02 Schillie mening 508

CDC ACIP — Vaccine Advisory Committee

Acip

Slides

56

Download PDF ↗ Live URL (may be dead)

Document text

GSK Pentavalent ( MenABCWY ) Vaccine:  
Review of Updated EtR and Work Group 
Considerations
Sarah Schillie, MD, MPH, MBA
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices
April 16, 2025National Center for Immunization & Respiratory Diseases
1
The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position o f 
the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Meningococcal Vaccine Recommendations 
2 of 56One MenACWY  dose at 
age 11 –12 years and a 
booster dose at age 16 
years (routine)
Two MenB  doses at age 
16–23 years (shared 
clinical decision -making 
[SCDM])
–Preferred age range: 16–18 years 

Risk-Based Meningococcal Vaccine Recommendations 
2MenACWY  (≥2 months) MenB  (≥10 years)
Asplenia (functional or anatomic) √ √
Complement deficiency/ 
complement inhibitor use√ √
HIV infection √
Some microbiologists √ √
Exposure during outbreak √ √
Travel to hyperendemic areas √
First -year college students (if not 
previously vaccinated at ≥16 years) √
Interchangeability of Vaccine Products
MenACWY
–Brands are interchangeable
–Same brand is preferred, but not required, for all doses in a series
MenB
–Brands are not interchangeable
–Same brand must be used for all doses in a series (including booster 
doses)
4 of 56
Two Pentavalent MenABCWY  Vaccines
Pfizer (Penbraya) GSK ( Penmenvy )
ACWY component Nimenrix (not licensed in U.S.) Menveo
B component Trumenba Bexsero
Schedule 2 doses, 6 months apart 2 doses, 6 months apart
Age 10–25 years 10–25 years
Licensed October 20, 2023 February 14, 2025
ACIP Vote October 25, 2023 Today
5 of 56
Pfizer Pentavalent Vaccine
6 of 56May be used when both MenACWY  and MenB  
are indicated at the same visit for: 
 1) Healthy persons aged 16 –23 years 
(routine schedule) when shared clinical decision-
making favors administration of MenB  vaccine 
and 
 2) Persons aged ≥10 years who are at 
increased risk for meningococcal disease (e.g., 
because of persistent complement deficiencies, complement inhibitor use, or functional or anatomic asplenia) 

Considerations
Each pentavalent vaccine assessed separately by Work Group
—Lack of data directly comparing the two vaccines
The MenACWY  and MenB vaccine indications have not 
changed with the availability of pentavalent vaccine
ACIP previously voiced preference to harmonize 
recommendations between the Pfizer and GSK pentavalent vaccines
–Unless a vaccine -specific reason to have a different 
recommendation exists 7 of 56
Assessing Immunogenicity
Exogenous complement (“traditional” hSBA assays)
Seroprotection
Seroresponse *  
GMTs
Endogenous complement 
Immunologic Vaccine Effectiveness:  Immune response against diverse 
serogroup B strains
Serologic correlate of protection exists only for serogroup C
*E.g.:  a post- vaccination hSBA  titer at least 4 -fold the LOD or ≥LLOQ, whichever is greater, for participants with pre -vaccination hSBA  titer 
<LOD, a post -vaccination hSBA  titer at least 4 -fold the LLOQ for participants with pre -vaccination hSBA  titer ≥LOD and <LLOQ, and a post -
vaccination hSBA  titer at least 4 -fold the pre -vaccination hSBA  titer for participants with pre -vaccination hSBA  titer ≥ LLOQ
LOD, limit of detection; LLOQ, lower limit of quantitation 
PICO Questions:  GSK Pentavalent Vaccine
PICO 1:
Should the GSK pentavalent vaccine be included as an option for MenACWY /MenB  
vaccination in people currently recommended to receive both vaccines at the same 
visit?
– For example, 16 year- olds*
PICO 2:
Should the GSK pentavalent vaccine be included as an option for people currently recommended to receive MenACWY  only?
–For example, 11 –12 year -olds
PICO 3:
Should the GSK pentavalent vaccine be included as an option for people currently recommended to receive MenB  only?
