AAFP Fall Immunization Recommendations

Transcript

Emily Holwick: Welcome to Inside Family Medicine, where you hear from leaders and peers in your specialty while learning about new tools and resources. I'm your host, Emily Holwick, a member of Team AAFP.

Today Drs. Margot Savoy and Marie Ramas are joining us to talk about the AAFP's fall immunization recommendations and how the Commission on Health of the Public and Science works to develop recommendations.

Dr. Margot Savoy is the AAFP's chief medical officer. She earned her medical degree from the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore and received her Master of Public Health at the University of North Carolina. She completed her residency at the Crozer-Keystone Family Medicine Residency in Chester, Pennsylvania.

And Dr. Marie Ramas is the chair of the AAFP's Commission on Health of the Public and Science. With over 12 years in family medicine, she advocates for equitable, high-quality care. As regional medical director at Aledade, Dr. Ramas supports independent practices. She serves on nonprofit boards, promotes health equity, and is a media ambassador and influencer on wellness, fitness and organizational well-being.

Thank you both so much for joining us.

Dr. Marie Ramas: Thank you.

Dr. Margot Savoy: Thank you. It's my pleasure to be here.

Emily Holwick: The AAFP's board recently approved immunization recommendations for the 2025-26 respiratory illness season. And before we dive into it, Dr. Savoy, I'm wondering if you can just talk a little bit about the process of how the AAFP reviews vaccine recommendations.

How the AAFP reviews vaccine recommendations

Dr. Margot Savoy: So thank you. Thank you, thank you. That is such a great question. One of my favorite things is getting to tell people about how we do science at AAFP because it's bigger than just vaccines. The way we manage our vaccine work is actually the exact same way we manage all of our science work.

So we always start literally with the science. So what does the actual data show. We review the evidence, we collaborate with other specialties and with patients to figure out what recommendations make the most sense to be delivered in family medicine practices. And so I like it because we get to talk about the fact that we do more than just review other people's recommendations.

So we definitely work with our specialist colleagues and we appreciate the work that they do, but we also inform the work that they do. So we spend time, spending time on their commission meetings, on their guideline conversations and really helping to co-create the guidance that shows up both in our specialty but also in other specialty spaces.

And so I want everyone to understand and be really happy and comfortable with the fact that family docs really do show up everywhere all the time, because our work takes place all year, not just sort of this time of the year. For immunizations specifically, we really do have year-round work that goes on because there's a lot that goes into figuring out what the most appropriate recommendations are going be for a particular year, especially when it comes to respiratory season, because those viruses tend to change a lot. And so you have to know what's going on in the rest of the world and how does that impact you and the things that you need to do.

We have AAFP members who actually serve as liaisons to various organizations, who are out doing meetings and really digging deep into the science all year, bringing that information back to our board-appointed members on the Commission on Health of the Public and Science.

And those folks really take close look at all that information, think about what it is, think about if there's something that they need to do different, think about if they need more information, provide feedback to those other organizations if necessary.

And then if we were to get something that was incredibly complex or very difficult to understand, maybe from an epidemiologic point of view or something like that, we have a, a science advisory panel. They're family medicine experts. They actually have special expertise in science and evidence. And if we really needed to triple-check the work that was going on, we've got them, too.

And so we really have a very deep bench of people who are very knowledgeable, who understand science, who understand evidence, who understand how to make recommendations that are practicable and implementable, and all of them work together to come up with these recommendations. And then once they're all created, they go to our Board of Directors, who I remind everybody is elected by our membership through the Congress of Delegates, and they actually do the final review and approval.

So there are a lot of steps, a lot of opportunities to make sure that we're aligned and we got our information right. And it's really exciting to see it when it works, because at the end you really do end up with the best possible recommendations for family physicians to be able to follow in their practice.

And honestly, for anyone who wants to take a look at them and use them in their own space.

Emily Holwick: Dr. Ramas, as the chair of the Commission on Health of the Public and Science, what is your role and how do you work with the commission as a whole to review and evaluate recommendations?

Evaluating recommendations through the Commission on Health of the Public and Science

Dr. Marie Ramas: Yes, thank you for asking that question.

