X hits on this document

Word document

October 2007 NVAC Meeting Minutes - page 25 / 40





25 / 40

October 2007 NVAC Meeting Minutes

Dr. Birkhead asked if there were any questions about what had been added or changed. Dr. Almquist motioned to accept the document, and Dr. Lovell seconded that motion. However, before the vote was finalized, Dr. Feinberg had an additional concern about the very specific finance wording in the document regarding the direct and indirect costs of vaccines. Dr. Gordon explained that there are a wide range of costs incurred when a mandate is put into place and that some of these costs differ substantially from the cost associated with an ACIP recommendation. Dr. Gordon asked if the Committee were to propose changes, that they be regarding the identification and plan instead of the types of things to be included. Dr. Feinberg reiterated his concern about the specificity of the language used in the document.

Dr. Birkhead explained that the statement of page 12 of the document does not imply that all of the issues will be dealt with and settled. Dr. Gordon suggested the alternative of replacing the word “identify” with the word “consider” and expressed wanting to not make broader changes. Dr. Feinberg agreed to this change. The change was made on both pages 12 and 21.

Action: The Committee voted unanimously to approve the document with the amendment.

Report: Subcommittee Update: Subcommittee on Vaccine Development and Supply—Dr. Lance K. Gordon

The Subcommittee’s first agenda item was to review the draft manuscript being prepared by the Subcommittee on vaccine development and supply. This manuscript identifies why different technologies are needed to enable new vaccines and to expand the amounts of existing vaccines that might be needed in certain circumstances (such as in the event of a pandemic). A listing of assignments was given to each of the agency representatives (NIH, FDA, CDC, NVPO) to identify programs going on within each of their groups that would relate to this manuscript to make sure they are adequately inclusive.

The timeframe objective for the manuscript is as follows: The Subcommittee hopes to move through the various steps so that by the February NVAC meeting, the Committee can go through the same process with this manuscript as it did with the Adolescent Immunization document.

The second agenda item for the Subcommittee was regarding the development of the National Vaccine Plan. Dr. Strikas provided the Subcommittee with a more detailed process as to the development of the Plan, and a representative from the IOM provided additional details on the work they will be completing. Dr. Strikas distributed a draft of the objectives, which includes input he has received from different agencies. The Subcommittee has offered to help with the plan.

The last agenda item for the Subcommittee meeting was to evaluate what is being done regarding the MRSA/staphylococcal issue. The Subcommittee is going to evaluate what is being done in terms of developing a staphylococcal vaccine and is going to take this issue on as a future agenda item to be discussed.


Dr. Young asked how NVPO’s National Vaccine Plan interfaces with the IOM. She wondered if the NVPO plan goes to the IOM for refinement. Dr. Strikas explained that NVAC is going to review the document before it goes to larger groups of stakeholders through the IOM. The piece the Subcommittee is currently looking at deals with research objectives and vaccine development. He explained that NVAC’s process is to review the document before the IOM gets it in order to make it the best product possible. It is then taken to the IOM for a broader review. In response to concerns about the timeline, Dr. Strikas stated that the timeline is challenging and that the Subcommittee would see what it could get to IOM by their December meeting.

Document info
Document views68
Page views68
Page last viewedFri Oct 28 08:32:44 UTC 2016