– For example, during a serogroup B outbreak
*16 year -olds who decide to receive MenB  vaccine based on shared clinical decision -making9 of 56
Acronyms
Q=Quadrivalent ( MenACWY  vaccine)
B=MenB  vaccine
P=Pentavalent ( MenABCWY  vaccine)
10 of 56
Acronyms
Current Recommendation:  Q-QB-B or Q -Q
PICO 1:
 Should the GSK pentavalent vaccine be included as an option for MenACWY /MenB  vaccination in 
people currently recommended to receive both vaccines at the same visit?  Q -P-B
PICO 2:
 Should the GSK pentavalent vaccine be included as an option for people currently recommended to 
receive MenACWY  only?  P-P
PICO 3:
 Should the GSK pentavalent vaccine be included as an option for people currently recommended to receive MenB  only?  Q-P-PQ=Quadrivalent ( MenACWY  vaccine)
B=MenB  vaccine
P=Pentavalent ( MenABCWY  vaccine)
11 of 56
Acronyms
Current Recommendation:  Q-QB-B or Q -Q
PICO 1:  “Yes” for Pfizer pentavalent vaccine
 Should the GSK pentavalent vaccine be included as an option for MenACWY /MenB  vaccination in 
people currently recommended to receive both vaccines at the same visit?  Q -P-B
PICO 2:  “No” for Pfizer pentavalent vaccine
 Should the GSK pentavalent vaccine be included as an option for people currently recommended to 
receive MenACWY  only?  P-P
PICO 3:  “No” for Pfizer pentavalent vaccine
 Should the GSK pentavalent vaccine be included as an option for people currently recommended to receive MenB  only?  Q-P-PQ=Quadrivalent ( MenACWY  vaccine)
B=MenB  vaccine
P=Pentavalent ( MenABCWY  vaccine)
12 of 56
Updated Evidence-to-Recommendations 
Framework:  GSK Pentavalent Vaccine
EtR Domain QuestionWork Group 
Determination – 
PICO 1Work Group 
Determination – 
PICO 2Work Group 
Determination – 
PICO 3
Public health 
problemIs invasive meningococcal disease a problem of public health importance?Yes Yes Yes
Benefits and harmsHow substantial are the desirable anticipated effects? Small Small Small
How substantial are the undesirable anticipated effects? Minimal Small Minimal
Do the desirable anticipated effects outweigh the undesirable effects?Favors 
intervention/ 
favors comparisonFavors intervention/ 
comparison/bothFavors 
intervention/ 
comparison/both
What is the overall certainty of evidence? Low Low Low
Values Does the target population feel the desirable effects are large relative to the undesirable effects?Yes Probably yes Probably yes/yes/
don’t know
Is there important variability in how patients value the 
outcome?Probably not/no Probably/probably 
notProbably/probably 
not
Acceptability Is the intervention acceptable to key stakeholders? Yes Probably yes Probably yes/yes
Resource use Is the intervention a reasonable and efficient allocation of 
resources?Yes Probably no/varies Varies
Health equity What would be the impact of the intervention on health equity?Probably 
increasedProbably 
increased/increasedProbably increased
Feasibility Is the intervention feasible to implement? Yes Probably yes/yes Yes
Public health problem
0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.40
1996 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2024Incidence per 100,000
YearMeningococcal Disease Incidence –
United States, 1996 –2024*
Abbreviations: MenACWY vaccine = quadrivalent (serogroups A, C, W, and Y) meningococcal conjugate vaccine; MenB  vaccine = serogroup B meningococcal vaccine
Source: 1996– 2024 NNDSS Data. *2024 NNDSS data are preliminary.0.15 cases/100,000 populationMenACWY vaccine1.2 cases/100,000 
population
MenB  vaccine
Public Health Problem
Is invasive meningococcal disease a problem of public health importance?