So during that whole process of evidence research and evaluation, the commission is that body, sort of that liaison, between all of those entities. And in the commission's work—again, these are appointed family medicine members who volunteer their time to work through the evidence base and the research process—the commission looks at guidelines, we look at endorsements of other organization guidelines as well.

And really we, just like other family doctors, we really want to celebrate and to stay aligned with the AAFP's principles, policies, and precedents. And so we have a process of how do we review guidelines that is methodical, that's reproducible, and it takes into account not just the science, but how is the science applied to general public and different populations as well. And so we're there to be able to provide a different lens and to liaise some of the work that that is required.

Now, when it comes to immunizations particularly, yes, we have many foundational areas already present. We do also recruit other members as needed as well. And so because we've had a little bit more need to go more in depth and to make sure that our members have the most informed care and information as possible, we're also able to recruit and identify other leaders to provide peer perspective.

Emily Holwick: We know that there have been a lot of changes to the federal vaccine recommendation process with the removal and replacement of members of the CDC'S Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP. So Dr. Savoy, has that influenced or changed the AAFP's recommendation process or is it the same regardless?

Changing federal vaccine recommendation process

Dr. Margot Savoy: Oh, it's, it's been a little different—not entirely different, and probably not as much as people are going to expect me to say for this particular year. I think it gets more difficult as time goes forward depending on how we proceed.

So to begin with, AAFP loves to collaborate. So I mean, family docs collaborate in general. This isn't any exception, we were exceptional partners to CDC and continue to try to be exceptional partners to CDC. Unfortunately some of the places that we used to be able to intersect and connect have been a bit cut off.

And so we actually had a family physician who was one of the members who was removed from the ACIP, which is unfortunate. He wasn't representing AAFP, he was representing family medicine. And so we like having the family medicine voice in spaces. So it's disappointing that that voice is no longer present on that committee making really important decisions that often have to be implemented by us in primary care.

We also have had, intentionally had, family medicine physicians serving as liaisons on different working groups. So the way the ACIP typically works is that they've got working groups who are focused on individual vaccines or specific recommendations that need to be either reviewed or be updated or where there's new data coming in.

And so we had family physicians who were serving on all those those working groups. And that was really helpful because it allowed us to both have insight to the information that was being shared, but also it allowed us the opportunity to put a voice in. Because sometimes the way family physicians see information, data, conversations with patients, just looks a little bit different than the rest of the health care system. And so it was helpful, because we had the opportunity to provide that feedback before the recommendation was actually official as opposed to having to wait for it to be released and then put in a public comment and sort of reply back.

Although we also had an actual official AAFP liaison who served on the ACIP, sort of in that outer ring of the table, that was able to actually give directed feedback direct to the committee during the meetings and share the AAFP's perspective about what was going on. So it's unfortunate because a lot of that got disrupted.

So you know, many of the members were removed from the working groups, removed from the actual committee itself. I think at this point we haven't been removed from that outer room, but we don't have the opportunity to speak the way that we used to, which was a much more free-flowing conversation.

And for us, that's disappointing. I mean, we really did enjoy the collaborative nature of that work and the ability to both be influenced and to influence, because sometimes they knew stuff we didn't know and we got to learn something new. And other times we brought information that they didn't know and they, too, got to learn something.

For this year the most important thing is that it doesn't really change our recommendations. So our recommendations were always done the same way anyway. So ACIP was one of many inputs, and so we get inputs from other specialty societies from other places, and so we've always reviewed all the evidence and made our own recommendations.

We worked hard to try to make sure that we could align with ACIP so that all of the professional societies and the federal government could be on the same page about what we were asking America to do. In this case, it becomes a little bit more challenging when you know you've got one of those groups not quite wanting to work with the others.

We had the opportunity to partner with other professional societies in many different ways. One really important one was with a group called Vaccine Integrity Project, who went and did a large systematic review to help us make sure that the data that we were using was the most accurate and up-to-date data.

We had the opportunity to sort of influence the way they were doing their work and get feedback and comments along the way so we could feel that we were understanding where their data came from and we could trust the data where it was coming from, and then provide feedback about what we were going do with that data. And we did review that as a part of our process.

