.htm9
Next steps: new data on the safety and immunogenicity of RSVPreF3 in adults aged 50–59 years 
Humoral immune response* at day 31 after a single d ose of RSVPreF3 in adults 60 and 
older compared to: 
–Adults 50–59, healthy (without prespecified conditions associated with increased risk of severe 
RSV disease) OR 
–Adults 50–59, at-increased-risk (AIR, with conditions associated with increased risk of severe RSV 
disease) 
•AIR conditions included: COPD resulting in activity  restricting symptoms or use of long-term 
medication, chronic cardiovascular disease, diabete s mellitus type 1 or 2, chronic kidney disease, 
and chronic liver disease 
Cellular immune response appeared similar across gr oups, but was not statistically 
evaluated 
Safety profile of RSVPreF3 in adults 50–59 years si milar to profile in 60 and older Today, GSK shared data demonstrating that the humoral i mmune 
response to a single dose of RSVPreF3 in adults 50– 59 years is non-
inferior to that in adults 60 and older. 
*The primary immunogenicity analysis of non-inferio rity of the healthy and at-increased risk (AIR) 50– 59 year-old group versus the established vaccine ag e group of 60 and older 
was based on geometric mean titer ratios and serore sponse rates. Data provided by GSK. 11 
12 What do these new data mean for future policy? 
The non-inferiority data suggest that RSVPreF3 vacc ine efficacy in 
(immunocompetent) adults aged 50–59 years with and without chronic medical 
conditions that increase risk of RSV disease will b e similar to efficacy 
demonstrated among adults 60 years and older. 
The Work Group notes that if FDA licensure is granted for use of RSVPreF3 in 
adults aged 50–59 years , then ACIP will likely need to make a policy 
recommendation on: 
–Whether RSV vaccination should be recommended in th is age group? 
–And if so, should the recommendation be the same as in adults aged 60 years and 
older, i.e. shared clinical decision-making, or is a  different type of recommendation 
preferred? 
13 Additional work group interpretations of immunogeni city data 
in adults aged 50–59 years 
 Persons with immunocompromising conditions were exc luded from this trial (and 
prior trials). This is a group likely to benefit fr om RSV vaccination across the age-
spectrum. 
 Would have preferred efficacy data in this age grou p, noting that there is no 
immunologic correlate of protection against RSV dis ease. 
 If risk conditions are being prioritized, then thos e under 50 are also at risk and 
immuno-bridging (and ideally efficacy) studies in a t-risk adults under 50 would 
also provide important information. 
Work Group considerations on the use of RSV vaccines in adults aged 50–59 years 
RSV disease is a public health problem in adults ag ed 50–59 years. However, 
the rate of RSV-associated disease in the general p opulation of adults 50–59 
years is less than the rate in adults 60 and older.
Adjusted RSV-associated hospitalization rates* per 100,000 adults ≥18 years by 5-year age group and yea r, 
RSV-NET, 2015–2016 to 2019–2020 
0100 200 300 400 500 600 
18–49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 ≥85 Annual RSV-associated hospitalizations 
per 100,000 population 2015–16 2016–17 2017–18 2018–19 2019–20 
RSV vaccination currently recommended, with SCDM 
26–59 
23–42 
*Unpublished data from RSV-NET. Rates are adjusted for the frequency of RSV testing during recent prio r seasons and the sensitivity of RSV diagnostic tes ts. 15 
Persons with certain risk conditions are at increased risk of 
severe RSV disease, even at younger ages. 
*Clinical data were collected for all patients with laboratory -confirmed RSV hospitalizations during the 2014–2015 to 2 017–2018 seasons, and for an age- and site-stratified r andom sample of patients with 
laboratory-confirmed RSV hospitalizations during the 2022– 2023 season. Displayed percentages were weighted for th e probability of selection.
†National Center for Health Statistics. United States, 202 2. National Health Interview Survey. Generated interactiv ely: Oct 17, 2023 from https://wwwn.cdc.gov/NHISDataQ ueryTool/SHS_adult/index.html Prevalence of certain medical conditions *among non-pregnant adults with RSV-associated hospi talizations (RSV-NET, 2014–2015 
to 2017–2018 and 2022–2023) and among the general p opulation (National Center for Health Statistics †, 2022) by age group 
16 50–64 years ≥65 years 
General 
population RSV-NET RSV-
NET/ 
Pop General 
population RSV-NET RSV-
NET/ 
Pop Condition % (95% CI) % (95% CI) % (95% CI) % (95% CI) 
Coronary artery disease 5.0 (4.4, 5.6) 18.9 (16.9, 21.0) 3.8 15.3 (14.4, 16.2) 31.3 (29.1, 33.6) 2.0 
COPD 6.2 (5.5, 6.9) 35.4 (32.9, 37.9) 5.7 9.8 (9.1, 10.5) 33.2 (30.1, 35.5) 3.4 
Diabetes mellitus 13.8 (12.9, 14.7) 37.7 (35.1, 40.4) 2.7 20.1 (19.1, 21.1) 31.8 (29.6, 34.1) 1.6 
Asthma 9.1 (8.4, 9.9) 28.6 (26.3, 31.0) 3.1 8.0 (7.3, 8.6) 17.6 (15.8, 19.4) 2.2 
Obesity 37.6 (36.2, 38.9) 46.4 (43.7, 49.0) 1.2 30.4 (29.2, 31.6) 28.4 (26.1, 30.8) 0.9 
In adults aged 50–59 years, hospitalization rates are higher among Black and 
American Indian/Alaska Native adults than among White adults. There is an important equity component when considering the 
use of RSV vaccine among adults aged 50–59 years. 