No Probably 
noProbably 
yesYes VariesDon’t 
know
PICO 1 (QPB vs. QQBB):
MenABCWY vs. MenACWY + MenBX
PICO 2 (PPB vs. QQBB or PP vs. QQ):
MenABCWY vs. MenACWYX
PICO 3 (QPP vs. QQBB):  
MenABCWY vs. MenB  X
PICO 1 (QPB vs. QQBB):
MenABCWY vs. MenACWY + MenBX
PICO 2 (PPB vs. QQBB or PP vs. QQ):
MenABCWY vs. MenACWYX
PICO 3 (QPP vs. QQBB):  
MenABCWY vs. MenB  X
17 of 56
Benefits and harms
Serogroup B Immunogenicity Lower than 
Previously Shared with ACIP
Comparator of Bexsero at 0, 2 month interval
–August 2024:  Bexsero label changed from 0, ≥1 month to  
0, 6 months 
Longer intervals between vaccine doses associated with 
higher immunogenicity
Additionally, some data points in label have been updated
19 of 56
Work Group Assessment
Clinical significance of comparatively lower 
immunogenicity uncertain
–Serologic correlate of protection lacking for serogroup B disease
The Work Group’s recommendation for the GSK pentavalent vaccine remains unchanged
–ACIP to weigh the change in immunogenicity in their deliberations 
20 of 56
Previous Synthesis to ACIP 
(Remains Unchanged from June 2024):
For “traditional” exogenous hSBA  titers against 4 vaccine indicator strains, 
MenABCWY  was:
–Non -inferior to MenB  0, 2 months for 3 strains 
–Non -inferior to MenB  0, 6 months for 2 strains
Endogenous complement hSBA  assay against a broad range of strains 
(Immunologic Vaccine Effectiveness):  Success criteria met
–Although MenABCWY  had lower point estimates (especially compared to MenB  0,6)
21 of 56
Previous Synthesis Unchanged Regarding:
ACWY Immunogenicity  and Safety
MenABCWY  non- inferior to MenACWY  in most study groups
–Except serogroup A for 1 dose MenABCWY  vs. 1 dose MenACWY  in 
naïve recipients
•Serogroup A disease very rare in the United States
MenABCWY  safety profile similar to MenB , except slightly more unsolicited 
adverse events with MenABCWY
–More adverse events than with MenACWY
22 of 56
23 of 56
Presentation to 
ACIP , Jun 2024Package Insert,Feb 2025•Poorer immunogenicity when comparing to 0,6 month schedule
•Success criterion not met for all strains (unchanged since June ACIP)
•Some change in numbersComposite response= hSBA  
≥LLOQ for all 4 indicator strains
24 of 56
Presentation to 
ACIP , Jun 2024Package Insert,Feb 2025•Poorer immunogenicity when comparing to 0,6 month schedule
•Success criterion not met for all strains (unchanged since June ACIP)
•Some change in numbers
PorA
Non-inferiority not demonstrated for PorA  strain for 0, 2 or 0, 6 
month comparison
–PorA  indicator strain is important because it represents the outer 
membrane vesicle (OMV) component of the vaccine and has bearing on 
cross -protection
25 of 56
Penmenvy (GSK) 
Package Insert Composite response= hSBA  
≥LLOQ for all 4 indicator strains
Penmenvy (GSK) 
Package Insert
Penbraya  (Pfizer) 
Package InsertComposite response= hSBA  
≥LLOQ for all 4 indicator strains
2
Presentation to 
ACIP , Jun 2024
Package Insert,Feb 2025•Poorer immunogenicity when comparing to 0,6 month schedule
•Success criterion met
•Minimal change in numbers
28 of 56
8GSK presentation 
to ACIP , Jun 2024
Integrated FDA Review, Mar 2025•Poorer immunogenicity when comparing to 0,6 month schedule
•Success criterion met
•No change in numbers 

Reverse Cumulative Distribution of hSBA  
Against Indicator Strains
28
pentavalent
30 of 56
Reverse Cumulative Distribution of hSBA  
Against Indicator Strains
28
pentavalentMenB
31 of 56
Enc-hSBA  against 110 Isolates by Clonal 
Complex
For PorA /OMV:  enc -hSBA  
likely most reflective of U.S. 
strains and exogenous assay 
likely most reflective of New Zealand strain
CC 41/44 represents 72/179 
(40.2%) of U.S. isolates from 
2020 -2024
•For serogroups CWY , 1 dose 
pentavalent immunogenicity 
greater than 1 dose Menveo 
for naïve recipients
•For serogroup A, 1 dose 
pentavalent immunogenicity 
lower than 1 dose Menveo for 
naïve recipients (Serogroup A 
does not circulate in U.S.)