Luckily for us, it turned out that it was a reassuring set of data that really doubled down on what we knew to be true and what we thought was true. And so that was really helpful in helping us to be able to make our recommendations.

And we'll continue partnering and collaborating with whomever we need to, to be able to make sure that we're getting family physicians the right information, based on the right evidence and the right timing, so we don't want to be delaying things unnecessarily.

Emly Holwick: Well, let's go through the recommendations, now, that the AAFP has come to.

Dr. Ramas, what are the AAFP's flu recommendations this year and how do they align with the CDC?

Flu vaccine recommendations

Dr. Marie Ramas: One of the things that we do recommend at this time is to continue, as we always have, to use the flu shot from six months on. We think and believe based on the evidence that this is consistent with being safe and with providing the best public health as possible.

Where it differs with the CDC is with some nuances, right? There will always be some speculation when it comes to different aspects of vaccine administration. But all in all, uh, we are in alignment with the fact that we want to make sure that what is available to our patients is there, and that they can start vaccinating from six months onward, every year.

One of the things that I do want to highlight is, it is very important for the AAFP to provide information for our members to make sure that they are well informed and they know how to speak to their patients, with their patients, to have joint decision-making.

So on familydoctor.org as well as our general AAFP website, we do have information available for our members. If they want to go into a little bit more specifics, they want to have a copy of the vaccine schedule that we have available and have made available to our members, that is readily accessible.

So if folks are coming to FMX as well, I believe we'll be having hard print copies of our immunization schedule as well for their utilization. So with that, yes, six months and on, go get your flu vaccine. Definitely want to do that starting as soon as possible and if it is available for you.

Dr. Margot Savoy: Before we go on to the next question, the one part I would add is that, I think the part that might confuse people a little bit is that our recommendation for AAFP very specifically says any age-appropriate dose can be used. So we don't have a preference for which flu vaccine you choose necessarily.

However, we do know that the CDC does have a preference. And so they specifically listed a preference that they wanted your flu vaccine choices, regardless of age, to be thimerosal-free. We don't necessarily list a preference, and we can certainly talk about that more at a later time. But honestly, for most family physicians, this isn't going to come as a surprise, because for a very, very long time, we've been working on removing thimerosal from vaccines, even though we know that it doesn't necessarily cause autism, it doesn't necessarily cause anything, because they've studied it multiple times and been unaware or unable to find a way to create that link between the two.

But we recognize that when you talk about public health and public safety, sometimes public trust outweighs the need to necessarily press for something that's not necessary. And so in this case, thimerosal is just a preservative. The only idea was to be able to have the option to have a multi-dose vial, which sometimes makes it easier if you're administering large volumes of vaccine; you don't want to have to do a single individual one each time. It's easier sometimes to be able to buy larger vials, and those vials need to stay free of infection and free of ways that you can contaminate those with other things, just from having to stick the needle in more than one time.

And in this case, if thimerosal, though we know it to be safe and effective at preventing contaminating of the bottles, if the public feels like that is something that is not acceptable to them and that it's scary, and we have other ways to deliver the vaccine, that's fine.

And since we don't have any science or evidence to back up the fact that you have to stop using it, we don't comment on that, either. So. For family docs, you should use what you have available. You should not prevent your patients from getting an influenza vaccine because that's the only dose you have.

And so flu is far scarier and kills far more people, and we do not want people to be exposed to influenza because of a concern about something that we have demonstrated over and over again hasn't been true.

Dr. Marie Ramas: Yeah, and to that point, making sure that our patients understand, because we are the most trustedsource of information for our patients as family physicians.

And so we want to make sure that they understand that you have a stamp of approval for whatever dose, appropriate flu administration, is available. Your word and your reassurance matters as a family doctor.

Emily Holwick: I'm wondering if either of you can share even just a little snapshot of sort of the process or evidence that led to the flu vaccine recommendation and why it is still recommended for everyone six months and up.

Dr. Margot Savoy: So this is going be the same for all the vaccines, because we use literally the exact same process for every single vaccine. So you start with what the epidemiology was in the past year: so who's still getting infected and how are their outcomes looking? And you look at what's available to be able to be done to protect it.

