TY - JOUR T1 - A rapid review of COVID-19 vaccine prioritization in the U.S.: alignment between Federal guidance and State practice JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2021.03.11.21253411 SP - 2021.03.11.21253411 AU - Vageesh Jain AU - Lara Schwarz AU - Paula Lorgelly Y1 - 2021/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/12/2021.03.11.21253411.abstract N2 - Background Population groups to be prioritized for COVID-19 vaccinations in the U.S. have been determined at the Federal level. Evidence suggests that there is variation in how States have implemented this guidance. This review examines how the position of population groups in vaccine priority lists varies between Federal guidance and State practice.Methods An online search of State vaccination prioritization plans was conducted. Data were extracted on each population group included and their relative position. A standardized ranking method was applied to provide a directional measure of variability in prioritization between State and Federal guidance, for each population group.Results Healthcare workers and those in long-term care facilities were largely prioritized in line with Federal guidance. Aside from early education staff, essential workers were often excluded at State level. Of the 37 States including frontline essential workers, 12 assigned them to a lower priority than recommended. Almost all States included the 65-74 year age group and most assigned them to a higher position than recommended in Federal guidance. Those with underlying medical conditions were similarly highly prioritized, although there was more variability across States. Some socially vulnerable groups (not included in Federal guidance) were highly prioritized by many States.Conclusions Across the U.S, the prioritization of groups for COVID-19 vaccination has been highly variable. Essential workers were the most often excluded or less highly prioritised group compared to Federal guidance. Some socially vulnerable groups were highly prioritized in State plans, whilst others were mentioned in only a few States. Future guidance must be relevant to local needs and values, to minimise any unwarranted heterogeneity in vaccine access across populations.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo funding requiredAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:N/AAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData available upon request after peer-review and publication ER -