•For primed recipients, 1 -dose 
immunogenicity similar for serogroups A, C, W, and Y
Serious Adverse Events Assessed as Possibly Related to Vaccination
34 of 56StudyNumber
Pentavalent MenACWY MenB MenACWY/MenB
Saez -Llorens 201510 0 -- --
Block 2015 0 0 0 --
Welsch 2018 0 0 -- --
Vesikari 20212 
(seizure, connective 
tissue disorder)-- 0 --
Beran 2021 0 01 
(syncope)0
v72_722 1 
(neuromyelitis optica)1
(pyrexia)1
(ulcerative colitis)--
MenABCWY_019 0 0 -- --
1One related event during extension study in a recipient of a MenABCWY that contained ¼ of the usual OMV component
2These were reported as related to vaccination by investigators; however, they were not considered adverse drug reactions rela ted to vaccination after GSK and independent evaluation
Serogroup B Immunogenicity Summary
MenABCWY  immunogenicity slightly lower than MenB
–Clinical significance uncertain as serologic correlate of protection is lacking
For “traditional” exogenous hSBA  titers against 4 vaccine indicator strains, 
MenABCWY  was:
–Non -inferior to MenB  0, 2 months for 3 strains 
–Non -inferior to MenB  0, 6 months for 2 strains
Endogenous complement hSBA  assay against a broad range of strains 
(Immunologic Vaccine Effectiveness):  Success criteria met
Work Group’s interpretation has not changed
ACIP to consider the magnitude of the difference in immunogenicity in their 
deliberations35 of 56
How substantial are the desirable  anticipated effects?Benefits and Harms
Minimal Small Moderate Large VariesDon’t 
know
PICO 1 (QPB vs. QQBB):
MenABCWY  vs. MenACWY  + MenBX
PICO 2 (PPB vs. QQBB or PP vs. QQ):
MenABCWY  vs. MenACWYX X X
PICO 3 (QPP vs. QQBB):  
MenABCWY  vs. MenB   X
PICO 1 (QPB vs. QQBB):
MenABCWY  vs. MenACWY  + MenBX
PICO 2 (PPB vs. QQBB or PP vs. QQ):
MenABCWY  vs. MenACWYX
PICO 3 (QPP vs. QQBB):  
MenABCWY  vs. MenB   X
36 of 56
How substantial are the undesirable  anticipated effects?Benefits and Harms
Minimal Small Moderate Large VariesDon’t 
know
PICO 1 (QPB vs. QQBB):
MenABCWY  vs. MenACWY  + MenBX
PICO 2 (PPB vs. QQBB or PP vs. QQ):
MenABCWY  vs. MenACWYX X
PICO 3 (QPP vs. QQBB):  
MenABCWY  vs. MenB   X X
PICO 1 (QPB vs. QQBB):
MenABCWY  vs. MenACWY  + MenBX
PICO 2 (PPB vs. QQBB or PP vs. QQ):
MenABCWY  vs. MenACWYX
PICO 3 (QPP vs. QQBB):  
MenABCWY  vs. MenB   X
37 of 56
Do the desirable effects outweigh the undesirable effects?Benefits and Harms
Favors 
interventionFavors 
comparisonFavors 
bothFavors 
neitherVariesDon’t 
know
PICO 1 (QPB vs. QQBB):
MenABCWY  vs. MenACWY  + MenBX
PICO 2 (PPB vs. QQBB or PP vs. QQ):
MenABCWY  vs. MenACWYX X X
PICO 3 (QPP vs. QQBB):  
MenABCWY  vs. MenB   X X
PICO 1 (QPB vs. QQBB):
MenABCWY  vs. MenACWY  + MenBX X*
PICO 2 (PPB vs. QQBB or PP vs. QQ):
MenABCWY  vs. MenACWYX X X
PICO 3 (QPP vs. QQBB):  
MenABCWY  vs. MenB   X X X
38 of 56*Represents minority opinion added since last presented to ACIP
What is the overall certainty of this evidence for the critical outcomes?Benefits and Harms:  Short -term Immunity
No studies 
foundVery low Low Moderate High
PICO 1 (QPB vs. QQBB):
MenABCWY  vs. MenACWY  + MenBX X
PICO 2 (PPB vs. QQBB or PP vs. QQ):
MenABCWY  vs. MenACWYX X
PICO 3 (QPP vs. QQBB):  
MenABCWY  vs. MenB   X X
PICO 1 (QPB vs. QQBB):
MenABCWY  vs. MenACWY  + MenBX X
PICO 2 (PPB vs. QQBB or PP vs. QQ):
MenABCWY  vs. MenACWYX X
PICO 3 (QPP vs. QQBB):  