So you sort of are matching up what the problem is and then what the solution is. And in this case, even despite all of the work that we're doing with influenza, every year people choose not to be vaccinated. And we still see a significant difference in morbidity and mortality in people who are unvaccinated versus people who are vaccinated. And the number is large enough and has a large enough population effect, and your ability to make someone else sick if you get infected with influenza, where you could affect someone who would have an even more severe outcome is so high that it continues to make the most sense for the population to universally vaccinate everyone.

And so that data didn't shift or move. It hasn't shifted or moved in decades. So like that's not one that we would've spent much time trying to fight on because the data just keeps replicating itself year after year after year, and this year was no different.

Emily Holwick: Well, moving on to COVID-19, Dr. Savoy, this is where we see a notable difference between the AAFP and CDC recommendations. So first, tell us how they differ.

COVID-19 vaccine recommendations

Dr. Margot Savoy: Sure. So COVID is an interesting one because COVID is what I consider an evolving recommendation. So while the vaccine technology wasn't new, how we were applying it was new.

So we were using it for an emerging infectious disease that we didn't know much about. So we're learning a lot as we go along about who we think needs to continue to be vaccinated, who continues to be at higher risk or lower risk, and how do we want to do that work.

And so every year, people have been spending an extra amount of time really looking at who's still getting infected with COVID? What's going on? How are we able to best protect them from their infection and prevent them from that morbidity and mortality that we saw early on in the pandemic?

And so this year was no different. So we spent a lot of time doing that evidence and that evidence review. What we saw was some interesting things that probably haven't changed much, but the one that I thought was most surprising was around children.

But you know, the older adults we've known all along were sort of at increased risk. So that 65 and older group has continued to be at increased risk for really high comorbidities. They also tend to be just age-related at risk, and so that combination has put them at higher risk of morbidity, ending up being hospitalized, but also ending up dying from COVID. So even if they never made it to the hospital, they have a higher risk of dying from COVID if they were to be infected.

And so we continue to think about emphasizing 65 and older across the board. So everyone's got that concern. When we looked at the data that was presented, um, from the CDC and then also replicated in that VIP review process, we saw that there's this interesting thing going on with children where children zero to six months whose birthing parent was vaccinated actually had an improved chance of being infected, and those who didn't seem to get COVID at a higher rate, and they seem to get sicker and end up in the hospital more often. And in that six to 23 months, so between six months and two years old, they tended to also have a higher risk and that risk was elevated anytime they hadn't been vaccinated.

So whenever they were left unprotected, their risk was incredibly high. In fact, it was so high that it almost looked like the 65 and older group, which I found to be a bit startling because we had always heard early in the pandemic, “Don't worry about the kids. The kids are fine. They can still do everything.”

And it turns out the kids were not fine, nad that there are pockets of kids for whom it becomes incredibly problematic and the pockets aren't small. And so if you find that you're having those sorts of outcomes, you've got to really stop and think about whether or not you want to continue to protect all of them, or try to parse out who are some of them that really need it.

Turned out that as you got a little bit older—so when you get to two years to 18 years old—it got a little bit easier to see who was more likely to end up in the hospital and who was more likely to end up dying from COVID if they were to be infected.

And so, rather than continue to universally recommend everyone to get a COVID vaccine across the board, both the CDC and AAFP—honestly the other professional societies as well, because in this case, AAFP and the other professional societies are all very much aligned about our recommendation, and CDC is just a bit different than what the rest of us are recommending—but from our perspective, it turned out there are places where you could get a little bit tighter, potentially. And then there are spaces where they should stay the same.

So the easiest way for me to think about this is to go through, you know, the age group. So if we start at before you're even born, so you're still in utero, otherwise known as the “during pregnancy” part of this experience of our life, vaccinating the birthing parent makes a huge difference both for that person.

So if you are pregnant and you get infected with COVID, your morbidity and mortality is also high. So that state of being pregnant actually puts you at a higher risk, and so vaccinating that person protects them. But it also is the reason those infants zero to six months were having protection. And so having that vaccine during pregnancy protects both the birthing parent and the infant, zero to six months. And so we recommend vaccinating during pregnancy.

This is a significant difference than what the CDC is currently recommending, where they're saying that no one should be vaccinated during pregnancy.

