In 1996, the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) asked for a review of the pros and cons of including adult influenza and pneumococcal vaccines in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).
The authors, as staff to the subcommittees charged with undertaking this assessment, looked at the following questions : (a) Would inclusion in VICP of these two vaccines, used primarily for adults, increase adult vaccination levels ? (b) Is this Federal involvement warranted based on the liability burden for these vaccines ? (c) Does the risk of adverse events following vaccinations warrant inclusion of these vaccines ? (d) Is there a consensus among stakeholders favoring their inclusion ?
To address these questions, the authors reviewed information on adult vaccines, including data on lawsuits filed and reports of injuries, and sought input from interested groups.
They found no evidence that the use of influenza and pneumococcal vaccines would increase if they were included in VICP.
They found a low liability burden for these vaccines, that serious adverse events were rare, and that no consensus existed among stakeholders.
After considering the staff report, NVAC chose, in 1996, not to advise the Department of Health and Human Services to include adult vaccines in VICP.
Mots-clés Pascal : Vaccination, Grippe, Virose, Infection, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Streptococcaceae, Micrococcales, Bactérie, Programme sanitaire, Responsabilité, Compensation, Complication, Vieillard, Homme, Adulte, Prévention, Etats Unis, Amérique du Nord, Amérique
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Vaccination, Influenza, Viral disease, Infection, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Streptococcaceae, Micrococcales, Bacteria, Sanitary program, Responsibility, Compensation, Complication, Elderly, Human, Adult, Prevention, United States, North America, America
Notice produite par :
Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique
Cote : 98-0282217
Code Inist : 002B05A02. Création : 27/11/1998.