MenABCWY  vs. MenB   X X
39 of 56
What is the overall certainty of this evidence for the critical outcomes?Benefits and Harms:  Serious Adverse Events
No studies 
foundVery low Low Moderate High
PICO 1 (QPB vs. QQBB):
MenABCWY  vs. MenACWY  + MenBX X
PICO 2 (PPB vs. QQBB or PP vs. QQ):
MenABCWY  vs. MenACWYX X
PICO 3 (QPP vs. QQBB):  
MenABCWY  vs. MenB   X X
PICO 1 (QPB vs. QQBB):
MenABCWY  vs. MenACWY  + MenBX X
PICO 2 (PPB vs. QQBB or PP vs. QQ):
MenABCWY  vs. MenACWYX X
PICO 3 (QPP vs. QQBB):  
MenABCWY  vs. MenB   X X
40 of 56
Resource use
Pediatric Price Per Dose
Public Private 
MenACWYMenveo $119.986* $166.747
MenQuadfi $114.36* $171.972
MenBTrumenba $142.73* $207.32*
Bexsero $154.504* $237.126
MenABCWYPenbraya $189.35 $230.75
Penmenvy *$181.00* (final price:  
pending negotiation)$241.00** (final 
price:  $230- 255)
42 of 56https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines -for-children/php/awardees/current -cdc-vaccine -price -list.html*Updated contract price **Value used in CDC cost- effectiveness model 
Pediatric Price Per Dose
Public Private 
MenACWYMenveo $119.986* $166.747
MenQuadfi $114.36* $171.972
MenBTrumenba $142.73* $207.32*
Bexsero $154.504* $237.126
MenABCWYPenbraya $189.35 $230.75
Penmenvy *$181.00* (final price:  
pending negotiation)$241.00** (final 
price:  $230- 255)
43 of 56https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines -for-children/php/awardees/current -cdc-vaccine -price -list.html*Updated contract price **Value used in CDC cost- effectiveness model 
Pediatric Price Per Dose
Public Private 
MenACWYMenveo $119.986* $166.747
MenQuadfi $114.36* $171.972
MenBTrumenba $142.73* $207.32*
Bexsero $154.504* $237.126
MenABCWYPenbraya $189.35 $230.75
Penmenvy *$181.00* (final price:  
pending negotiation)$241.00** (final 
price:  $230- 255)
44 of 56https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines -for-children/php/awardees/current -cdc-vaccine -price -list.html*Updated contract price **Value used in CDC cost- effectiveness model 
Health Outcomes*: Cumulative Number of IMD Cases and 
Deaths for a Single Birth Cohort from Ages 11 through 29 Years
*All numbers are cumulative over the analytical horizon of the model for a single cohort of 11 -year -olds. For example, in the “No  Vaccination” strategy, there were a 
total of 233 undiscounted episodes of IMD among about 4 million individuals, who started in the model at 11 years old and age d to 29 years old.45PICO 1
Q=Quadrivalent ( MenACWY ) vaccine; B= MenB  vaccine; P=Pentavalent ( MenABCWY ) vaccine; IMD=Invasive meningococcal disease.
45 of 56
Cost -Effectiveness
PICO Intervention Comparator Diff. in QALYs* Diff. in Cost*ICER
 ($/QALY)
1 Q-P-B Q-QB-B 0 -$175 million Cost -saving**
2 P-P Q-Q 33 $373 million $11,332,778
3 Q-P-PQ-QB-B 2 -$166 million Cost -saving
Q-P-B 2 $9 million $4,510,830
*Annual discount is 3%; 2024$; **In this comparison, costs are reduced, but health outcomes remain the same when comparing Q -P-B to Q -QB-B.46
Q=Quadrivalent ( MenACWY ) vaccine; B= MenB  vaccine; P=Pentavalent ( MenABCWY ) vaccine; QALY=Quality -adjusted life year.•In a sensitivity analysis, with the updated price assumptions, PICO 
#1 (Q -P-B) remained cost -saving (when compared to Q -QB-B).
46 of 56
Resource Use
Is the intervention a reasonable and efficient allocation of resources?