The second sort of age group is the sort of six months to 23 months, so that sort of younger age group. And in that case we think that, you know what, we're still seeing that spike and that spike looked really scary. And so honestly, all of those children ought to be vaccinated against COVID-19. So their protection from being born has now worn off and they need to be vaccinated themselves in order to protect them in the most appropriate way.

And so everyone in that six to 23 month old group should be vaccinated against COVID-19.

Now when you get to age—and this is different, I'll tell you all the ped stuff for CDC, but this is different from the CDC—and then in that two year to 18-year-old group, we think that you can start with a risk-based approach. So you really can take a moment, really look at that child and their health history and their living situation and decide whether or not for that child continuing to get a COVID vaccine makes the most sense.

However, we think that there are a lot of families for whom the protection is just more important, and they want to choose to be vaccinated, and we don't think they should lose access to that vaccination.

And so we think that there's a risk-based approach, is what we're recommending. And we're keeping the option open that if anyone wants to choose to be vaccinated, that they have the option to get vaccinated. So if a family wants to vaccinate their family, that they have the opportunity to vaccinate everyone in their family, including their children, two to 18 years old, even if they don't have any other medical problem or any other issue that you're concerned about.

Now people get confused a little bit about what that risk-based part means, and it's not as confusing as you would think. It's honestly the list you would expect. So if that child is at high risk—so they've got medical conditions that would put them at high risk, if they live with someone who's at high risk or if they live in a congregate setting; so you think about kids who are like in boarding schools or who are in detention centers, young people who may be in, like new to the militar so you're now living in a barracks—people who are living in congregate settings are just higher risk because of their exposure to so many other people in such close living quarters.

And so those are the risks. It's the same risk that we know from other things.

And then for the AAFP, our recommendation is that everyone 18 and older ought to have the COVID vaccine, with an emphasis on people who are 65 and older, those who have never been vaccinated, or those who have chronic illness.

But honestly, everyone should. And part of the reason for that decision was because if you really look at who is at high risk, it's honestly America. So it's things like lack of physical activity, obesity or overweight, mental health issues. They were talking about things like depression and anxiety.

I mean, there's a lot of these things that are sort of very common and things that we diagnose and see all the time. And if you had to start doing that list of either you have that or you live in a home with someone who has that, pretty much everybody. So why are we complicating your lives and making things harder when honestly everyone would benefit from that level of protection. And so we're saying everyone 18 and older ought to have the COVID vaccine.

Now what's different is that the CDC recommendations really focused in on two areas, and the two areas were children and pregnant folks.

So for the pregnant folks, their answer was just no. So their recommendation is that no one who is pregnant should be vaccinated against COVID. And that clearly is a difference for us.

And then in children, they changed the recommendation to be what they call shared decision-making. And when CDC says shared-decision making, what they mean is that the parent and the physician should have a discussion. And after hearing the risks and the benefits, the parent should decide what they would like to do going forward.

Now, don't misunderstand me; the AAFP thinks that every health decision is a shared decision-making opportunity and we view all immunization conversations as shared decision-making conversations.

And so we're not suggesting to you that your new task is to go force people into getting vaccines that don't want vaccines. That's not what we're saying. We just distinguish between shared decision-making and a recommendation. So a recommendation should be you standing on evidence all 10 toes down, telling them what you believe to be the best advice for them, and then you have a shared decision-making conversation to allow them to make the decision for their family the way they want to make it.

And so we do recommend having a shared decision-making conversation with all of these vaccines. However, we think that the recommendation should be evidence-based and parents should have access to the best information. And the best information is you should probably make this decision based on if your kid’s in one of these high risk groups and for six to 23 months old, all of them are a high risk group, and so they should be vaccinated. And then if they're a little bit older, we can have a different kind of conversation and we can work through it and think about it differently.

And so that's why it differs. And so it's not that everyone woke up and thought, how can we fight with one another? It's just that we looked at the set of data and came to two different conclusions about how to best protect the patients and the population.

Emily Holwick: That is a really helpful breakdown of the differences in recommendations and how the AAFP really assessed each different age group and the needs for that age group.

The RSV vaccine is the third and final in our fall immunization recommendation, so I want talk about the vaccine and the antibodies for infants as well.