*Unpublished data from RSV-NET. Rates are adjusted for the frequency of RSV testing during recent prio r seasons and the sensitivity of RSV diagnostic tes ts. Black, White, 
American Indian/Alaska Native and Asian/Pacific Isl ander people were categorized as non-Hispanic 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 
18–49 50–59 60–64 65–74 ≥75 
Asian or Pacific Islander White 
Hispanic Black 
American Indian or Alaska Native Burden-adjusted hospitalization rate ratios* among adults ≥18 years by 
race and ethnicity — RSV-NET, 2016–2017 to 2019–2020
17 
Work Group is considering multiple policy options. 
Upcoming data on the implementation of shared clinica l decision-
making, safety, and effectiveness (if available) wi ll be important to 
determine future preferred policy options, both among a dults 50–59 years 
and among those 60 and older. 
The Work Group continues to believe that a focus on thos e at highest risk 
of severe RSV disease is warranted while awaiting pos t-marketing 
surveillance data. Work Group preliminary considerations on the policy q uestion 
(part 1) 
18 
19 Work Group preliminary considerations on the policy q uestion 
(part 2) 
Work Group members broadly agree that use of RSV va ccine among certain adults 
aged 50–59 years is likely to have public health be nefit. 
–Members particularly acknowledge the equity concern  of a recommendation for this 
age group. 
In addition, they note that if FDA licenses this pr oduct for adults 50–59 years, but 
there is NO recommendation made, insurance will not  cover use in this age group, 
potentially furthering existing disparities. 
The current priority of the Work Group is to ensure access to vaccination among 
adults 50–59 (and those ≥60) who are at substantial ly increased risk of severe 
RSV disease and likely to benefit most. 
Risk-based Risk-based Risk-based Risk-based Shared clinical 
decision-making Shared clinical 
decision-making Shared clinical 
decision-making 
Universal Universal 
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 Example 5 Example 4 Example 3 Example 2 Example 1 Current recommendation 
Age (years) Example potential policy options 
20 
21 Next steps for the Work Group 
Over the next few months, the Work Group will review post-
marketing data on the use of RSV vaccines in adults 60 and older as 
they become available, including: 
–Vaccine uptake , stratified by demographic characteristics and ris k conditions 
–Vaccine safety surveillance 
The Work Group will consider the implementation and im plications of 
shared clinical decision-making 
22 Next steps for the Work Group 
The Work Group will then develop an updated policy qu estion for RSV 
vaccination in adults through review of: 
–Updated GRADE of evidence profile for use of GSK’s RSVPreF3 in adults 
–Updated cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) of use of RSVPreF3 in adults 
–Updated Evidence to Recommendations framework for adult RSV 
vaccination 
The Work Group will also begin reviewing safety and efficacy of a new 
RSV vaccine (Moderna’s mRNA-1345) for use in adults 60 and older 
1. What additional data are needed prior to ACIP votin g on updated recommendations 
for RSV vaccination in adults aged ≥50 years? 
2. Other questions from ACIP? Questions for ACIP 
23 
Adult RSV Work Group Membership 
24 ACIP Voting Members 
Camille Kotton (Chair) Keipp Talbot Sarah Long Ex Officio Members 
Rachel Zhang (FDA) Judy Beeler (FDA) Nicholas Geagan (FDA) Nadine Peart Akindele (FDA) Sonnie Kim (NIH/NIAID) Jeffrey Kelman (CMS) Michelle Juaneza (HRSA/VICP) Uzo Chukwuma (IHS) Valerie Marshal (OIDP) Consultants 
Robert Atmar (Baylor Coll. of Medicine) Helen Chu (U Washington) Peter Donofrio (Vanderbilt University) Marie Griffin (Vanderbilt University) Cynthia Lucero-Obusan (VHA) Tracy Ruckwardt (NIH/NIAID) Jonathan Temte (U Wisconsin) Rebecca Morgan (Case Western) Doug Campos-Outcalt (U Arizona) 
Liaisons 
Kenneth Schmader (AGS) Vidya Sundareshan (ACP) Gretchen LaSalle (AAFP) April Killikelly (NACI/PHAC) Winnie Su (NACI/PHAC) Katherine Williams (APTR) Ruth Lynfield (NFID) Bindy Crouch (AIM) Steven Pergam (IDSA) Elizabeth Skoy (APhA)
CDC Contributors 
Michael Melgar (co-lead) Lauren Roper Fiona Havers Elisha Hall  Chris Taylor Monica Patton Meredith McMorrow Diya Surie Jennifer DeCuir Mila Prill Monica Godfrey Ruth Link-Gelles Amanda Payne Danielle Moulia Megan Wallace Natalie Thornburg Melissa Coughlin Jefferson Jones Katherine Fleming-Dutra Ismael Ortega Sanchez Noelle Molinari Pragna Patel Aron Hall Hannah Rosenblum Derrell Powers Raigan Wheeler Jarrett Gartin Elizabeth Greene Manisha Patel Lisa Grohskopf Anne Hause David Shay Christine Olson Tom Shimabukuro Karen Broder Neil Murthy Patricia Wodi Andrew Leidner Jamison Pike Sarah Meyer Nicole Dowling 
25 
For more information, contact CDC 1-800-CDC-INFO (232-4636) TTY:  1-888-232-6348    www.cdc.gov 
The findings and conclusions in this report are tho se of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official 
position of the Centers for Disease Control and Pre vention. 
Photographs and images included in this presentatio n are licensed solely for CDC/NCIRD online and pres entation 
use. No rights are implied or extended for use in p rinting or any use by other CDC CIOs or any externa l audiences.