No Probably 
noProbably 
yesYes VariesDon’t 
know
PICO 1 (QPB vs. QQBB):
MenABCWY vs. MenACWY + MenBX X
PICO 2 (PPB vs. QQBB or PP vs. QQ):
MenABCWY vs. MenACWYX X
PICO 3 (QPP vs. QQBB):  
MenABCWY vs. MenB  X X
PICO 1 (QPB vs. QQBB):
MenABCWY vs. MenACWY + MenBX
PICO 2 (PPB vs. QQBB or PP vs. QQ):
MenABCWY vs. MenACWYX X
PICO 3 (QPP vs. QQBB):  
MenABCWY vs. MenB  X*
*WG sentiment varied from no to yes 4747 of 56
Evidence-to-Recommendations 
Framework
EtR Domain QuestionWork Group 
Determination – 
PICO 1Work Group 
Determination – 
PICO 2Work Group 
Determination – 
PICO 3
Public health 
problemIs invasive meningococcal disease a problem of public health importance?Yes Yes Yes
Benefits and harmsHow substantial are the desirable anticipated effects? Small Small Small
How substantial are the undesirable anticipated effects? Minimal Small Minimal
Do the desirable anticipated effects outweigh the undesirable effects?Favors 
intervention/  
favors comparison*Favors intervention/ 
comparison/bothFavors 
intervention/ 
comparison/both
What is the overall certainty of evidence? Low Low Low
Values Does the target population feel the desirable effects are large relative to the undesirable effects?Yes Probably yes Probably yes/yes/
don’t know
Is there important variability in how patients value the 
outcome?Probably not/no Probably/probably 
notProbably/probably 
not
Acceptability Is the intervention acceptable to key stakeholders? Yes Probably yes Probably yes/yes
Resource use Is the intervention a reasonable and efficient allocation of 
resources?Yes Probably no/varies Varies
Health equity What would be the impact of the intervention on health equity?Probably increased Probably 
increased/increasedProbably increased
Feasibility Is the intervention feasible to implement? Yes Probably yes/yes Yes
*Added since last presented to ACIP
Balance of Consequences
Undesirable 
consequences 
clearly outweigh 
desirable 
consequences in 
most settingsUndesirable 
consequences 
probably outweigh 
desirable 
consequences in 
most settingsThe balance 
between 
desirable and 
undesirable 
consequences is 
closely balanced 
or uncertainDesirable 
consequences 
probably 
outweigh 
undesirable 
consequences in 
most settingsDesirable 
consequences 
clearly 
outweigh 
undesirable 
consequences 
in most settingsThere is 
insufficient 
evidence to 
determine the 
balance of 
consequences
PICO 1 (QPB vs. QQBB):
MenABCWY  vs. MenACWY  + MenBX
PICO 2 (PPB vs. QQBB or PP vs. QQ):
MenABCWY  vs. MenACWYX X
PICO 3 (QPP vs. QQBB):  
MenABCWY  vs. MenB   X X X
PICO 1 (QPB vs. QQBB):
MenABCWY  vs. MenACWY  + MenBX* X
PICO 2 (PPB vs. QQBB or PP vs. QQ):
MenABCWY  vs. MenACWYX X X
PICO 3 (QPP vs. QQBB):  
MenABCWY  vs. MenB   X X X X
*Added since last presented to ACIP
Work Group Interpretation
Is there sufficient information to move forward with a recommendation?  
Yes No
PICO 1 (QPB vs. QQBB):
MenABCWY  vs. MenACWY  + 
MenBX
PICO 2 (PPB vs. QQBB or PP 
vs. QQ):
MenABCWY  vs. MenACWYX
PICO 3 (QPP vs. QQBB):  
MenABCWY  vs. MenB   X
6251 of 56
Work Group Interpretation
We do not 
recommend the 
interventionWe do 
recommend the 
intervention
PICO 1 (QPB vs. QQBB):
MenABCWY  vs. MenACWY  + MenBX
PICO 2 (PPB vs. QQBB or PP vs. QQ):
MenABCWY  vs. MenACWYX
PICO 3 (QPP vs. QQBB):  
MenABCWY  vs. MenB   X X
6352 of 56
53Comments Regarding Proposed Recommendation
PICO 1 would typically involve 1 dose of 
pentavalent vaccine (and 1 dose of MenB vaccine)
–Studies evaluated 2 doses of pentavalent vaccine
Recommendations for use of both pentavalent vaccines could be revisited as part of future adolescent schedule deliberations if desired
53 of 56
Vote Language
ACIP recommends GSK’s MenABCWY  vaccine may be used when both 
MenACWY  and MenB  are indicated at the same visit*
*1) healthy persons aged 16 –23 years (routine schedule) when shared clinical decision-
making favors administration of MenB  vaccine and 2) persons aged ≥10 years who are 
at increased risk for meningococcal disease (e.g., because of persistent complement 
deficiencies, complement inhibitor use, or functional or anatomic asplenia) PICO 1 (QPB) √
PICO 2 (PP) X
PICO 3 (QPP) X
54 of 56
55Acknowledgements
Avnika Amin
Lucy McNamara
Xiaoyu Dong
Andrew Leidner
Rebecca Morgan
Doug Campos -Outcalt
Noele Nelson
Alison Albert
Susan Hariri
LeAnne Fox
Jennifer Collins
Amy Rubis
61 of 6255 of 56
Thank you!
For more information, contact CDC
1-800- CDC- INFO (232- 4636)
TTY:  1 -888- 232- 6348    cdc.gov
Follow us on X (Twitter) @CDCgov & @CDCEnvironment
The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position o f 
the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.