Dr. Ramas, what are the AAFP's recommendations for different age groups, and are those in line with the CDC?

RSV vaccine recommendations

Dr. Marie Ramas: Right. So for the RSV vaccine, again, it really hasn't changed, to be quite honest. Our, our infant population still is at risk in the earlier stages. And so we still have the recommendation to, for six months, to have the RSV vaccine administered, in whatever dose is available that is appropriate for the patient.

We still see, as with the other processes, that there is an increase in morbidity and mortality for those infants that have not been vaccinated. And so that remains true still. The CDC, I believe is, is not necessarily in alignment with that, and again, using terminology of shared decision-making.

Dr. Savoy, I, I'd love for you to add a little bit more to that as well.

Dr. Margot Savoy: So RSV's got recommendations that show up across the lifespan too. And so I think sometimes people forget that RSV can happen in adults also. And so we saw more recently that older adults were starting to have issues with RSV infections that were causing them significant morbidity and mortality.

And so we now have a recommendation, which is the same as—essentially the same as last year—but it's one dose of the RSV vaccine for everyone 75 and older. And then if you're aged 50 to 74 and you're at an increased risk, we recommend that you get a dose, too.

But we're not recommending that you have to be revaccinated every year that you have to do something different. We just think a one-time dose works well for adults. And so that's the sort of adult recommendation for RSV. That's stable from last year, so that doesn't change anyone's big plans for this year.

In pregnancy, we do recommend that you get a dose. If the pregnant person's never been vaccinated before, we recommend that they get a dose of RSV vaccine. There's only one product that's available, and so you can get that one product somewhere between 32 and 36 weeks if you're pregnant between September and January.

So it's really specific because there's this sort of window of time where if you're going be most effective, that's the most effective. And so it's not that people are having jokes, it's just that really it's this group of people during this particular window for which you can actually vaccinate the pregnant person, and you both help the pregnant person and the baby that's being born to be protected in the best possible way.

If there's an infant and the infant is born to a person who was able to get vaccinated between that September and January window at the timeframe that we expected, then you don't have to do anything else with that infant. That infant rarely needs another dose of anything else after they've been born.

If for some reason the pregnant person is now on, you know, baby two and they already had the RSV vaccine in their first pregnancy, so they couldn't get it for their second pregnancy—because you don't repeat the doses in future pregnancies—then that infant would need to be protected because the maternal antibodies will protect the mom in that case, but not necessarily protect infant, because you're not giving a new dose during the pregnancy. So that infant is still unprotected.

So if you're born to a parent who has already been vaccinated before your pregnancy, then you're still unprotected. So for that infant, they need to have options for what you could treat them with after birth.

And so there's now two options. And so this is the only real significant change that happened in our recommendations from last year to this year, is that there's now a new option.

I'm terrible at pronouncing these names. Like, I don't know who comes up with the names, but they kill me every time.

So you still have nirsevimab, but now they've added clesrovimab, which is the new product in 2025 and 2026. And so in, in our case, we do not have a preference between the two. We think you should use whichever licensed product is available.

And like I say, most infants whose birthing parent gets vaccinated during the pregnancy is not going need to use this at all. But for folks who are doing subsequent pregnancies or for some reason they couldn't get vaccinated during pregnancy, that infant might need to have the vaccine. And if you happen to be lactating and you need to be vaccinated, we do think that you can use RSV vaccine during lactation. And so that didn't change from last year either.

Emily Holwick: I will just share that I am pregnant and I was talking to my OB and she said that she has just seen so many hospitalizations and bad outcomes prevented by the vaccination now, both maternal vaccination and then the antibodies. And I am going be in that window 32 to 36 weeks in RSV season, and so I am very much looking forward to getting the vaccine

And I am just personally so grateful that this is available, and I think it's incredible. You know, I used to work as a news reporter and we would do stories on families who had infants hospitalized on ventilators with RSV, and I know that it's impacted so many families, and so I just wanted to say that I've personally seen the impact of RSV and now the RSV vaccine.

I know how essential this has been for families, so I'm very grateful that it's available and that it continues to be recommended.

Dr. Marie Ramas: I think that's a really good point. We have not seen a lot of really bad outcomes to certain disease processes because of vaccines, because of immunizations.

And I will tell you firsthand, it is traumatizing as a physician to see your patient suffering when you know it could have been prevented. Families are affected when a birthing person is hospitalized, when an infant who is struggling for breath… It is something that is preventable, and I think we have to remember that this is something that, gladly, we don't have to always encounter.

So yes, COVID vaccination—very important. RSV vaccination—very important for population health.

Emily Holwick: Well, as we wrap up, we know that federal guidelines may continue to change. So Dr. Savoy, where can family physicians go to continue to get evidence-based recommendations and make sure that they're staying up to date on the latest guidance?

Count on the AAFP immunizations and vaccines hub

Dr. Margot Savoy: Like I mentioned earlier, vaccinations is a year-round project. There are still some recommendations that are outstanding that we know are coming, even outside of the federal guidance. We know that there's an additional ACIP meeting coming up that will likely bring some more information and some things for us to review.

First, I just want remind you yet again that you can lean in. So we're on it, like we're all watching it. You've got staff paying attention. You've got a commission of talented and very smart experts thinking about it and looking into it. You've got folks who are really having your back. And so whenever we have new information or new guidance, we're not going to hesitate to share that there's something new or different.

So you're not going have to wait a year to, for, to hear what changed or what didn't. We're going be telling you things as fast as we can, and as most accurately as we can.

The easiest way for us to do that was to create a hub or a central spot for you to come to, because we think things are going to be, sort of as they have been this summer, fast and furious coming from everywhere.

So if you're looking for the single source of information, my recommendation is the AAFP Immunization and Vaccine hub. We tried to keep it simple, so it's aafp.org/vaccines. So we try to keep it really easy. Flag it, bookmark it, do what you have to do to have it.

That's where we're going to be dropping all of the updated information as it happens. That's where you can find our updated schedules. That's where you can find our updated guidance and all the information that we have. It's also where you can find our partners’ information. So as I mentioned before, you know, we're very much aligned with our other professional societies, and so folks like ACOG and AAP, ACP—all of those sorts of recommendations—when we're in alignment, we'll definitely make sure to bring those forward to you, too, so that you have access to the information and you can come to your own conclusions and make the best choice for you and your medical decision-making.

So all the latest schedules, all the latest guidance, CME, patient education resources, everything is going to be sort of centered on that hub. So aafp.org/vaccines is where I would go.

I also point out to folks that familydoctor.org is where we send you for all the patient education stuff, and it still has great patient education stuff even in the vaccine space. And so if you're looking for vaccine resources to share with your patients, please check that out as well.

Oh, and I almost forgot my big plug of the whole thing.

So some of you listen to this whole podcast and you're like, oh my gosh, that's a lot of recommendations; let me think about what to do in the future. And some of you are listening to this podcast and you are like, “That science stuff sounds sexy and I want to do that. I'm excited about vaccines. I'm excited about science. I want to participate.”

And I just think that sometimes people forget that that commission is board-appointed and it comes from people applying from the AAFP membership. And so if you're a member and you find this exciting, you find this sort of work interesting and engaging for you, that that call from members opens sometime around October. Like it's usually around the time the FMX is ending.

There's a call that opens up. You have to work through your state chapter to get your application, but it's really straightforward.

There are other commissions, so maybe this one doesn't, you know, seem like you're jam, but there's other commissions also.

But if this is exciting for you, like, I mean, honestly, we look for all the help we can get, and so I really do encourage people to take a look at that application process when it opens and consider applying.

Emily Holwick: Thank you for getting that in, too. I know we have so many commissions that do so much important work for the AAFP and we really rely on our members and their expertise to help fill those commissions, to help with recommendations and things like this. So thank you.

I just want to say thank you so much to both of you for joining us and sharing your insight and your experience with forming vaccine recommendations for the AAFP, walking us through that process and how it works.

And to our listeners, if you'd like to learn more about the AFP's vaccine recommendations or the Commission on Health of the Public and Science, we have links for you in the show notes.

And if you enjoyed today's episode, let us know by dropping a line to aafpnews@aafp.org.

Be sure to share the episode with your followers on social media and tag the AAFP.